Document Modesto_doc_6a1c353485

CITY OF MODESTO FINAL MASTER ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR THE URBAN AREA GENERAL PLAN UPDATE October 2008 SCH #[PHONE REDACTED] City of Modesto Community and Economic Development Department ---PAGE BREAK--- Final Master Environmental Impact Report for the City of Modesto Urban Area General Plan Update (State Clearinghouse #[PHONE REDACTED]) Prepared for: City of Modesto Community and Economic Development Department 1010 Tenth Street, Suite 3300 Modesto, CA 95354 Contact: Cindy van Empel 209/577-5267 Prepared by: ICF Jones & Stokes 630 K Street, Suite 400 Sacramento, CA 95814 Contact: Terry Rivasplata 916/737-3000 October 2008 ---PAGE BREAK--- Table of Contents Modesto General Plan Update Final Master EIR i Table of Contents October 2008 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page Chapter I Executive Summary I-1 A. Introduction I-1 Final Master EIR I-1 B. Purpose of This Environmental Impact Report I-1 C. Project Description I-2 1. Updates to the General Plan I-3 2. Objectives I-7 3. Description of the Urban Area General Plan I-7 4. Areas of Known Controversy I-7 D. Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures I-10 1. Alternatives I-10 2. Other California Environmental Quality Act–Related Conclusions I-10 E. Required Approvals I-20 Chapter II Implementation and Use of the Master Environmental Impact Report II-1 A. Required Contents of a Master Environmental Impact Report 1. Public Resources Code 21157(b)(1) 2. Public Resources Code 21157(b)(2) 3. Public Resources Code Section 21157(b)(3) B. City of Modesto Urban Area General Plan Growth Strategy and Anticipated Subsequent Projects 1. Redevelopment Area 2. Baseline Developed Area 3. Planned Urbanizing Area C. Anticipated Subsequent Projects 1. Sphere-of-Influence Amendment 2. Annexation 3. Comprehensive Plans 4. Specific Plans 5. Zoning 6. Miscellaneous Land Use Permits 7. Subdivisions ---PAGE BREAK--- Table of Contents Modesto General Plan Update Final Master EIR ii Table of Contents October 2008 8. Development Agreements 9. Capital Improvement Program 10. Redevelopment Plan 11. Parks Facilities Plans 12. Stanislaus County Airport Land Use Plan 13. Household Hazardous Waste Element 14. Source Reduction and Recycling Element 15. Wastewater Master Plan 16. Urban Water Management Plan 17. Storm Water Facilities Plans 18. Public Facilities Financing Plans D. Responsible Agencies Chapter III Project Description A. Description III-1 1. Background III-1 2. Project Location III-2 3. Project Elements III-2 B. The Purpose of the Master Environmental Impact Report III-6 1. California Environmental Quality Act Requirements III-7 2. Modesto’s Master Environmental Impact Report III-7 C. Project Objectives III-7 1. Objectives of the Master Environmental Impact Report Update III-8 D. Modesto Urban Area General Plan III-9 E. Description of the Master Environmental Impact Report III-9 Chapter IV Environmental Setting IV-1 A. Regional Setting IV-1 B. Local Setting IV-1 C. Relationship to Regional and Local Plans IV-2 1. Stanislaus IV-2 2. Stanislaus County Local Agency Formation Commission IV-2 3. City of Ceres IV-3 4. City of Riverbank IV-3 ---PAGE BREAK--- Table of Contents Modesto General Plan Update Final Master EIR iii Table of Contents October 2008 5. San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District IV-3 6. Stanislaus Council of Governments IV-3 D. Other Regulatory Agencies IV-4 1. State Agencies IV-4 2. Federal Agencies IV-6 Chapter V Environmental Analysis V-1-1 Section 1 Traffic and V-1-1 A. Environmental Setting V-1-1 1. Study Area for Direct Impacts V-1-1 2. Study Area for Cumulative Impacts V-1-1 3. Existing Physical Conditions in the Study Area V-1-1 B. Consideration and Discussion of Significant Environmental Impacts V-1-25 1. Thresholds of Significance Suggested by the California Environmental Quality Act V-1-25 2. Thresholds of Significance Adopted by the City of V-1-26 3. Significant Direct Impacts V-1-26 4. Significant Cumulative Impacts V-1-32 5. Potential Impacts for Which There Is Insufficient Information to Support a Full Analysis V-1-34 C. Mitigation Measures Adopted to Minimize Significant Effects V-1-34 1. Measures Which Mitigate Direct Impacts V-1-34 2. Measures Which Mitigate Cumulative Impacts V-1-35 3. Alternatives to the Proposed Project V-1-35 D. Monitoring These Mitigation Measures V-1-35 E. Evaluating Subsequent Projects V-1-35 F. Keeping the Master Environmental Impact Report Current for This Topic V-1-36 Section 2 Degradation of Air Quality V-2-1 A. Environmental Setting V-2-1 1. Study Area for Direct Impacts V-2-1 2. Study Area for Cumulative Impacts V-2-1 3. Existing Physical Conditions in the Study Area V-2-1 ---PAGE BREAK--- Table of Contents Modesto General Plan Update Final Master EIR iv Table of Contents October 2008 4. Existing Regulatory Setting in the Study Area V-2-9 5. Policies Which Avoid Impacts V-2-23 B. Consideration and Discussion of Significant Environmental Impacts V-2-24 1. Thresholds of Significance Suggested by the California Environmental Quality Act V-2-24 2. Thresholds of Significance Suggested by the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District V-2-24 3. Threshold of Significance Used by the City of Modesto V-2-25 4. Significant Direct Impacts V-2-25 5. Significant Cumulative Impacts V-2-26 6. Potential Impacts for Which There is Insufficient Information to Support a Full Analysis V-2-27 C. Mitigation Measures Adopted to Minimize Significant Effects V-2-27 1. Measures Which Mitigate Direct Impacts V-2-27 2. Measures Which Mitigate Cumulative Impacts V-2-27 3. Alternatives to the Proposed Project V-2-28 D. Monitoring Mitigation Measures V-2-28 E. Evaluating Subsequent Projects V-2-28 F. Keeping the Master Environmental Impact Report Current for This Topic V-2-28 Section 3 Generation of Noise V-3-1 A. Environmental Setting V-3-1 1. Study Area for Direct Impacts V-3-1 2. Study Area for Cumulative Impacts V-3-1 3. Terminology V-3-1 4. Existing Physical Setting in the Study Area V-3-2 5. Existing Regulatory Setting in the Study Area V-3-9 6. Policies Which Avoid Impacts V-3-16 B. Consideration and Discussion of Significant Environmental Impacts V-3-17 1. Thresholds of Significance Suggested by the California Environmental Quality Act V-3-17 2. Thresholds of Significance Suggested by Other Analytical V-3-17 3. Threshold of Significance Adopted by the City of Modesto V-3-17 ---PAGE BREAK--- Table of Contents Modesto General Plan Update Final Master EIR v Table of Contents October 2008 4. Significant Direct Impacts V-3-18 5. Significant Cumulative Impacts V-3-21 6. Potential Impacts for Which There is Insufficient Information to Support a Full Analysis V-3-22 C. Mitigation Measures Adopted to Minimize Significant Effects V-3-22 1. Measures Which Mitigate Direct Impacts V-3-22 2 Measures Which Mitigate Cumulative Impacts V-3-22 3. Alternatives to the Proposed Project V-3-22 D. Monitoring These Mitigation Measures V-3-22 E. Evaluating Subsequent Projects V-3-23 F. Keeping the Master Environmental Impact Report Current for This Topic V-3-23 Section 4 Effects on Agricultural V-4-1 A. Environmental Setting V-4-1 1. Study Area for Direct Impacts V-4-1 2. Study Area for Cumulative Impacts V-4-1 3. Existing Physical Conditions in the Study Areas V-4-1 4. Existing Policies Applying to the Study Area V-4-4 5. Policies Which Avoid Impacts V-4-9 B. Consideration and Discussion of Significant Environmental Impacts V-4-9 1. Thresholds of Significance Suggested by the California Environmental Quality Act V-4-9 2. Thresholds of Significance Suggested by Other Analytical V-4-10 3. Thresholds of Significance Adopted by the City of V-4-10 4. Significant Direct Impacts V-4-10 5. Significant Cumulative Impacts V-4-11 6. Potential Impacts for Which There Is Insufficient Information to Support a Full Analysis V-4-11 C. Mitigation Measures Adopted to Minimize Significant Effects V-4-11 1. Measures Which Mitigate Direct Impacts V-4-11 2. Measures Which Mitigate Cumulative Impacts V-4-12 3. Alternatives to the Proposed Project V-4-12 D. Monitoring These Mitigation Measures V-4-12 ---PAGE BREAK--- Table of Contents Modesto General Plan Update Final Master EIR vi Table of Contents October 2008 E. Evaluating Subsequent Projects V-4-12 F. Keeping the Master Environmental Impact Report Current for This Topic V-4-13 Section 5 Increased Demand for Long-Term Water Supplies V-5-1 A. Environmental Setting V-5-1 1. Study Area for Direct Impacts V-5-1 2. Study Area for Cumulative Impacts V-5-1 3. Existing Physical Conditions in the Study Area V-5-1 4. Existing Policies Applying to the Study Area V-5-6 5. Policies Which Avoid Impacts V-5-11 B. Consideration and Discussion of Significant Environmental Impacts V-5-12 1. Thresholds of Significance Suggested by CEQA V-5-12 2. Thresholds of Significance Suggested by Other Analytical V-5-12 3. Thresholds of Significance Adopted by the City of V-5-12 4. Significant Direct Impacts V-5-12 5. Significant Cumulative Impacts V-5-13 6. Potential Impacts for Which There is Insufficient Information to Support a Full Analysis V-5-14 C. Mitigation Measures Adopted to Minimize Significant Effects V-5-15 1. Measures Which Mitigate Direct Impacts V-5-15 2. Measures Which Mitigate Cumulative Impacts V-5-15 3. Alternatives to the Proposed Project V-5-15 D. Monitoring These Mitigation Measures V-5-15 E. Evaluating Subsequent Projects V-5-15 F. Keeping the Master Environmental Impact Report Current for This Topic V-5-16 Section 6 Increased Demand for Sanitary Sewer Services V-6-1 A. Environmental Setting V-6-1 1. Study Area for Direct Impacts V-6-1 2. Study Area for Cumulative Impacts V-6-1 3. Existing Physical Conditions in the Study Area V-6-1 4. Existing Policies Applying to the Study Area V-6-2 ---PAGE BREAK--- Table of Contents Modesto General Plan Update Final Master EIR vii Table of Contents October 2008 5. Regulatory Policies Which Avoid Impacts V-6-7 B. Consideration and Discussion of Significant Environmental Impacts V-6-7 1. Thresholds of Significance Suggested by the California Environmental Quality Act V-6-7 2. Thresholds of Significance Suggested by Other Analytical V-6-7 3. Thresholds of Significance Adopted by the City of V-6-8 4. Significant Direct Impacts V-6-8 5. Significant Cumulative Impacts V-6-10 6. Potential Impacts for Which There Is Insufficient Information to Support a Full Analysis V-6-10 C. Mitigation Measures Adopted to Minimize Significant Effects V-6-10 1. Measures Which Mitigate Direct Impacts V-6-10 2. Measures Which Mitigate Cumulative Impacts V-6-11 3. Alternatives to the Proposed Project V-6-11 D. Monitoring These Mitigation Measures V-6-11 E. Evaluating Subsequent Projects V-6-11 F. Keeping the Master Environmental Impact Report Current for This Topic V-6-12 Section 7 Loss of Sensitive Wildlife and Plant Habitat V-7-1 A. Environmental Setting V-7-1 1. Study Area for Direct Impacts V-7-1 2. Study Area for Cumulative Impacts V-7-1 3. Existing Physical Conditions in the Study Area V-7-1 4. Existing Regulatory Policies Applying to the Study V-7-18 5. Policies Which Avoid Impacts V-7-24 B. Consideration and Discussion of Significant Environmental Impacts V-7-25 1. Thresholds of Significance Suggested by the California Environmental Quality Act V-7-25 2. Thresholds of Significance Suggested by Other Analytical V-7-26 3. Thresholds of Significance Adopted by the City of V-7-26 4. Significant Direct Impacts V-7-26 5. Significant Cumulative Impacts V-7-28 ---PAGE BREAK--- Table of Contents Modesto General Plan Update Final Master EIR viii Table of Contents October 2008 6. Potential Impacts for Which There Is Insufficient Information to Support a Full Analysis V-7-29 C. Mitigation Measures Adopted to Minimize Significant Effects V-7-29 1. Measures Which Mitigate Direct Impacts V-7-29 2. Measures Which Mitigate Cumulative Impacts V-7-29 3. Alternatives to the Proposed Project V-7-30 D. Monitoring These Measures V-7-30 E. Evaluating Subsequent Projects V-7-30 F. Keeping the Master Environmental Impact Report Current for This Topic V-7-31 Section 8 Disturbance of Archaeological/Historical Sites V-8-1 A. Environmental Setting V-8-1 1. Study Area for Direct Impacts V-8-1 2. Study Area for Cumulative Impacts V-8-1 3. Existing Physical Conditions in the Study Area V-8-1 4. Prehistoric Archaeological Resources V-8-5 5. Historic Archaeological Resources V-8-6 6. Historic Architectural Resources V-8-6 7. Native American Resources V-8-7 8. Historic Property Descriptions V-8-7 9. Existing Regulatory Policies Applying to the Study V-8-11 10. Policies That Avoid Impacts V-8-19 B. Consideration and Discussion of Significant Environmental Impacts V-8-20 1. Thresholds of Significance Suggested by the California Environmental Quality Act V-8-20 2. Thresholds of Significance Suggested by Other Analytical V-8-20 3. Threshold of Significance Adopted by the City of Modesto V-8-21 4. Significant Direct Impacts V-8-22 5. Significant Cumulative Impacts V-8-22 6. Impacts for Which There Is Insufficient Information to Support a Full Analysis V-8-23 C. Mitigation Measures Adopted to Minimize Significant Effects V-8-23 1. Measures That Mitigate Direct Impacts V-8-23 ---PAGE BREAK--- Table of Contents Modesto General Plan Update Final Master EIR ix Table of Contents October 2008 2. Measures That Mitigate Cumulative Impacts V-8-24 3. Alternatives to the Proposed Project V-8-24 D. Monitoring These Mitigation Measures V-8-25 E. Evaluating Subsequent Projects V-8-25 F. Keeping the Master Environmental Impact Report Current V-8-25 Section 9 Increased Demand for Storm Drainage V-9-1 A. Environmental Setting V-9-1 1. Study Area for Direct Impacts V-9-1 2. Study Area for Cumulative Impacts V-9-1 3. Existing Physical Conditions in the Study Area V-9-1 4. Existing Policies Applying to the Study Area V-9-3 5. Policies Which Avoid Impacts V-9-9 B. Consideration and Discussion of Significant Environmental Impacts V-9-9 1. Thresholds of Significance Suggested by the California Environmental Quality Act V-9-9 2. Thresholds of Significance Suggested by Other Analytical V-9-10 3. Thresholds of Significance Adopted by the City of V-9-10 4. Significant Direct Impacts V-9-10 5. Significant Cumulative Impacts V-9-11 6. Potential Impacts for Which There is Insufficient Information to Support a Full Analysis V-9-11 C. Mitigation Measures Adopted to Minimize Significant Effects V-9-11 1. Measures Which Mitigate Direct Impacts V-9-11 2. Measures Which Mitigate Cumulative Impacts V-9-12 3. Alternatives to the Proposed Project V-9-12 D. Monitoring These Mitigation Measures V-9-12 E. Evaluating Subsequent Projects V-9-12 F. Keeping the Master Environmental Impact Report Current for This Topic V-9-13 Section 10 Flooding and Water Quality V-10-1 A. Environmental Setting V-10-1 1. Study Area for Direct Impacts V-10-1 ---PAGE BREAK--- Table of Contents Modesto General Plan Update Final Master EIR x Table of Contents October 2008 2. Study Area for Cumulative Impacts V-10-1 3. Existing Physical Conditions in the Study Area V-10-1 4. Existing Policies Applying to the Study Area V-10-6 5. Policies Which Avoid Impacts V-10-10 B. Consideration and Discussion of Significant Environmental Impacts V-10-10 1. Thresholds of Significance Suggested by the California Environmental Quality Act V-10-11 2. Thresholds of Significance Suggested by Other Analytical V-10-11 3. Thresholds of Significance Adopted by the City of Modesto.......... V-10-11 4. Significant Direct Impacts V-10-12 5. Significant Cumulative Impacts V-10-13 6. Impacts for Which There Is Insufficient Information to Support a Full Analysis V-10-13 C. Mitigation Measures Adopted to Minimize Significant Effects V-10-13 1. Measures Which Mitigate Direct Impacts V-10-14 2. Measures Which Mitigate Cumulative Impacts V-10-14 3. Alternatives to the Proposed Project V-10-14 D. Monitoring These Mitigation Measures V-10-14 E. Evaluating Subsequent Projects V-10-14 F. Keeping the Master Environmental Impact Report Current for This Topic V-10-15 Section 11 Increased Demand for Parks and Open V-11-1 A. Environmental Setting V-11-1 1. Study Area for Direct Impacts V-11-1 2. Study Area for Cumulative Impacts V-11-1 3. Existing Physical Conditions in the Study Areas V-11-1 4. Existing Policies Applying to the Study Area V-11-2 5. Policies Which Avoid Impacts V-11-9 B. Consideration and Discussion of Significant Environmental Impacts V-11-9 1. Thresholds of Significance Suggested by the California Environmental Quality Act V-11-9 2. Thresholds of Significance Adopted by the City of Modesto.......... V-11-10 3. Significant Direct Impacts V-11-10 ---PAGE BREAK--- Table of Contents Modesto General Plan Update Final Master EIR xi Table of Contents October 2008 4. Significant Cumulative Impacts V-11-11 5. Impacts for Which There Is Insufficient Information to Support a Full Analysis V-11-11 C. Mitigation Measures Adopted to Minimize Significant Effects V-11-11 1. Measures Which Mitigate Direct Impacts V-11-11 2. Measures Which Mitigate Cumulative Impacts V-11-12 3. Alternatives to the Proposed Project V-11-12 D. Monitoring These Mitigation Measures V-11-12 E. Evaluating Subsequent Projects V-11-12 F. Keeping the Master Environmental Impact Report Current for This Topic V-11-12 Section 12 Increased Demand for Schools V-12-1 A. Environmental Setting V-12-1 1. Study Area for Direct Impacts V-12-1 2. Study Area for Cumulative Impacts V-12-1 3. Existing Physical Conditions in the Study Area V-12-1 4. Existing Policies Applying to the Study Area V-12-3 5. Policies Which Avoid Impacts V-12-7 B. Consideration and Discussion of Significant Environmental Impacts V-12-8 1. Thresholds of Significance Suggested by the California Environmental Quality Act V-12-8 2. Threshold of Significance Suggested by Other Analytical V-12-8 3. Threshold of Significance Adopted by the City of Modesto V-12-8 4. Alternatives to the Proposed Project V-12-9 5. Significant Direct Impacts V-12-9 6. Significant Cumulative Impacts V-12-10 7. Potential Impacts for Which There Is Insufficient Information to Support a Full Analysis V-12-10 C. Mitigation Measures Adopted to Minimize Significant Effects V-12-10 1. Measures Which Mitigate Direct Impacts V-12-10 2. Measures Which Mitigate Cumulative Impacts V-12-10 3. Alternatives to the Proposed Project V-12-11 D. Monitoring These Mitigation Measures V-12-11 ---PAGE BREAK--- Table of Contents Modesto General Plan Update Final Master EIR xii Table of Contents October 2008 E. Evaluating Subsequent Projects V-12-11 F. Keeping the Master Environmental Impact Report Current for This Topic V-12-11 Section 13 Increased Demand for Police Services V-13-1 A. Environmental Setting V-13-1 1. Study Area for Direct Impacts V-13-1 2. Study Area for Cumulative Impacts V-13-1 3. Existing Physical Conditions in the Study Area V-13-1 4. Existing Policies Applying to the Study Area V-13-2 5. Policies Which Avoid Impacts V-13-5 B. Consideration and Discussion of Significant Environmental Impacts V-13-5 1. Thresholds of Significance Suggested by the California Environmental Quality Act V-13-5 2. Thresholds of Significance Suggested by Other Analytical V-13-5 3. Thresholds of Significance Adopted by the City of V-13-6 4. Significant Direct Impacts V-13-6 5. Significant Cumulative Impacts V-13-6 6. Potential Impacts for Which There Is Insufficient Information to Support a Full Analysis V-13-7 C. Mitigation Measures Adopted to Minimize Significant Effects V-13-7 1. Measures Which Mitigate Direct Impacts V-13-7 2. Measures Which Mitigate Cumulative Impacts V-13-7 3. Alternatives to the Proposed Plan V-13-7 D. Monitoring These Mitigation Measures V-13-7 E. Evaluating Subsequent Projects V-13-7 F. Keeping the Master Environmental Impact Report Current for This Topic V-13-8 Section 14 Increased Demand for Fire Services V-14-1 A. Environmental Setting V-14-1 1. Study Area for Direct Impacts V-14-1 2. Study Area for Cumulative Impacts V-14-1 3. Existing Physical Conditions in the Study Area V-14-1 ---PAGE BREAK--- Table of Contents Modesto General Plan Update Final Master EIR xiii Table of Contents October 2008 4. Existing Policies Applying to the Study Area V-14-3 5. Policies Which Avoid Impacts V-14-6 B. Consideration and Discussion of Significant Environmental Impacts V-14-7 1. Thresholds of Significance Suggested by the California Environmental Quality Act V-14-7 2. Thresholds of Significance Suggested by Other Analytical V-14-7 3. Thresholds of Significance Adopted by the City of V-14-8 4. Significant Direct Impacts V-14-8 5. Significant Cumulative Impacts V-14-9 6. Potential Impacts for Which There Is Insufficient Information to Support a Full Analysis V-14-9 C. Mitigation Measures Adopted to Minimize Significant Effects V-14-9 1. Measures Which Mitigate Direct Impacts V-14-10 2. Measures Which Mitigate Cumulative Impacts V-14-10 3. Alternatives to the Proposed Project V-14-10 D. Monitoring These Mitigation Measures V-14-10 E. Evaluating Subsequent Projects V-14-10 F. Keeping the Master Environmental Impact Report Current for This Topic V-14-11 Section 15 Generation of Solid Waste V-15-1 A. Environmental Setting V-15-1 1. Study Area for Direct Impacts V-15-1 2. Study Area for Cumulative Impacts V-15-1 3. Existing Physical Conditions in the Study Area V-15-1 4. Existing Policies Applying to the Study Area V-15-3 5. Policies Which Avoid Impacts V-15-6 B. Consideration and Discussion of Significant Environmental Impacts V-15-7 1. Thresholds of Significance Suggested by the California Environmental Quality Act V-15-7 2. Thresholds of Significance Suggested by Other Analytical V-15-7 3. Threshold of Significance Adopted by the City of Modesto V-15-7 4. Significant Direct Impacts V-15-7 ---PAGE BREAK--- Table of Contents Modesto General Plan Update Final Master EIR xiv Table of Contents October 2008 5. Significant Cumulative Impacts V-15-8 6. Potential Impacts for Which There Is Insufficient Information to Support a Full Analysis V-15-9 C. Mitigation Measures Adopted to Minimize Significant Effects V-15-9 1. Measures Which Mitigate Direct Impacts V-15-9 2. Measures Which Mitigate Cumulative Impacts V-15-9 3. Alternatives to the Proposed Project V-15-9 D. Monitoring These Mitigation Measures V-15-9 E. Evaluating Subsequent Projects V-15-10 F. Keeping the Master Environmental Impact Report Current for This Topic V-15-10 Section 16 Generation of Hazardous Materials V-16-1 A. Environmental Setting V-16-1 1. Study Area for Direct Impacts V-16-1 2. Study Area for Cumulative Impacts V-16-1 3. Existing Physical Conditions in the Study Area V-16-1 4. Policies Which Avoid Impacts V-16-12 B. Consideration and Discussion of Significant Environmental Impacts V-16-13 1. Thresholds of Significance Suggested by the California Environmental Quality Act V-16-13 2. Threshold of Significance Suggested by Other Analytical V-16-13 3. Threshold of Significance Adopted by the City of Modesto V-16-13 4. Significant Direct Impacts V-16-13 5. Significant Cumulative Impacts V-16-14 6. Potential Impacts for Which There Is Insufficient Information to Support a Full Analysis V-16-14 C. Mitigation Measures Adopted to Minimize Significant Effects V-16-14 1. Measures Which Mitigate Direct Impacts V-16-14 2. Measures Which Mitigate Cumulative Impacts V-16-15 3. Alternatives to the Proposed Project V-16-15 D. Monitoring These Mitigation Measures V-16-15 E. Evaluating Subsequent Projects V-16-15 ---PAGE BREAK--- Table of Contents Modesto General Plan Update Final Master EIR xv Table of Contents October 2008 F. Keeping the Master Environmental Impact Report Current for This Topic V-16-16 Section 17 Geology, Soils, and Mineral Resources V-17-1 A. Environmental Setting V-17-1 1. Study Area for Direct Impacts V-17-1 2. Study Area for Cumulative Impacts V-17-1 3. Existing Physical Conditions in the Study Areas V-17-1 4. Existing Policies Applying to the Study Areas V-17-6 5. Policies Which Avoid Impacts V-17-10 B. Consideration and Discussion of Significant Environmental Impacts V-17-11 1. Thresholds of Significance Suggested by the California Environmental Quality Act V-17-11 2. Thresholds of Significance Suggested by Other Analytical V-17-11 3. Thresholds of Significance Adopted by the City of Modesto.......... V-17-12 4. Significant Direct Impacts V-17-12 5. Significant Cumulative Impacts V-17-14 6. Potential Impacts for Which There Is Insufficient Information to Support a Full Analysis V-17-15 C. Mitigation Measures Adopted to Minimize Significant Effects V-17-15 1. Measures Which Mitigate Cumulative Impacts V-17-15 2. Alternatives to the Proposed Project. V-17-15 D. Monitoring These Mitigation Measures V-17-15 E. Evaluating Subsequent Projects V-17-15 F. Keeping the Master Environmental Impact Report Current for This Topic V-17-16 Section 18 Energy V-18-1 A. Environmental Setting V-18-1 1. Study Area for Direct Impacts V-18-1 2. Study Area for Cumulative Impacts V-18-1 3. Existing Physical Conditions in the Study Areas V-18-1 4. Existing Policies Applying to the Study Areas V-18-2 5. Policies Which Avoid Impacts V-18-7 ---PAGE BREAK--- Table of Contents Modesto General Plan Update Final Master EIR xvi Table of Contents October 2008 B. Consideration and Discussion of Significant Environmental Impacts V-18-7 1. Thresholds of Significance Suggested by the California Environmental Quality Act V-18-7 2. Thresholds of Significance Suggested by Other Analytical V-18-7 3. Thresholds of Significance Approved by the City of V-18-7 4. Significant Direct Impacts V-18-8 5. Significant Cumulative Impacts V-18-9 6. Impacts for Which There Is Insufficient Information to Support a Full Analysis V-18-10 C. Mitigation Measures Adopted to Minimize Significant Effects V-18-10 1. Measures Which Mitigate Direct Impacts V-18-10 2. Measures Which Mitigate Cumulative Impacts V-18-11 3. Alternatives to the Proposed Project V-18-11 D. Monitoring These Mitigation Measures V-18-11 E. Evaluating Subsequent Projects V-18-11 F. Keeping the Master Environmental Impact Report Current V-18-12 Section 19 Effects on Visual Resources V-19-1 A. Environmental Setting V-19-1 1. Study Area for Direct Impacts V-19-1 2. Study Area for Cumulative Impacts V-19-1 3. Existing Physical Conditions in the Study Areas V-19-1 4. Existing Policies Applying to the Study Areas V-19-2 5. Policies Which Avoid Impacts V-19-4 B. Consideration and Discussion of Significant Environmental Impacts V-19-4 1. Thresholds of Significance Suggested by the California Environmental Quality Act V-19-4 2. Thresholds of Significance Suggested by Other Analytical V-19-5 3. Thresholds of Significance Adopted by the City of V-19-5 4. Significant Direct Impacts V-19-5 5. Significant Cumulative Impacts V-19-6 ---PAGE BREAK--- Table of Contents Modesto General Plan Update Final Master EIR xvii Table of Contents October 2008 6. Potential Impacts for Which There Is Insufficient Information to Support a Full Analysis V-19-7 C. Mitigation Measures Adopted to Minimize Significant Effects V-19-7 1. Measures Which Mitigate Direct Impacts V-19-7 2. Measures Which Mitigate Cumulative Impacts V-19-7 3. Alternatives to the Proposed Project V-19-8 D. Monitoring These Mitigation Measures V-19-8 E. Evaluating Subsequent Projects V-19-8 F. Keeping the Master Environmental Impact Report Current V-19-8 Section 20 Land Use and Planning V-20-1 A. Environmental Setting V-20-1 1. Study Area for Direct Impacts V-20-1 2. Study Area for Cumulative Impacts V-20-1 3. Existing Physical Conditions in the Study Area V-20-1 4. Existing Policies Applying to the Study Area V-20-6 B. Consideration and Discussion of Significant Environmental Impacts V-20-18 1. Thresholds of Significance Suggested by the California Environmental Quality Act V-20-18 2. Thresholds of Significance Suggested by Other Analytical V-20-19 3. Thresholds of Significance Adopted by the City of Modesto.......... V-20-19 4. Significant Direct Impacts V-20-19 5. Significant Cumulative Impacts V-20-20 6. Impacts for Which there Is Insufficient Information to Support a Full Analysis V-20-20 C. Mitigation Measures Adopted to Minimize Significant Effects V-20-20 1. Measures That Mitigate Direct Impacts V-20-21 2. Measures That Mitigate Cumulative Impacts V-20-21 3. Alternatives to the Proposed Project. V-20-21 D. Monitoring These Mitigation Measures V-20-21 E. Evaluating Subsequent Projects V-20-21 F. Keeping the Master Environmental Impact Report Current for This Topic V-20-22 ---PAGE BREAK--- Table of Contents Modesto General Plan Update Final Master EIR xviii Table of Contents October 2008 Section 21 Climate Change V-21-1 A. Environmental Setting V-21-1 1. Study Area for Direct Impacts V-21-1 2. Study Area for Cumulative Impacts V-21-1 3. Existing Physical Conditions in the Study Area V-21-2 4. Existing Policies Applying to the Study Area V-21-4 5. Policies Which Avoid Impacts V-21-10 B. Consideration and Discussion of Significant Environmental Impacts V-21-10 1. Thresholds of Significance Suggested by CEQA V-21-11 2. Thresholds of Significance Suggested by Other Analytical V-21-11 3. Thresholds of Significance Approved by the City of V-21-11 4. Significant Direct Impacts V-21-11 5. Significant Cumulative Impacts V-21-16 6. Impacts for Which There Is Insufficient Information to Support a Full Analysis V-21-18 C. Measures Adopted to Minimize Significant Effects V-21-18 1. Measures Which Mitigate Direct Impacts V-21-18 2. Measures Which Mitigate Cumulative Impacts V-21-18 3. Alternatives to the Proposed Project. V-21-18 D. Monitoring These Mitigation Measures V-21-19 E. Evaluating Subsequent Projects V-21-19 F. Keeping The Master Environmental Impact Report Current for This Topic V-21-19 Chapter VI Growth-Inducing Impacts VI-1 A. Purpose VI-1 B. Modesto Urban Area General Plan VI-1 1. Designation of Land for Future Residential, Commercial, and Industrial Development VI-2 2. Improvements to and Extensions of the City’s Wastewater Treatment System VI-2 3. Extension of Police and Fire Services to Annexed Lands VI-2 4. Extension of Water Service to Lands within the Urban Area VI-2 ---PAGE BREAK--- Table of Contents Modesto General Plan Update Final Master EIR xix Table of Contents October 2008 5. Road Improvements VI-2 6. Multiplier Effect VI-3 C. Growth-Inducing Impact Mitigation VI-3 Chapter VII Irreversible VII-1 A. Purpose VII-1 B. Irreversible Impacts VII-1 Chapter VIII Alternatives Analysis VIII-1 A. Purpose VIII-1 B. Selected Alternatives VIII-1 1. Alternative 1: No-Project Alternative VIII-1 2. Alternative 2: No Changes to Street Designations VIII-4 C. Comparison Between the Project and the Alternatives VIII-7 D. Alternatives Considered and Rejected VIII-9 1. Changes in Land Use VIII-9 2. Greenhouse Gas Reduction Program VIII-9 E. Environmentally Superior Alternative VIII-10 Chapter IX Comments on Draft Master EIR and Responses to Comments IX-1 A. Master Response 1—Fire Protection Districts IX-3 B. Responses to Comment Letter 1—David Warner, San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District IX-6 1. Response to Comment 1-1 IX-6 C. Responses to Comment Letter 2—Kathleen A. Dadey, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers IX-9 1. Response to Comment 2-1 IX-9 D. Responses to Comment Letter 3—Daniel Kevin, California Public Utilities Commission IX-12 1. Response to Comment 3-1 IX-12 2. Response to Comment 3-2 IX-13 E. Responses to Comment Letter 4—Stephen Mayotte, Stanislaus Consolidated Fire Protection District IX-16 1. Response to Comment 4-1 IX-16 ---PAGE BREAK--- Table of Contents Modesto General Plan Update Final Master EIR xx Table of Contents October 2008 F. Responses to Comment Letter 5—Tom Dumas, California Department of Transportation IX-19 1. Response to Comment 5-1 IX-19 2. Response to Comment 5-2 IX-19 3. Response to Comment 5-3 IX-19 G. Responses to Comment Letter 6—Ed Padilla IX-24 1. Response to Comment 6-1 IX-24 H. Responses to Comment Letter 7—Celia Aceves, Modesto Irrigation District IX-28 1. Response to Comment 7-1 IX-28 2. Response to Comment 7-2 IX-28 3. Response to Comment 7-3 IX-29 4. Response to Comment 7-4 IX-29 I. Responses to Comment Letter 8—Marjorie Blom, Stanislaus Local Agency Formation Commission IX-37 1. Response to Comment 8-1 IX-37 2. Response to Comment 8-2 IX-37 3. Response to Comment 8-3 IX-37 4. Response to Comment 8-4 IX-37 5. Response to Comment 8-5 IX-38 6. Response to Comment 8-6 IX-38 7. Response to Comment 8-7 IX-38 8. Response to Comment 8-8 IX-38 9. Response to Comment 8-9 IX-38 10. Response to Comment 8-10 IX-39 11. Response to Comment 8-11 IX-39 12. Response to Comment 8-12 IX-39 13. Response to Comment 8-13 IX-40 14. Response to Comment 8-14 IX-40 15. Response to Comment 8-15 IX-40 16. Response to Comment 8-16 IX-40 17. Response to Comment 8-17 IX-41 18. Response to Comment 8-18 IX-41 ---PAGE BREAK--- Table of Contents Modesto General Plan Update Final Master EIR xxi Table of Contents October 2008 19. Response to Comment 8-19 IX-41 20. Response to Comment 8-20 IX-41 21. Response to Comment 8-21 IX-41 22. Response to Comment 8-22 IX-42 23. Response to Comment 8-23 IX-42 24. Response to Comment 8-24 IX-43 25. Response to Comment 8-25 IX-43 26. Response to Comment 8-26 IX-43 27. Response to Comment 8-27 IX-43 28. Response to Comment 8-28 IX-44 29. Response to Comment 8-29 IX-44 J. Responses to Comment Letter 9—Arie W. Vander Pol, Turlock Irrigation District IX-47 1. Response to Comment 9-1 IX-47 K. Responses to Comment Letter 10—Dale Skiles, Salida Fire Protection District IX-55 1. Response to Comment 10-1 IX-55 2. Response to Comment 10-2 IX-55 3. Response to Comment 10-3 IX-55 4. Response to Comment 10-4 IX-55 5. Response to Comment 10-5 IX-56 6. Response to Comment 10-6 IX-56 7. Response to Comment 10-7 IX-56 8. Response to Comment 10-8 IX-57 9. Response to Comment 10-9 IX-57 10. Response to Comment 10-10 IX-57 11. Response to Comment 10-11 IX-57 12. Response to Comment 10-12 IX-57 13. Response to Comment 10-13 IX-58 L. Responses to Comment Letter 11—Joshua Mann, Stanislaus County Airport Land Use Commission IX-61 1. Response to Comment 11-1 IX-61 ---PAGE BREAK--- Table of Contents Modesto General Plan Update Final Master EIR xxii Table of Contents October 2008 M. Responses to Comment Letter 12—Raul Mendez, Stanislaus County Environmental Review Committee IX-69 1. Response to Comment 12-1 IX-69 2. Response to Comment 12-2 IX-69 3. Response to Comment 12-3 IX-69 4. Response to Comment 12-4 IX-69 5. Response to Comment 12-5 IX-70 6. Response to Comment 12-6 IX-73 7. Response to Comment 12-7 IX-73 8. Response to Comment 12-8 IX-74 9. Response to Comment 12-9 IX-75 10. Response to Comment 12-10 IX-76 11. Response to Comment 12-11 IX-76 12. Response to Comment 12-12 IX-77 13. Response to Comment 12-13 IX-77 14. Response to Comment 12-14 IX-78 15. Response to Comment 12-15 IX-78 N. Responses to Comment Letter 13—William D. Ross, Law Offices of William D. Ross on Behalf of Salida Fire Protection District and Stanislaus Consolidated Fire Protection District IX-89 1. Response to Comment 13-1 IX-89 2. Response to Comment 13-2 IX-89 3. Response to Comment 13-3 IX-89 4. Response to Comment 13-4 IX-89 5. Response to Comment 13-5 IX-89 6. Response to Comment 13-6 IX-91 7. Response to Comment 13-7 IX-93 8. Response to Comment 13-8 IX-93 9. Response to Comment 13-9 IX-94 10. Response to Comment 13-10 IX-94 11. Response to Comment 13-11 IX-98 12. Response to Comment 13-12 IX-98 ---PAGE BREAK--- Table of Contents Modesto General Plan Update Final Master EIR xxiii Table of Contents October 2008 Chapter X Citations X-1 A. Printed Materials X-1 B. Personal Communications X-11 Appendix A Traffic Appendix Appendix B Air Quality Technical Information: Carbon Monoxide Modeling Appendix C Air Quality Technical Information: Criteria Pollutants Modeling Appendix D Modesto Wastewater Master Plan Update Draft Environmental Impact Report Executive Summary Appendix E Special-Status Species Appendix F Tuolumne River Regional Park Master Plan Draft Master Environmental Impact Report Executive Summary Appendix G Designated Landmark Preservation Sites and Photographs of Carey & Company Sites ---PAGE BREAK--- Table of Contents Modesto General Plan Update Final Master EIR xxiv Table of Contents October 2008 ---PAGE BREAK--- Table of Contents Modesto General Plan Update Final Master EIR xxv List of Tables October 2008 LIST OF TABLES Table Page I-1 Summary of Project Impacts and Mitigating Policies I-11 I-2 Impacts of the Alternatives Compared to the Proposed Project I-18 V-1-1 Changes in Commute Travel Demand for City Residents V-1-4 V-1-2 2000 Census Journey-to-Work Results V-1-5 V-1-3 Per-Lane Roadway Segment Capacities V-1-6 V-1-4 Roadway Segments with Existing (2005) Daily Level of Service E or F V-1-7 V-1-5 Dwelling Unit and Employment Density Assumptions by Land Use Designation (2007) V-1-26 V-1-6 Changes in Daily Vehicles Mile Traveled and Lane Miles of Roadway— 2005 and 2025 V-1-28 V-1-7 Daily Roadway Segments with Level of Service E or F V-1-28 V-2-1a State and Federal Ambient Air Quality Standards V-2-7 V-2-1b Ambient Air Quality Monitoring Data Measured at the Modesto 14th Street Monitoring Station V-2-8 V-2-2 Air Quality Measures Involving Changes to Transportation Infrastructure V-2-14 V-2-3 Air Quality Measures to Reduce Vehicle Use V-2-15 V-2-4 Air Quality Measures Related to Energy Use V-2-16 V-2-5 Air Quality Measures Implemented Through the CEQA Review Process V-2-18 V-2-6 Air Quality Measures to Reduce Construction Impacts V-2-19 V-2-7 Modeled Plan Area Carbon Monoxide Levels for Existing (2005) and Future Conditions (2025) V-2-26 V-2-8 Criteria Pollutant Emissions from Mobile Sources (tons per year) V-2-26 V-3-1 Results of Sound Monitoring V-3-5 V-3-2 Summary of Noise Modeling for Existing Conditions V-3-7 V-3-3 State Land Use Compatibility Standards for Community Noise Environment V-3-11 ---PAGE BREAK--- Table of Contents Modesto General Plan Update Final Master EIR xxvi List of Tables October 2008 V-3-4 County of Stanislaus Noise Element Standards V-3-12 V-3-5 Noise Contour Development Assumptions V-3-16 V-3-6 Summary of Noise Modeling for Future Proposed Project Conditions V-3-19 V-7-1 Policies For Sensitive Biological Habitats V-7-22 V-8-1 Procedures for Mitigating and Monitoring Impacts on Cultural Resources V-8-23 V-9-1 Requirements for Drainage Plans V-9-6 V-9-2 Examples of Best Management Practices V-9-7 V-9-3 Design Criteria for Sediment Control Basins V-9-7 V-9-4 Measures That Can Be Incorporated into an SWMP V-9-8 V-14-1 Fire Protection Districts V-14-2 V-17-1 Maximum Credible Earthquake and UBC Seismic Source Type for Principal Active Faults in the Region Surrounding Planning Area V-17-6 VIII-1 Impact Comparison between the Project and Alternatives VIII-7 IX-1 Comments Received on Draft Master EIR IX-2 IX-2 Year 2030 Project vs. No Project Comparison for the Project Area IX-72 IX-3 Year 2035 LOS Results on Hammett Road Assuming Eight-Lane Class A Expressway IX-72 ---PAGE BREAK--- Table of Contents Modesto General Plan Update Final Master EIR xxvii List of Figures October 2008 LIST OF FIGURES Figure Follows Page II-1 Growth Strategy Diagram III-1 Project Vicinity III-2 III-2 City of Modesto Planning Area III-2 V-1-1 Year 2005 Existing Roadway Network V-1-2 V-1-2 Bicycle Master Plan V-1-4 V-1-3a Year 2005 PM Peak Hour Roadway Segment Level of Service V-1-6 V-1-3b Year 2005 Daily Roadway Segment Level of Service V-1-6 V-1-4a Year 2025 PM Peak Hour Roadway Segment Level of Service V-1-28 V-1-4b Year 2025 Daily Roadway Segment Level of Service V-1-28 V-3-1 Haul Routes V-3-4 V-3-2 Noise Contours—Existing and Proposed V-3-6 V-4-1 Important Farmland within City of Modesto Planning Areas V-4-4 V-7-1 Riparian and Vernal Pool Locations V-7-4 V-8-1 Landmark Preservation Sites in the City of Modesto V-8-8 V-10-1 Flood Potential Diagram V-10-12 V-11-1 Existing Park System V-11-2 V-11-2 Park Planning Areas V-11-2 V-17-1 Faults Located within Stanislaus County V-17-6 V-21-1a Average Trip Length, Home-to-Work Trips on page V-21-12 V-21-1b Average Trip Length, Home-to-Shopping Trips on page V-21-13 V-21-1c Average Trip Length, Home-to-Other Trips on page V-21-13 V-21-1d Average Trip Length, Work-to-Other Trips on page V-21-14 V-21-1e Average Trip Length, Other-to-Other Trips on page V-21-14 ---PAGE BREAK--- Table of Contents Modesto General Plan Update Final Master EIR xxviii List of Figures October 2008 V-21-2 City of Modesto Number of Trips on page V-21-15 V-21-3 City of Modesto CO2 Emissions in Metric on page V-21-16 ---PAGE BREAK--- Table of Contents Modesto General Plan Update Final Master EIR xxix List of Figures October 2008 ---PAGE BREAK--- Table of Contents Modesto General Plan Update Final Master EIR xxx List of Acronyms October 2008 LIST OF ACRONYMS AASHTO American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials AB Assembly Bill ACE Altamont Commuter Express ACHP Advisory Council on Historic Preservation af acre-feet af/y acre feet per year Alquist-Priolo Act Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act ALUC Airport Land Use Commission ARB California Air Resources Board ATIS Advanced Traveler Information Systems ATMS Advanced Traffic Management Systems AVCS Advanced Vehicle Control Systems BART Bay Area Rapid Transit BMOs Basin Management Objectives BMPs best management practices BOD biological oxygen demand BP before present BP Business Park land-use designation BRT bus rapid transit business plans hazardous materials release response plans and inventories C Commercial land-use designation CAA Clean Air Act CAAA Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 CalARP California Accidental Release Prevention California EPA California Environmental Protection Agency Caltrans California Department of Transportation CCAA California Clean Air Act of 1988 CCIC Central California Information Center CCR California Code of Regulations CDFA California Department of Food and Agriculture CDFG California Department of Fish and Game CDPH California Department of Public Health CEC California Energy Commission Central Valley Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board CEQA California Environmental Quality Act CERCDC California Energy Resources Conservation and Development Commission CERCLA Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act CERCLIS Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Information System CESA California Endangered Species Act CFR Code of Federal Regulations ---PAGE BREAK--- Table of Contents Modesto General Plan Update Final Master EIR xxxi List of Acronyms October 2008 cfs cubic feet per second CGC California Government Code CH4 methane CHSC California Health and Safety Code CIP City’s Capital Improvement Program City City of Modesto CIWMB California Integrated Waste Management Board CMP congestion management program California Natural Diversity Database CNEL community noise equivalent level CNPS California Native Plant Society CO carbon monoxide CO2 carbon dioxide CoIWMP county integrated waste management plan Corps U.S. Army Corps of Engineers County Stanislaus County County General Plan Stanislaus County General Plan CPD Comprehensive Planning District CPTED Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design CPUC California Public Utilities Commission CRHR California Register of Historical Resources CSMP Comprehensive Stormwater Management Program CTR California Toxics Rule CVO Commercial Vehicle Operation CWA Clean Water Act cy cubic yards dB Decibel dBA A-Weighted Decibel DBCP dibromochloropropane DFG California Department of Fish and Game DHS California Department of Health Services DOC California Department of Conservation DOF California Department of Finance DPH Department of Public Health DSWAP Drinking Source Water Assessment Program DTSC Department of Toxic Substances Control du/net acre dwelling units per net acre DWR California Department of Water Resources EDB Ethylene dibromide EFH essential fish habitat EIR environmental impact report EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency ESA Endangered Species Act ---PAGE BREAK--- Table of Contents Modesto General Plan Update Final Master EIR xxxii List of Acronyms October 2008 FAA Federal Aviation Administration FAR Federal Aviation Regulations FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency FHWA Federal Highway Administration FIRM Flood Insurance Rate Map FMMP Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program FMP facilities master plan FPD Fire Protection District FTIP Federal Transportation Improvement Program GAC granular activated charcoal GHGs greenhouse gases GPAs General Plan Amendments gwh gigawatt-hours halogenated fluorocarbons HCP habitat conservation plan HFCs hydrofluorocarbons HUD Housing and Urban Development HWCA Hazardous Waste Control Act I Industrial land-use designation I-5 Interstate 5 IPCC Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change IS Initial Study ISO Insurance Service Office ITS Intelligent Transportation Systems IWMP integrated waste management plan JPA joint powers authority kwh kilowatt-hours LAFCo Local Agency Formation Commission LAX Los Angeles International Airport Ldn day-night sound level Leq equivalent sound level LESA Land Evaluation and Site Assessment LID Low Impact Development Lmin and Lmax minimum and maximum sound levels LOS level of service Lxx Exceedance Sound Level MAC Municipal Advisory Council Master EIR master environmental impact report MAX Modesto Area Express ---PAGE BREAK--- Table of Contents Modesto General Plan Update Final Master EIR xxxiii List of Acronyms October 2008 MBTA Federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act MCLs Maximum Contaminant Levels mgd million gallons per day MID Modesto Irrigation District MLD Most Likely Descendent MNDs Mitigated Negative Declarations MOA Memorandum of Agreement MOE measures of effectiveness mph miles per hour Modesto Regional Water Treatment Plant MRZs Mineral Resource Zones MS4 Municipal Separate Storm Sewer Systems MSR municipal services review MTBE methyl tertiary butyl ether MU Mised-Use land use designation N2O nitrous oxide NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards NAG Noise Assessment Guidelines NAHC Native American Heritage Commission NCCP natural community conservation plan NEPA National Environmental Policy Act NHPA National Historic Preservation Act NMFS National Marine Fisheries Service NO2 nitrogen dioxide NOP notice of preparation NOx oxides of nitrogen NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System NRCS Natural Resources Conservation Service NRHP National Register of Historic Places O3 ozone OES California Office of Emergency Services OPR Office of Planning and Research OS Open Space designation PCAs possible contaminating activities PCE tetrachloroethylene pCi/l picoCuries per liter PDIS Peak Discharge Impact Study PFCs perfluorinated carbons PG&E Pacific Gas & Electric Company PLATO planning law analysis and test organizer PM10 particulate matter 10 microns or less in diameter PM2.5 particulate matter 2.5 microns or less in diameter POD Pedestrian-oriented design ---PAGE BREAK--- Table of Contents Modesto General Plan Update Final Master EIR xxxiv List of Acronyms October 2008 Porter-Cologne Act Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act ppm parts per million PRC Public Resources Code Priority 1P crimes in progress proposed project UAGP Amendment R Residential land-use designation RAP remedial action plan RC Regional Commercial land-use designation RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act Reclamation State Board of Reclamation REMOVE Reduce Motor Vehicle Emissions ROGs reactive organic gases RPD Redevelopment Planning Destrict designation RTIP regional transportation improvement program RTP regional transportation plan RTPA regional transportation planning agency Regional Water Quality Control Board SARA Superfund Amendment and Reauthorization Act SB Senate Bill SCP Salida Community Plan designation SDWA Safe Drinking Water Act Secretary Secretary of the California Environmental Protection Agency SHPO State Historic Preservation Officer SIPs State Implementation Plans SJV San Joaquin Valley SJVAB San Joaquin Valley Air Basin SJVAPCD San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District SMARA Surface Mining and Reclamation Act of 1975 SO2 sulfur dioxide SOx sulfur oxide SPCC spill prevention, control and countermeasure SPRR Southern Pacific Railroad SR State Route SRRE source reduction and recycling element SRRF Stanislaus Resource Recovery Facility StanCOG Stanislaus Council of Governments StaRT Stanislaus Regional Transit STIP State Transportation Improvement Program SWMP stormwater management program stormwater pollution prevention plan State Water Resources Control Board SWSP Surface Water Supply Project TACs toxic air contaminants ---PAGE BREAK--- Table of Contents Modesto General Plan Update Final Master EIR xxxv List of Acronyms October 2008 TAZs traffic analysis zones TCE trichloroethylene TCM transportation control measure TDM Transportation Demand Management TID Turlock Irrigation District TMDL Total Maximum Daily Load TPPG Transportation Planning Partnership Group TPPG Model TPPG countywide travel demand model TRRP Tuolumne River Regional Park TRRP Master Plan Tuolumne River Regional Park Master Plan UAGP City of Modesto Urban Area General Plan UBC Uniform Building Code UIC Underground Injection Control UMWP Urban Water Management Plan USACE U.S. Army Corps of Engineers USFWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service USGS U.S. Geological Survey USTs underground storage tanks UWMP 2005 Joint Urban Water Management Plan v/c vehicle/capacity VB Village Residential with Business Park VELB valley elderberry longhorn beetle VMT vehicle miles of travel VHT vehicle hours of travel VHD vehicle hours of delay VR Village Residential land-use designation WDRs waste discharge requirements Williamson Act California Land Conservation Act of 1965 WPP Wellhead Protection Program WSA Water Supply Assessment WWCS Wastewater Collection System μg/l micrograms per liter µg/m3 per cubic meter ---PAGE BREAK--- Modesto General Plan Update Final Master EIR I-1 Chapter I. Executive Summary October 2008 Chapter I Executive Summary A. INTRODUCTION The City of Modesto is located in Stanislaus County (County) in the northern San Joaquin Valley. Modesto adjoins Highway 99, the main north-south freeway on the eastern side of the Valley. The City adjoins the Tuolumne River and Dry Creek. This summary provides information about the master environmental impact report (Master EIR) as well as the impact mitigating policies and alternatives discussed in the Master EIR. The Final Master EIR (consisting of final and draft Master EIRs under separate cover) was certified by the Modesto City Council on October 14, 2008. Final Master EIR The document you are reading combines under a single cover the final Master EIR and the draft Master EIR certified by the City in October 2008. The comments and responses section from the final Master EIR are found in Chapter IX of this document. The revisions made to the draft Master EIR and included as errata in the Final Master EIR have been integrated directly into the text of this document. In this way, these two documents have been combined into a single Final Master EIR document. This simplifies the future use of the Master EIR as a reference and as a base California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) document, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15175, et seq. Since release of the draft Master EIR, the total size of the city has increased by about 0.7 square miles (454 acres) as a result of the Tivoli Specific Plan annexation. The Tivoli Specific Plan was approved and the Environmental Impact Report prepared for that project was certified by the City Council on February 26, 2008. Stanislaus County Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCo) approved the annexation on June 25, 2008. The Final Master EIR has been revised to reflect the size of the city, with the Tivoli expansion. This is a housekeeping change and does not affect the analysis or conclusions contained in the Master EIR. B. PURPOSE OF THIS ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT This document is a Master EIR that examines the environmental effects of the City of Modesto Urban Area General Plan (UAGP). As provided under the CEQA Guidelines, a Master EIR is intended to streamline the analyses of individual projects proposed after adoption of and included under the parameters of the General Plan by allowing the “statement of overriding considerations” and mitigating policies adopted for the Master EIR to apply to those later projects. The Master EIR in turn relieves the need to analyze cumulative and growth-inducing impacts of subsequent individual projects, a need which could result in a costlier and more time-consuming CEQA process. An initial study/finding of conformance will be prepared for later projects to document that they are within the scope of the Master EIR or to determine whether additional environmental documentation will ---PAGE BREAK--- Chapter I. Executive Summary Modesto General Plan Update Final Master EIR I-2 Chapter I. Executive Summary October 2008 be needed as a result of new, project-specific environmental effects. The Master EIR will be the foundation for “Focused EIRs” and mitigated negative declarations prepared for later projects that would have project-specific significant effects not analyzed in the Master EIR or that would require new mitigation measures or alternatives. According to state law, the Master EIR must be updated in conjunction with the General Plan being updated. The Master EIR update is also consistent with provisions of CEQA that require periodic review and update of Master EIRs. The City of Modesto certified its original Master EIR with the adoption of the Urban Area General Plan in 1995, and certified a revised Master EIR with the adoption of an update to the Urban Area General Plan in 2003. Whereas the 1995 Master EIR analyzed a “Preferred Alternative” of about 467,000 population along with other land use alternatives, the 1995 General Plan adopted by the Modesto City Council was reduced from the Preferred Alternative to a plan area of an estimated 442,000 population. The 2002 General Plan Master EIR Update further refined the analysis of the adopted planning area by applying the estimated persons per household from the 2000 Census (2.86 persons) and factors used in the Traffic Model so that planning area buildout results in an estimated population of approximately 400,000. In preparation of the General Plan amendment that this Master EIR analyzes, the City has further refined its estimate of the population at buildout of the Urban Area General Plan. Based on reasonable assumptions about land use designations and the rate of growth, the future population within the adopted planning area is estimated to be 428,300. This population level would be reached at some time after the 2025 planning horizon. Current infrastructure plans would accommodate an estimated population between 334,000 and 357,000 people within the City’s existing Sphere of Influence (SOI), expected to occur by approximately 2025. The planning area is larger than the City’s existing SOI. The current update will revise the Master EIR and incorporate new information, as available. The result is a Master EIR that is easier to apply to everyday decision-making. C. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The UAGP was last comprehensively updated in 1995, when the UAGP and a Master EIR were adopted as cohesive planning and environmental mitigation documents. Since 1995, more than 20 UAGP Amendments (GPAs) have been adopted along with updates to the Master EIR. A new Master EIR was prepared for the UAGP in 2002 and adopted in 2003 to address the numerous updates to the UAGP. The current UAGP Amendment, which is the proposed project for CEQA purposes, responds to changes in federal, state, and local policies that have occurred since the General Plan was adopted by the Modesto City Council in 1995 and amended in 2003. It is not a comprehensive update to the UAGP. No major land use changes are proposed as part of the amendment. The horizon of the UAGP remains 2025. The amendment to the UAGP would extend the useful life of the UAGP until a comprehensive update is completed. The housing section of the UAGP was updated and certified in 2004. It is not proposed for amendment as part of the amendment of the UAGP. A new traffic model for the Modesto–Stanislaus County region has been prepared. The proposed amendment utilizes the new traffic model and incorporates current utility master plans, as well as past changes to the UAGP in a more comprehensive fashion. Other than ---PAGE BREAK--- Chapter I. Executive Summary Modesto General Plan Update Final Master EIR I-3 Chapter I. Executive Summary October 2008 changing the designations of selected roads, no substantial changes are proposed to the General Plan’s existing circulation diagram. Updates to the General Plan fall into three major categories: incorporating as policy those practices that are regularly approved and which effectively have become policy, proposing policies (amendments to the General Plan) to provide direction for anticipated issues, and incorporating adopted policies that are not currently reflected in the General Plan. The following lists identify the proposed updates to the General Plan within these three major categories. 1. Updates to the General Plan a. Practices to Policies The General Plan Amendment would incorporate as policies the following practices that are regularly approved and have effectively become policy. These policies have not been the subject of prior environmental review. „ Land use classifications—The descriptions of land use classifications would be updated where necessary and refined to provide better correlation to zoning. „ Sphere-of-influence development—Development that occurs within the sphere of influence, and the relationship between City and County, is addressed in General Plan Amendment. „ Construction of rock wells—Policies would restrict the construction of new rock wells. „ “Potable well water” definition—A definition of “potable well water” would be added to the Urban Area General Plan. b. Proposed Policies The General Plan Amendment will include new policies to provide direction for anticipated issues. These policies have not been the subject of prior environmental review. „ Infrastructure financing—Utilities policies would be revised in light of necessary authorities for growth financing. Current pay-as-you-go financing policy would be changed to “up front” infrastructure construction. „ Comprehensive Planning District policies—Policies for the implementation of Comprehensive Planning Districts (CPDs) would be expanded to better guide future specific plans and development with respect to land use policies, public facilities, and infrastructure planning. „ Air quality element—Data, analysis, goals, policies, and implementation strategies of the air quality section would be revised pursuant to AB 170, “Air Quality Element: San Joaquin Valley” (codified in Section 65302.1 of the Government Code), which requires each city and county in the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District to amend its general plan (either through existing elements or by adding an air quality element) to include analyses, goals, policies, and implementation strategies to improve air quality in the region. ---PAGE BREAK--- Chapter I. Executive Summary Modesto General Plan Update Final Master EIR I-4 Chapter I. Executive Summary October 2008 „ Greenhouse gas/global climate change policies—New policies would be adopted for the purpose of supporting the State goal of reducing greenhouse gas production to 1990 levels by 2020. „ Annexation policies—Current annexation policies would be revised to reflect the Cortese-Knox-Hertzberg Local Government Reorganization Act of 2000 and Stanislaus County Local Agency Formation Commission procedures. „ Minimum specific plan size—The proposed amendment addresses a minimum specific plan size. „ Dry Creek and Tuolumne River CPDs—Development in the Dry Creek and Tuolumne River CPDs would be addressed in the proposed amendment. „ Biological and archaeological resource study areas—The proposed amendment would revise the boundaries to better reflect biologically and archaeologically sensitive areas. „ Provision of sewer and water service within the sphere of influence—The proposed amendment addresses the provision of sewer and water service within the City’s sphere of influence. „ Development in the 100-year floodplain—The proposed amendment addresses development within the 100-year floodplain and incorporates the most recent Flood Insurance Rate Map information. „ Archaeological and cultural resources—Policy updates related to archaeological, cultural, and historic resources would be made based on state law, including State CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5. The planning process would include required consultations with Native American tribes pursuant to Senate Bill 18. General policies regarding paleontological resources would be included to reflect the potential for encountering resources. „ Separate sewer and water connections—Separate sewer and water connections for each dwelling unit are addressed in the proposed amendment. „ Public infrastructure in private developments—The proposed amendment would define public infrastructure in private developments. „ Police staffing goal—The proposed amendment establishes a police staffing goal of 1.85 sworn officers per 1,000 citizens. „ Fire department response times—The proposed amendment establishes Modesto Fire Department response time standards. „ Timing of street frontage improvements for minor annexations—The proposed amendment would address the timing of frontage improvements for minor annexations of County islands. „ The Metropolitan Transportation Commission’s Regional Rail Plan—The proposed amendment integrates pertinent information from the Metropolitan Transportation Commission’s Regional Rail Plan Revised Draft Report. Redevelopment Plan Amendment—A minor amendment to include the Redevelopment Master Plan’s Land Use Strategy Map in the Redevelopment Plan has been included to ensure consistency between the Urban Area General Plan, the Redevelopment Master Plan, and the Redevelopment Plan. ---PAGE BREAK--- Chapter I. Executive Summary Modesto General Plan Update Final Master EIR I-5 Chapter I. Executive Summary October 2008 Utilities/infrastructure—Utility policies are updated to reflect utility constraints and coordinate with the imminent updates of the Storm Water Master Plan, and the Water Master Plan anticipated to be completed in 2008. „ Road system changes—In addition to traffic policy revisions, the following are known needed changes to the road network. ‰ Dale Road—A change from a minor arterial to a principal arterial in the entire General Plan area and a change from four lanes with the possibility of bike lanes to six lanes with no bike lanes. ‰ Bangs Avenue—A change from a minor collector to a major collector with bike path from Dale Road to Tully Road and a change from two travel lanes to four travel lanes with bike lanes. ‰ Claratina Expressway—Revision of the alignment, and a change from a four-lane expressway to a six-lane principal arterial east of Oakdale Road to Roselle Avenue, which allows for four travel lanes and Class I bicycle facilities. ‰ Carpenter Road—A change from a six-lane expressway to a principal arterial with bike lanes from State Route 132 to Whitmore Avenue and a change from six lanes without bike lanes to six lanes with bike lanes. ‰ Claus Road—Moving the alignment of Claus Road from Floyd Avenue to Claratina Avenue west of the Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railroad tracks. ‰ Sylvan Avenue—A change from principal arterial to minor arterial with Class II bicycle facilities from Oakdale Road to Roselle Avenue. „ Mitigation in the Master EIR—Mitigation arising in the Master EIR is included in the proposed amendment as policies. c. Include Adopted Policies The GPA will incorporate the following already-adopted policies in the UAGP. These policies have been the subject of prior environmental review, as part of their adoption processes. „ Specific plan implementation—Policy language that describes the elements of the comprehensive planning process and policies supporting and referencing the specific plan preparation guidelines adopted on October 5, 2004, is included in the proposed amendment. „ Urban design—The amendment includes adopted policies that will support the preparation of design guidance documents, such as the Guidelines for Small Lot Single- Family Residential Development. The recently adopted Guidelines for Commercial and Industrial Development are incorporated into the proposed amendment by reference. „ Utilities/infrastructure—Utility policies are updated to reflect utility constraints and coordinate with the recently updated Wastewater Master Plan and the adopted Joint Urban Water Management Plan (May 2007). „ Roundabout Policy—The amendment incorporates the adopted City Roundabout Policy (dated September 2004) by reference. ---PAGE BREAK--- Chapter I. Executive Summary Modesto General Plan Update Final Master EIR I-6 Chapter I. Executive Summary October 2008 „ 1991 and 1998 traffic study criteria—The amendment incorporates the adopted 1991 and 1998 traffic study criteria. „ Expressway access policy—The proposed amendment incorporates the adopted expressway access policy that regulates and limits the number and design of expressway access locations in order to ensure the overall operational viability of expressways in the community. „ Stormwater—The proposed amendment includes water quality and watershed protection principles that have been incorporated into the storm-drainage section of the General Plan consistent with the City’s National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permit, stormwater pollution prevention plan, and new guidelines. „ Dual-use park-basin policy—The dual-use park-basin policy (adopted December 12, 2000) is incorporated by reference into the proposed amendment. „ “Nonconforming” parks—The definition of the policy (adopted in June 2005) to sell “nonconforming” parks is included in the proposed amendment. „ Long Range Transit Plan—The Long Range Transit Plan for the City of Modesto (adopted in August 2000) is incorporated by reference into the proposed amendment. „ Hazard Mitigation Plan—The proposed amendment will incorporate by reference the Hazard Mitigation Plan, adopted September 2005. „ City of Modesto 2001–2004 Strategic Plan—Appropriate objectives and policies from the adopted City of Modesto 2001–2004 Strategic Plan will be incorporated into the proposed amendment. „ Measure M (Citizens’ Advisory Growth Management Act of 1995)—The adopted Measure M policy will be incorporated into the proposed amendment by reference. „ Reasonable certainty policy—The proposed amendment will incorporate the adopted reasonable-certainty policy adopted in May 2006, which requires that adequate wastewater treatment and disposal capacity can be provided for the annexed area; and the adopted 10% risk policy, which addresses the risk of violating the City’s permit to discharge wastewater effluent to the San Joaquin River. „ Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design policies—Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED) policies will be incorporated into the proposed amendment by reference. „ Kaiser Medical Center—Policies adopted in association with the approval of Kaiser Medical Center, (August 10, 2004) will be incorporated into the proposed amendment by reference. „ General Plan Amendments—GPAs adopted since the 2003 General Plan, as well as those currently in progress, will be incorporated into the proposed amendment. Adopted GPAs have previously undergone environmental review. ‰ GPA 03-002: Housing Element Update—adopted by Modesto City Council Resolution No. 2004-233 (April 27, 2004). ‰ GPA 04-002: Regional Commercial to Residential, Coffee/Claratina—adopted by Modesto City Council Resolution No. 2005-70 (January 25, 2005). ---PAGE BREAK--- Chapter I. Executive Summary Modesto General Plan Update Final Master EIR I-7 Chapter I. Executive Summary October 2008 ‰ GPA 06-002: Added “Principal Arterial with Bike Lanes” as a Classification to the General Plan and Adopted the Non-Motorized Transportation Master Plan—adopted by Modesto City Council Resolution No. 2007-065 (January 9, 2007). 2. Objectives The primary purposes of the proposed project the UAGP amendment) are to incorporate adopted policies into the General Plan, codify regular practices as policies, update policies to reflect current state and federal laws, and update the 2003 Master EIR to allow subsequent projects to rely upon its environmental analysis. The objectives of the proposed project include: „ incorporating pertinent guidance from the City’s adopted 2001–2004 Strategic Plan; „ amending the General Plan to reflect pertinent new information and statutory changes that have occurred since 1995; „ amending the General Plan to reflect Modesto policy changes that have occurred since 2003; „ amending the General Plan without resulting in any substantial changes to the City’s land use diagram or increases in development potential; „ incorporating information from the new traffic model into the General Plan, as appropriate; „ incorporating information from the most recent sewer, water, and storm drainage master plans into the General Plan; „ evaluating infrastructure master plans against current policies to determine how existing policies may need to be revised; and „ providing a “maintenance update” of the General Plan that will provide an adequate document pending a comprehensive overhaul in the future. 3. Description of the Urban Area General Plan The Modesto Urban Area General Plan comprises the goals and policies that will guide City land use decisions between 2007 and 2025. The Plan establishes three policy areas: the Redevelopment Area, where significant levels of new development are expected to occur in accordance with the Redevelopment Plan; the Baseline Developed Area, which encompasses the City as it exists in 2007 and which is not expected to grow substantially; and the Planned Urbanizing Area, which is expected to accommodate most of the City’s future growth, in accordance with Comprehensive Plans adopted in advance of new development. The overall planning area contained in the General Plan extends beyond the City’s current corporate limits and its current sphere of influence. The planning area generally describes the lands that could be urbanized by 2025. 4. Areas of Known Controversy The environmental analyses of the Modesto Urban Area General Plan, as amended by this proposal, indicate the following resources/issues are controversial due to associated potential impacts: ---PAGE BREAK--- Chapter I. Executive Summary Modesto General Plan Update Final Master EIR I-8 Chapter I. Executive Summary October 2008 a. Degradation of Air Quality Air quality in the project area and the San Joaquin Valley will be degraded as a result of the growth identified in the General Plan. The amount of pollutants and particulate levels will increase, chiefly through automobile-generated pollutants and grading activities, but pollutants carried in from elsewhere will continue to be a contributing cause of air pollution problems. b. Contribution to Global Climate Change The UAGP establishes various CPDs which, taken individually and collectively, create a land use pattern which encourages behavior that results in marginally less greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions when compared to traditional development patterns. However, the Planned Urbanizing Area is larger than the City’s Baseline Developed Area and Redevelopment Area, and its development will result in a substantial increase in energy use and vehicle miles traveled (VMT) relative to the relatively low intensity development currently existing in that area. c. Removal or Degradation of Biologically Sensitive Habitats The proposed amendment has the potential to affect biologically sensitive areas, including riparian corridors, riverine habitat, fresh emergent wetlands, and grasslands east of the Burlington Northern–Santa Fe Railway that may support vernal pools. Continued development associated with the proposed amendment has the potential to affect these sensitive habitats and special-status species that can occur in these habitats. d. Degradation of Archaeological or Historical Sites The continued urbanization of the Planning Area, including the introduction of as many as approximately 357,000 residents by 2025, to a total of approximately 428,000 when the entire General Plan is complete, could affect prehistoric and historic resources. There is a low probability that archaeological resources will be uncovered when soils are excavated. Demolition, removal, or modification of historically significant buildings is possible. e. Loss of Prime Agricultural Land The Modesto area is underlain by high quality agricultural soils. Urban development will cover these soils and they will no longer be available for agricultural use. f. Population growth and sprawl Modesto is the demographic and commercial hub of Stanislaus County. The proposed project is expected to induce a “multiplier effect,” which is the web of impacts resulting from the economic relationships between Modesto and the surrounding region. The extent to which ---PAGE BREAK--- Chapter I. Executive Summary Modesto General Plan Update Final Master EIR I-9 Chapter I. Executive Summary October 2008 the multiplier effect induces housing and job growth beyond Modesto’s planning area, where that growth may be located, and the intensity of that growth, cannot be quantified at this time. Modesto itself already feels the multiplier effect of economic growth in the San Francisco Bay Area. g. Worsening automobile traffic Modesto is on Highway 99, a major north-south corridor, and is home to many people who commute elsewhere to work. The EIR prepared for Stanislaus Council of Government’s (StanCOG) 2007Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) analyzed the potential impacts of the road network improvements identified in the update to the RTP. Significance findings were based on whether the RTP projects would result in an LOS in excess of D in urban areas and C in rural areas of the county. The following cumulative impacts involving traffic were identified: substantial increase in traffic in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system; violation, either individually or cumulatively, of an LOS standard established by the County Congestion Management Plan for designated roads and highways; and, creation of need for capacity-enhancing alterations to existing facilities. The 2004 Stanislaus Council of Governments Addendum to the 2001 Regional Transportation Plan did not identify additional cumulative impacts. h. Increased Demands for Water Supplies As a result of increased population, the project will contribute to a cumulative loss of natural water resources in the San Joaquin Valley and contribute to the need to identify additional water resources. This impact will be at least partially mitigated through conservation measures required by the City, including the increased use of reclaimed water, water conserving devices, and drought-tolerant landscaping. Assuming that radical changes in lifestyle or economic conditions do not occur, water demand will increase and the consumption of water resources is irreversible. i. Floodplain Management Since the widespread destruction of property seen from the Hurricane Katrina disaster on the U.S. Gulf Coast, the State of California has been concerned over the potential for development to occur in areas that are subject to flooding. Resulting State legislation enacted in 2006 will require general plans to address 200-year floodplain management along the major waterways in the Central Valley. This issue will be addressed in the City’s future comprehensive UAGP amendment when updated 200-year floodplain information is expected to be available from State and other sources. j. Fire Protection in Annexed Lands Future annexations under the UAGP may adversely affect the economic viability of fire protection districts, should those districts lose crucial levels of property tax revenues. Should ---PAGE BREAK--- Chapter I. Executive Summary Modesto General Plan Update Final Master EIR I-10 Chapter I. Executive Summary October 2008 these districts be unable to provide full fire protection services to unincorporated areas as a result, fire losses would increase in those areas. k. Global Climate Change Global climate change is being caused by greenhouse gas emissions from the burning of fossil fuels. Increases in vehicle miles travelled, energy use, and water use are indicators of increased greenhouse gas emissions. AB 32 of 2005 established a strong state interest in reducing current greenhouse gas emissions to 1990 levels by 2020. This will not be possible without changes in land use policy and activities. D. SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES Table I-1 summarizes the project impacts and mitigating policies. These measures will act to mitigate potential environmental effects or to ensure that effects are less than significant. See the individual impact sections in Chapter V for a detailed discussion of impacts, policies in place, and proposed new policies that reduce impacts included in the Master EIR. 1. Alternatives Alternatives to the proposed project are discussed in detail in Chapter VIII, Alternatives Analysis. Table I-2 summarizes the impacts of the alternatives in comparison to the proposed project. a. Alternative 1: No Project The No Project Alternative is the continuation of the currently adopted UAGP into the future. (State CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(e)(3)(A)) Thus, the impacts of the proposed general plan amendments would be compared to the impacts that would occur under build-out of the current 1995 UAGP. The impacts of the 1995 General Plan are described in the 2003 Master EIR update. b. Alternative 2: No Changes to Street Descriptions Alternative 2 consists of the current street descriptions contained in the 1995 UAGP, along with the policies being proposed under the UAGP update. 2. Other California Environmental Quality Act–Related Conclusions a. Growth-Inducing Impacts Potential growth-inducing impacts associated with the proposed UAGP update were identified in analyses of the proposed UAGP update. By definition, a general plan is accommodating future growth in a controlled manner. Growth-inducing activities associated ---PAGE BREAK--- Chapter I. Executive Summary Modesto General Plan Update Final Master EIR I-11 Chapter I. Executive Summary October 2008 with Modesto’s Urban Area General Plan include designation of land for future residential, commercial, and industrial development; improvements to and extensions of the City’s wastewater treatment system; extension of police and fire services to annexed lands; and extension of water service to lands within the urban area road improvements. An additional growth-inducing impact anticipated to result from the proposed UAGP update is the economic multiplier effect. This effect is moderated and mitigated by the Community Growth Strategy and Comprehensive Planning District policies of the Urban Area General Plan (Chapter II-C and III-D). Development within each of these districts will be timed to coincide with the availability of sewer service and will be required to comply with the individual comprehensive plans that will be adopted for each district. Table I-1. Summary of Project Impacts and Mitigating Policies Resource Section Name Impact Topic Impact Level Policy/Mitigation Residual Impact Level Traffic and Circulation Arterial streets Increased traffic levels over LOS D will be significant Proposed UAGP update policies TC-17 through TC-64 Significant and unavoidable Cumulative effects relative to the Regional Transportation Plan Substantial contributions by Modesto are significant Proposed UAGP update policies TC-17 through TC-64 Significant and unavoidable contribution Air Quality Effect of general plan traffic conditions on ambient carbon monoxide levels Less than significant Proposed UAGP update policies AQ-1 through AQ-56 Less than significant Effect of pollutant emissions from mobile sources Less than significant Proposed UAGP update policies AQ-1 through AQ-56 Less than significant Cumulative effects relative to air quality Significant Proposed UAGP update policies AQ-1 through AQ-56 Significant and unavoidable contribution Generation of Noise Increased noise levels for future conditions in plan area Significant Proposed UAGP update policies N-1 through N-14 Less than significant Increase airport operations beyond 2015 Significant and unavoidable Proposed UAGP update policies N-1 through N-14 Significant and unavoidable Cumulative effects of increased noise levels Significant Proposed UAGP update policies N-1 through N-14 Significant and unavoidable contribution Effects on Agricultural Lands Agricultural conflicts in the Baseline Developed and Redevelopment Areas Less than significant Proposed UAGP update policy AL-15 Less than significant Agricultural conflicts in the Planned Urbanizing Area Significant Proposed UAGP update policies AL-16 through AL-21 and LAFCo policy AL-1 Significant and unavoidable ---PAGE BREAK--- Chapter I. Executive Summary Modesto General Plan Update Final Master EIR I-12 Chapter I. Executive Summary October 2008 Resource Section Name Impact Topic Impact Level Policy/Mitigation Residual Impact Level Cumulative impacts on agricultural lands Significant Proposed UAGP update policies AL-15 through AL-21 Significant and unavoidable contribution Increased Demand for Long-term Water Supplies Impacts on Baseline Developed Area, Planned Urbanizing Area, and Redevelopment Area Less than significant Proposed UAGP update policies WS-10 through WS- 37 Less than significant Impacts on water distribution facilities Less than significant Proposed UAGP update policies WS-10 through WS- 37 Less than significant Cumulative impacts on increased demand for long- term water supply Significant Adopted policies of Stanislaus LAFCo, the Stanislaus County General Plan, and proposed UAGP policies WS-10 through WS-37 Less than significant contribution; significant and unavoidable during drought years by 2020 Increased Demand for Sanitary Sewer Services Compliance with waste discharge requirements Less than significant Proposed UAGP update policies SS-4 through SS-28 Less than significant Impacts from the construction of new wastewater treatment facilities Addressed in the Wastewater Master Plan Master EIR Mitigation measures have been implemented by the City under the Wastewater Master Plan Addressed in the Wastewater Master Plan Master EIR Insufficient capacity to meet the Project’s projected demand Less than significant None required Less than significant Cumulative impacts on demand for sanitary sewer services Less than significant (same as direct impacts) Proposed UAGP update policies SS-4 through SS-28 and mitigation measures implemented by the City under the Wastewater Master Plan Less than significant Loss of Sensitive Wildlife and Plant Habitat Impacts within the Baseline Development and Redevelopment Areas Less than significant UAGP update policy SWPH- 12 Less than significant ---PAGE BREAK--- Chapter I. Executive Summary Modesto General Plan Update Final Master EIR I-13 Chapter I. Executive Summary October 2008 Resource Section Name Impact Topic Impact Level Policy/Mitigation Residual Impact Level Impacts on valley foothill riparian, riverine, and fresh emergent wetland habitat in the Planned Urbanizing Area Significant Proposed UAGP update policies, measures in the TRRP Master Plan and Master EIR, and other regulations that will apply to future development the Clean Water Act, the California Fish and Game Code, the Endangered Species Act, and the California Endangered Species Act) Less than significant Impacts on vernal pool habitat in the Planned Urbanizing Area Significant UAGP update policy SWPH- 16 Less than significant Cumulative impacts on loss of sensitive wildlife and plant habitat Significant Proposed UAGP update policies, measures in the TRRP Master Plan and Master EIR, and other regulations that will apply to future development the Clean Water Act, the California Fish and Game Code, the Endangered Species Act, and the California Endangered Species Act) Significant and unavoidable contribution Disturbance of Archaeological/ Historical Sites Impacts on historical resources within the Baseline Developed Area Significant Proposed UAGP update policies AH-3 through AH-17 and City adopted mitigation and monitoring program for cultural resources Less than significant Impacts on archaeological resources within the riparian corridors Significant Proposed UAGP update policies AH-3 through AH-17 and City adopted mitigation and monitoring program for cultural resources Less than significant Impacts on archaeological resources outside of riparian corridors Significant Proposed UAGP update policies AH-3 through AH-17 and City adopted mitigation and monitoring program for cultural resources Less than significant Modifications of historical structures Significant Proposed UAGP update policies AH-3 through AH-17 and City adopted mitigation and monitoring program for cultural resources Less than significant Demolition of a significant historical structure Significant None Significant and unavoidable ---PAGE BREAK--- Chapter I. Executive Summary Modesto General Plan Update Final Master EIR I-14 Chapter I. Executive Summary October 2008 Resource Section Name Impact Topic Impact Level Policy/Mitigation Residual Impact Level Cumulative impacts on historical/archaeological sites Less than significant Proposed UAGP update policies AH-3 through AH-17 and City adopted mitigation and monitoring program for cultural resources Less than significant contribution Increased Demand for Storm Drainage Impacts on storm drainage in the Baseline Developed Area and the Planned Urbanizing Area Significant Proposed UAGP update policies SD-2 through SD-17 Less than significant Cumulative impacts on increased demand for storm drainage Significant Proposed UAGP update policies SD-2 through SD-17 Significant and unavoidable contribution Flooding and Water Quality Impacts on flooding Significant Regulations regarding surface water quality, proposed UAGP update policies FWQ-5 through FWQ-10, City and County floodplain ordinances, Modesto Municipal Code Title 5, Chapter 10, and the City’s Guidance Manual for New Development Stormwater Quality Control Measures Less than significant Impacts on surface water quality Significant Regulations regarding surface water quality, proposed UAGP update policies FWQ-11 through FWQ-15, City and County floodplain ordinances, Modesto Municipal Code Title 5, Chapter 10, and the City’s Guidance Manual for New Development Stormwater Quality Control Measures Less than significant Cumulative impacts on flooding and water quality Significant Proposed UAGP update policies FWQ-5 through FWQ-15 and federal requirements (administered by the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board) limiting discharges into surface water would reduce cumulative impacts to less than significant. Less than significant contribution Increased Demand for Parks and Open Space Impacts on parks and open space in Baseline Developed and Redevelopment Areas Less than significant None necessary Less than significant ---PAGE BREAK--- Chapter I. Executive Summary Modesto General Plan Update Final Master EIR I-15 Chapter I. Executive Summary October 2008 Resource Section Name Impact Topic Impact Level Policy/Mitigation Residual Impact Level Impacts on parks and open space in Planned Urbanizing Area Significant Proposed UAGP update policies POS-2 through POS- 46 Less than significant Cumulative impacts on demand for parks and open space Significant Proposed UAGP update policies POS-2 through POS- 46 Less than significant contribution Increased Demand for Schools Increased population will lead to school crowding Less than significant Government Code Section 65995 provides that payment of impact fees is full mitigation Less than significant Future school construction will have impacts Unknown Future school construction will be subject to CEQA and the responsibility of individual school districts Unknown Cumulative impacts on school crowding Less than significant Government Code Section 65995 provides that payment of impact fees is full mitigation Less than significant contribution Increased Demand for Police Services Impacts on police services in the Baseline Developed and Redevelopment Areas Significant Proposed UAGP update policies PS-2 through PS-15 Less than significant Impacts on police services in the Planned Urbanizing Area Significant Proposed UAGP update policies PS-2 through PS-15 Less than significant Cumulative impacts on police services No impact None necessary No impact Increased Demand for Fire Services Demand on fire services in the Baseline Developed and Redevelopment Areas Less than significant Proposed UAGP update policies FS-1 through FS-16 Less than significant Demand on fire services in the Planned Urbanizing Area Less than significant Proposed UAGP update policies FS-1 through FS-18 Less than significant Increased fire risk in areas outside the city limits served by independent fire districts Significant, if future annexations result in financial insolvency of fire districts Proposed UAGP update policy FS-18 Less than significant contribution Generation of Solid Waste Impacts on solid waste in Baseline Developed, Planned Urbanizing, and Redevelopment Areas Less than significant Proposed UAGP update policies SW-8 through SW-16 Less than significant Cumulative impact on the generation of solid waste Less than significant Proposed UAGP update policies SW-8 through SW-16 Less than significant ---PAGE BREAK--- Chapter I. Executive Summary Modesto General Plan Update Final Master EIR I-16 Chapter I. Executive Summary October 2008 Resource Section Name Impact Topic Impact Level Policy/Mitigation Residual Impact Level Generation of Hazardous Materials Impacts of hazardous materials Less than significant Proposed UAGP update policies HM-1 through HM-26 Less than significant Release of hazardous materials from the Fink Road Landfill Less than significant Operation requirements from the California Integrated Waste Management Board and oversight of discharge permits by Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board Less than significant Cumulative impacts on the generation of hazardous materials significant Proposed UAGP update policies HM-1 through HM-26 Less than significant contribution Geology, Soils and Mineral Resources Impacts related to primary seismic hazards Less than significant Proposed UAGP update policies GSM-1 through GSM-6 and GSM-9 Less than significant Impacts related to secondary seismic hazards Less than significant Proposed UAGP update policy GSM-6 Less than significant Impacts related to engineered slope stability Less than significant Proposed UAGP update policies GSM-1, GSM-4, GSM-7, and GSM-8 Less than significant Impacts related to erosion and sedimentation Less than significant None Less than significant Impacts related to topsoil loss Less than significant Proposed UAGP update policies GSM-10 and GSM-11 Less than significant Impacts related to expansive soils Significant Proposed UAGP update policies GSM-1 and GSM-6 Less than significant Impacts related to mineral resources Less than significant None required Less than significant Cumulative impacts on geology, soils, and mineral resources Less than significant Proposed UAGP update policies GSM-1 through GSM-14 Less than significant contribution Energy Energy use within the Baseline Developed and Redevelopment Areas Less than significant None required Less than significant Energy use within the Planned Urbanizing Area Significant Proposed UAGP update policies E-6 through E-42 Significant and unavoidable Cumulative energy demand within California Contributions by Modesto are significant Proposed UAGP update policies E-6 through E-42 Significant and unavoidable contribution Effects on Visual Resources Visual impacts of new development in the Baseline Developed and Redevelopment Areas Less than significant None necessary Less than significant ---PAGE BREAK--- Chapter I. Executive Summary Modesto General Plan Update Final Master EIR I-17 Chapter I. Executive Summary October 2008 Resource Section Name Impact Topic Impact Level Policy/Mitigation Residual Impact Level Visual impacts in the Planned Urbanizing Area Significant Proposed UAGP update policies VR-2 through VR-10 Less than significant Increased light and glare in the Baseline Developed and Redevelopment Areas Less than significant None necessary Less than significant Increased light and glare in the Planned Urbanizing Area Significant Proposed UAGP update policy VR-3 Significant and unavoidable contribution Land Use and Planning Land use conflicts in the Baseline Developed and Redevelopment Areas Less than significant None necessary Less than significant Land use conflicts in the Planned Urbanizing Area Significant Proposed UAGP update policies LUP-27 through LUP- 63 Less than significant Cumulative conflicts between land uses The proposed UAGP would not contribute None necessary Less than significant contribution Climate Change Impacts on climate change by development in Baseline Developed and Redevelopment Areas Less than significant None necessary Less than significant Impacts on climate change by development in Planned Urbanizing Area Less than significant None necessary Less than significant Cumulative impacts on climate change Significant Proposed UAGP update policies CL-3 through CL-24 Significant and unavoidable contribution ---PAGE BREAK--- Chapter I. Executive Summary Modesto General Plan Update Final Master EIR I-18 Chapter I. Executive Summary October 2008 Table I-2. Impacts of the Alternatives Compared to the Proposed Project Impact Topic Proposed UAGP Update Alternative 1—No- Project Alternative Alternative 2—No Changes to Street Designations Traffic and circulation Significant and unavoidable Significant and unavoidable Significant and unavoidable Alternative 2 (would have greater transportation impacts along those roads than the proposed project would. However, it would have less of an impact than Alternative 1 because it would include other new traffic and transportation policies that are expected to increase transit ridership, improve flow through the use of roundabouts, encourage bicycle use and walking, and provide other benefits over current policies. Degradation of air quality Significant and unavoidable Significant and unavoidable Significant and unavoidable Lower VMT and new air quality policies would result in lesser air quality impacts Generation of noise Significant and unavoidable Significant and unavoidable Significant and unavoidable New policies and narrower arterials would result in lesser traffic noise impacts Effects on agricultural lands Significant and unavoidable Significant and unavoidable Significant and unavoidable Increased demand for long- term water supplies Significant and unavoidable Significant and unavoidable Significant and unavoidable Increased demand for sanitary sewer services Less than significant Less than significant Less than significant Loss of sensitive wildlife and plant habitat Significant and unavoidable Significant and unavoidable Alternative 1 would have somewhat more severe impacts than described above because it does not include updated protective policies proposed as a part of the proposed project. Significant and unavoidable Disturbance of archeological/historical sites Significant and unavoidable Significant and unavoidable Significant and unavoidable New policies would protect more resources, and narrower arterials would have less potential to adversely affect historic structures ---PAGE BREAK--- Chapter I. Executive Summary Modesto General Plan Update Final Master EIR I-19 Chapter I. Executive Summary October 2008 Impact Topic Proposed UAGP Update Alternative 1—No- Project Alternative Alternative 2—No Changes to Street Designations Increased demand for storm drainage Significant and unavoidable Significant and unavoidable Alternative 1 would have greater impacts on drainage than the proposed project in that it would not contain the protective policies proposed with the UAGP amendment. Significant and unavoidable Flooding and water quality Less than significant Less than significant Less than significant Increased demand for parks and open space Less than significant Less than significant Less than significant Increased demand for schools Less than significant Less than significant Less than significant Increased demand for police services Less than significant Less than significant Less than significant Increased demand for fire services Less than significant Significant and unavoidable Less than significant Generation of solid waste Less than significant Less than significant Less than significant Generation of hazardous materials Less than significant Less than significant Less than significant Geology, soils, and mineral resources Less than significant Less than significant Less than significant Energy Significant and unavoidable Significant and unavoidable Significant and unavoidable Effects on visual resources Significant and unavoidable Significant and unavoidable Significant and unavoidable Land use and planning Less than significant Less than significant Less than significant Climate change Significant and unavoidable Significant and unavoidable Significant and unavoidable Because the road changes proposed as part of the project are likely to increase VMT by reducing congestion and inducing additional travel, Alternative 2 would be expected to have a smaller impact than the proposed project because it would not include those road changes. ---PAGE BREAK--- Chapter I. Executive Summary Modesto General Plan Update Final Master EIR I-20 Chapter I. Executive Summary October 2008 b. Cumulative Impacts Potential significant cumulative impacts associated with the proposed UAGP update were identified in analysis of the proposed UAGP update. These include the following: conversion of agricultural lands; increased noise; air quality impacts; effects on historic/archaeological sites, loss of habitat; increased demand for storm drainage facilities, increased demand for water supply in drought years by 2020, increased demand for solid waste facilities, increased demand for energy, effects related to increased light and glare, traffic and circulation needs, and contribution to global climate change. E. REQUIRED APPROVALS The Master EIR will be used as the basis for analyzing later projects. As provided under CEQA, later analysis can be streamlined for those projects that are “within the scope” of the Master EIR (Public Resources Code Section 21157). A comprehensive list of the projects that will normally be considered within the scope of the Master EIR is contained in Chapter II of this document. ---PAGE BREAK--- Modesto General Plan Update Final Master EIR II-1 Chapter II. Implementation and Use of the Master Environmental Impact Report October 2008 Chapter II Implementation and Use of the Master Environmental Impact Report This chapter describes the requirements for a master environmental impact report (Master EIR) under state law, how this Master EIR meets those requirements, and the application of the Master EIR to the analysis of subsequent projects. A. REQUIRED CONTENTS OF A MASTER ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT Public Resources Code (PRC) Section 21157 states that a Master EIR may be prepared for any of a variety of projects, including, as in this case, a general plan. PRC Section 21157(b) describes the required contents of a Master EIR. This Master EIR complies with the requirements of PRC Section 21157(b) as follows. 1. Public Resources Code 21157(b)(1) a. Requirement PRC Section 21157(b)(1) states that a Master EIR prepared by a lead agency must include a “detailed statement as required by Section 21100.” b. How this Master Environmental Impact Report Implements the Requirement PRC Section 21100 describes the minimum contents of an environmental impact report (EIR). The Master EIR contains all required components, including a summary, a project description, an analysis of environmental impacts, the identification of feasible mitigation measures, and the identification of a reasonable range of alternatives. 2. Public Resources Code 21157(b)(2) a. Requirement PRC Section 21157(b)(1) states that a Master EIR prepared by a lead agency must include: A description of anticipated subsequent projects that would be within the scope of the master environmental impact report, that contains sufficient information with regard to the kind, size, intensity, and location of the subsequent projects, including, but not limited to, all of the following: The specific type of project anticipated to be undertaken. ---PAGE BREAK--- Chapter II. Implementation and Use of the Master Environmental Impact Report Modesto General Plan Update Final Master EIR II-2 Chapter II. Implementation and Use of the Master Environmental Impact Report October 2008 The maximum and minimum intensity of any anticipated subsequent project, such as the number of residences in a residential development, and, with regard to a public works facility, its anticipated capacity and service area. The anticipated location and alternative locations for any development projects. A capital outlay or capital improvement program, or other scheduling or implementing device that governs the submission and approval of subsequent projects. These requirements have been clarified by Section 15176(d) of the State California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines. That section provides that, with respect to items A–C above, where the project is a general plan or general plan update, the anticipated subsequent projects are described adequately when the general plan identifies the land use designations and the permissible densities and intensities of use. Further, with respect to item D above, a Master EIR may explain why practical planning considerations render it impractical to identify a capital improvements program or other scheduling device at the time the Master EIR is prepared. b. How this Master Environmental Impact Report Implements the Requirement The anticipated subsequent projects for this Master EIR are private development projects, such as subdivisions and conditional use permits; public development projects, such as capital improvements programs and wastewater master plans; and projects, such as comprehensive plans, that enable future private projects. The types of anticipated subsequent projects are identified later in this chapter and in Chapter VIII of the City of Modesto Urban Area General Plan (UAGP). Referencing the UAGP, the Master EIR identifies permissible densities and intensities of use for each land use designation. Proposed amendments to the UAGP are discussed in Chapter III, Project Description. The UAGP is incorporated by reference, with the exception of those portions proposed for amendment, in Chapter III. The UAGP provides for the phasing of future development of the Planned Urbanizing Area through the adoption of individual comprehensive plans. This fulfills the requirements of subdivision D of PRC Section 21157(b)(2). The timing of the individual comprehensive plans depends on market demand and the approval of sewer trunk line extensions. 3. Public Resources Code Section 21157(b)(3) a. Requirement PRC Section 21157(b)(3) states that a Master EIR must include: A description of potential impacts of anticipated subsequent projects for which there is not sufficient information reasonably available to support a full assessment of potential impacts in the master environmental impact report. This description shall not be construed as a limitation on the impacts which may be considered in a focused environmental impact report. ---PAGE BREAK--- Chapter II. Implementation and Use of the Master Environmental Impact Report Modesto General Plan Update Final Master EIR II-3 Chapter II. Implementation and Use of the Master Environmental Impact Report October 2008 b. How This Master Environmental Impact Report Implements the Requirement Each of the discussions of individual environmental issues in Chapter V traffic, air quality, et al.) discloses the potential impacts for which sufficient information to support a full assessment is currently unavailable. In addition, the Master EIR establishes the assumptions for determining whether a subsequent project is within the scope of the Master EIR and whether the Master EIR is considered current at the time that project is considered. B. CITY OF MODESTO URBAN AREA GENERAL PLAN GROWTH STRATEGY AND ANTICIPATED SUBSEQUENT PROJECTS The UAGP’s Growth Strategy Diagram identifies three subareas within the overall Modesto planning area: the Redevelopment Area, the Baseline Developed Area, and the Planned Urbanizing Area. These are illustrated in Figure II-1. The application of the Master EIR’s analysis and mitigation measures varies between these areas. The City’s procedures are described as follows. 1. Redevelopment Area On October 9, 2007, the Redevelopment Agency (RDA) adopted a new Master Plan, of which a key component is the revised Land Use Strategy Map. Concurrent with the General Plan Amendment and by separate action, the Amended Redevelopment Plan for the Modesto redevelopment Project is being amended to include the Land Use Strategy Map. The Amended Redevelopment Plan for the Modesto Redevelopment Project, adopted in November 1991, and as subsequently amended, and the Modesto Redevelopment Master Plan, adopted by the Redevelopment Agency in October 2007, or as subsequently amended, are incorporated by reference into the UAGP. The Redevelopment Area will develop in the future according to the adopted Redevelopment Master Plan and existing zoning. If a subsequent project within the Redevelopment Area conforms to the Redevelopment Master Plan and general plan designation, the initial study for the project will find it to be within the scope of this Master EIR unless there is a project-specific impact that was not analyzed in the Master EIR. All feasible mitigation measures appropriate to the project (as identified in this Master EIR and the Program EIR certified for the Redevelopment Master Plan) will be incorporated into the project, and public notice will be provided indicating that the City of Modesto (City) intends to use the Master EIR for the project. When the project is approved, the City will file a notice of determination. (PRC Section 21157.1.) 2. Baseline Developed Area Within the Baseline Developed Area, the UAGP reflects existing zoning. As a result, this area generally will be developed according to the existing zoning designations. If a subsequent project within this area conforms to the proposed UAGP, the initial study for the project will find it to be within the scope of this Master EIR unless there is a project-specific impact that was not analyzed in the Master EIR. No further environmental review will be required. All feasible mitigation measures appropriate to the project (as identified in this Master EIR) will be incorporated into the project, and public notice indicating that the City intends to use the Master ---PAGE BREAK--- Chapter II. Implementation and Use of the Master Environmental Impact Report Modesto General Plan Update Final Master EIR II-4 Chapter II. Implementation and Use of the Master Environmental Impact Report October 2008 EIR for the project will be provided. When the project is approved, the City will file a notice of determination. (PRC Section 21157.1.) 3. Planned Urbanizing Area The Planned Urbanizing Area encompasses the Comprehensive Planning Districts (CPDs) identified in Chapter III of the UAGP. This area is intended to contain most of the City’s growth through 2025. So that development proceeds in an orderly fashion, development in each of the CPDs is restricted until a comprehensive plan for that district has been adopted by the City. The comprehensive plan will implement the UAGP policies identified in Chapter III of the UAGP and establish development policies specific to that district. This includes the policies requiring adoption of one or more specific plans to specify the intensity and location of development within the district. A focused EIR, as defined in PRC Section 21158, will be required prior to development in each CPD as specific plans are proposed. As long as development allowed by the proposed comprehensive plan does not exceed the intensities allowed by the UAGP (reflected in the total number of dwelling units and acres of employment land uses specified in the Community Development Policies section of the UAGP), no analysis of cumulative impacts, growth-inducing impacts, or irreversible significant impacts on the environment will be required in the focused EIR. The issue-specific environmental analyses in Chapter V of this Master EIR serve to further define the analyses that would be required for each focused EIR. Future focused EIRs will modify this Master EIR to keep it up-to-date as required under PRC Section 21157.6. C. ANTICIPATED SUBSEQUENT PROJECTS With one exception, certification of a Master EIR streamlines the analysis of subsequent projects that are within the scope of that Master EIR. The mitigation measures identified in the Master EIR, in conjunction with the policies of the UAGP, will be applied to those subsequent projects as conditions of approval. In order to be considered for streamlined environmental review, “anticipated subsequent projects” must be identified in the Master EIR. Eighteen types of subsequent projects are hereby declared to be “within the scope of the Master EIR,” as defined in PRC Section 21157.1. Unless otherwise stated, the City will be the lead agency for each of these subsequent projects. Except as may be described in Chapter III, Project Description, none of these subsequent projects is being considered in conjunction with the UAGP Amendment being analyzed as part of this Master EIR. At such time as they are considered, these subsequent projects will be subject to the preparation of an initial study that will determine whether they are “within the scope of the Master EIR.” The initial study also will determine whether they have been adequately described in the Master EIR or whether a mitigated negative declaration or focused EIR must be prepared. ---PAGE BREAK--- Figure II-1 ---PAGE BREAK--- Chapter II. Implementation and Use of the Master Environmental Impact Report Modesto General Plan Update Final Master EIR II-5 Chapter II. Implementation and Use of the Master Environmental Impact Report October 2008 The Master EIR’s use in analyzing subsequent projects is limited once the Master EIR is 5 years old or if a new project brings to light information that would affect the adequacy of the Master EIR’s analyses. These conditions are described in PRC Section 21157.6(a) as follows. The certification of the master environmental impact report occurred more than five years prior to the filing of an application for the subsequent project. The filing of an application for the subsequent project occurs following the certification of the master environmental impact report, and the approval of a project that was not described in the master environmental impact report, may affect the adequacy of the environmental review in the master environmental impact report for any subsequent project. PRC Section 21157.6 explains how this limitation can be avoided. A master environmental impact report that was certified more than five years prior to the filing of an application for the subsequent project may be used for purposes of this chapter to review a subsequent project that was described in the master environmental impact report if the lead agency reviews the adequacy of the master environmental impact report and does either of the following: Finds that no substantial changes have occurred with respect to the circumstances under which the master environmental impact report was certified or that no new information, which was not known and could not have been known at the time that the master environmental impact report was certified as complete, has become available. Prepares an Initial Study and, pursuant to the findings of the Initial Study, does either of the following: Certifies a subsequent or supplemental environmental impact report that has been either incorporated into the previously certified master environmental impact report or references any deletions, additions, or any other modifications to the previously certified master environmental impact report. Approves a mitigated negative declaration that addresses substantial changes that have occurred with respect to the circumstances under which the master environmental impact report was certified or the new information that was not known and could not have been known at the time the master environmental impact report was certified. 1. Sphere-of-Influence Amendment The City’s sphere of influence delineates the probable physical boundaries and service area established by the Stanislaus County (County) Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCo) pursuant to Government Code Section 56425(e). The LAFCo, in determining the sphere of influence, must consider each of the following issues. The present and planned land uses in the area, including agricultural and open-space lands. The present and probable need for public facilities and services in the area. The present capacity of public facilities and adequacy of public services that the agency provides or is authorized to provide. The existence of any social or economic communities of interest in the area if the commission determines that they are relevant to the agency. ---PAGE BREAK--- Chapter II. Implementation and Use of the Master Environmental Impact Report Modesto General Plan Update Final Master EIR II-6 Chapter II. Implementation and Use of the Master Environmental Impact Report October 2008 Government Code Sections 56426 and 56426.5 limit the extension of a sphere of influence to lands that are subject to either a Williamson Act or “Super Williamson Act” agricultural land conservation contract. The UAGP covers an area larger than the incorporated limits of the city and its current sphere of influence. In order to eventually annex those adjoining lands, the City must apply to the LAFCo for amendments to its sphere of influence. Upon annexation to the City, development would occur as outlined in the UAGP. The provisions of the Planned Urbanizing Area would apply to the City’s review of proposed amendments to its sphere of influence. 2. Annexation Annexation is the inclusion, attachment, or addition of territory to a city (Government Code Section 56017). Like the establishment of a sphere of influence, annexation is subject to review and approval by the LAFCo. Annexation may be initiated by the City or by a petition of property owners, in accordance with the requirements of the Cortese-Knox-Hertzberg Local Government Reorganization Act (Government Code Section 56000 et seq.) and LAFCo policy. Annexation to the City brings the affected land under the land-use controls of the City, in addition to bringing it within the City’s service area. Government Code Section 56301 sets out the following philosophy for LAFCo actions. Among the purposes of a commission are discouraging urban sprawl, preserving open-space and prime agricultural lands, efficiently providing government services, and encouraging the orderly formation and development of local agencies based upon local conditions and circumstances. One of the objects of the commission is to make studies and to obtain and furnish information which will contribute to the logical and reasonable development of local agencies in each county and to shape the development of local agencies so as to advantageously provide for the present and future needs of each county and its communities. Government Code Section 56668 requires the LAFCo to consider the following factors in determining whether to approve an annexation proposal. Population and population density; land area and land use; per capita assessed valuation; topography, natural boundaries, and drainage basins; proximity to other populated areas; the likelihood of significant growth in the area and in adjacent incorporated and unincorporated areas, during the next 10 years. Need for organized community services; the present cost and adequacy of governmental services and controls in the area; probable future needs for those services and controls; probable effect of the proposed incorporation, formation, annexation, or exclusion and of alternative courses of action on the cost and adequacy of services and controls in the area and adjacent areas. “Services” refers to governmental services whether or not the services are services that would be provided by local agencies subject to [LAFCo regulation] and includes the public facilities necessary to provide those services. The effect of the proposed action and of alternative actions on adjacent areas, on mutual social and economic interests, and on the local governmental structure of the county. ---PAGE BREAK--- Chapter II. Implementation and Use of the Master Environmental Impact Report Modesto General Plan Update Final Master EIR II-7 Chapter II. Implementation and Use of the Master Environmental Impact Report October 2008 The conformity of the proposal and its anticipated effects [with the LAFCo’s adopted policies regarding] planned, orderly, efficient patterns of urban development and the [state policies and priorities discouraging the conversion of agricultural land and the conversion of open-space land prior to utilization of land within the City or its sphere.] The effect of the proposal on maintaining the physical and economic integrity of agricultural lands. The definiteness and certainty of the boundaries of the territory, the nonconformance of proposed boundaries with lines of assessment or ownership, the creation of islands or corridors of unincorporated territory, and other similar matters affecting the proposed boundaries. Consistency with city or county general and specific plans. The sphere of influence of any local agency which may be applicable to the proposal. The comments of any affected local agency. The ability of the newly formed or receiving entity to provide the services which are the subject of the application to the area, including the sufficiency of revenues for such services following the proposed boundary change. Timely availability of water supplies adequate for projected needs as specified in Section 65352.5. The extent to which the proposal will [assist the receiving entity in achieving its fair share] of the regional housing needs as determined by the appropriate council of governments. Any information or comments from the landowner or owners, voters, or residents of the affected territory. Any information relating to existing land use designations. The extent to which the proposal will promote environmental justice. As used in this subdivision, “environmental justice” means the fair treatment of people of all races, cultures, and incomes with respect to the location of public facilities and the provision of public services. The City will pursue the eventual annexation of all those lands within the Modesto planning area, including unincorporated “islands” that are currently surrounded by the city limits. This course of action will involve making a number of annexation requests to LAFCo. The provisions of the Planned Urbanizing Area would apply to the City’s review of proposed annexations. 3. Comprehensive Plans A comprehensive plan is a policy document that serves to implement the CPD concept promulgated by Section III-D of the UAGP. A comprehensive plan would implement the UAGP by creating a bridge between UAGP policies and the more specific policies that will be applied to individual developments. Ideally, a comprehensive plan would direct all facets of future development within the CPD, including the distribution of land uses, the location and sizing of supporting infrastructure, methods of financing public improvements, and standards of development. Modesto eventually will adopt comprehensive plans for all 25 of the CPDs identified in the UAGP. Development under an adopted comprehensive plan—whether it is a conditional use permit, subdivision, or rezoning—will be required to conform to the policies and planning diagrams of that plan. Each comprehensive plan would conform to the policies of the UAGP. The UAGP explains ---PAGE BREAK--- Chapter II. Implementation and Use of the Master Environmental Impact Report Modesto General Plan Update Final Master EIR II-8 Chapter II. Implementation and Use of the Master Environmental Impact Report October 2008 that one or more specific plans will be adopted within each CPD. That specific plan or plans will constitute the comprehensive plan for that CPD. As discussed above, adoption of a comprehensive plan will require a focused EIR that examines the CPD-specific issues that were not fully analyzed in the Master EIR for the UAGP. 4. Specific Plans The City may use specific plans, as defined under Government Code Section 65450, to meet the requirement for preparation of comprehensive plans. Specific plans also will require a focused EIR. 5. Zoning The City’s zoning ordinance is Title X of the Modesto Municipal Code. Zoning regulates the use of buildings, structures, and land for residences, business, industry, open space, and public uses. It is one means by which the UAGP is implemented. Whereas a general plan establishes policies to guide development, zoning is one of the regulatory methods by which a city puts those policies into action. Under the City’s zoning ordinance, each parcel of land is assigned a zoning designation Low Density Residential Medium Density Residential and Professional Office that describes the allowable uses and development standards applicable to that parcel. The City may undertake rezonings at the request of private applicants or on its own for the purpose of implementing the UAGP. Rezonings in the Baseline Developed Area, Redevelopment Area, and Planned Urbanizing Area are within the scope of the UAGP’s Master EIR if they are consistent with the UAGP or an approved comprehensive plan. The City will determine whether further environmental analysis is needed after preparation of an initial study. 6. Miscellaneous Land Use Permits The City processes a variety of permits that facilitate development. Examples include the following. a. Conditional Use Permits (Authorized under Section 10-2.2503 of the Modesto Municipal Code) These are discretionary permits through which the City considers whether to approve a particular use of land and what conditions to place on an approval. The range of possible conditional uses is established under the zoning ordinance, as are the requirements for public notice and hearing. ---PAGE BREAK--- Chapter II. Implementation and Use of the Master Environmental Impact Report Modesto General Plan Update Final Master EIR II-9 Chapter II. Implementation and Use of the Master Environmental Impact Report October 2008 Each year the City considers many conditional use permit applications, submitted primarily by private applicants. b. Variances (Authorized under Section 10-2.2501 of the Modesto Municipal Code) A variance is a limited exception from the standards normally applicable under the zoning ordinance for which special circumstances exist such that the affected property does not enjoy the same benefits as nearby properties in the same zone. The standards by which to judge the validity of a variance request, as well as the requirements for public notice and hearing, are established by the zoning ordinance. Each year the City considers many variance requests, submitted primarily by private applicants. c. Building Permits (Authorized under Title 9 of the Modesto Municipal Code) With few exceptions, before construction can be started, a building permit must be obtained from the City. The permit establishes that construction is taking place in accordance with accepted building codes. Building permits are issued routinely and require no public notice or hearing. 7. Subdivisions The division of land for sale, lease, or financing is governed by the state Subdivision Map Act (Government Code Section 66410, et seq.), as administered by the City’s subdivision regulations (Section 4-4.4101 et seq. of the Modesto Municipal Code). The creation of four or fewer lots is a minor, or parcel map, subdivision. The creation of five or more lots is a major subdivision and generally subject to more intensive development standards. Subdivisions are another means of implementing the UAGP and cannot be approved unless consistent with the UAGP. The City approves numerous subdivisions each year for residential, commercial, and industrial projects. The Modesto Municipal Code sets forth requirements for subdivision applications, such as the requirements for public notice and hearings. Subdivisions will be subject to review in all of the three subareas, as discussed in Section B above. 8. Development Agreements A development agreement is a contract between the City and a developer that establishes vested rights to develop property in a particular manner under the rules in existence at the time the agreement is entered into. Development agreements are voluntary, so in most cases the City only enters into an agreement if the developer agrees to certain concessions. A development agreement is effective for the period of time established in the agreement (usually 10 to 20 years). Government Code Section 65865 et seq. establishes the rules for these agreements. ---PAGE BREAK--- Chapter II. Implementation and Use of the Master Environmental Impact Report Modesto General Plan Update Final Master EIR II-10 Chapter II. Implementation and Use of the Master Environmental Impact Report October 2008 A development agreement must be consistent with the UAGP and thereby implements the UAGP. Such an agreement must be heard by the Planning Commission and Modesto City Council before approval may be granted. Development agreements may be considered in any of the three subareas but are expected to be most prevalent in the Planned Urbanizing Area. 9. Capital Improvement Program The City’s Capital Improvement Program (CIP) guides the funding and construction of all public improvements constructed by the City, including roads, wastewater treatment facilities, water lines, and parks. Government Code Section 65401 provides that public works projects must be reviewed by the City for conformity with the UAGP. The CIP embodies this review. The CIP will address subsequent projects in all three subareas. 10. Redevelopment Plan The Community Redevelopment Act (Health and Safety Code Section 33000 et seq.) enables a city to establish a redevelopment agency for the purpose of eliminating urban blight. The act gives the redevelopment agency certain fundamental tools, including: a. the authority to buy real property, including the power to use eminent domain for redevelopment purposes; b. the authority to sell property without bidding; c. the authority to relocate persons and the obligation to provide relocation assistance; and d. the authority to impose land use and development controls pursuant to a comprehensive plan of redevelopment. Redevelopment activities will be confined to the Redevelopment Area. The Modesto City Council serves as the board of directors for the Redevelopment Agency. It holds joint public hearings over redevelopment activities. The City typically makes many decisions related to Redevelopment Agency activities each year. The Redevelopment Master Plan was adopted in 2007 and is consistent with the UAGP. A minor amendment to the Redevelopment Plan has been proposed to ensure continued consistency between the Redevelopment Plan and the General Plan. The Redevelopment Plan Amendment will be concurrently considered by Planning Commission and City Council with the General Plan Amendment. 11. Parks Facilities Plans The City Parks, Recreation and Neighborhoods Department is responsible for constructing and maintaining public parks and recreation facilities throughout Modesto. To guide development of these facilities, the City uses a variety of tools, including park master plans and design development reports for neighborhood, community, and regional parks; Modesto Non-Motorized Transportation Master Plan; Tuolumne River Regional Park Master Plan; and the City of Modesto Design Standards for Dual Use Flood Control/Recreation Facilities manual. As is the case with the CIP, ---PAGE BREAK--- Chapter II. Implementation and Use of the Master Environmental Impact Report Modesto General Plan Update Final Master EIR II-11 Chapter II. Implementation and Use of the Master Environmental Impact Report October 2008 parks facilities plans are subject to review for consistency with the UAGP pursuant to Government Code Section 65401. Parks facilities plans may be adopted in any of the three subareas but are expected to be most prevalent in the Planned Urbanizing Area. When a comprehensive plan has been adopted, parks facilities plans also will be required to reflect the pertinent mitigation measures identified in the focused EIR for the comprehensive plan. 12. Stanislaus County Airport Land Use Plan The County Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) is authorized under Section 21670 of the Public Utilities Code to adopt comprehensive airport land use plans for general use airports in the county “that will provide for the orderly growth of each public airport and the area surrounding each public airport.” The UAGP and County General Plan must be consistent with the airport land use plan. In formulating the airport land use plan, the ALUC may establish height restrictions on buildings, specify the uses of land, and determine building standards within the airport planning area. The airport land use plan cannot control airport operations, however. The County airport land use plan was adopted in 1978. It may be amended from time to time and may necessitate related amendments to the UAGP if inconsistencies arise. The Modesto City- County Airport is located within the Baseline Developed Area. 13. Household Hazardous Waste Element Under the California Integrated Waste Management Act, the City is required to adopt a household hazardous waste element. This is not a UAGP element, but rather an element of the County’s integrated waste management plan (IWMP). This element identifies a program for the safe collection, recycling, treatment, and disposal of hazardous wastes that are generated by City households and should be separated from the solid waste stream. PRC Section 41500 requires the Modesto City Council to submit its household hazardous waste element to the County. The household hazardous waste element applies citywide and affects all three planning subareas. 14. Source Reduction and Recycling Element The Integrated Waste Management Act also requires the City to adopt a source reduction and recycling element (SRRE) to show the methods by which the City will reduce the amount of solid waste being disposed of by city residents. This is also an element of the County’s IWMP and must be submitted to the County for inclusion in the plan. The SRRE applies citywide and would affect all three subareas. ---PAGE BREAK--- Chapter II. Implementation and Use of the Master Environmental Impact Report Modesto General Plan Update Final Master EIR II-12 Chapter II. Implementation and Use of the Master Environmental Impact Report October 2008 15. Wastewater Master Plan Modesto adopted the Wastewater Master Plan in 2007 in order to construct, operate, and maintain various wastewater collection and treatment facilities. The purpose of the Wastewater Master Plan is to implement the wastewater policies of the UAGP. Accordingly, the plan will allow the City to meet the wastewater collection and treatment needs projected at UAGP buildout in 2025. A Master EIR was prepared for the Wastewater Master Plan. That document will form the basis, pursuant to PRC Section 21157.1, for CEQA compliance as each component of the Wastewater Master Plan is proposed for construction. 16. Urban Water Management Plan The joint Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP) was adopted in 2007. It describes the City’s long-term water supplies, as well as its management program to ensure that customers will be adequately served. The purpose of the UWMP is to implement the water policies established in Section V-C of the UAGP. Future amendment of the UWMP shall be considered an anticipated subsequent project in the context of PRC Section 21157. However, because the specific facilities covered by future UWMPs are not determined at this time, a focused EIR or subsequent mitigated negative declaration will be required prior to the adoption of these plans. 17. Storm Water Facilities Plans Storm water drainage facilities may be constructed, operated, maintained, and replaced in a manner that will provide the best possible service to the public, given the financial abilities and constraints of the City and the private sector. In developing implementation plans, consideration may be given to rehabilitation of existing facilities, remediation of developed areas with inadequate levels of drainage service, and timely expansion of the system for future development. The purpose of these facilities is to implement the policies of Section V-E of the UAGP. The City adopted a Storm Drainage Master Plan in 2007. Each of these facilities’ plans shall be considered “an anticipated subsequent project” in the context of PRC Section 21157. However, because the specific facilities covered by these plans are not determined at this time, a focused EIR or subsequent mitigated negative declaration will be required prior to the adoption of these plans. 18. Public Facilities Financing Plans Local governments have a number of options available for financing public facilities such as streets, sewers, water, drainage, schools, parks, fire and police stations, and public utilities. Examples of these options currently used or contemplated by the City include: Mello-Roos community facilities districts, Landscaping and Lighting Act and other assessment districts, Capital Facilities Fees programs, Area of Benefit procedures, and a long-range financial plan. ---PAGE BREAK--- Chapter II. Implementation and Use of the Master Environmental Impact Report Modesto General Plan Update Final Master EIR II-13 Chapter II. Implementation and Use of the Master Environmental Impact Report October 2008 Virtually all of these public facilities are or will be programmed for construction under a policy document such as a master plan or the capital improvements program mentioned in Section C-9 above. Because the environmental review for these facilities will be undertaken with the policy documents, which describe the physical change resulting from the facilities, the financing of these facilities will not trigger subsequent environmental review. The financing is outside the definition of “project” under PRC Section 21065. D. RESPONSIBLE AGENCIES Pursuant to PRC Section 21157.1(a), a responsible agency may become the lead agency for a subsequent project under the Master EIR. The following are considered responsible agencies for the purposes of this Master EIR (typical permits or actions that qualify the following as responsible agencies are listed in parentheses): 1. the County LAFCo (sphere of influence amendment and annexation); 2. the County (airport land use plan, IWMP, rezoning, County General Plan, or community plan amendment); 3. the California Department of Fish and Game (streambed alteration agreement and incidental “take” permit); 4. the California Department of Public Health (water supply permits); 5. the California Department of Transportation (road widenings, highway encroachment permits, and airport expansion); 6. the State Lands Commission (lease of public trust lands); 7. the State Water Resources Control Board (biosolids permits); 8. the state Department of Water Resources, Reclamation Board (floodplain and levee encroachment permits); 9. the Regional Water Quality Control Board (waste discharge requirements, National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permits, and Clean Water Act certifications); 10. the California Public Utilities Commission (construction or alteration of a railroad crossing); and 11. the Modesto Irrigation District. ---PAGE BREAK--- Modesto General Plan Update Final Master EIR III-1 Chapter III. Project Description October 2008 Chapter III Project Description A. DESCRIPTION 1. Background This master environmental impact report (Master EIR) examines the City of Modesto Urban Area General Plan (UAGP), as amended, and updates the 2003 Master EIR accordingly. The Master EIR examines potential impacts at the UAGP’s level of detail. It will apply to individual development projects that are considered under the UAGP in the future, but it does not specifically analyze any given development project. The “project” analyzed in this updated Master EIR consists of an amendment to the UAGP, together with a minor amendment to the Redevelopment Plan. The UAGP was last comprehensively updated in 1995, when the UAGP and a Master EIR were adopted as cohesive planning and environmental mitigation documents. Since 1995, more than 20 UAGP amendments have been adopted along with updates to the Master EIR. A new Master EIR was certified for the UAGP in 2003 to address the numerous updates to the UAGP. The current UAGP Amendment (proposed project) responds to changes in federal, state, and local policies that have occurred since the UAGP was adopted by the Modesto City Council in 1995 and amended in 2003. The horizon of the UAGP is 2025. The housing element of the UAGP was updated and certified in 2004. It will not be amended as part of the amendment of the UAGP. A new traffic model for the Modesto–Stanislaus County region has been prepared and applied to the proposed project. The proposed project incorporates current utility master plans and the new traffic model, as well as past changes to the UAGP. Other than changing the designations of selected roads, no changes are proposed to the UAGP’s existing circulation diagram. Additionally, no major changes to land use patterns are proposed. However, the UAGP amendment will revise some of the land use designations. The UAGP amendment is intended to extend the useful life of the UAGP until a comprehensive update is completed. According to state law, the Master EIR must be updated in conjunction with the UAGP being updated. The Master EIR update is also consistent with provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) that require periodic review and update of Master EIRs. As mentioned elsewhere, a minor amendment to the Redevelopment Plan has also been proposed to ensure continued consistency between the Redevelopment Plan and the Urban Area General Plan. The Redevelopment Plan Amendment will be concurrently considered by Planning Commission and City Council with the amendment to the Urban Area General Plan. ---PAGE BREAK--- Chapter III. Project Description Modesto General Plan Update Final Master EIR III-2 Chapter III. Project Description October 2008 2. Project Location Modesto is located in Stanislaus County, in the northern San Joaquin Valley, approximately 95 miles east of San Francisco and 80 miles south of Sacramento (see Figure III-1, “Project Vicinity”). The City of Ceres is located immediately south of the Modesto city limits, the City of Riverbank is located immediately northeast, and the unincorporated town of Salida is located northwest. The Modesto city limits include an area of 36.9 square miles. The City of Modesto’s (City’s) sphere of influence comprises an additional 19 square miles and land within the Modesto planning area’s boundary but outside of the sphere of influence includes another 19.8 square miles. The City of Modesto planning area encompasses approximately 67 square miles or 42,900 acres. The planning area is generally bounded by the Stanislaus River on the north; Whitmore Avenue on the south; Morse Road, Toomes Road, and Hammett Road on the west; and North Santa Fe Avenue and the Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railroad on the east. The City’s planning area encompasses Salida (see Figure III-2, “City of Modesto Planning Area”). The planning area generally describes the lands that are anticipated to be urbanized by 2025. 3. Project Elements The proposed project is an amendment of the UAGP intended to modernize it, not to develop a new vision for Modesto. The proposed project would not revise the land use diagram, UAGP boundary, or sphere of influence, and the horizon would continue to be 2025. Updates to the UAGP included in this amendment fall into three major categories: incorporating as policy those City practices that are regularly approved and which effectively have become policy, proposing policies (amendments to the UAGP) to provide direction for anticipated issues, and incorporating adopted policies that are not currently reflected in the UAGP. The following lists identify the proposed updates to the UAGP within these three major categories. a. Practices as Policies The UAGP amendment incorporates as policies the following practices that are regularly approved. These policies have not been the subject of prior environmental review. „ Land use classifications—The descriptions of land use classifications are updated where necessary and refined to provide better correlation to zoning. „ Sphere-of-influence development—Development that occurs within the sphere of influence, as well as the relationship between City and County, are addressed. „ Construction of rock wells—New policies restrict the construction of new rock wells. „ “Potable well water” definition—A definition of “potable well water” is added to the proposed project. ---PAGE BREAK--- Figure III-1 Project Vicinity ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- Chapter III. Project Description Modesto General Plan Update Final Master EIR III-3 Chapter III. Project Description October 2008 b. Proposed Policies The UAGP amendment includes new policies to provide direction for anticipated issues. These policies have not been the subject of prior environmental review. „ Infrastructure financing—Utilities policies are revised to provide for timely and effective financing of infrastructure for new growth. Pay-as-you-go financing is changed to “up front” infrastructure construction. „ Comprehensive Planning District policies—Policies for the implementation of Comprehensive Planning Districts (CPDs) are expanded to better guide future specific plans and development with respect to land use policies, public facilities, and infrastructure planning. „ Air quality element—Data, analysis, goals, policies, and implementation strategies of the air quality section will be revised pursuant to Assembly Bill 170, “Air Quality Element: San Joaquin Valley” (codified in Section 65302.1 of the Government Code), which requires each city and county in the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District to amend its general plan (either through existing elements or by adding an air quality element) to include analyses, goals, policies, and implementation strategies to improve air quality in the region. „ Annexation policies—Current annexation policies are examined to determine the need for any policy revision in light of the Cortese-Knox-Hertzberg Local Government Reorganization Act of 2000 and Stanislaus County Local Agency Formation Commission procedures. „ Minimum specific plan size—The proposed project recommends a minimum specific plan size. „ Dry Creek and Tuolumne River CPDs—Development in the Dry Creek and Tuolumne River CPDs is addressed in the proposed UAGP. „ Biological and archaeological resource study areas—The proposed project revises the boundaries to better reflect biologically and archaeologically sensitive areas, and provide general biological mitigation measures. „ Provision of sewer and water service within the sphere of influence—The proposed project addresses the provision of sewer and water service within the City’s sphere of influence. „ Development in the 100-year floodplain—The proposed project addresses restrictions on development within the 100-year floodplain and incorporates the most recent Flood Insurance Rate Map information. „ Archaeological and cultural resources—Policy updates related to archaeological, cultural, and historic resources are based on state law, including State CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5. This includes adding historic resources to the City’s list. General policies regarding paleontological resources are included to reflect the potential for encountering resources. Separately, the plan amendment process has included required consultations with Native American tribes pursuant to Senate Bill 18. „ Separate sewer and water connections—Separate sewer and water connections for each dwelling unit are addressed in the proposed project. ---PAGE BREAK--- Chapter III. Project Description Modesto General Plan Update Final Master EIR III-4 Chapter III. Project Description October 2008 „ Public infrastructure in private developments—The proposed project defines public infrastructure in private developments. „ Police staffing goal—The proposed project establishes a police staffing goal of 1.85 sworn officers per 1,000 citizens. „ Fire department response times—The proposed project establishes Modesto Fire Department response time standards. „ Timing of street frontage improvements for minor annexations—The proposed project addresses the timing of frontage improvements for minor annexations of County islands. „ San Joaquin Regional Rail Commission report—The proposed project responds to the San Joaquin Regional Rail Commission report, if it is available. „ Redevelopment Master Plan—UAGP policies are reviewed and revised to be consistent with the Redevelopment Master Plan, adopted on October 9, 2007. „ Utilities/infrastructure—Utility policies are updated to reflect utility constraints and coordinate with the imminent updates of the Storm Water Master Plan, as well as the Water Master Plan anticipated to be completed in 2008. For the purposes of infrastructure planning, the eventual population in the City’s sphere of influence is estimated to be between 334,000 and 357,000 people by 2030. „ Road system changes—In addition to traffic policy revisions, the following are known needed changes to the road network. ‰ Dale Road—A change from a minor arterial to a principal arterial in the entire Modesto planning area and a change from four lanes with the possibility of bike lanes to six lanes with no bike lanes. ‰ Bangs Avenue—A change from a minor collector to a major collector with bike path from Dale Road to Tully Road and a change from two travel lanes to four travel lanes with bike lanes. ‰ Claratina Expressway—Revision of the alignment, and a change from a four-lane expressway to a six-lane principal arterial east of Oakdale Road to Roselle Avenue, which allows for four travel lanes and Class I bicycle facilities. ‰ Carpenter Road—A change from a six-lane expressway to a principal arterial with bike lanes from State Route 132 to Whitmore Avenue and a change from six lanes without bike lanes to six lanes with bike lanes. ‰ Claus Road—Moving the alignment of Claus Road from Floyd Avenue to Claratina Avenue west of the Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railroad tracks. ‰ Sylvan Avenue—A change from principal arterial to minor arterial with Class II bicycle facilities from Oakdale Road to Roselle Avenue. „ Mitigation in the MEIR—Mitigation arising in the Master EIR would be included in the proposed project as policies. ---PAGE BREAK--- Chapter III. Project Description Modesto General Plan Update Final Master EIR III-5 Chapter III. Project Description October 2008 c. Include Adopted Policies The UAGP Amendment incorporates the following adopted policies. These policies have been the subject of prior environmental review, as part of adoption. „ Specific plan implementation—Policy language that describes the elements of the comprehensive planning process and policies supporting and referencing the specific plan preparation guidelines adopted on October 5, 2004, is included in the proposed project. „ Urban design—The UAGP Amendment includes adopted policies that would support the preparation of design guidance documents, such as the Guidelines for Small Lot Single-Family Residential Development. The recently adopted Guidelines for Commercial and Industrial Development is incorporated into the proposed project by reference. „ Utilities/infrastructure—Utility policies are updated to reflect utility constraints and coordinate with the recently updated Wastewater Master Plan and the adopted Joint Urban Water Management Plan (May 2007). For the purposes of infrastructure planning, the eventual population in the City’s sphere of influence is estimated to be between 334,000 and 357,000 people. „ Roundabout Policy—The proposed project incorporates the adopted City Roundabout Policy (dated September 2004) by reference. „ 1991 and 1998 traffic study criteria—The proposed project incorporates the adopted 1991 and 1998 traffic study criteria. „ Expressway access policy—The proposed project incorporates the adopted expressway access policy that regulates and limits the number and design of expressway access locations in order to ensure the overall operational viability of expressways in the community. „ Storm water—The proposed project includes water quality and watershed protection principles that have been incorporated into the storm drainage section of the UAGP, consistent with the City’s National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permit, stormwater pollution prevention plan, and new guidelines. „ Dual-use park-basin policy—The (December 12, 2000) adopted dual-use park-basin policy incorporates by reference into the proposed project. „ “Nonconforming” parks—The definition of the policy (adopted in June 2005) to sell “nonconforming” parks is included in the proposed project. „ Long Range Transit Plan—The Long Range Transit Plan for the City of Modesto (adopted in August 2000) is incorporated by reference into the proposed project. „ Hazard Mitigation Plan—The proposed project is by reference the Hazard Mitigation Plan, adopted September 2005. „ City of Modesto 2001–2004 Strategic Plan—Appropriate objectives and policies from the adopted City of Modesto 2001–2004 Strategic Plan are incorporated into the proposed project. „ Measure M (Citizens’ Advisory Growth Management Act of 1995)—The adopted Measure M policy is incorporated into the proposed project by reference. ---PAGE BREAK--- Chapter III. Project Description Modesto General Plan Update Final Master EIR III-6 Chapter III. Project Description October 2008 „ Reasonable certainty policy—The proposed project incorporates the reasonable- certainty policy adopted in May 2006, which requires that adequate wastewater treatment and disposal capacity can be provided for the annexed area; it also incorporates the adopted 10 percent risk policy, which addresses the risk of violating the City’s permit to discharge wastewater effluent to the San Joaquin River. „ Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design policies—Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED) policies are incorporated into the proposed project by reference. „ Kaiser Medical Center—Policies adopted in association with the approval of Kaiser Medical Center (August 10, 2004) are incorporated into the proposed project by reference. „ UAGP Amendments—General Plan Amendments (GPAs) adopted since the 2003 UAGP, as well as those currently in progress, are incorporated into the proposed project. Adopted UAGP amendments have previously undergone environmental review. ‰ GPA 03-002: Housing Element Update—adopted by Modesto City Council Resolution No. 2004-233 (April 27, 2004). ‰ GPA 04-002: Regional Commercial to Residential, Coffee/Claratina—adopted by Modesto City Council Resolution No. 2005-70 (January 25, 2005). ‰ GPA 06-02: Add “Principal Arterial with Bike Lanes” as a Classification to the UAGP and adopt the Non-Motorized Transportation Master Plan—adopted by Modesto City Council Resolution No. 2007-065 (January 9, 2007). d. Potential Project Alternatives The following alternatives are described in more detail in Chapter VIII, Alternatives Analysis, of this Master EIR. Alternative 1. No-Project Alternative This assumes that the 1995 UAGP would continue to be the City’s general plan. No amendments would be made. Alternative 2. No Changes to Street Designations Under this alternative, the street designations contained in the current UAGP would be retained. None of the changes to street designations that are described above would be made. B. THE PURPOSE OF THE MASTER ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT A Master EIR provides a comprehensive overview of the potential environmental impacts that would result from adopting or amending a general plan, mitigation measures to avoid or minimize those impacts, ---PAGE BREAK--- Chapter III. Project Description Modesto General Plan Update Final Master EIR III-7 Chapter III. Project Description October 2008 and alternatives to the general plan that would lessen or avoid those impacts. The Master EIR provides the basis for streamlining the review of later projects that are “within its scope.” Projects that are consistent with the analysis contained in the Master EIR will not, in most cases, require extensive additional environmental review before they can be approved. An Initial Study (IS) will be prepared for such projects to document their consistency with the Master EIR, after which a finding of conformance can be made. Other projects that are within the scope of the Master EIR, but that have project-specific impacts that were not analyzed there, will be addressed in either Mitigated Negative Declarations (MNDs) or Focused EIRs. 1. California Environmental Quality Act Requirements The contents and use of Master EIRs are prescribed by the CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines (Section 21000 et seq., Title, 14, Chapter 3, California Code of Regulations). Public Resources Code (PRC) Section 21156 states, with regard to Master EIRs: It is the intent of the Legislature in enacting this chapter that a master environmental impact report shall evaluate the cumulative impacts, growth inducing impacts, and irreversible significant effects on the environment of subsequent projects to the greatest extent feasible. The Legislature further intends that the environmental review of subsequent projects be substantially reduced to the extent that the projects impacts have been reviewed and appropriate mitigation measures are set forth in a certified master environmental impact report. 2. Modesto’s Master Environmental Impact Report Modesto originally certified its Master EIR in 1995 with the adoption of the UAGP. PRC Section 21157.6 provides that in order to continue using the Master EIR as a basis for project approvals, the City must periodically, but not less than every 5 years, review the adequacy of the Master EIR and either: find that no substantial changes have occurred with respect to the circumstances under which the Master EIR was certified, or no new information, which was not known and could not have been known at the time the Master EIR was certified, has since become available; or certify a subsequent or supplemental EIR which is then incorporated into the previously certified Master EIR. The City has incorporated new analyses into the original Master EIR five times, most recently in 2003. This process of continual updates ensures that the City’s Master EIR complies with PRC Section 21157.6. C. PROJECT OBJECTIVES The State CEQA Guidelines require that the project description include a statement of the objectives sought by the project (CEQA Guidelines Section 15124[b]). In addition to disclosing the project’s intent, the objectives help the lead agency select a reasonable range of project alternatives to be evaluated in the EIR. The objectives may also aid the City in preparing findings or a statement of overriding considerations, if necessary (CEQA Guidelines Section 15124[b]). ---PAGE BREAK--- Chapter III. Project Description Modesto General Plan Update Final Master EIR III-8 Chapter III. Project Description October 2008 The primary purposes of the proposed project are to incorporate adopted policies into the UAGP, codify regular practices as policies, update policies to reflect current regional, state, and federal laws and regulations, and provide an updated Master EIR to allow subsequent projects to rely on its environmental analysis. The objectives of the proposed project include: „ incorporating pertinent guidance from the City’s adopted 2001–2004 Strategic Plan; „ amending the UAGP to reflect pertinent new information and statutory changes that have occurred since 1995; „ amending the UAGP to reflect Modesto policy changes that have occurred since 2003; „ amending the UAGP without resulting in any substantial changes to the City’s land use diagram or increases in development potential; „ incorporating information from the new traffic model currently under preparation into the UAGP, as appropriate; „ incorporating information from the most recent sewer, water, and storm drainage master plans into the UAGP; „ evaluating infrastructure master plans against current policies to determine how existing policies may need to be revised; and „ providing a “maintenance update” of the UAGP that will provide an adequate document pending a comprehensive UAGP overhaul in the future. 1. Objectives of the Master Environmental Impact Report Update The City has the following basic objectives in updating its Master EIR. a. Maintain the adequacy of the Master EIR so that it may continue to be used as the basis for considering projects that are within its scope (PRC Section 21157 et seq.). Projects that are found to be within the scope will not require further environmental analysis upon issuance of a finding of conformance by the City. Findings of conformance will follow the preparation of an IS, pursuant to the Master EIR statute. The IS may include supplemental environmental considerations such as traffic impact studies. b. Maintain the adequacy of the Master EIR so that it may be used as the foundation for later Focused EIRs and MNDs on individual projects. The Master EIR helps to focus these analyses on the additional significant effects at hand. c. Include a new generation of mitigation measures addressing changes that have occurred since 2003. As described above, the mitigation measures from the 2003 Master EIR are now policies of the UAGP. These policies, which act to avoid potential impacts, are not listed as new mitigation measures. d. Rely on the “Initial Study/Finding of Conformance” that provides appropriate analysis of the environmental issues specific to the Modesto UAGP area. The IS will be used to extensively document conformance of all “anticipated subsequent projects” with the analysis and mitigation measures contained in the Master EIR. ---PAGE BREAK--- Chapter III. Project Description Modesto General Plan Update Final Master EIR III-9 Chapter III. Project Description October 2008 e. Adopt certain “thresholds of significance,” as authorized by Section 15064.7 of the CEQA Guidelines, that will form the analytical basis of the IS process under the Master EIR. D. MODESTO URBAN AREA GENERAL PLAN The UAGP is Modesto’s long-term, comprehensive guide for development. Its 42,700-acre planning area reaches beyond the current city limits and sphere of influence. For the purposes of infrastructure planning, the eventual population in the City’s sphere of influence is estimated to be between 334,000 and 357,000 people. Modesto’s Growth Strategy establishes three geographic areas within the plan: the Redevelopment Area, consisting of the downtown area and an extended area along the railroad, within the 1991 Redevelopment Plan Area; the Baseline Developed Area, consisting of lands served by the 1995 sanitary sewer system, plus areas that can be served by sanitary sewer from the City’s trunk system; and the Planned Urbanizing Area, consisting of areas outside of the 1995 city limits but within the planning area and anticipated for development by 2025. The rate of change and general development approach for each of these areas is discussed in Chapter II. The Master EIR analyzes the plan-level impacts and identifies mitigation measures within each of these three areas. The impact analysis takes into account the different expectations for development within the areas, in the context of existing and proposed UAGP policies. For each impact identified as not being mitigated below a level of significance by UAGP or other policies, there is a corresponding mitigation measure, when feasible. The policies of the UAGP help to mitigate many of its environmental impacts and incorporate the mitigation measures identified in the original Master EIR prepared in 1995. All of these policies remain in effect, except as noted, forming the baseline for environmental analysis in 2007. E. DESCRIPTION OF THE MASTER ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT This Master EIR updates the City’s 2003 Master EIR and analyzes several specific, City-initiated amendments to the UAGP. The Master EIR will provide the basis for environmental assessments of future projects that are within its scope. Changes to the Master EIR include: 1. New mitigation measures addressing impacts that are new or changed from 1995. The mitigation measures identified in the 2003 Master EIR have been incorporated into the UAGP and are identified as policies in place in the Master EIR. These UAGP policies are written out in the policy sections of the Master EIR and given an identification number for ease of reference. They are referenced by that number in the impact sections. In addition, each policy contains a citation to its location in the UAGP so that it may be readily applied to the consideration of later projects. 2. Because the Master EIR addresses an adopted UAGP, its alternatives do not include alternatives to the UAGP itself. The alternatives included in the Master EIR would reduce some of the significant impacts of the proposed UAGP roadway amendments. 3. The Master EIR is optimized for use in conjunction with initial studies for future activities that are within its scope. This will help meet the goal of streamlining later environmental analysis. ---PAGE BREAK--- Modesto General Plan Update Final Master EIR IV-1 Chapter IV. Environmental Setting October 2008 Chapter IV Environmental Setting The following describes the physical environmental conditions within the Modesto planning area as they existed when the notice of preparation (NOP) was published for this master environmental impact report (Master EIR). The environmental setting constitutes the baseline physical conditions against which the impacts of the City of Modesto Urban Area General Plan (UAGP) and amendments will be measured. A. REGIONAL SETTING Modesto is located in Stanislaus County in the central San Joaquin Valley, approximately 95 miles east of San Francisco and 80 miles south of Sacramento (see Figure III-1). The Tuolumne River runs along the southern edge of the city, and the Stanislaus River runs roughly parallel to the northern boundary of Modesto’s urban area. Modesto is intersected by State Route (SR) 99 along the north–south axis and SR 132 along the east–west axis. In a larger context, the county is bounded by San Joaquin County to the north; Calaveras, Tuolumne, and Mariposa Counties to the east; Merced County to the south; and Santa Clara and Alameda Counties to the west. Before 1960, most of Stanislaus County’s population lived in the unincorporated areas. Today the population of the nine incorporated cities is more than three times that of the unincorporated area (California Department of Finance 2006a). While the county’s economic base remains predominantly agricultural, its economy is diversifying. As housing prices have increased in the Silicon Valley, Bay Area workers seeking affordable housing have moved to the Central Valley. From July 1, 2002, to July 1, 2006, the population of Stanislaus County is estimated to have increased by more than to 519,276 residents (California Department of Finance 2006b). Because many of these new residents continue to work in the Bay Area, traffic along the county’s major regional connectors, SR 99, SR 132, and Interstate 5 has increased noticeably. Stanislaus County was California’s sixth most productive agricultural county in 2004 and 2005. Despite the increasing pressures of urbanization, the agricultural output of the county remains steady over the long term and in 2005 totaled approximately $1.98 billion (California Department of Food and Agriculture 2006). B. LOCAL SETTING Modesto is the Stanislaus County seat and, with an estimated 2006 population of 208,107, is the largest city in the county (California Department of Finance 2006a). Modesto is a charter city organized under a council-manager structure. The council is composed of six members and a separately elected mayor who serve staggered, four-year terms. The city has experienced a rapid growth rate, with an average yearly increase of approximately 2% between 2002 and 2006. The city has added approximately 40,171 residents in that period (California Department of Finance 2006b). This growth has changed Modesto from a small, agriculturally based community in the 1950s into a medium-sized metropolitan hub with a substantial agricultural economy today. ---PAGE BREAK--- Chapter IV. Environmental Setting Modesto General Plan Update Final Master EIR IV-2 Chapter IV. Environmental Setting October 2008 Modesto’s economy long has had a substantial basis in food processing. Some of the community’s largest employers are E.&J. Gallo Winery, Signature Fruit Company, Del Monte Foods, Stanislaus Food Products, Foster Farms, Frito-Lay, and several independent food processors (City of Modesto 2007a). C. RELATIONSHIP TO REGIONAL AND LOCAL PLANS The UAGP exists in the context of other regional and local plans that address the physical environment. The relationships of each to the UAGP are discussed briefly below. 1. Stanislaus County a. General Plan The Stanislaus County General Plan (County General Plan) applies to the unincorporated lands surrounding Modesto, including lands within the City of Modesto’s (City’s) sphere of influence. It guides Stanislaus County’s (County’s) land use and development decisions. The Salida Community Plan, adopted by the Stanislaus County Board of Supervisors in August 2007 in response to a proposed ballot initiative, establishes land use policies for the Salida area northwest of the Modesto City limits on both sides of SR 99. The Salida Community Plan covers nearly 3.400 acres, including the existing community of Salida, and provides for future mixed residential, commercial, business park, and planned industrial land uses. Existing land uses consist of residential subdivisions, with commercial development located along SR 99. Pending the availability of financing to build the necessary infrastructure to support these uses, the Salida Community Plan proposes substantial business park and planned industrial development north of the City limits. This is similar in nature to the type of development identified in the City’s Salida Community Planning District. b. County Integrated Waste Management Plan The County’s integrated waste management plan (IWMP) is a plan for the disposal of solid waste generated within the county. The IWMP addresses recycling, source reduction, household hazardous wastes, landfill siting, and County programs aimed at meeting statewide goals for solid waste disposal. Modesto has adopted source reduction and recycling, and household hazardous waste elements contained in the IWMP. 2. Stanislaus County Local Agency Formation Commission State law established the Stanislaus County Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCo) to administer the local government reorganization process. This includes the incorporation of new cities, the formation of special districts, annexations to cities and special districts, and the establishment of spheres of influence for all cities and special districts. The LAFCo is responsible for the orderly provision of services and the conservation of agricultural and open-space lands. It is composed of elected officials from the County and its cities, as well as members at large. The LAFCo decides whether land is to be annexed to a city and which agency the county, the city, or a special district) will provide services to newly annexed areas. ---PAGE BREAK--- Chapter IV. Environmental Setting Modesto General Plan Update Final Master EIR IV-3 Chapter IV. Environmental Setting October 2008 3. City of Ceres The City of Ceres is located directly south of Modesto. Its sphere of influence abuts the Modesto planning area. Ceres has adopted its own general plan that guides development within the city. The County regulates land use in the unincorporated areas surrounding Ceres. 4. City of Riverbank The City of Riverbank is located directly north of Modesto. Its sphere of influence abuts the Modesto planning area. Riverbank has adopted its own general plan that guides development within the city. The County regulates land use in the unincorporated areas surrounding Riverbank. 5. San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District The San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (SJVAPCD) regulates air quality within the San Joaquin Valley, from Stockton to Bakersfield. At the present time, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has classified Stanislaus County as an extreme nonattainment area for the 1-hour ozone standard and as a serious nonattainment area for the 8-hour ozone standard. However, the EPA revoked the 1-hour ozone standard on June 15, 2005, and Stanislaus County is no longer subject to it. For the carbon monoxide (CO) standard, the EPA has classified Modesto as a moderate maintenance area (12.7 parts per million [ppm] or less). The rest of Stanislaus County is classified as an unclassified/attainment area. The EPA has classified Stanislaus County as a serious nonattainment area for particulate matter 10 microns or less in diameter (PM10) and a nonattainment area for particulate matter 2.5 microns or less in diameter (PM2.5). The California Air Resources Board (ARB) has classified Stanislaus County as a severe nonattainment area for the 1-hour ozone standard, an attainment area for the CO standard, and a nonattainment area for the PM10 and PM2.5 standards. The SJVAPCD adopts an air pollution control plan, emissions rules, and other regulations to ensure that air quality within its region will meet state and federal clean air standards. The SJVAPCD’s rules affect individual businesses and activities seeking permits from the SJVAPCD, but it has no direct land-use powers. The SJVAPCD also reviews the regional transportation plan (RTP) for conformity with air quality standards. 6. Stanislaus Council of Governments a. Regional Transportation Plan The Stanislaus Council of Governments (StanCOG is the region’s transportation planning agency and prepares the RTP (Government Code Section 65080 et seq.). The RTP is the basis for state and federal funding of transportation improvements. The RTP describes the proposed priority transportation projects, which are programmed into the State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) to receive appropriated state dollars. Stanislaus County’s RTP projects include roads, mass transit, and pedestrian and bicycle facilities. The RTP also describes the region’s transportation objectives and policies. It contains an action element ---PAGE BREAK--- Chapter IV. Environmental Setting Modesto General Plan Update Final Master EIR IV-4 Chapter IV. Environmental Setting October 2008 describing the programs that will implement the plan, as well as the financial element describing the cost of plan implementation. Both the RTP and the STIP must conform to the federal 1990 Clean Air Act (CAA) Amendments before federal funding can be allocated to listed projects under the Federal Transportation Improvement Program (FTIP). All transportation projects anticipating non- local funding sources and undertaken by the City must be identified in the RTP in order to receive state and federal funds. StanCOG adopted its current RTP in 2001 and updated it in 2004; the most recent STIP was adopted in 2006. b. Congestion Management Program State law requires a congestion management program (CMP) to be prepared for each county with an urbanized area (Government Code Section 65088 et seq.). StanCOG adopted this program in 1995. The CMP is a component of the RTP’s action element, establishing programs for mitigating the traffic impacts of new development. The CMP identifies major roads that will be monitored for compliance with adopted level of service (LOS) standards. The CMP network within Stanislaus County consists of SR 4, SR 33, SR 99, SR 108, SR 120, SR 132, SR 165, SR 219, and I-5. The LOS standards established by the CMP are LOS D (the average stopped delay per vehicle is greater than 25 seconds and less than or equal to 40 seconds) within urban spheres and LOS C (the average stopped delay per vehicle is greater than 15 seconds and less than or equal to 25 seconds) outside the spheres, with some exceptions. The failure of a city or county to comply with the CMP can lead to state and federal transportation funds being withheld. LOS thresholds are discussed in detail in Section V-1. D. OTHER REGULATORY AGENCIES 1. State Agencies a. California Department of Fish and Game The California Department of Fish and Game (DFG) protects California plants and wildlife under the California Endangered Species Act (CESA) (Fish and Game Code Section 2080 et seq.). Actions that may result in the “taking” of a threatened or endangered species are banned under CESA, unless the DFG issues an incidental take permit. The permit is based on the finding that the take will be mitigated fully. The DFG also regulates activities that may divert, obstruct, or change a natural flow or bed of any river, stream, or lake through its Lake and Streambed Alteration Program (Fish and Game Code Section 1600 et seq.). No such activities that may substantially adversely affect existing fish or wildlife resources are allowed without a Lake or Streambed Alteration Agreement from the DFG. State-listed species considered to inhabit the Modesto area are identified in Section V-7 of this Master EIR. ---PAGE BREAK--- Chapter IV. Environmental Setting Modesto General Plan Update Final Master EIR IV-5 Chapter IV. Environmental Setting October 2008 b. State Lands Commission The State Lands Commission manages California’s sovereign lands, including lands beneath the beds of navigable rivers (Division 6 of the Public Resources Code [PRC]). No individual or public agency may undertake development activities below the normal low-water mark of the rivers under their jurisdiction without a permit or lease from the commission. Uses are limited to public purposes consistent with the Public Trust Doctrine, including water- dependent commerce and navigation, environmental preservation, and scientific study. c. State Reclamation Board The State Reclamation Board within the California Department of Water Resources regulates activities on levees and floodways that are maintained by the state or local reclamation districts along the major rivers of the Central Valley (California Water Code Sections 8534, 8608, and 8710–8723). This includes portions of the Tuolumne River. A permit from the State Reclamation Board is required before any development activity may take place on or near the levees. d. Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board The Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board (Central Valley is responsible for protecting surface water quality within the region under authority of state and federal law. The Central Valley has prepared a basin plan that examines water quality within the valley and establishes water quality objectives. The basin plan is updated every 3 years. The Central Valley establishes discharge requirements for point sources and regulates such discharges by administering the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) program for both point and non-point sources, including stormwater runoff. The Central Valley regulates public and private activities to minimize impacts on surface water quality. The Central Valley also issues clean water certifications or waivers under Section 401 of the Clean Water Act (CWA). e. California Department of Public Health The Division of Drinking Water and Environmental Management of the California Department of Public Health (DPH) is responsible for the regulation and permitting of domestic water supply facilities. The DPH must ensure that domestic water meets state standards for quality. Modesto’s water system is operated under permit from the DPH. Concentrations of nitrates and uranium have exceeded allowable levels in some City wells, requiring the wells’ withdrawal from service. Because the City is pursuing future recycled water use as part of the UAGP, the DPH, along with Title 17 and Title 22 of the California Code of Regulations, will regulate the use of treated recycled water. ---PAGE BREAK--- Chapter IV. Environmental Setting Modesto General Plan Update Final Master EIR IV-6 Chapter IV. Environmental Setting October 2008 f. California Department of Transportation The California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) is responsible for the planning, construction, operation, and maintenance of state highways. Caltrans’ jurisdiction does not encroach upon local streets. However, Caltrans reviews many local projects as part of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) process or in the event that local transportation projects will be or are funded federally through its district Local Assistance offices. Similarly, construction projects that do not involve state or federal funding but will encroach onto state or federal highways are subject to review and the issuance of encroachment permits from Caltrans. Caltrans’ concern carries over to projects that would affect state highway congestion and that do not require encroachment permits. It wants to ensure that improvements to mainline highways that may be needed as a result of development projects will be funded. This may include fair share impact fees. As discussed earlier, traffic from increased population during the planning period will affect SR 99, SR 108, SR 132, and SR 219. g. State Office of Historic Preservation The State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) is responsible under state law for maintaining the California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR). The SHPO is consulted whenever a federal action may affect historical resources. The SHPO also takes part in project consultation under CEQA and comments to lead agencies on the potential impacts of proposed projects on historical resources. 2. Federal Agencies a. Federal Emergency Management Agency The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) administers the National Flood Insurance Program. Cities that participate in the program, such as Modesto, qualify for flood insurance within areas subject to flood hazard when they enact regulations to ensure that new development will be elevated above flood level and that other actions are taken to minimize flood damage. FEMA prepares and publishes Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs), which identify the location of 100-year floodplains areas for which the statistical probability of flooding is 1% in any given year). Three FIRMs for the City of Modesto were updated on May 7, 2001 (Federal Emergency Management Agency 2001a, 2001b, 2001c). b. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) regulates the filling of wetlands and waters of the United States by public agencies and individuals under Section 404 of the federal CWA. A permit must be obtained from the USACE before fill or discharge will be allowed. A USACE permit application also triggers review under the federal Endangered Species Act (ESA) and other sections of the CWA. A streamlined procedure for considering minor fills that conform to previously approved classes of activity exists under the nationwide permit ---PAGE BREAK--- Chapter IV. Environmental Setting Modesto General Plan Update Final Master EIR IV-7 Chapter IV. Environmental Setting October 2008 process. Projects that do not qualify for nationwide permits will be subject to an individual permit. Individual permit applications trigger the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) as well as concurrent consultations under the ESA, the CWA, the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA), and other federal regulations. c. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) is responsible for administering and enforcing the ESA for federally listed plants, wildlife, and non-anadromous fish species. Actions that may result in the take of a threatened or endangered species or the destruction of habitat are regulated by the USFWS. The USFWS commonly requires development activities to be revised to avoid listed species and habitat or, when avoidance is infeasible, to provide compensation habitat elsewhere. d. National Marine Fisheries Service The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) is responsible for administering and monitoring compliance with the ESA for federally listed anadromous fish species and conducting an analysis of essential fish habitat (EFH) for Pacific salmon, pursuant to the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act. Public and private activities with the potential to affect ESA-listed species and EFH are subject to review and permitting by NMFS. ---PAGE BREAK--- Chapter V. Environmental Analysis Modesto General Plan Update Final Master EIR V-1-1 Section 1. Traffic and Circulation October 2008 Section 1 Traffic and Circulation This section describes how development associated with the City of Modesto Urban Area General Plan (UAGP) would affect traffic and circulation. If significant impacts are found, mitigation measures are provided to reduce these impacts to a less-than-significant level. A. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING The following information is provided in accordance with Section 15125 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines. This environmental setting is the baseline for determining whether an impact of the UAGP is significant. 1. Study Area for Direct Impacts The Modesto planning area is shown in Figure V-1-1. 2. Study Area for Cumulative Impacts Stanislaus County (County) is defined as the cumulative impact study area. 3. Existing Physical Conditions in the Study Area a. Existing Transportation System Modesto is the demographic and commercial hub of Stanislaus County. Regional roadway access to Modesto is provided by State Route (SR) 99, SR 108, SR 132, and SR 219. SR 99 runs north to south through the Central Valley from Red Bluff to Bakersfield. Through Stanislaus County, it is a freeway with access limited to interchanges. SR 132 is an east-west link between SR 49 and Interstate 580. SR 108 extends from Modesto across Sonora Pass to the eastern side of the Sierra Nevada (Sonora Pass is closed during the winter because of snow). SR 132 and SR 108 are essentially arterial roadways within Modesto and have direct access to adjoining parcels. SR 219 runs east to west along Kiernan Avenue north of Modesto to connect SR 108 and SR 99. The City of Modesto (City) categorizes the roadways that constitute its circulation network as freeways, expressways, arterial streets, collector streets, and local streets. Figure V-1-1 identifies these roadways; streets not otherwise identified on the figure are local streets. Roadway functional classifications are described in Chapter V of the UAGP and are summarized as follows: ---PAGE BREAK--- Chapter V. Environmental Analysis Modesto General Plan Update Final Master EIR V-1-2 Section 1. Traffic and Circulation October 2008 1. Freeways: These are intended for long-range interregional travel with access limited to specific interchanges. 2. Expressways: These are high-capacity travel corridors with limited access at half-mile to 1-mile intervals depending on the expressway classification, with traffic signals at major intersections. City policy provides for the case-by-case consideration of more frequent access when there are demonstrable economic reasons, unusually restricted access, or a need for access to police and fire stations. In such situations, the individual access will be designed to provide safe ingress and egress without degrading the carrying capacity, flow, and efficiency of the expressway. 3. Arterial streets: These are intermediate capacity travel corridors primarily intended to serve major movements between different land uses or different parts of the city. Access to arterial streets is ideally limited to major traffic generators, intersections with expressways, and collector streets. Within the Baseline Developed Area, arterial streets also provide considerable direct access to abutting properties and local streets. 4. Collector streets: These connect local streets with arterial streets. The preferred design is to limit their length to that necessary and to discourage their use for through or regional traffic. Collectors usually provide a high level of direct access to abutting properties. 5. Residential/local streets: These two-lane, low-volume streets have the exclusive function of providing access to abutting properties and connecting to higher-order roadways. Modesto is served by local and intercity bus service, intercity rail service, a bicycle circulation network, and scheduled air carrier service, in addition to the city’s road system. Bus service includes the Modesto Area Express (MAX), Modesto Dial-A-Ride, Stanislaus Regional Transit (StaRT), and Greyhound. Train service includes Amtrak and Altamont Commuter Express (ACE) connections. Air travel is provided at the Modesto City-County Airport. MAX provides daily, regularly scheduled, fixed-route public bus service within Modesto. Service generally is provided on arterial and collector roadways, with most routes connecting to downtown Modesto. There are two bus transfer facilities: one at Vintage Faire mall and the other in downtown Modesto. Buses are equipped with bicycle racks and wheelchair lifts. Evening service is limited. MAX also provides connecting service to Amtrak, ACE, and the Dublin/Pleasanton Bay Area Rapid Transit District (BART) station. Modesto Dial-A-Ride provides door-to-door public transit on an on-call basis within Modesto for elderly and disabled individuals. It also provides evening and Sunday service to the general public. StaRT provides intercity, fixed-route bus service Monday through Saturday between Modesto and Turlock, Riverbank, Oakdale, Gustine, Newman, Westley, and Patterson. StaRT also provides “runabout” service that combines designated time points and curb-to-curb service to the general public, and a dial-a-ride service. Greyhound provides intercity bus service to points throughout the state and nation. The Greyhound bus station is located at 1001 9th Street in downtown Modesto. Amtrak provides intercity passenger rail service from Modesto to the Bay Area, Sacramento, Los Angeles, and points beyond. Amtrak operates six “San Joaquin” trains daily, offering round-trip travel between Sacramento and Los Angeles from the station located on the eastern edge of Modesto at 1700 Held Drive. MAX offers daily scheduled bus service to the station. ---PAGE BREAK--- TERMINAL AVE Figure V-1-1 Year 2005 Existing Roadway Network 06826.06 (2/08) ---PAGE BREAK--- Chapter V. Environmental Analysis Modesto General Plan Update Final Master EIR V-1-3 Section 1. Traffic and Circulation October 2008 ACE operates four daily heavy rail commuter trains from Stockton to San Jose, with Central Valley stops in Lathrop/Manteca and Tracy. MAX provides three morning and three evening direct buses from Vintage Faire’s park-and-ride lot to the Lathrop ACE station. MAX also runs two nonstop buses from Vintage Faire to the Dublin/Pleasanton BART station each morning and evening. Modesto is served by the Union Pacific and Burlington Northern Railroads, which have main lines passing through Modesto. These railroads provide freight service to the San Joaquin Valley and beyond. Modesto has three types of improved bikeways: Class I, Class II, and Class III. Class I bikeways are paved paths that are separated from city streets. No motor vehicles are allowed on Class I bikeways. Class II bikeways are striped lanes on major city streets. Class III bikeways are on-street routes identified by “bicycle route” signs. Figure V-1-2 shows the existing and proposed bicycle facilities in Modesto from the Modesto Non-Motorized Transportation Master Plan (Alta Planning and Design 2006). The Modesto City-County Airport is a commercial and general aviation airport owned jointly by the City and the County, and operated by the City. The airport has two runways: a 5,911- foot air carrier runway and a 3,459-foot general aviation runway. The Modesto City-County Airport is the base for approximately 190 general aviation aircraft, including corporate jets. Airport services include a passenger terminal and parking, hangars, aircraft fueling and maintenance, aircraft charters, and flying schools. United Express/SkyWest Airlines provides scheduled commercial airline service. United Express makes five daily round trips each way from Modesto’s passenger terminal to San Francisco International Airport and four daily round trips each way to Los Angeles International Airport (LAX). Two car rental agencies operate from the airport. b. Existing Travel Behavior Census data were reviewed to determine existing travel behavior in Modesto. Data from 1990 were compared with data from the most recent census in 2000, as summarized in Table V-1-1. As of 2000, approximately 93 percent of Modesto residents commuted via private automobile (single occupant and carpool), relatively unchanged from 1990. The average travel time to work increased from 1990 to 2000, from 25 minutes in 1990 to 27 minutes in 2000. The number of people who reside and work in Modesto declined from 61 percent in 1990 to 57 percent in 2000. ---PAGE BREAK--- Chapter V. Environmental Analysis Modesto General Plan Update Final Master EIR V-1-4 Section 1. Traffic and Circulation October 2008 Table V-1-1. Changes in Commute Travel Demand for City Residents Travel Characteristic 1990 2000 Travel Mode Single-occupant auto 79.2% 78.9% Carpool 13.6% 13.7% Public transit 0.9% 1.3% Bicycling/walking 2.8% 2.5% Other means 1.2% 0.8% Work at home 2.4% 2.9% Other Commute-Related Data Percentage who work in Modesto 61% 57% Percentage who work outside Stanislaus County 17% 19% Percentage who leave for work between midnight and 7 AM 32% 33% Percentage who leave for work between 7 AM and 9 AM 46% 43% Average travel time to work 25 minutes 27 minutes Table V-1-2 compares the commute characteristics of Modesto residents with those of Stanislaus County, California, and the United States as a whole. Approximately 92 percent of Modesto and Stanislaus County residents commute via automobile, compared with 86 percent within California and 88 percent within the United States. Public transit usage is lower in Modesto and Stanislaus County, although walking/bicycling rates are similar for all geographic categories. The percentage of workers leaving their homes for work between midnight and 7 AM is higher, and the percentage of workers leaving their homes between 7 and 9 AM is lower for residents of Modesto and Stanislaus County, although average commute times are similar across the state and the nation. Fewer residents of Modesto commute outside their county of residence than do residents elsewhere in the country. ---PAGE BREAK--- Figure V-1-2 Bicycle Master Plan 06826.06 (2/08) ---PAGE BREAK--- Chapter V. Environmental Analysis Modesto General Plan Update Final Master EIR V-1-5 Section 1. Traffic and Circulation October 2008 Table V-1-2. 2000 Census Journey-to-Work Results Travel Characteristics Modesto Stanislaus County California United States Commute Mode Choice Single-occupant auto 78.9% 76.9% 71.8% 75.7% Carpool 13.7% 15.0% 14.5% 12.2% Public transit 1.3% 1.0% 5.1% 4.7% Bicycling/walking 2.5% 3.1% 3.7% 3.3% Other means 0.8% 0.8% 1.0% 0.8% Work at home 2.9% 3.2% 3.8% 3.3% Other Commute-Related Data Percentage who work outside county of residence 19% 21% 17% 27% Percentage who leave for work between midnight and 7 AM 33% 36% 32% 31% Percentage who leave for work between 7 and 9 AM 43% 41% 45% 47% Average travel time to work 27.0 minutes 28.0 minutes 27.7 minutes 25.5 minutes Source: U.S. Census Bureau 2002. c. Existing Roadway Segment Operations The private automobile is the predominant travel mode in Modesto. Roadway operations are described in terms of level of service (LOS). LOS is a qualitative description of a driver’s experience and includes travel speed, delays, and ease of vehicle maneuvering. The LOS for roadway segments in Modesto is evaluated by comparing the traffic volume with its vehicle capacity (the volume-to-capacity ratio) and correlating the result to a letter grade to represent the levels of congestion, as follows. 1. LOS A: free flow, low traffic volumes, and drivers can maintain their desired speed with little or no delay. Volume-to-capacity ratio: 0.6 or less. 2. LOS B: stable flow, operating speeds beginning to be restricted by traffic conditions. Volume-to-capacity ratio: 0.61 to 0.7. 3. LOS C: stable flow, but speeds and maneuverability are more closely controlled by higher volumes. Volume-to-capacity ratio: 0.71 to 0.8. 4. LOS D: approaching unstable flow; tolerable operating speeds which are, however, considerably affected by operating conditions. Volume-to-capacity ratio: 0.81 to 0.9. 5. LOS E: unstable flow with yet lower operating speeds and stoppages of momentary duration. Volume-to-capacity ratio: 0.91 to 1.0. 6. LOS F: stopped flow, which may occur for short or long periods. These conditions usually result when vehicles are blocked by a restriction Volume-to- capacity ratio: greater than 1.0. ---PAGE BREAK--- Chapter V. Environmental Analysis Modesto General Plan Update Final Master EIR V-1-6 Section 1. Traffic and Circulation October 2008 Table V-1-3 presents the per-lane capacities based on roadway type used to evaluate roadway operations in Modesto. Table V-1-3. Per-Lane Roadway Segment Capacities Type of Roadway Segment Hourly Capacitya Daily Capacityb Freeway mainline 2,000 25,000 Expressway (Class A) 1,500 18,750 Expressway (Class B) 1,250 15,625 Expressway (Class C) 1,000 12,500 Arterial (signalized) 750 9,375 Arterial (unsignalized) 1,000 12,500 Collector (signalized) 500 6,250 Collector (unsignalized) 750 9,375 Rural road 900 11,250 a Vehicles per lane per hour. b Vehicles per lane per day. Peak hour capacity is assumed to be 8 percent of daily capacity. Source: City of Modesto 2003a. Existing PM peak-hour and daily roadway segment LOS were evaluated for roadways within the General Plan boundary area. The service levels were calculated using the baseline 2005 Transportation Planning Partnership Group (TPPG) countywide travel demand model (TPPG Model) that was validated to existing (2005) conditions. TPPG Model validation documentation is provided in Appendix A. The results are summarized in Figures V-1-3a and V-1-3b for PM peak-hour and daily conditions. The 2003 UAGP strives to maintain LOS D operations. The arterial, expressway, and freeway segments operating at LOS E and F on a daily basis outside of the downtown area are summarized in Table V-1-4. Those operating at LOS E or F on a PM peak-hour basis are presented in the appendix. ---PAGE BREAK--- Figure V-1-3a Year 2005 PM Peak Hour Roadway Segment Level of Service 06826.06 (2/08) TERMINAL AVE ---PAGE BREAK--- Figure V-1-3b Year 2005 Daily Roadway Segment Level of Service 06826.06 (2/08) TERMINAL AVE ---PAGE BREAK--- Chapter V. Environmental Analysis Modesto General Plan Update Final Master EIR V-1-7 Section 1. Traffic and Circulation October 2008 Table V-1-4. Roadway Segments with Existing (2005) Daily Level of Service E or F Roadway Segment From To Daily LOS 1. Briggsmore Avenue/Carpenter Road Sisk Road Bluegum Avenue E/F 2. Carpenter Road Robertson Road Hatch Road E 3. Carver Road Mount Vernon Drive Briggsmore Avenue F 4. Coffee Road Briggsmore Avenue Orangeburg Avenue F 5. El Vista Avenue Scenic Drive Edgebrook Drive F 6. Finch Road Mariposa Road McClure Road F 7. Kansas Avenue Carpenter Road SR 99 southbound ramps F 8. Kiernan Avenue SR 99 northbound ramps Sisk Road F 9. La Loma Avenue Morton Boulevard Buena Vista Drive E/F 10. Maze Boulevard Martin Luther King Drive Washington Street F 11. McHenry Avenue Orangeburg Avenue Downey Avenue E 12. Mitchell Road Finch Drive Hatch Road E 13. Oakdale Road Lancey Drive Briggsmore Avenue E/F 14. Orangeburg Avenue Coffee Road Oakdale Road F 15. Paradise Avenue Pine Tree Lane Chicago Avenue F 16. Scenic Drive Burney Street Coffee Road E/F 17. Scenic Drive Sonoma Avenue Lakewood Avenue E/F 18. Sisk Road Pirrone Road Kiernan Avenue F 19. Standiford Avenue Sisk Road Dale Road E 20. SR 99 northbound Crows Landing Road H Street E 21. SR 99 southbound H Street Crows Landing Road E 22. Vintage Drive Sisk Road Gagos Drive F 23. Woodland Avenue/Coldwell Avenue Carpenter Road Kearney Avenue F 24. Yosemite Boulevard Morton Boulevard Santa Rosa Avenue E 25. Yosemite Boulevard Capistrano Drive Lincoln Avenue F 26. Yosemite Boulevard Norseman Drive Santa Fe Avenue E/F Source: Transportation Planning Partnership Group Model. d. Existing Policies Applying to the Study Area Below is a comprehensive list of major federal, state, and local (County and City) policies and summaries of policies that apply to the study area. This list provides the full range of applicable policies that a project within the study area would potentially need to comply with, including policies beyond the jurisdiction of the City. This list of laws, regulations, and programs also serves to describe the circumstances under which the Master EIR analyzed this environmental topic. A discrete reference number, following the initials of the resource topic, is assigned to each policy or policy summary listed to facilitate its identification elsewhere in this Master EIR or, where appropriate, its incorporation as a mitigation measure into subsequent projects ---PAGE BREAK--- Chapter V. Environmental Analysis Modesto General Plan Update Final Master EIR V-1-8 Section 1. Traffic and Circulation October 2008 analyzed under this Master EIR Traffic and Circulation policies are designated as TC-X, where X is the discrete number). Federal Policies The federal government has a variety of funding programs for transportation, including funds for highways, roads, bridges, transit, transportation planning, bicycle and pedestrian facilities, and aviation facilities. In large part, federal programs channel funding through the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans). Federal funding through the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century is available for mass transit, rail, transit facilities, carpool projects, parking, bicycle programs, safety, research and planning, and transportation control measures. State Policies The state has delegated a great deal of authority for planning and prioritizing the funding of transportation projects to regional and local government. California law requires each regional transportation planning agency (RTPA) (the Stanislaus Council of Governments [StanCOG] here) to prepare a regional transportation plan (RTP) that identifies existing and future transportation demand and needs, and identifies means to meet those needs. The RTP is the long-range blueprint for funding transportation projects. Working from the RTP, the RTPA must prepare a regional transportation improvement program (RTIP) that identifies and prioritizes individual transportation projects to be undertaken to meet regional needs. The projects must be analyzed sufficiently to justify their inclusion in the RTIP and to estimate their costs. The RTIP is forwarded to the California Transportation Commission for inclusion in the State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP), making individual projects eligible for federal and state transportation funding. State law now provides that 75 percent of the funds made available through the STIP must go to regional projects, and 25 percent is programmed for interregional improvements. For the 20-year planning horizon, Caltrans’ concept LOS for SR 99 is LOS C in rural areas and LOS D in urban/developed areas. An eight-lane SR 99 freeway will be needed to meet this objective. Auxiliary lanes also may be needed between some interchanges to provide peak-hour LOS D operations though the Modesto. Stanislaus Council of Governments Policies The 2007 StanCOG RTP includes transportation projects such as highway and road construction, airports, alternative fuel vehicle acquisition, public transit, and bicycle paths (Stanislaus Council of Governments 2007). The RTP identifies a number of improvements within Modesto, including: improving SR 108 from the Modesto city limits to east of the City of Oakdale; improving SR 219 from SR 99 to SR 108; widening SR 132 from Riverside to Frazine/Codoni, east of SR 99; widening SR 132 to ---PAGE BREAK--- Chapter V. Environmental Analysis Modesto General Plan Update Final Master EIR V-1-9 Section 1. Traffic and Circulation October 2008 expressway width from SR 99 to west of Dakota Avenue; and reconstructing the Pelandale Avenue/SR 99 interchange in north Modesto. In addition to the RTP and RTIP discussed above, state law required StanCOG to prepare a congestion management program (CMP) that establishes LOS performance standards for state highways and principal arterials within the county. A CMP must contain the following components: an element defining the affected transportation system and LOS, a performance element evaluating the system’s performance across several transportation modes, a travel demand element, a program for analyzing the impact of land use decisions, and a 7-year capital improvement program. In addition, under CMP law, local jurisdictions are required to prepare and implement a deficiency plan when congestion on a roadway segment exceeds the adopted LOS standard. The deficiency plan must identify the cause of the deficiency, improvements needed to cure the deficiency, and an action plan for implementing those solutions. Implementation of the CMP makes the County eligible to receive increased gasoline and diesel sales tax funds from the state. StanCOG last prepared a CMP in 1995. In 1996, Assembly Bill (AB) 2419 was enacted. It allows counties with adopted CMPs to opt out of the CMP requirements with the approval of two-thirds of member agencies. StanCOG has opted out since. StanCOG monitors the regional transportation system through its function as an Areawide Clearinghouse under CEQA. Monitoring objectives include: a. seeking implementation of the policies and recommendations of the RTP, and b. implementing regional transportation priorities in a timely manner. The RTP contains a variety of general objectives and policies that may relate to Modesto under given circumstances. These are provided below. TC-1: Land Use Objective 2: Integrate transportation and land use planning with transportation system carrying-capacity. Policy 2A: Promote a balance between land use and transportation decisions that will make Stanislaus communities more livable, attractive, and economically vibrant. Policy 2B: Support the integration of Regional Transportation Plan policies and projects into local land use plans and projects. (StanCOG RTP) TC-2: Land Use Objective 3: Create a transportation system that supports local land use plans. Policy 3A: Promote the development of regional transportation improvements necessary to support local General Plans. (StanCOG RTP) TC-3: Road Policy 2A: Support the development of an integrated Regional Expressway System. Road Policy 2B: Promote improvements to reduce congestion and facilitate the movement of people and goods on regionally significant routes. (StanCOG RTP) TC-4: Road Policy 3A: Ensure that local transportation design standards and land use planning anticipate the infrastructure and operational needs of trucks, rail, and air transportation. (StanCOG RTP) ---PAGE BREAK--- Chapter V. Environmental Analysis Modesto General Plan Update Final Master EIR V-1-10 Section 1. Traffic and Circulation October 2008 TC-5: Road Objective 4: Construct a transportation system that supports the use of alternative transportation modes. Policy 4A: Support the roadway-related recommendations of the Regional Bicycle Action Plan. Policy 4B: Promote the development of a regional transportation system that facilitates travel by alternative transportation modes. (StanCOG RTP) TC-6: Transit Objective 1: Maintain an efficient, reliable and attractive public transit system for the Stanislaus region. Policy 1A: Promote the maintenance of an efficient and well coordinated regional public transit system serving regional and interregional travel needs. Policy 1B: Maintain the operating effectiveness of the regional public transportation system as congestion worsens. Policy 1B.1: Incorporate advanced public transportation management practices and Intelligent Transportation System strategies into public transit operations. Policy 1E: Promote the integration of public transit systems with other modes of travel. (StanCOG RTP) TC-7: Transit Objective 2: Implement a system of rail passenger services to facilitate intercity and interregional travel. Policy 2A: Support efforts to develop a rail passenger system to serve intercity and interregional travel needs for the Stanislaus region. Policy 2B: Evaluate extending the Altamont Commuter Express to the Stanislaus region. Policy 2C: Support the development of a California High Speed Rail corridor to better serve the Stanislaus region. (StanCOG RTP) TC-8: Transit Policy 3A: Support the integration and coordination of rail and bus services to provide seamless connectivity between modes and service providers. (StanCOG RTP) TC-9: Non-Motorized Travel Objective 1: Promote the development of a safe and convenient bicycle and pedestrian network linking neighborhoods to the regional system. Policy 1A: Facilitate the implementation of the regional network of bicycle facilities identified in the Regional Bicycle Action Plan. Policy 1B: Integrate the needs of pedestrians, bicyclists, and individuals with disabilities in local land use and transportation project approvals. Policy 1D: Seek ways to remove barriers to pedestrian and bicycle use and enhance the safety of the system. (StanCOG RTP) TC-10: Aviation Objective 1: Develop an air transportation system responsive to local land use plans and capable of serving the growing air commerce, passenger and general aviation needs of the region. Policy 1A: Encourage the use of air as a transportation alternative for the movement of people and goods. Policy 1C: Ensure interface with ground transportation is adequate to serve the air transportation needs. ---PAGE BREAK--- Chapter V. Environmental Analysis Modesto General Plan Update Final Master EIR V-1-11 Section 1. Traffic and Circulation October 2008 Policy 1D: Support implementation of safety measures for ground and air operations. Policy 1E: Mitigate the impacts of aircraft noise and facility expansion on surrounding land uses. (StanCOG RTP) San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District Policies The San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (SJVAPCD) has adopted a transportation control measure (TCM) plan intended to reduce vehicle trips, vehicle miles traveled, vehicle idling, and traffic congestion. This is an attempt by the SJVAPCD to address mobile-source emissions. The TCMs include programs for improved public transit, employer-based transportation management plans, traffic flow improvement programs that achieve emissions reductions, and programs to limit or restrict vehicle use in downtown areas. (San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District 2005.) With the downgrading of the air basin’s non-attainment status to “severe” in 2001, tighter controls over mobile emissions will be needed if the air pollution control district is to reduce smog levels to acceptable standards. The City’s TCMs are listed in TC-21 below. Stanislaus County Policies The County updated the Circulation Element of its county-wide general plan in 2006. The Circulation Element of the Stanislaus County General Plan (County General Plan) identifies the goals, policies, and implementation measures that ensure compatibility between planned land use, infrastructure, and transportation modes. The Circulation Element establishes policies applicable to unincorporated areas of the county. These relate to Modesto in that the City and County jurisdictions share common roads, and County policies in areas adjoining the city may affect city traffic patterns. The City and County may need to coordinate their policies in these areas. Stanislaus County has approximately 3,471 miles of roads within its unincorporated area. It classifies these roads as follows. a. Highway/freeway: These are roadways serving large areas, with access restricted to interchanges at primary arterials. b. Expressway: Expressways provide for through-traffic movement, with limited direct access to abutting property. They are designed for four to six lanes of through traffic with not less than 110 feet of right-of-way width. c. Major: Major streets have a primary function of moving traffic, but unlike expressways they have a secondary function of land access. Major streets are generally two-lane streets (ultimately four- or six-lane) constructed on rights-of- way of 80 to 110 feet. d. Collector: Collectors serve a dual function by providing both land access and mobility for medium-length trips. Collectors serve as transition facilities, providing a medium LOS between high- and low-level systems. Most are two- lane roads with 60- to 90-foot rights-of-way. ---PAGE BREAK--- Chapter V. Environmental Analysis Modesto General Plan Update Final Master EIR V-1-12 Section 1. Traffic and Circulation October 2008 e. Local: Local streets provide direct access to adjacent development. Trip are normally short, and traffic volumes are usually small. Local streets are two- lane streets with 50-foot or 60-foot rights-of-way. Urban streets serving 50 or fewer dwelling units when the neighborhood is fully developed shall be considered as local streets unless otherwise designated by the County Department of Public Works. f. Minor: This includes cul-de-sac and other dead-end streets that have 50 feet of right-of-way and that are no longer than 500 feet. g. Private: This classification includes agricultural access easements and is included primarily to conform to state-mandated standards for private access roads in the state responsibility area as designated by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection. Stanislaus County policies: TC-11: As a matter of policy, Stanislaus County strives to maintain LOS C or better on all roadways. (County General Plan, Circulation Element) TC-12: Policy Two Circulation systems shall be designed and maintained to promote safety and minimize traffic congestion. Implementation Measures 1. The County shall maintain LOS C or better for all County roadways and intersections, except, within the sphere of influence of a city that has adopted a lower level of service standard, the City standard shall apply. [I]n no case shall the adopted LOS fall below LOS D. 2. The County will annually review and update its transportation funding mechanisms and, as necessary, adjust its traffic impact fee to ensure that adequate funds are collected from local, State, and federal sources to implement improvements required to maintain the County's level of service standard on all County roads. 3. The County will work with StanCOG and the cities to monitor the performance of the County’s circulation system and implement improvements as required by the State-mandated Congestion Management Program. 4. The County will work with StanCOG and the cities to identify and secure funding for improvements to the regional and local circulation system. 5. The County shall evaluate the circulation system and recommend amendments a minimum of once every five years. 6. The County will work with staff of the nine cities, StanCOG and Caltrans to establish more coordinated standards and routes for Expressways, Majors, and Collectors that cross jurisdictional lines. 7. Within the spheres of influence of any city, roadway improvements, dedications, building setbacks and road reservations shall meet the development standards of the city consistent with the Spheres of Influence Policy in the Land Use Element of the General Plan, except in those areas subject to an individual city/county agreement. ---PAGE BREAK--- Chapter V. Environmental Analysis Modesto General Plan Update Final Master EIR V-1-13 Section 1. Traffic and Circulation October 2008 8. Private roads in areas of the County protected by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection shall be designed consistent with the standards of that agency, the local fire protection district and the Department of Public Works. 9. Street and road standards proposed in any new development that differ from those established in the latest County’s Standards and Specifications shall be approved by the Department of Public Works, and shall comply with nationally recognized standards. 10. Traffic control devices traffic signals), traffic calming, and other transportation system management techniques shall be utilized to control the flow of traffic, improve traffic safety, and minimize delays. (County General Plan, Circulation Element) TC-13: Goal Two Provide a safe, comprehensive and coordinated transportation system that includes a broad range of transportation modes. Policy Six The County shall strive to reduce motor vehicle emissions and vehicle trips by encouraging the use of alternatives to the single occupant vehicle. Implementation Measures 1. The use of alternative modes of transportation will continue to be encouraged by participating in programs to promote walking, bicycling, ridesharing, and transit use for commuting and recreation. 2. The County will continue to work with StanCOG, Caltrans, and the cities to identify and secure funding for the development and improvement of bikeways, pedestrian pathways, park-and-ride facilities, transit systems, and other alternatives to the single-occupant vehicle. 3. Facilities to support the use of, and transfer between, alternative modes of transportation pedestrian, rideshare, bicycle, bus and train) shall be provided in new development. 4. A trip reduction and travel demand ordinance shall be developed to promote the use of alternative modes and ensure that adequate facilities are provided in new development to support the use of alternatives to the single-occupant vehicle. 5. The County will continue to work with the Stanislaus Council of Governments and the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District to develop and implement transportation control measures to improve air quality through reduction in vehicle trips and vehicle miles of travel. 6. Developers will construct or pay the cost of new pedestrian pathways, bikeways, rideshare facilities, transit amenities, and other improvements necessary to serve the development and to mitigate impacts to the existing circulation system caused by the development. 7. The County shall convert to clean fuels fleet vehicles when possible and pursue special grants and funding sources to facilitate this conversion. (County General Plan, Circulation Element) TC-14: Policy Seven ---PAGE BREAK--- Chapter V. Environmental Analysis Modesto General Plan Update Final Master EIR V-1-14 Section 1. Traffic and Circulation October 2008 Bikeways and pedestrian paths shall be designed to provide reasonable access from residential areas to major bicycle and pedestrian traffic destinations such as schools, recreation and transportation facilities, centers of employment, and shopping areas. Implementation Measures 1. Bikeways shall be considered and implemented in accordance with the StanCOG Regional Bicycle Action Plan and adopted Community Plans or Specific Plans when constructing or improving the roadway system in the unincorporated area outside the spheres of influence of the cities. 2. Within the sphere of influence of a city, bikeways and pedestrian facilities and amenities shall be provided in accordance with the applicable city’s general plan and development standards. 3. Facilities to safely move, and support the use of, bicycles, pedestrians, transit and ridesharing shall be considered and implemented in all new development and roadway construction. 4. Class I bicycle and multi-use paths, such as the “Highway 108 Scenic Corridor Multi-Purpose Trail Plan,” shall be considered to provide connectivity between major origins-destinations or to major recreational areas when on-road provisions for bicycle traffic cannot be accommodated or no alternative roadway alignment provides adequate connectivity. 5. In conjunction with the next comprehensive update of the General Plan, the County shall consider incorporating a bicycle master plan as a component of the Circulation Element. 6. To safely accommodate bicycle traffic, adequate pavement shoulder and/or striping shall be planned and implemented for Expressways, Major, and Collector roads, and, in agricultural areas, on Local roads when constructing new roadways or implementing major rehabilitation projects. 7. Whenever a roadway is resurfaced or restored, adequate pavement shoulder and/or striping will be considered to safely accommodate bicycle travel where adequate right-of-way exists. 8. Federal funds, special grants, and other sources of funding shall be pursued for the development and improvement of bikeways and pedestrian pathways. 9. Pedestrian-oriented design (POD) guidelines shall be prepared which will include the identification of areas and/or projects to which POD guidelines shall apply. POD guidelines shall identify strategies for creating communities that increase the convenience, safety and comfort of people walking and bicycling. (County General Plan, Circulation Element) TC-15: Policy Eight Promote public transit as a viable transportation choice. Implementation Measures: 1. Continue to operate an inter-city transit system and cooperate with other agencies and cities to provide public transit serving Stanislaus County. 2. Where appropriate, new development shall include provisions for connecting to or expansion of existing and/or planned public transit systems. (County General Plan, Circulation Element) ---PAGE BREAK--- Chapter V. Environmental Analysis Modesto General Plan Update Final Master EIR V-1-15 Section 1. Traffic and Circulation October 2008 TC-16: Policy Ten The Airport Land Use Commission Plan and County Airport Regulations shall be updated as necessary, maintained and enforced. (County General Plan, Circulation Element) City of Modesto Policies According to Chapter V of the UAGP, “The purpose of transportation and the circulation system is to move people and goods safely, conveniently, and efficiently. The transportation and circulation systems should be designed to make transportation safe and convenient for all users.” Figure V-1-1 presents the UAGP Circulation & Transportation Diagram, which presents the roadway designations, rail lines, and terminals within the Modesto urban area. Policies Relating to Street Designations TC-17: State Highway This classification defines any street which is acquired, laid-out, constructed, improved or maintained as a state highway pursuant to constitutional or legislative authorization. The street can be a freeway, expressway, arterial or other roadway classification. The right-of-way, design and construction on a State Highway should follow state standards. The improvement and addition of freeway interchanges should be made when required by future traffic demands. (UAGP Policy V-B.5[a]) TC-18: Streets in Specific Plans Any Specific Plan may propose modifications to right-of-way and cross section standards for the five Circulation and Transportation Designations. Design modifications must be approved by the City’s Public Works Director prior to implementation. (UAGP Policy V-B.5[b]) TC-19: Expressways The City’s General Plan provides for a system of expressways throughout the City. The City will continue to include these expressways in its Circulation and Transportation plan and to implement them in cooperation with the development community according to applicable design standards. The City shall regulate and limit the number and design of expressway access locations in order to ensure the overall operational viability of expressways in the community. Any consideration of access to expressways shall be contingent on the ability of an applicant to provide a properly designed solution consistent with the adopted City standard specifications for access to Class B or Class C expressways. The City Engineer may approve variations and deviations from adopted standard specifications pursuant to Section 7-1.701(I)(2) of the Municipal Code. Consideration of a variation and/or deviation from adopted standard specifications shall be subject to environmental review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Any access to expressways from private parcels shall be at the sole expense of the private party, including any reconstruction of the expressway which may be necessitated. ---PAGE BREAK--- Chapter V. Environmental Analysis Modesto General Plan Update Final Master EIR V-1-16 Section 1. Traffic and Circulation October 2008 The City may allow expressway access along either Class B or Class C expressways to non-residential uses on a case-by-case basis when conditions A and B are met, or condition C is met or condition D is met as noted below. When an applicant demonstrates to the City Council’s satisfaction that economic purposes are clearly restricted by denial of access to a particular parcel. When an applicant demonstrates to the City Council’s satisfaction that there are either no or only highly restrictive alternative access solutions available to a particular parcel under consideration. For infill site developments, when an applicant demonstrates to the City Council’s satisfaction that the economic benefits derived from development of the remnant parcel overrides the need to limit access to that parcel. It is recognized that City of Modesto emergency facilities, such as police and fire stations, will be located from time to time on expressways, and further, that direct access is desirable. In these cases, direct access is allowed and shall be designed in cooperation with the Engineering and Transportation Department. Said design shall have City Council approval prior to implementation. The City has adopted access management policies that include design standards for expressway access, (General Plan Amendment 2001-02, August 28, 2001). The purpose of the guidelines and design standards is to provide safe ingress and egress to adjacent parcels while at the same time not degrading the carrying capacity, flow and efficiency of the expressway. Such access management guidelines and design standards conform to design criteria and standards as set forth by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO). (UAGP Policy V-B.5[c]) Circulation and Transportation Policies—Overall TC- 20: The streets and highways system should be coordinated with Caltrans’, the County’s, and other jurisdictions’ existing facilities and plans. The adoption of a regional expressway system by Stanislaus Council of Governments (StanCOG) should be supported, and the components of the regional system which lie within the City’s Sphere of Influence shall be incorporated into the City’s Circulation and Transportation Diagram. The expressway system shall be designed to accommodate mass transit. The City shall develop an efficient and well-coordinated multi-modal (rail/air/bus/bicycle/pedestrian) transportation system. (UAGP Policy V-B.6[a]) TC-21: Transportation Control Measures (TCMs) shall be implemented where feasible or mandated by other agencies, to reduce vehicle miles traveled, vehicle idling, or traffic congestion. Alternatives to the drive-alone auto mode, such as mass transit, ride sharing, non-motorized transportation, and telecommuting should be encouraged. In addition, the City shall encourage innovative means to reduce traffic congestion and enhance air quality, such as teleconferencing centers, fiber optic communication networks, internet commerce and education, and alternative fuels and vehicles; traffic flow improvements, including: implementation of Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS), coordination of traffic signals, ---PAGE BREAK--- Chapter V. Environmental Analysis Modesto General Plan Update Final Master EIR V-1-17 Section 1. Traffic and Circulation October 2008 reducing congestion at major intersections, and alternative traffic controls such as roundabouts; increased transit service including: regional express bus service, transit access to airports, and railroad stations, expansion of public transportation, bus pullouts and transit shelters, bicycle racks on buses; trip reduction programs including transit oriented development, sustainable development, and preferential parking and financial incentives for carpools and vanpools; encouragement of pedestrian and bicycle travel including development of the non-motorized transportation system as outlined in the December 2006 Non-Motorized Transportation Plan and development of pedestrian and bicycle overpasses where feasible and appropriate; development of safe routes to school and other measures as identified in the latest Modesto City Council resolution regarding Reasonably Available Control Measures. (UAGP Policy V-B.6[b]) TC-22: Transportation Demand Management (TDM) measures are encouraged to directly affect trip makers’ choice of travel mode and the routes and time of day for trips. Transportation Demand Management has as its purpose the reduction in the number of vehicle trips being made on the street network. Typical types of TDM measures would be promotion of transit, car pooling or van pooling, non-motorized transportation, and pricing of parking to make these alternative modes of transportation more attractive and cost competitive. (UAGP Policy V- B.6[c]) TC-23: The City shall prepare a citywide transportation improvement plan to accommodate peak hour traffic flow on arterial streets and major collector streets while considering transit, bicycle and pedestrian travel. This plan may include traffic signal coordination and low-cost intersection and roadway segment improvements, such as striping and restriping to add turning lanes. This plan should also consider Transit Oriented Development (TOD), Smart Growth principles, transit enhancements and non-motorized transportation networks as means to reduce vehicle trips and maximize the efficiency of the existing and planned roadway system. (UAGP Policy V-B.6[d]) TC-24: The City hereby defines and authorizes the use of a “Plan Line.” The Plan Line is a process that specifically defines the location of center lines, alignments, rights-of-way, cross-sections and intersections for future or proposed roadways and non-motorized transportation right-of-ways. The purpose of a Plan Line is to provide adequate right-of-way for future growth needs and to protect the right-of-way from encroachment. Adopted Plan Lines shall be incorporated into development plans to define specific requirements for dedicating the right-of- way for street purposes and to implement Circulation and Transportation Policies of the General Plan. (UAGP Policy V-B.6[e]) TC-25: The highest possible levels of service for all transportation modes (vehicle, transit, pedestrian and bicycle) shall be maintained on City roadways, consistent with the financial resources reasonably available to the City and without unreasonably burdening property owners or developers with excessive roadway improvement costs. On roadways where the LOS is expected to exceed level F, the City should consider mitigation measures other than road widening, such as the addition of bicycle lanes, improved pedestrian access, improved transit service, and the establishment of walkable development patterns. Data from the General Plan Traffic Analysis, described in [Appendix A of the Master EIR, as updated from time to time,] shall be used to evaluate the effectiveness of traffic mitigation measures adopted by the City Council. (UAGP Policy V-B.6[f]) ---PAGE BREAK--- Chapter V. Environmental Analysis Modesto General Plan Update Final Master EIR V-1-18 Section 1. Traffic and Circulation October 2008 TC-26: Where safety, traffic operations, and non-motorized transportation are not compromised, in-fill and redevelopment projects shall be exempted from the City’s street width and right-of-way standards if those standards exceed the original standards under which the adjacent streets were constructed. This exemption shall not apply to other street improvement standards, such as, but not limited to, drainage, structural requirements, curbs, gutters, sidewalks, and lighting. This exemption shall not apply on State Highways or where Plan Lines have been adopted. (UAGP Policy V-B.6[g]) TC-27: The City’s circulation system shall facilitate a rapid response by emergency vehicles and shall accommodate school buses. Factors shall include adequate road widths and corner radii in street designs to ensure that the appropriate fire equipment and school buses can negotiate City streets. (UAGP Policy V- B.6[h]) TC-28: Development shall be designed to encourage walking as an alternative mode to the automobile for transportation by creating safe and convenient pedestrian facilities and connections through landscaping, frontage improvements, and pedestrian walkways through parking areas and over major barriers such as freeways or canals. Development of cul-de-sacs should be discouraged; however when proposed, through cul-del-sacs shall, to the greatest extent possible, provide pedestrian connections to schools and other community facilities. Sound wall designers, where warranted and appropriate for new and existing development, shall consider pedestrian access to the adjacent roadway. (UAGP Policy V-B.6[i]) TC-29: Non-motorized transportation, such as the bicycle, shall be promoted as an alternative mode of transportation. An adequate and safe non-motorized transportation system in accordance with the City of Modesto Non-Motorized Transportation Plan (updated December 2006 and adopted as part of the Modesto Urban Area General Plan, January 2007, P-GPA-06-001) shall be provided to connect residential areas with shopping and employment areas in and adjacent to the City for present and future transportation needs. Right-of- way for non-motorized usage shall be considered in the planning of new streets and in street improvements. Facilities for mode transfer from non-motorized travel to park-and-ride lots, transit, and rail shall be considered and provided when necessary. (UAGP Policy V-B.6[j]) TC-30: The City shall encourage the effort to make a safe, efficient and effective rail service possible by increasing the frequency, speed, and comfort of its passengers. The City recognizes and encourages a safe and convenient interface among rail, transit, automobile and non-motorized traffic. The following forms of rail service are particularly encouraged: Amtrak. The City supports continued passenger rail service to the Modesto area Inter-regional Rail Service. The City supports the rerouting of San Joaquin rail service to provide service to the downtown area and the intermodal facilities and creation of passenger commute rail service from Modesto to San Joaquin County, then to Sacramento and over the Altamont Pass to the Bay Area. Light Rail Transit/Bus Rapid Transit. The City shall support a light rail transit or bus rapid transit (BRT) system when the urban form warrants it and where it is feasible. BRT is a flexible and rapid mode of transportation that uses buses combined with stations, services, running ways, and ---PAGE BREAK--- Chapter V. Environmental Analysis Modesto General Plan Update Final Master EIR V-1-19 Section 1. Traffic and Circulation October 2008 technology to provide the quality of rail transit and the flexibility of buses in an integrated system with strong identity. High Speed Rail. The City encourages and supports the development of a high speed rail corridor through the San Joaquin Valley and the development of a high speed rail station within the City. Freight Rail. The City encourages the extended and increased use of rail as an alternative transportation mode for the movement of goods. In addition, the City supports the intermodal linkage of “truck on rail” as a technique for reducing through-truck traffic on highway corridors. To provide acceptable traffic operations and to maintain safe crossings, the City shall support the construction of grade-separated crossings for all new crossings. Existing at-grade crossing shall be maintained and new developments shall be evaluated to ensure that railroad crossing operations are not compromised. The City shall seek state funding and grants to improve railroad crossings within the City of Modesto. Any modifications to existing railroad crossings or new crossings (at-grade or grade separated) shall be coordinated with the appropriate railroad company. (UAGP Policy V-B.6[k]) TC-31: Street networks in new development shall be developed to permit non-motorized and vehicle trips within the development be completed without the use of collector streets and arterial streets. (UAGP Policy V-B.6[l]) TC-32: The City shall work with Caltrans to promote the application of advanced technology to help manage congestion and enhance roadway capacity and safety. Known as “Intelligent Transportation Systems” (ITS), the program includes the following components: Advanced Traffic Management Systems (ATMS), which maximize capacity of the transportation system, and involves using technology to manage traffic flow, disseminate real-time travel information to travelers, improving emergency response, freeway patrol service, and coordinate inter-agency traffic management. Advanced Traveler Information Systems (ATIS), which provide on-board navigation that can provide congestion and accident information and alternative travel routes. Commercial Vehicle Operation (CVO), which restricts commercial vehicles from operating during commute peak hours and helps transportation companies track their vehicles. Advanced Vehicle Control Systems (AVCS), which use on-board and in- road guidance systems to optimize vehicle speed and movement. (UAGP Policy V-B.6[m]) TC-33: The City has developed guidelines for private property access to the expressway, arterial and collector street system. These guidelines provide for reasonable, safe and coordinated access while maintaining smooth and safe traffic flow along the City’s major streets. These guidelines address the number, location, design and operation of access driveways for each class of roadway. (UAGP Policy V-B.6[n]) TC-34: The City shall provide a balanced, feasible and well-maintained system of transportation for motorized and non-motorized modes. (UAGP Policy V- B.6[o]) ---PAGE BREAK--- Chapter V. Environmental Analysis Modesto General Plan Update Final Master EIR V-1-20 Section 1. Traffic and Circulation October 2008 TC-35: In the case of conflict between motorized and non-motorized transportation modes, roadway and right-of-way features will be added or altered to protect pedestrians and bicyclists, as well as provide for improved safety for motorized traffic consistent with Urban Area General Plan goals. Features could include pedestrian and bicycle bridges over roadways. (UAGP Policy V-B.6[p]) TC-36: The City of Modesto Roundabout Policy (dated September 2004) provides guidelines and policies that pertain to the development of the roundabouts and is hereby adopted and into the Modesto Urban Area General Plan. The use and design of roundabouts shall conform to these requirements. (UAGP Policy V- B.6[q]) TC-37: New roadways and roadway connections shall conform to the most recent City of Modesto Roadway Design Standards, as detailed in Standard Specifications, City of Modesto Public Works Department or to the standards authorized under a specific plan, whichever is applicable. Shared and consolidated access to arterial roadways shall be encouraged to minimize curb cuts. (UAGP Policy V- B.6[r]) TC-38: New roadways and roadway connections should be designed to provide a grid street system to improve connectivity, accessibility of all modes, increase route choice, better accommodate public transit services, and reduce trip length, traffic congestion, and pollution. (UAGP Policy V-B.6[s]) TC-39: The City of Modesto shall update and maintain a Capital Facilities Fee program to contribute to transportation improvement projects of local and regional significance. (UAGP Policy V-B.6[t]) TC-40: Bus pullouts are to be added to new developments to support transit passenger loading and unloading. (UAGP Policy V-B.6[u]) TC-41: New schools and parks should be surrounded by streets on all sides wherever possible to encourage access by walking and bicycle and to provide safe and adequate parking for drop-off and pick-up along the school frontage. (UAGP Policy V-B.6[v]) Circulation and Transportation Policies—Redevelopment Area and Baseline Developed Area TC-42: For new development with the potential to generate 100 or more peak hour vehicle trips (greater than the number of trips expected to occur with development consistent with the UAGP and the MEIR) the City may require a qualified traffic engineer prepare a traffic study to identify potential transportation impacts and specify improvement measures needed to ensure an acceptable LOS on affected streets. The City Engineer will specify the extent of the traffic study based on existing conditions and key issues associated with site plans. (UAGP Policy V-B.7[a]) TC-43: The City may allow individual locations to fall below the City’s LOS standards in instances where the construction of physical improvements would be infeasible, be prohibitively expensive, significantly impact adjacent properties or the environment, significantly impact non-motorized transportation systems, or have a significant adverse effect on the character of the community. To the extent feasible, the City shall strive for LOS D on all streets and intersections. (UAGP Policy V-B.7[b]) TC-44: Individual development projects that could affect conditions on traffic facilities predicted by the General Plan Traffic Analysis to operate at LOS or better ---PAGE BREAK--- Chapter V. Environmental Analysis Modesto General Plan Update Final Master EIR V-1-21 Section 1. Traffic and Circulation October 2008 in 2025 (as shown in [Appendix A] of the Master EIR) cannot cause, without further study, conditions to be worse than LOS at any time prior to 2025. If implementation of this Level of Service is impractical or infeasible, or may result in impacts on the non-motorized transportation system subsequent environmental review, including a Comprehensive Traffic Study, shall be required. The subsequent environmental review may take the form of: A mitigated negative declaration, if feasible mitigation measures or alternatives will be incorporated to avoid the worsening of the LOS standards presented in [Appendix A] of the Master EIR. (Section 21157.5(a) of CEQA.) An EIR, if mitigation measures cannot avoid the worsening of the LOS Standards presented in [Appendix A] of the Master EIR. (Section 21157.5(b) of CEQA.) The Comprehensive Traffic Study shall include appropriate measures to update the General Plan Traffic Analysis for all subsequent Specific Plans, and for development within the affected Baseline Developed Area and Redevelopment Area, and shall conform to the Criteria for a Traffic Impact Study. (UAGP Policy V-B.7[c]) TC-45: Individual development projects that could affect conditions on traffic facilities predicted by the General Plan Traffic Analysis to operate at LOS (as shown in [Appendix A] of the Master EIR) shall not, without further study, cause conditions on those facilities to exceed LOS at any time prior to 2025. If implementation of this Level of Service is impractical or infeasible, subsequent environmental review, including a Comprehensive Traffic Study, will be required. The subsequent environmental review may take the form of: A mitigated negative declaration, if feasible mitigation measures or alternatives will be incorporated to avoid the worsening of the LOS standards presented in [Appendix A] of the Master EIR. (Section 21157.5(a) of CEQA.) An EIR, if mitigation measures cannot avoid the worsening of the LOS Standards presented in [Appendix A] of the Master EIR. (Section 21157.5(b) of CEQA.) The Comprehensive Traffic Study shall include appropriate measures to update the General Plan Traffic Analysis for all subsequent Specific Plans, and for development within the affected Baseline Developed Area and Redevelopment Area, and shall conform to the Criteria for a Traffic Impact Study. (UAGP Policy V-B.7[d]) TC-46: Individual development projects that could affect conditions on traffic facilities predicted by the General Plan Traffic Analysis to achieve LOS (as shown in [Appendix A] of the Master EIR) shall not, without further study, cause further substantial degradation of conditions. Further substantial degradation shall be defined as an increase in the daily vehicle/capacity (v/c) ratio of 0.05 or greater for roadway segments whose v/c ratio is estimated to be 1.00 or higher in 2025 by the traffic model. If implementation of this Level of Service is impractical or infeasible, subsequent environmental review, including a Comprehensive Traffic Study, will be required. The subsequent environmental review may take the form of: ---PAGE BREAK--- Chapter V. Environmental Analysis Modesto General Plan Update Final Master EIR V-1-22 Section 1. Traffic and Circulation October 2008 A mitigated negative declaration, if feasible mitigation measures or alternatives will be incorporated to avoid the worsening of the LOS standards presented in [Appendix A] of the Master EIR. (Section 21157.5(a) of CEQA.) An EIR, if mitigation measures cannot avoid the worsening of the LOS Standards presented in [Appendix A] of the Master EIR. (Section 21157.5(b) of CEQA.) The Comprehensive Traffic Study shall include appropriate measures to update the General Plan Traffic Analysis for all subsequent Specific Plans, and for development within the affected Baseline Developed Area and Redevelopment Area, and shall conform to the Traffic Study Guidelines. (UAGP Policy V- B.7[e]) TC-47: Designated City staff will review future development project proposals within the Baseline Developed Area, on a case-by-case basis. The following criteria may be applied to each proposal, and a determination made by the designated staff of the Public Works Department or other City department, regarding the acceptable or appropriate level of project impact on the circulation network. For proposed development projects that conform to the General Plan- approved land use for the site, it is assumed that the adopted performance standards for the circulation system within the area of impact will be maintained. For such projects, the designated City staff may establish an appropriate scope of study for a “Site Access Study”, if necessary, which may address project impacts to adjacent or nearby intersections, as described in Policies 6-a through 6-c. A “Site Access Study” shall, at a minimum, analyze and resolve the following: Impacts to roadway segments adjacent to the project site. Impacts to intersections considered to have a key role in regulating access to the project site or substantial traffic flow between the project site and a key arterial roadway. Impacts to and design needs for access between internal and off-site vehicular circulation, and linkages to off-site bicycle/pedestrian circulation systems, and transit services. On-site parking needs and impacts to off-site parking, when applicable. Other operational or safety-related concerns and issues, including site access. The proposed development project will be designed to incorporate all recommendations of the “Site Access Study.” If implementation of the definitive recommendations of the Site Access Study is impractical or infeasible, a subsequent environmental review, including a Comprehensive Traffic Study, may be required. That Study shall include appropriate measures to update the General Plan Traffic Analysis for all subsequent Specific Plans, and for development within the affected Baseline Developed Area and Redevelopment Area. For projects which do not conform to the General Plan-approved land use, further, supplemental environmental review may be necessary, in accordance with Section 21157.1(d) of the Public Resources Code. (UAGP Policy V-B.7[f]) ---PAGE BREAK--- Chapter V. Environmental Analysis Modesto General Plan Update Final Master EIR V-1-23 Section 1. Traffic and Circulation October 2008 TC-48: Data from the General Plan Traffic Analysis, described in [Appendix A] of the Master EIR, shall be utilized to evaluate the effectiveness of the Policies presented above. (UAGP Policy V-B.7[g]) Circulation and Transportation Policies—Planned Urbanizing Area TC-49: Prior to the adoption of each Specific Plan, a “Comprehensive Traffic Study” shall be prepared, to the satisfaction of the Public Works Director, and be included in an EIR for each respective Specific Plan. (UAGP Policy V-B.8[a]) TC-50: The Comprehensive Traffic Study shall include the following components: Sufficient analysis and mitigation measures to ensure that the Level of Service Standard is maintained on all Specific Plan area roadways and intersections. A determination of which external links and intersections require study and impact assessment shall be made by the Public Works Director. If the identified mitigation measures cannot feasibly achieve the traffic performance standard for internal and external roadways in the opinion of the Public Works Director, then the Comprehensive Traffic Study shall include appropriate measures to update the General Plan Traffic Analysis and findings for all subsequent Specific Plans, and for development within the Baseline Developed Area and Redevelopment Area. (UAGP Policy V- B.8[b]) TC-51: For individual proposed projects that conform to a Specific Plan’s land use designations (for amount and type of land use) a subsequent Site Access Study may be required. Each Site Access Study should, at a minimum, focus on the following issues: Impacts to roadway intersections that are adjacent to the project site. Impacts to and design needs for access between internal and off-site vehicular circulation, and linkages to bicycle/pedestrian circulation systems and transit services. On-site parking needs. Other safety-related concerns. Conceivably, the Comprehensive Traffic Study may contain sufficient detail to obviate some or all portions of a “Site Access Study.” (UAGP Policy V-B.8[c]) TC-52: Data from the General Plan Traffic Analysis, described in [Appendix A] of the Master EIR, shall be utilized to evaluate the effectiveness of the Policies presented above. (UAGP Policy V-B.8[d]) TC-53: Projects that do not conform to the General Plan-approved land use may need supplemental environmental review, in accordance with Section 21157.1(d) of the Public Resources Code. (UAGP Policy V-B.8[e]) Policies Related to the Modesto City-County Airport TC-54: The City encourages aviation services at the Modesto City/County Airport and promotes airline service that meets the present and future needs of the community. The City should pursue greater inter-regional air service to the extent that it is economically viable. (UAGP Policy V-F.2[a]) ---PAGE BREAK--- Chapter V. Environmental Analysis Modesto General Plan Update Final Master EIR V-1-24 Section 1. Traffic and Circulation October 2008 TC-55: Land use around Modesto City-County Airport will be consistent with the Stanislaus County’s Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) plan adopted in accordance with Section 21676 of the Public Utilities Code. The ALUC plan provides for the orderly growth of the Airport and the area surrounding the Airport within the jurisdiction of the Airport Land Use Commission, and will safeguard the general welfare of the inhabitants within the boundary of influence and the public in general. (UAGP Policy V-F.2[b]) TC-56: Mitigation measures suggested by the Airport Master Plan and related documents should be considered at the implementation of inter-regional air service, including a voluntary noise reduction program for residential units impacted by noise levels that exceed acceptable state standards. (UAGP Policy V-F.2[c]) Transit Policies TC-57: Public transit services shall be provided, using the most cost-effective methods available and based upon professional analysis of alternatives through the maintenance of the City’s Long Range Transit Plan. (UAGP Policy V-I.2[a]) TC-58: The City’s transit system shall strive to provide a mix of head ways dependent upon actual and anticipated ridership to reach a balance between cost- effectiveness and convenience. (UAGP Policy V-I.2[b]) TC-59: The City’s transit system shall strive to maintain farebox recovery ratios sufficient to meet state requirements. (UAGP Policy V-I.2[c]) TC-60: The City shall participate in regional public transit proposals to the extent economically feasible and that such systems benefit Modestans. (UAGP Policy V-I.2[d]) TC-61: The City transit system shall strive to provide service on a one-half-mile grid where feasible to make the service as accessible as possible. Newly developing areas should provide a street pattern capable of accommodating transit service on a one-half-mile grid. Sidewalks to transit facilities shall be provided in the development of new roadway systems to minimize walking distance. (UAGP Policy V-I.2[e]) TC-62: The City’s transit system shall strive to provide two-way service on routes where feasible. (UAGP Policy V-I.2[f]) TC-63: The City shall strive to safeguard options for future transit and mass transportation development. (UAGP Policy V-I.2[g]) TC-64: In major new development areas, the transit operators shall be encouraged to have service available when the first resident or employer moves in. (UAGP Policy V-I.2[h]) Policies Which Avoid Impacts 1. Stanislaus Council of Governments Policies The following StanCOG policies will reduce the cumulative impacts identified in the EIR prepared for the RTP: TC-1 through TC-10. ---PAGE BREAK--- Chapter V. Environmental Analysis Modesto General Plan Update Final Master EIR V-1-25 Section 1. Traffic and Circulation October 2008 2. County Policies County policies do not apply within Modesto. However, they are important at the city’s edge where City and County roads connect. Policies TC-11 through TC-16 moderate impacts of traffic on roads that connect to the City’s network. 3. Modesto Policies The following City policies will avoid impacts within the planning area: TC-17 through TC-64. B. CONSIDERATION AND DISCUSSION OF SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS The following information is provided in accordance with Section 15126.2 of the State CEQA Guidelines. 1. Thresholds of Significance Suggested by the California Environmental Quality Act Appendix G of the State CEQA Guidelines indicates that a project may have a significant impact if it would cause a substantial increase in traffic over existing street capacity; exceed CMP LOS standards, either individually or cumulatively; result in a change in air traffic patterns or location resulting in substantial safety risk; substantially increase hazards due to design features; result in inadequate emergency access; result in inadequate parking capacity; or conflict with adopted policies/plans supporting alternative transportation modes. 2. Thresholds of Significance Adopted by the City of Modesto After consideration of the approaches suggested by the State CEQA Guidelines and commonly accepted traffic engineering practices, the City has selected LOS D or better for AM and PM peak- hour and daily conditions as the standard for the evaluation of impacts, except for locations where alternative standards have been adopted. This is consistent with the acceptable LOS standards established under the 2003 UAGP. An impact is considered significant if the roadway’s projected LOS would exceed level D. On roadways where the LOS is expected to exceed the threshold, the City should consider the effects of possible mitigation on the entire roadway system, as roadway widening can result in secondary impacts on the non-motorized transportation network, potentially degrading the overall transportation network. ---PAGE BREAK--- Chapter V. Environmental Analysis Modesto General Plan Update Final Master EIR V-1-26 Section 1. Traffic and Circulation October 2008 3. Significant Direct Impacts A computerized traffic model, the TPPG Model, was used to develop future traffic forecasts for the UAGP to 2025. The TPPG Model applies trip generation rates to land use data to forecast total trips produced and attracted by traffic analysis zones (TAZs) throughout the planning area on an average weekday and during the weekday PM peak hour. Separate modules within the overall traffic model were used to distribute trips among the TAZs in the model system and to assign the trips to specific roads within the roadway network. The TPPG Model was calibrated to a 2005 base year. The City’s land use and zoning designations within the Baseline Developed Area, Redevelopment Area, and Planned Urbanizing Area were translated into residential dwelling unit and employment totals for input into the TPPG Model based on density assumptions made by the City, as summarized in Table V-1-5. More information relating to the travel demand model used for this analysis can be found in the TPPG Model validation document in Appendix A. Table V-1-5. Dwelling Unit and Employment Density Assumptions by Land Use Designation (2007) Land Use Designation Zoning Code Dwelling Units Per Acre Jobs Per Acre Redevelopment Planning District RPD 2.6 26.85 Residential R 7.5 0 Commercial C 0 15.63 Mixed Use MU 14 8 Industrial I 0 15.25 Regional Commercial RC 0 20 Business Park BP 0 35 Open Space OS 0.1 0 Village Residential VR 6.6 0.7 Notes: 2.9 persons per dwelling unit. Salida Community Plan contains 7,900 dwelling units. Source: City of Modesto, Planning Department. a. Roadway Improvements The 2025 roadway network contains several new roadways plus extensive widening along SR 99 and city arterials and expressways. Some of the changes are highlighted below: New Facilities Examples of new facilities include a new west-side four-lane expressway extending from SR 99 south of Kansas Avenue, the extension of Brink Road from North Avenue to Dakota Avenue/Salida Boulevard, the extension of Prescott Road north to Bangs Avenue, the extension of Tuolumne Boulevard east, the realignment of Claus Expressway, and the extension of Claratina Avenue east past Roselle Avenue. New roadways to support future development will be constructed between Kiernan ---PAGE BREAK--- Chapter V. Environmental Analysis Modesto General Plan Update Final Master EIR V-1-27 Section 1. Traffic and Circulation October 2008 Avenue/Claribel Road and Pelandale Avenue/Claratina Avenue and between Sylvan Avenue and Claratina Avenue east of Oakdale Road. New roadways to support future development also will be constructed in the southwestern part of Modesto, primarily south of the new expressway and west of Carpenter Road. Construction of these new roadways will be subject to a separate environmental review. Expanded Facilities Examples of planned improvements to existing freeway, expressway, and arterial facilities are listed below. „ SR 99 is to be widened from a six-lane freeway to an eight-lane freeway. „ Kiernan Avenue/Claribel Road is to be expanded from two lanes to six lanes. „ Bangs Avenue is to be widened from a two-lane facility to a four-lane facility. „ Pelandale Avenue is to be expanded to a six-lane facility. „ Standiford Avenue is to be widened from four lanes to six lanes, and Sylvan Avenue is to be widened from a two- to four-lane roadway to a six-lane roadway, west of Oakdale Road. „ Briggsmore Avenue is to be widened to a six-lane facility throughout its length. „ Yosemite Avenue is to be widened to six lanes from east of downtown to Claus Road and to four lanes east of Claus Road. „ Hatch Road is to be widened to four lanes throughout its length. „ Maze Road, Paradise Road, and Whitmore Avenue are to be widened to four lanes. „ Dale Road is to be widened to six lanes. „ Tully Road is to be widened to six lanes, north of Sylvan Avenue. „ McHenry Avenue is to be widened to four lanes north of Kiernan Avenue and to six lanes between Kiernan Avenue and Grecian Avenue. „ Coffee Road is to be widened to four lanes north of Mable Avenue. „ Oakdale Road north of Claribel Road is to be widened to four lanes, and Oakdale Road/El Vista Road/Mitchell Road is to be widened to six lanes. „ Roselle Avenue is to be widened to four lanes. Changes in Vehicle Miles Traveled Vehicle miles traveled (VMT) is an estimate of the total amount of travel occurring within the model area. VMT estimates for 2005 and 2025 are presented in Table V-1- 6. VMT is projected to increase by about 82 percent between 2005 and 2025, with vehicle hours of travel projected to increase by 108 percent, indicating that the roadways are becoming more congested. Average speed is expected to decrease by 13 percent. ---PAGE BREAK--- Chapter V. Environmental Analysis Modesto General Plan Update Final Master EIR V-1-28 Section 1. Traffic and Circulation October 2008 Table V-1-6. Changes in Daily Vehicle Miles Traveled and Lane Miles of Roadway—2005 and 2025 Year Lane Miles Vehicle Miles Traveled Vehicle Hours of Travel Average Speed 2005 1,547 6,835,210 173,647 39.4 mph 2025 1,983 12,447,000 361,800 34.4 mph Percent Change 12% 82% 108% -13% Roadway segment LOS were calculated to evaluate the effect of the growth projected by the UAGP, combined with the proposed roadway network revisions described above, on roadway operations. The 2025 PM peak-hour LOS are presented in Figure V-1-4a, and the daily LOS are presented in Figure V-1-4b. The roadway segments operating at LOS E and F on a daily basis outside the downtown area are summarized in Table V-1-7. Those operating at LOS E or F on a PM peak-hour basis are presented in Appendix A. Table V-1-7. Daily Roadway Segments with Level of Service E or F Roadway Segment From To Daily LOS General Plan Lanes Additional Lanes for LOS D 1. New road north of Kiernan Avenue Tully Road McHenry Avenue F 2 2 2. 7th Street Tuolumne Boulevard/ B Street Crows Landing Road E 4 2 3. Bangs Avenue Tully Road McHenry Avenue F 4 2 4. Beckwith Road/ Standiford Avenue Dakota Avenue Dale Road E/F 6 4 5. Bodem Street Morris Avenue Downey Avenue F 2 2 6. Briggsmore Avenue Coffee Road Oakdale Road E/F 6 2 7. Brink Avenue Beckwith Road Morse Road F 4 2 8. Carpenter Road 9th Street Woodland Avenue F 6 4 9. Carpenter Road Torrid Avenue Chicago Avenue E/F 6 2 10. Carpenter Road Robertson Road Whitmore Avenue E 6 2 11. Carver Road Bangs Avenue Volendam Avenue E 2 2 12. Carver Road Cheyenne Way Standiford Avenue E 2 2 13. Carver Road Standiford Avenue Briggsmore Avenue F 2 2 14. Carver Road Orangeburg Avenue 9th Street F 2 2 15. Claribel Road McHenry Avenue Oakdale Road E 6 2 16. Claribel Road Roselle Avenue Santa Fe Avenue E 6 2 17. Claus Road Floyd Avenue Creekwood Drive E/F 6 4 18. Coffee Road Claratina Avenue Montana Drive E 4 2 19. Coffee Road Sylvan Avenue Brighton Avenue E/F 4 2 20. Conant Avenue Standiford Avenue Rumble Road F 2 2 ---PAGE BREAK--- Figure V-1-4a Year 2025 PM Peak Hour Roadway Segment Level of Service 06826.06 (rev. 7/08) TERMINAL AVE ---PAGE BREAK--- Figure V-1-4b Year 2025 Daily Roadway Segment Level of Service 06826.06 (2/08) TERMINAL AVE ---PAGE BREAK--- Chapter V. Environmental Analysis Modesto General Plan Update Final Master EIR V-1-29 Section 1. Traffic and Circulation October 2008 Roadway Segment From To Daily LOS General Plan Lanes Additional Lanes for LOS D 21. Crows Landing Road SR 99 northbound ramps Hatch Road E/F 6 2 22. Dale Road Pelandale Avenue Nightingale Drive E 6 2 23. Dale Road Vintage Drive/ Konyenburg Lane Standiford Avenue E 6 2 24. Emerald Avenue Woodland Avenue California Avenue E/F 2 2 25. Finney Road Bacon Road/ Murphy Road Broadway Avenue F 2 2 26. Florida Avenue Orangeburg Avenue Granger Avenue F 2 2 27. Floyd Avenue McHenry Avenue Sunrise Avenue F 2 2 28. Granger Avenue Florida Avenue McHenry Avenue F 2 2 29. Kansas Avenue Carpenter Road SR 99 SB Ramps F 2 2 30. Kearney Avenue Orangeburg Avenue Roseburg Avenue E 2 4 31. Kearney Avenue Leonard Avenue Coldwell Avenue E 2 2 32. Kiernan Avenue Salida Boulevard SR 99 southbound ramps F 4 2 33. La Loma Avenue Morton Boulevard Yosemite Boulevard E/F 2 2 34. Locke Road Coffee Road Brighton Avenue E 2 2 35. Lucern Avenue Sunrise Avenue Coffee Road E/F 2 2 36. Martin Luther King Drive California Avenue Paradise Avenue E 2 2 37. Maze Boulevard Carpenter Road Emerald Avenue E 4 2 38. Maze Boulevard Spencer Avenue Washington Street E/F 4 2 39. McHenry Avenue Bangs Avenue Woodrow Avenue E/F 6 2 40. McHenry Avenue Floyd Avenue Briggsmore Avenue E/F 6 2 41. McHenry Avenue Orangeburg Avenue Roseburg Avenue E 6 2 42. Merle Avenue Oakdale Avenue Walnut Tree Drive E 2 2 43. Miller Avenue Conejo Avenue El Vista Avenue F 2 2 44. Monticello Lane Hatch Road Salazar Circle F 2 2 45. Morris Avenue McHenry Avenue Coffee Road E/F 2 2 46. Morton Boulevard Yosemite Boulevard 11th Street F 2 2 47. Needham Avenue College Avenue K Street E/F 4 2 48. Norwegian Avenue Sunrise Avenue Coffee Road E 2 2 49. Oakdale Road Mable Avenue Bridgewood Way E 6 2 50. Oakdale Road Sylvan Avenue Floyd Road E 6 2 51. Oakdale Road/ El Vista Avenue Manor Oak Drive Edgebrook Drive E/F 6 2 52. Orangeburg Avenue Briggsmore Avenue Carver Road E 4 2 53. Orangeburg Avenue Sherwood Avenue Florida Avenue E 4 2 54. Orangeburg Avenue El Vecino Avenue Coffee Road E 4 2 ---PAGE BREAK--- Chapter V. Environmental Analysis Modesto General Plan Update Final Master EIR V-1-30 Section 1. Traffic and Circulation October 2008 Roadway Segment From To Daily LOS General Plan Lanes Additional Lanes for LOS D 55. Orangeburg Avenue Coffee Road Eastridge Drive E/F 2 2 56. Paradise Avenue/H Street Pine Tree Lane 1st Street F 4 2 57. Pelandale Avenue Sisk Road Chapman Road F 6 2 58. Prescott Road Pelandale Avenue Cheyenne Way E 4 2 59. Prescott Road Plaza Parkway Briggsmore Avenue F 4 2 60. Riverside Drive Yosemite Boulevard Mitchell Road E 2 2 61. Rose Avenue Celeste Drive Wylie Drive E/F 2 2 62. Roselle Avenue/ Lakewood Avenue Merle Avenue Orangeburg Avenue F 4 2 63. Rumble Road Conant Avenue Prescott Avenue E 2 2 64. Rumble Road Napier Drive Edward Avenue E/F 2 2 65. Salida Boulevard Pelandale Avenue Murphy Road F 4 2 66. Santa Rosa Avenue Yosemite Boulevard Oregon Drive E 2 2 67. Scenic Drive Burney Street Oakdale Road E/F 4 4 68. Sisk Road Pirrone Road Kiernan Avenue F 2 4 69. Sisk Road Standiford Avenue Rumble Road F 4 2 70. Sisk Road Conant Avenue Briggsmore Avenue F 4 2 71. SR 99 northbound Hatch Road 9th Street E 4 1 72. SR 99 northbound Crows Landing Road Tuolumne Boulevard E 4 1 73. SR 99 northbound Tuolumne Boulevard Kansas Avenue F 4 1 74. SR 99 northbound Kansas Avenue Standiford Avenue E 4 1 75. SR 99 northbound Kiernan Avenue/ Broadway Avenue Hammett Road E 3 1 76. SR 99 southbound Hammett Road Kiernan Avenue/ Broadway Avenue E 3 1 77. SR 99 southbound Standiford Avenue Briggsmore Avenue E 4 1 78. SR 99 southbound Kansas Avenue H Street E 4 1 79. SR 99 southbound H Street Crows Landing Road F 4 1 80. Sunrise Avenue Norwegian Avenue Granger Avenue F 2 2 81. Sycamore Avenue Orangeburg Avenue Needham Avenue F 2 2 82. Tenaya Drive Conejo Avenue Mitchell Road E 2 2 83. Tully Road Bangs Avenue Pelandale Avenue F 6 2 84. Tully Road Standiford Avenue Woodrow Avenue E 4 2 85. Vintage Drive Sisk Road Gagos Drive F 2 2 86. Vintage Drive Bluebird Drive Dale Road F 2 2 87. Woodland Avenue/ Coldwell Avenue Carpenter Road Tully Road E/F 2/4 2 88. Wylie Drive Muirswood Way Oakdale Road E 2 2 89. Yosemite Boulevard D Street Santa Cruz Avenue E/F 6 2 ---PAGE BREAK--- Chapter V. Environmental Analysis Modesto General Plan Update Final Master EIR V-1-31 Section 1. Traffic and Circulation October 2008 Roadway Segment From To Daily LOS General Plan Lanes Additional Lanes for LOS D 90. Yosemite Boulevard Claus Road Santa Fe Avenue E/F 4 2 Source: Transportation Planning Partnership Group Model. Segments operating at LOS E would be operating at close to the capacity of the roadway, with average travel speeds during the peak hour at about 30 percent to 40 percent of the typical free-flow speed of the road. Expressways operating at LOS E would experience average travel speeds of 16 to 21 miles per hour (mph), while arterials would experience average travel speeds of 10 mph to 17 mph during the peak travel hour of the day, typically the afternoon commute hour. The peak hour is that time during the morning and evening when travel demand is at its greatest. Street segments operating at LOS F would experience unstable conditions, with average travel speeds less than 30 percent of the typical free-flow speed of the road. Congested conditions could begin earlier in the typical peak commute hour and/or take longer to return to satisfactory operating conditions. Motorists may experience high levels of delay at intersections during the peak period while traveling on these LOS F streets. Table V-1-7 describes the number of lanes that would be required in order to reach LOS D on roadway segments that are projected to operate at LOS E or F at full buildout of the UAGP. This table is not intended to imply that the City will build these lanes or that such construction would even be feasible; it simply offers another way of looking at the projected level of peak congestion. The increase in traffic is a significant impact. The impacts on noise and air quality as a result of increased traffic are discussed in Sections 2 and 3 of this chapter. 4. Significant Cumulative Impacts Based on criteria derived from Appendix G to the State CEQA Guidelines, a project would be considered to have a significant transportation and circulation impact on the environment if it would: „ cause an increase in traffic that is considered substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system; „ exceed, either individually or cumulatively, an LOS standard established by the congestion management agency for designated roads or highways; „ result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks; „ substantially increase hazards because of a design feature or incompatible uses; „ result in inadequate emergency access; „ result in inadequate parking capacity; or ---PAGE BREAK--- Chapter V. Environmental Analysis Modesto General Plan Update Final Master EIR V-1-32 Section 1. Traffic and Circulation October 2008 „ conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation. The object of significance thresholds is to identify clearly the significance of project-related impacts. For this Master EIR, the applicable thresholds are related primarily to the first bullet point above, in which the UAGP would be considered to have a significant impact if it were to cause a substantial increase in traffic. In the 2003 UAGP and subsequent planning documents and guidelines, the City set a standard threshold of LOS D for the roadway system. Therefore, the LOS D threshold has been applied to all roadways in this Master EIR. In addition, a significant impact on the transit system would occur if the project would cause a substantial increase in transit ridership when compared with available or planned system capacity. Similarly, a significant impact on the bicycle and pedestrian circulation system would occur if the project would cause a substantial increase in usage when compared with available or planned system capacity. The major rail, water, and air transportation facilities in Modesto are typically controlled and operated by entities other than the City, so the proposed UAGP would not directly cause changes in the usage and operations of those facilities. However, from a transportation perspective, implementation of the UAGP may affect the levels of access to and from those facilities the Plan may affect the available roadway infrastructure and the levels of traffic congestion around the Modesto City-County Airport). Thus, significant impacts on the rail, water, or air transportation systems would occur if the project would substantially change physical access to those facilities in a manner that would affect their operations negatively. Section 15130 of the State CEQA Guidelines provides that a project’s contribution to a significant cumulative impact will be rendered less than cumulatively considerable if the project is required to implement or fund its fair share of a mitigation measure or measures designed to alleviate the cumulative impact. The lead agency is required to identify facts and analysis supporting this conclusion. As discussed above, the traffic study prepared for the Master EIR update was based on the TPPG Model (Appendix The study area for this model covers all of Stanislaus County. Current- and future-year road capacity was developed considering local agency general plans, capital improvement programs, and the STIP. The UAGP traffic and circulation element and the amendments being proposed are consistent with the RTP. StanCOG’s current population projection for Modesto in 2025 is 439,750. This is within about 2 percent of the City’s estimated holding capacity under the UAGP, approximately 428,000 residents. The EIR prepared for StanCOG’s 2007 RTP analyzed the potential impacts of the proposed RTP road network improvements. StanCOG analyzed future traffic volumes to 2025 based on its travel demand model. Significance findings were based on whether the RTP projects would result in an LOS in excess of LOS D in urban areas and LOS C in rural areas of the county. StanCOG identified numerous significant and unavoidable impacts that would result from its 2007 RTP. Although the 2007 RTP generally represents a cumulative look at regional transportation (and its EIR represents a cumulative assessment of regional projects), not all of the significant impacts identified in the 2007 RTP EIR apply to Modesto. The significant impacts identified in the ---PAGE BREAK--- Chapter V. Environmental Analysis Modesto General Plan Update Final Master EIR V-1-33 Section 1. Traffic and Circulation October 2008 2007 RTP EIR are summarized below. Where the UAGP’s impact is less than significant, that is noted parenthetically. 1. Potential for conflicts between highway projects and relevant land use plans. (This impact is less than significant because of policies TC-1, TC-17, and TC-20 above.) 2. Potential for growth inducement or acceleration of development because of highway and local road projects. 3. Potential for displacement of substantial numbers of existing housing or people because of highway projects and local road projects. (This impact is less than significant because of policy TC-25 above.) 4. Loss or disturbance of riparian habitats, disturbance or loss of waters of the United States (including wetlands), and potential disturbance or loss of special-status plant populations and wildlife species and their habitat. 5. Demolition and relocation of historic resources. 6. Substantial increase in traffic in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system, including a violation, either individually or cumulatively, of an LOS standard established by the County CMP for designated roads and highways. 7. Creation of need for capacity-enhancing alterations to existing facilities. 8. Increase in operational emissions of oxides of nitrogen (NOX) and particulate matter 10 microns or less in diameter (PM10). 9. Exposure of noise-sensitive land uses to construction and operational noise from highway projects and local road projects. 10. Exposure of noise-sensitive land uses to temporary noise from the construction of bicycle and transit projects. 11. Exposure of noise-sensitive land uses to operational noise from rail projects. 12. Exposure of noise-sensitive land uses to construction and operational noise from aviation projects. 13. Increase in energy consumption associated with the operation of highway projects, rail improvements, and aviation facilities. 14. Severe contrast with existing neighborhood or area character caused by highway and transit projects. Modesto, by virtue of its position as Stanislaus County’s largest city, would contribute to each of the above cumulative impacts. In the two instances noted above, the city’s contribution would be less than considerable because of mitigating policies. Otherwise, the impacts will be significant and unavoidable. 5. Potential Impacts for Which There Is Insufficient Information to Support a Full Analysis The updated Master EIR has analyzed traffic impacts on the basis of the generalized proposals in the UAGP and the proposed UAGP amendments. The assumptions made for the TPPG Model are ---PAGE BREAK--- Chapter V. Environmental Analysis Modesto General Plan Update Final Master EIR V-1-34 Section 1. Traffic and Circulation October 2008 based on types of land uses, so although individual projects actually may vary from these general assumptions, these individual variations tend to “even out” across the city. Nonetheless, where an individual project exceeds the land use intensity established in the UAGP and traffic generation assumptions made in the Master EIR, it may result in site-specific impacts that were not analyzed fully here. These impacts include those listed below. a. Project-specific impacts on roadway LOS that will exceed LOS D. The updated Master EIR has not analyzed the site-specific impacts of the future construction and operation of new transportation facilities roads, bikeways). There is insufficient information about those future facilities to enable the City to analyze them without resorting to speculation. b. Project-specific roadway improvements that result in substantial changes to the physical environment. c. Expansion of the Modesto City-County Airport that would result in an increase in service, expansion of parking facilities, or increase in noise impacts. d. Construction-related impacts of bikeway and transit facilities. C. MITIGATION MEASURES ADOPTED TO MINIMIZE SIGNIFICANT EFFECTS The following information is provided in accordance with Section 15126.4 of the State CEQA Guidelines. These are measures that reduce the need for new roads, promote alternatives modes to automobile travel, reduce potential traffic generation, and provide for the integrated planning of future transportation projects. 1. Measures Which Mitigate Direct Impacts The City policies listed above (items TC-17 through TC-64) would reduce the potential impacts identified. No new mitigation measures are proposed. 2. Measures Which Mitigate Cumulative Impacts City policies TC-17 through TC-64 would reduce the potential impacts identified above. Nonetheless, there will be cumulative impacts to which Modesto development will make a considerable contribution. This is a significant and unavoidable impact. No new mitigation measures are proposed. 3. Alternatives to the Proposed Project The following information is provided in accordance with Section 15126.6 of the State CEQA Guidelines. An alternative design that would avoid or substantially lessen the significant effects of the proposed UAGP amendments is as follows. ---PAGE BREAK--- Chapter V. Environmental Analysis Modesto General Plan Update Final Master EIR V-1-35 Section 1. Traffic and Circulation October 2008 Alternative 1 (No-Project Alternative) would not include the proposed upgrades to various roads within the City and would not include other policies intended to ameliorate traffic from increased development. As a result, it would have greater transportation impacts more congestion) than the proposed project along those roads proposed for upgrades, as there would be less roadway capacity under Alternative 1. Alternative 2 (No Changes to Street Designations) similarly would have greater transportation impacts along those roads than the proposed project would. However, it would have less of an impact than Alternative 1 because it would include other new traffic and transportation policies that are expected to increase transit ridership, improve flow through the use of roundabouts, encourage bicycle use and walking, and provide other benefits over current policies. These include the policies listed as TC-20, TC-21, TC-22, TC-23, TC-25, TC-28, TC-29, TC-30, TC-31, TC-34, TC-35, TC-36, TC-38, TC-40, TC-41, TC-57, TC-60, TC-61, TC-62, TC- 63, and TC-64 above. The Project would reduce the provision of bicycle lanes on some roadways Dale Road) and result in bicycle lanes as opposed to a path on Bangs Avenue, both of which are significant impacts on bicycles. The project would improve bicycle facilities on Claratina Avenue, Carpenter Road, and Sylvan Avenue, which are all positive impacts. D. MONITORING THESE MITIGATION MEASURES The following information is provided in accordance with Public Resources Code Section 21081.6. The mitigation measures identified in the Master EIR have been incorporated into the UAGP and are implemented by that plan. City staff provides the Modesto City Council with an annual report on UAGP implementation. Therefore, no separate mitigation monitoring program is required for the UAGP Master EIR. E. EVALUATING SUBSEQUENT PROJECTS The following information is provided in accordance with PRC Section 21081.6. City policies TC-43 through TC-46 applicable in the Redevelopment and Baseline Developed Areas and TC-50 in the Planned Urbanizing Area require that subsequent projects that will exceed the allowable LOS D standard will be subject to additional analyses. Where the project would take place on a road segment projected for LOS F and would cause further substantial degradation of traffic conditions, or would involve adoption of a Specific Plan within a Comprehensive Planning District (CPD), a comprehensive traffic study may be required if the project generates more than 100 peak-hour trips or requires a general plan amendment in order to assess the level of impact of the project. Under certain circumstances, individual site-specific development will be required to prepare a site access study to identify potential impacts. The TPPG Model used by the City to forecast impacts on the road system is based on the number of employees projected for various land uses. The number of employees is linked to trip generation rates by the model to provide projections of traffic levels. Although this is an effective approach for judging impacts on a citywide scale, it is difficult to apply to subsequent projects that are analyzed on the basis of their land uses. Subsequent projects under the Master EIR will be evaluated by designated staff of the Department of Public Works and other city staff on a case-by-case basis in conjunction with each project’s initial ---PAGE BREAK--- Chapter V. Environmental Analysis Modesto General Plan Update Final Master EIR V-1-36 Section 1. Traffic and Circulation October 2008 study/finding of conformance review under the Master EIR. Traffic Division staff will determine whether the project requires additional traffic analysis beyond that in the Master EIR and whether additional project-specific mitigation is required. This will allow the City to analyze the impacts of individual projects and determine whether future projects will exceed the traffic assumptions made in the Master EIR. This allows the City to monitor changes in traffic and to apply mitigation measures where necessary to avoid or reduce impacts that exceed the levels identified in the Master EIR. Anticipated future projects, as presented in Chapter II, are within the scope of this analysis as long as the following circumstances have not changed. 1. The lead agency for subsequent projects shall be the City or any responsible agency identified in the Master EIR. 2. The analysis of this Master EIR assumes that the following policies that reduce, avoid, or otherwise mitigate environmental effects will continue to be in effect and therefore will be applied to subsequent projects as appropriate. The policy reference numbers are listed, and the full text of these policies is found above, under Existing Policies Applying to the Study Area. a. StanCOG policies TC-1 through TC-10. b. City of Modesto policies TC-17 through TC-64. F. KEEPING THE MASTER ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT CURRENT FOR THIS TOPIC As authorized under PRC Section 21166, the analysis contained within this section is current as long as the following circumstances have not changed. 1. The Modesto planning area is not expanded beyond the boundaries at the date of certification of this Master EIR. 2. The City maintains its acceptable service level as LOS D where LOS E or LOS F are not projected to occur by the Master EIR. 3. The UAGP and adopted specific plans are not amended in a manner that would increase the amount of traffic generated either citywide or in particular CPDs. ---PAGE BREAK--- Chapter V. Environmental Analysis Modesto General Plan Update Final Master EIR V-2-1 Section 2. Degradation of Air Quality October 2008 Section 2 Degradation of Air Quality A. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING The following information is provided in accordance with Section 15125 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines. This environmental setting is the baseline for determining whether an impact of the City of Modesto Urban Area General Plan (UAGP) is significant. 1. Study Area for Direct Impacts The direct impact study area is the Modesto planning area. 2. Study Area for Cumulative Impacts This analysis will be based on the plan or projection approach to examining cumulative effects, as provided under Section 15130(b)(1)(B) of the State CEQA Guidelines. The air quality information and projections provided for the study area by the San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District (SJVAPCD) will form the basis of information on cumulative impacts. The cumulative impact study area is the San Joaquin Valley Air Basin. 3. Existing Physical Conditions in the Study Area a. Climate and Topography The City of Modesto is located in Stanislaus County which is part of the San Joaquin Valley Air Basin (SJVAB). The SJVAB, which is approximately 250 miles long and averages 35 miles wide, is the second largest air basin in the state. The SJVAB is bounded by the San Joaquin-Sacramento River Delta in the north, the Sierra Nevada mountains in the east (8,000 to 14,000 feet in elevation), the Coast Ranges in the west (averaging 3,000 feet in elevation), and the Tehachapi mountains in the south (6,000 to 8,000 feet in elevation). The SJVAB is basically flat with a slight downward gradient to the northwest. The valley opens to the sea at the Carquinez Straits where the San Joaquin-Sacramento Delta empties into San Francisco Bay. The San Joaquin Valley (SJV), thus, could be considered a “bowl” open only to the north. The SJVAB has an inland Mediterranean climate averaging over 260 sunny days per year. The valley floor experiences warm, dry summers and cool, wet winters. Summer high temperatures often exceed 100oF, averaging in the low 90s in the northern valley and high 90s in the south. In the entire SJVAB, high daily temperature readings in summer average 95oF. Over the last 30 years, the SJVAB averaged 106 days a year 90oF or hotter, and ---PAGE BREAK--- Chapter V. Environmental Analysis Modesto General Plan Update Final Master EIR V-2-2 Section 2. Degradation of Air Quality October 2008 40 days a year 100oF or hotter. The daily summer temperature variation can be as high as 30oF. In winter, as the cyclonic storm track moves southward, the storm systems moving in from the Pacific Ocean bring a maritime influence to the SJVAB. The high mountains to the east prevent the cold, continental air masses of the interior from influencing the valley. Winters are mild and humid. Temperatures below freezing are unusual. Average high temperatures in the winter are in the 50s, but highs in the 30s and 40s can occur on days with persistent fog and low cloudiness. The average daily low temperature is 45oF. Although marine air generally flows into the basin from the San Joaquin River Delta, the region’s topographic features restrict air movement through and out of the basin. The Coastal Range hinders wind access into the SJVAB from the west, the Tehachapis prevent southerly passage of air flow, and the Sierra Nevada range is a significant barrier to the east. These topographic features result in weak air flow which becomes blocked vertically by high barometric pressure over the SJVAB. As a result, the SJVAB is highly susceptible to pollutant accumulation over time. Most of the surrounding mountains are taller than the normal height of summer inversion layers (1,500–3,000 feet). b. Existing Air Quality Conditions Air Quality Pollutants The federal and state governments have established ambient air quality standards for six criteria pollutants: ozone, carbon monoxide (CO), nitrogen dioxide (NO2), sulfur dioxide (SO2), particulate matter, and lead. Ozone and particulate matter 10 microns or less in diameter (PM10) are generally considered to be regional pollutants, as these pollutants or their precursors affect air quality on a regional scale. Pollutants such as CO, NO2, SO2, and lead are considered to be local pollutants that tend to accumulate in the air locally. PM10 is considered to be a localized pollutant as well as a regional pollutant. In Modesto, PM10 and ozone are of particular concern. Ozone Ozone is a respiratory irritant and an oxidant that increases susceptibility to respiratory infections and can cause substantial damage to vegetation and other materials. It is a severe eye, nose, and throat irritant. Ozone also attacks rubber, textiles, plants, and other materials and can cause extensive cell damage and leaf discoloration in plants. It reduces a plant’s ability to which can in turn reduce crop yields. Ozone is not emitted directly into the air, but is formed by a photochemical reaction in the atmosphere. Ozone precursors, which include reactive organic gases (ROG) and oxides of nitrogen (NOX), react in the atmosphere in the presence of sunlight to form ozone. Because photochemical reaction rates depend on the intensity of ultraviolet light and air temperature, ozone is primarily a summer air pollution problem. The ozone precursors, ROG and NOX, are ---PAGE BREAK--- Chapter V. Environmental Analysis Modesto General Plan Update Final Master EIR V-2-3 Section 2. Degradation of Air Quality October 2008 emitted by stationary combustion engines and mobile sources, such as in construction equipment. State standards for ozone have been set for both 1- and 8-hour averaging times, and federal standards for ozone have been set for an 8-hour averaging time. The state requires that a 1-hour ozone standard of 0.09 parts per million (ppm) not be exceeded. The state 8-hour ozone standard is 0.070 ppm, and the federal 8-hour ozone standard is 0.08 ppm, not to be exceeded more than three times in any 3- year period. As shown in Table V-2-1b, during the three most recent years for which data is available, the monitoring station has exceeded state 1-hour standards for ozone on 31 occasions and has exceeded federal 8-hour standards on 14 occasions. Carbon Monoxide Carbon monoxide is essentially inert to plants and materials but can have significant effects on human health. CO is a public health concern because it combines readily with hemoglobin and thus reduces the amount of oxygen transported in the bloodstream. Effects on humans range from slight headaches to nausea to death. State and federal CO standards have been set for both 1-hour and 8-hour averaging times. The state 1-hour standard is 20 ppm by volume, and the federal 1-hour standard is 35 ppm. The state 8-hour standard for CO is 9.0ppm, and the federal 8-hour standard for CO is 9ppm. The CO monitoring data collected for the three most recent years for which data are available show no violations of the state or federal CO standards. Motor vehicles are the dominant source of CO emissions in most areas. High CO levels develop primarily during winter when periods of light winds combine with the formation of ground-level temperature inversions (typically from the evening through early morning). These conditions result in reduced dispersion of vehicle emissions. Motor vehicles also exhibit increased CO emission rates at low air temperatures. Inhalable Particulates Inhalable particulates can damage human health and retard plant growth. Health concerns associated with suspended particulate matter focus on those particles small enough to reach the lungs when inhaled. Particulates also reduce visibility and corrode materials. Particulate emissions are generated by a wide variety of sources, including agricultural activities, industrial emissions, dust suspended by vehicle traffic and construction equipment, and secondary aerosols formed by reactions in the atmosphere. The federal and state ambient air-quality standard for particulate matter applies to two classes of particulates: PM10 and particulate matter 2.5 microns or less in diameter (PM2.5). The state PM10 standards are 50 micrograms per cubic meter (µg/m3) as a 24-hour average and 20 µg/m3 as an annual arithmetic mean. The federal PM10 standards are 150 µg/m3 as a 24-hour average and 50 µg/m3 as an ---PAGE BREAK--- Chapter V. Environmental Analysis Modesto General Plan Update Final Master EIR V-2-4 Section 2. Degradation of Air Quality October 2008 annual arithmetic mean. The federal PM2.5 standards are 15 µg/m3 for the annual average and 65 µg/m3 for the 24-hour average. The state PM2.5 standard is 12 µg/m3 as an annual arithmetic mean. Toxic Air Contaminants TACs are pollutants that may be expected to result in an increase in mortality or serious illness, or that may pose a present or potential hazard to human health. Health effects of TACs include cancer, birth defects, neurological damage, damage to the body’s natural defense system, and diseases that lead to death. Toxic air contaminants, such as asbestos, can be emitted during demolition of buildings containing toxic contaminants, and during operation of industries that utilize toxic substances. The Federal and State governments have implemented a number of programs to control toxic air emissions. The Federal Clean Air Act provides a program for the control of hazardous air pollutants. The California legislature has enacted programs including the Tanner Toxics Act (AB1807), the Air Toxics Hot Spot Assessment Program (AB2588), the Toxics Emissions Near Schools Program (AB3205), and the Disposal Site Air Monitoring Program (AB3374). The SJVAPCD has developed an Integrated Air Toxic Program. This program integrates both State and Federal requirements and is aimed at protecting public health. The District is implementing rules to control emissions from specific sources of toxic air pollutants. As part of the District’s Risk Management Policy, certain businesses are required to obtain a permit to emit toxic air pollutants. In 1998, the California Air Resources Board (ARB), in conjunction with the California Environmental Protection Agency (Cal-EPA), classified diesel particulate as a toxic air contaminant. Particulate matter and other gases including NOX are air pollutants emitted by diesel engines. Heavy-duty trucks, buses, and heavy off-road engines are key sources of NOX emissions within the Valley. In addition to nitrogen oxides, particulate matter, and other gases from diesel exhaust contain potential cancer-causing substances such as arsenic, benzene, formaldehyde, nickel, and aromatic hydrocarbons. In order to reduce the particulate matter, NOX, and sulfur oxide (SOX) emissions from diesel engines, the ARB has adopted many protective regulations. These include: „ Low sulfur/low diesel fuel requirement that reduces particulate matter, NOX, and SOX emissions. „ Emission standards that restrict the amount of particulate matter emitted by new diesel trucks, buses, cars, and heavy-duty trucks. „ Emission standards for NOX emissions from diesel cars, trucks and buses. „ Roadside testing of heavy-duty on-road vehicles for excessive particulate emissions. „ Fleet inspection and maintenance of heavy-duty vehicles. ---PAGE BREAK--- Chapter V. Environmental Analysis Modesto General Plan Update Final Master EIR V-2-5 Section 2. Degradation of Air Quality October 2008 „ Emission standards that restrict the amount of particulate matter and that can be emitted from many diesel utility engines built after 1995. „ Provision of funds for Carl Moyer Memorial Air Quality Standards Attainment Program, which provides grants for the incremental cost of lower-emission diesel engines for heavy-duty vehicles. ‰ Low sulfur/low diesel fuel requirement for locomotives. ‰ Reduction of diesel fuel sulfur content to no more than 15 ppm. ‰ Use of electric particulate filter to reduce emissions by 85 percent to PM emission levels of no more than 0.01 grams per brake horsepower-hour (g/bhp- hr). While the SJVAPCD does not have the authority to regulate vehicle tailpipe emissions, the District has used a variety of funds including funds from the state’s “Carl Moyer Program” to provide the Heavy-Duty Engine Incentive Program. The latter program provides grants to cover part of the cost of lower-emission engines in order to help reduce diesel emissions from these sources. Greenhouse Gases and Climate Change/Global Warming Global climate change is a problem caused by combined worldwide emissions of greenhouse gases (GHGs), and mitigating global climate change will require worldwide solutions. Combined gases in Earth’s atmosphere, called atmospheric GHGs, trap infrared radiation emitted from Earth’s surface that otherwise would escape into space. This phenomenon, known as the “greenhouse effect,” keeps Earth’s atmosphere near the surface warmer than it would be otherwise and allows for successful habitation by humans and other forms of life. Increases in these gases lead to more absorption of radiation and further warm the lower atmosphere, thereby increasing evaporation rates and temperatures near the surface. Emissions of the GHGs in excess of natural ambient concentrations are thought to be responsible for the enhancement of the greenhouse effect and to contribute to what is termed “global warming,” a trend of unnatural warming of Earth’s natural climate. This phenomenon and the UAGP’s potential impacts are discussed in Section V-21, Climate Change. Attainment Status Areas such as the San Joaquin Valley are classified as either attainment or nonattainment with respect to state and federal ambient air quality standards. These classifications are determined by comparing actual monitored air pollutant concentrations to state and federal standards. The pollutants of greatest concern in this valley are ozone and inhalable particulate matter. The state and federal ambient air quality standards are summarized in Table V-2-1a. Table V-2-1b summarizes the local air quality monitoring data taken from the city of Modesto. ---PAGE BREAK--- Chapter V. Environmental Analysis Modesto General Plan Update Final Master EIR V-2-6 Section 2. Degradation of Air Quality October 2008 The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has classified Stanislaus County as being a nonattainment area for the 8-hour ozone standard. For the CO standard, the EPA has classified Stanislaus County as an attainment/unclassified maintenance area. The EPA has classified Stanislaus County as a nonattainment area for the PM2.5 and PM10 standards (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 2007a). ---PAGE BREAK--- Chapter V. Environmental Analysis Modesto General Plan Update Draft Master EIR V-2-7 Section 2. Degradation of Air Quality March 2008 Table V-2-1a. State and Federal Ambient Air Quality Standards Pollutant Symbol Average Time Standard (parts per million) Standard (micrograms per cubic meter) Violation Criteria California National California National California National Ozonea O3 1 hour 0.09 N/A 180 N/A If exceeded N/A 8 hours 0.070 0.08 137 157 If exceeded If fourth highest 8-hour concentration in a year, averaged over 3 years, is exceeded at each monitor within an area Carbon monoxide CO 8 hours 9.0 9 10,000 10,000 If exceeded If exceeded on more than 1 day per year 1 hour 20 35 23,000 40,000 If exceeded If exceeded on more than 1 day per year (Lake Tahoe only) 8 hours 6 N/A 7,000 N/A If equaled or exceeded N/A Nitrogen dioxide NO2 Annual average N/A 0.053 N/A 100 N/A If exceeded on more than 1 day per year 1 hour 0.25 N/A 470 N/A If exceeded N/A Sulfur dioxide SO2 Annual average N/A 0.03 N/A 80 N/A If exceeded 24 hours 0.04 0.14 105 365 If exceeded If exceeded on more than 1 day per year 1 hour 0.25 N/A 655 N/A If exceeded N/A Hydrogen sulfide H2S 1 hour 0.03 N/A 42 N/A If equaled or exceeded N/A Vinyl chloride C2H3Cl 24 hours 0.01 N/A 26 N/A If equaled or exceeded N/A Inhalable particulate matter PM10 Annual arithmetic mean N/A N/A 20 50 N/A If exceeded at each monitor within area 24 hours N/A N/A 50 150 If exceeded If exceeded on more than 1 day per year PM2.5 Annual arithmetic mean N/A N/A 12 15 N/A If 3-year average from single or multiple community-oriented monitors is exceeded 24 hours N/A N/A N/A 65 N/A If 3-year average of 98th percentile at each population-oriented monitor within an area is exceeded Sulfate particles SO4 24 hours N/A N/A 25 N/A If equaled or exceeded N/A Lead particles Pb Calendar quarter N/A N/A N/A 1.5 N/A If exceeded no more than 1 day per year 30-day average N/A N/A 1.5 N/A If equaled or exceeded N/A Notes: All standards are based on measurements at 25ºC and 1 atmosphere pressure; National standards shown are the primary (health effects) standards; N/A = not applicable. a The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) recently replaced the 1-hour ozone standard with an 8-hour standard of 0.08 part per million. The EPA issued a final rule that revoked the 1-hour standard on June 15, 2005. However, the California 1-hour ozone standard will remain in effect. Source: California Air Resources Board 2006. ---PAGE BREAK--- Chapter V. Environmental Analysis Modesto General Plan Update Draft Master EIR V-2-8 Section 2. Degradation of Air Quality March 2008 Table V-2-1b. Ambient Air Quality Monitoring Data Measured at the Modesto 14th Street Monitoring Station Pollutant Standards 2004 2005 2006 Ozone Maximum 1-hour concentration (ppm) 0.104 0.115 0.120 Maximum 8-hour concentration (ppm) 0.084 0.094 0.097 Number of days standard exceededa CAAQS 1-hour (>0.09 ppm) CV 2 15 14 NAAQS 8-hour (>0.08 ppm) 0 6 8 Carbon Monoxide (CO) Maximum 8-hour concentration (ppm) 2.98 2.89 3.73 Maximum 1-hour concentration (ppm) 4.6 3.7 6.9 Number of days standard exceededa NAAQS 8-hour (>9.0 ppm) 0 0 0 CAAQS 8-hour (>9.0 ppm) 0 0 0 NAAQS 1-hour (>35 ppm) 0 0 0 CAAQS 1-hour (>20 ppm) 0 0 0 Particulate Matter (PM10)b Nationalc maximum 24-hour concentration (μg/m3) 80.0 93.0 96.0 Nationalc second-highest 24-hour concentration (μg/m3) 65.0 81.0 73.0 Stated maximum 24-hour concentration (μg/m3) 79.0 97.0 102.0 Stated second-highest 24-hour concentration (μg/m3) 69.0 84.0 76.0 National annual average concentration (μg/m3) 29.1 29.1 31.7 State annual average concentration (μg/m3)e 29.9 29.7 31.9 Number of days standard exceededa NAAQS 24-hour (>150 μg/m3)f 0 0 0 CAAQS 24-hour (>50 μg/m3)f 36.0 51.4 46.3 Particulate Matter (PM2.5) Nationalc maximum 24-hour concentration (μg/m3) 53.0 80.0 71.0 Nationalc second-highest 24-hour concentration (μg/m3) 48.0 61.0 54.0 Stated maximum 24-hour concentration (μg/m3) 67.3 89.2 72.8 Stated second-highest 24-hour concentration (μg/m3) 58.5 79.1 64.9 National annual average concentration (μg/m3) 13.6 13.9 14.8 State annual average concentration (μg/m3) e 13.6 14.5 15.9 Number of days standard exceededa NAAQS 24-hour (>65 μg/m3) 0 1 7 Sources: California Air Resources Board 2007b; U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 2007b. Notes: CAAQS = California ambient air quality standards. NAAQS = national ambient air quality standards. – = insufficient data available to determine the value. ppm = parts per million. μg/m3 = micrograms per cubic meter. a An exceedance is not necessarily a violation. b Measurements usually are collected every 6 days. c National statistics are based on standard conditions data. In addition, national statistics are based on samplers using federal reference or equivalent methods. d State statistics are based on local conditions data, except in the South Coast Air Basin, for which statistics are based on standard conditions data. In addition, State statistics are based on California approved samplers. e State criteria for ensuring that data are sufficiently complete for calculating valid annual averages are more stringent than the national criteria. f Mathematical estimate of how many days concentrations would have been measured as higher than the level of the standard had each day been monitored. ---PAGE BREAK--- Chapter V. Environmental Analysis Modesto General Plan Update Draft Master EIR V-2-9 Section 2. Degradation of Air Quality March 2008 The ARB has classified Stanislaus County as a severe nonattainment area for the 1-hour ozone standard and nonattainment for the 8-hour ozone standard. For the CO standard, the ARB has classified Stanislaus County as an attainment area. The ARB has classified Stanislaus County as a nonattainment area for the PM10 and PM2.5 standards (California Air Resources Board 2007a). c. Regulatory Framework The SJVAPCD administers air quality regulations developed at the federal, state, and local levels. Air quality regulations applicable to the proposed project are described below. 4. Existing Regulatory Setting in the Study Area a. Federal Regulations The primary legislation that governs federal air quality regulations is the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 (CAAA). The CAAA delegates primary responsibility for clean air to the EPA. The EPA develops rules and regulations to preserve and improve air quality, as well as delegating specific responsibilities to state and local agencies. The EPA has established National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for criteria pollutants (Table V-2-1a). Criteria pollutants include CO, NO2, SO2, ozone, PM10, and lead. If an area does not meet the federal NAAQS shown in Table V-2-1a, federal clean air planning requirements specify that states develop and adopt State Implementation Plans (SIPs), which are air quality plans demonstrating how air quality standards will be attained. In California, the EPA has delegated authority to prepare SIPs to the ARB, which, in turn, has delegated that authority to individual air districts. Modesto is located within a federal nonattainment area for ozone and PM10. The SJVAPCD has adopted a SIP that addresses PM10, ozone, and the ozone precursors: NOX and ROGs. The SIP specifies that regional air quality standard for ozone and PM10 concentrations can be met through additional source controls and through trip reduction strategies. That SIP also establishes “emission budgets” for transportation and stationary sources. Those budgets, developed through air quality modeling, reveal how much air pollution can occur in an area without causing violations of the NAAQS. Under EPA rules, the Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) adopted by the Stanislaus Council of Governments (StanCOG) is subject to an air quality conformity analysis. An air quality analysis tests ozone precursor emissions from the 2007 RTP against conformity budgets as defined in EPA-approved ozone attainment plans. For PM10, the test is different. PM10 emissions with the project must be shown to be less than without the project (build versus no-build comparison). StanCOG and transportation project sponsors cannot implement certain transportation projects unless they come from an approved, conforming transportation plan. The purpose of conformity is to ensure that the 2007 adopted RTP helps achieve and maintain federal ozone and PM10 standards. ---PAGE BREAK--- Chapter V. Environmental Analysis Modesto General Plan Update Draft Master EIR V-2-10 Section 2. Degradation of Air Quality March 2008 b. State Policies The ARB is a regulatory board under the Cal-EPA that develops air quality regulations at the state level. These regulations mirror federal regulations by establishing industry-specific pollution controls for criteria, toxic, and nuisance pollutants. California also requires areas to develop plans and strategies for attaining state ambient air quality standards as set forth in the California Clean Air Act of 1988 (CCAA) (Table V-2-1a). ARB is also responsible for developing motor vehicle emission standards for California vehicles. California Clean Air Act (CCAA) The CCAA of 1988 substantially added to the authority and responsibilities of air districts. The CCAA designates air districts as lead air quality planning agencies, requires air districts to prepare air quality plans, and grants air districts authority to implement transportation control measures. The CCAA focuses on attainment of the state ambient air quality standards, which, for certain pollutants and averaging periods, are more stringent than the comparable federal standards. The CCAA requires designation of attainment and nonattainment areas with respect to state ambient air quality standards. The CCAA also requires that air districts prepare an air quality attainment plan if the district violates state air quality standards for CO, SO2, NO2, or ozone. No locally prepared attainment plans are required for areas that violate the state PM10 standards. The CCAA requires that the state air quality standards be met as expeditiously as practicable but, unlike the federal CAA, does not set precise attainment deadlines. Instead, the act established increasingly stringent requirements for areas that will require more time to achieve the standards. The CCAA emphasizes the control of “indirect and area-wide sources” of air pollutant emissions. The California Clean Air Act gives local air pollution control districts explicit authority to regulate indirect sources of air pollution and to establish traffic control measures (TCM). The CCAA does not define indirect and area-wide sources. However, Section 110 of the federal CAA defines an indirect source as: “a facility, building, structure, installation, real property, road, or highway which attracts, or may attract, mobile sources of pollution. Such term includes parking lots, parking garages, and other facilities subject to any measure for management of parking supply…” TCMs are defined in the CCAA as “any strategy to reduce trips, vehicle use, vehicle miles traveled, vehicle idling, or traffic congestion for the purpose of reducing vehicle emissions.” c. San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District The State of California has designated the San Joaquin Air Basin as being in severe nonattainment for ozone and in nonattainment for PM10 and PM2.5. ---PAGE BREAK--- Chapter V. Environmental Analysis Modesto General Plan Update Draft Master EIR V-2-11 Section 2. Degradation of Air Quality March 2008 The SJVAPCD has adopted an air quality improvement plan that addresses NOX and ROGs, both of which are ozone precursors and contribute to PM10. The plan specifies that regional air quality standards for ozone and PM10 concentrations can be met through the use of additional source controls and trip reduction strategies. It also establishes emissions budgets for transportation and stationary sources. Those budgets, developed through air quality modeling, reveal how much air pollution can occur in an area before national ambient air quality standards are violated. d. Air Quality Plans Both California and the Federal government require nonattainment areas, such as the SJVAB, to reduce air pollution to healthful levels. The CCAA of 1988 and amendments to the federal CAA in 1990 required stricter air pollution control efforts than ever before. For example, the State of California must submit plans to the Federal government showing how nonattainment areas in California will meet Federal air quality standards by specific deadlines. San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District 2007 Ozone Plan With the SJVAPCD 2007 Ozone Plan, mobile and stationary sources will become subject to new and more stringent regulatory requirements. As this plan is implemented, over 50 percent of the San Joaquin Valley’s population will see attainment of the 8-hour ozone standard in 2015, with over 90 percent reaching attainment in 2020. San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District 2008 PM2.5 Plan The EPA set the first PM2.5 NAAQS in 1997 at 15 µg/m3 for the annual standard and 65 µg/m3 for the daily standard. The SJV attains the 65 µg/m3 daily standard based on 2004–2006 data, so the 2008 PM2.5 Plan focuses on attaining the annual standard. The SJV’s annual average is approximately 27 percent over the annual standard. In 2006, the EPA strengthened the daily standard by lowering it to 35 µg/m3. The 2008 PM2.5 Plan will demonstrate how the SJV will attain the annual standard and will also address the new daily standard. The plan will build on the emission reduction strategy adopted in the 2007 Ozone Plan, which focuses on reducing NOX, SO2, and PM2.5. New controls that will be included in the PM2.5 plan include more stringent restrictions on residential wood burning and space heating, more stringent limits on PM2.5, SO2, and NOX emissions from industrial sources, measures to reduce emissions from prescribed and agricultural burning, and more effective work practices to control PM2.5 in fugitive dust. This plan is due to the EPA in 2008 (San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District 2008). REMOVE II Program The Reduce Motor Vehicle Emissions (REMOVE) Program was the District's first incentive program. It began its first phase in 1992. The District has developed a new, ---PAGE BREAK--- Chapter V. Environmental Analysis Modesto General Plan Update Draft Master EIR V-2-12 Section 2. Degradation of Air Quality March 2008 enhanced program (REMOVE II) that was approved by the Governing Board in February 2005. REMOVE II reduces emissions from light- and medium-duty motor vehicles in the District. The purpose of this grant program is to assist the District in attaining air quality standards. This is accomplished by allocating funds to cost- effective projects that have the greatest motor vehicle emission reductions, thereby creating long-term air quality benefits for the San Joaquin Valley. All projects must have a direct air quality benefit to the District. Any portion of a project that does not directly benefit the District within its boundaries is not allowed for funding or in calculating emission reductions. Principal components of the REMOVE II Program are the Light- and Medium-Duty Vehicle Component, the E-Mobility (Telecommunications) Component, the Bicycle Infrastructure Component, and the Public Transportation and Commuter Vanpool Subsidy. Light and Medium-Duty Vehicle Incentive Program In 2002, the District completed a highly successful Light and Medium-Duty Vehicle Incentive Program. The program provided incentives for the purchase of low-emission passenger vehicles, light trucks, small buses, and trucks less than 14,000 pounds gross vehicle weight. The purpose of the program was to encourage the early introduction of low-emission vehicles in the District. The program paid between $1,000 and $3,000 per vehicle depending on the emission certification level and size of the vehicle. Vehicles were required to be powered by alternative fuel, electricity, or hybrid electric engines/motors. Emission reductions from vehicles purchased under this program were claimed under ARB's Low Emission Vehicle program. These types of vehicle projects are now funded through the REMOVE II Program. San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District Regulation VIII (Fugitive PM10 Prohibitions) Regulation VIII is a series of rules (Rules 8011–8081) designed to reduce PM10 emissions (predominantly dust/dirt) generated by human activity, including construction, road construction, bulk materials storage, landfill operations, and other activities. These rules correspond to the following categories: „ Rule 8011: General Requirements; „ Rule 8021: Construction, Demolition, Excavation, Extraction and Other Earthmoving Activities; „ Rule 8031: Bulk Materials; „ Rule 8041: Carryout and Trackout; „ Rule 8051: Open Areas; „ Rule 8061: Paved and Unpaved Roads; „ Rule 8071: Unpaved Vehicle/Equipment Traffic Areas; and „ Rule 8081: Agricultural Sources. ---PAGE BREAK--- Chapter V. Environmental Analysis Modesto General Plan Update Draft Master EIR V-2-13 Section 2. Degradation of Air Quality March 2008 San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District Rule 9510 (Indirect Source Review) This rule fulfills the SJVAPCD’s emission reduction commitments in the PM10 and Ozone attainment plans through emission reductions from the construction and use of development projects through design features and onsite measures. Rule 9510 requires emission reductions construction and operational emissions. For construction emissions, Rule 9510 requires a 20 percent reduction of total NOX emissions and a 45 percent reduction of the total PM10 exhaust emissions. For operational emissions, Rule 9510 requires 33.3 percent of the project’s operational baseline NOX and 50 percent of the project’s operational baseline PM10 emissions be reduced over a period of 10 years. If the required emissions reductions are not achieved through traditional means, projects may purchase offsets on a per ton basis from the SJVAPCD through Rule 9510’s offsite emission reduction fee program to comply with the requirements of Rule 9510. Rule 9510 applies to any applicant that seeks to gain a final discretionary approval for a development project, or any portion thereof, which upon full buildout will include any one of the following: „ 50 residential units; „ 2,000 square feet of commercial space; „ 25,000 square feet of light industrial space; „ 100,000 square feet of heavy industrial space; „ 20,000 square feet of medical office space; „ 39,000 square feet of general office space; „ 9,000 square feet of educational space; „ 10,000 square feet of government space; „ 20,000 square feet of recreational space; or „ 9,000 square feet of space not identified above. Rule 9510 requires the implementation of control measures or the purchasing of emissions offsets to mitigate construction-related NOX and PM10 emissions from roadway projects in excess of 2.0 tons. Compliance with Rule 9510 is separate from the CEQA process, though the control measures used to comply with Rule 9510 may be used to mitigate CEQA impacts (Barber pers. comm.). In addition, the project applicant may enter into a development mitigation contract (also known as an air quality mitigation agreement) with the SJVAPCD to reduce project emissions to a less-than-significant level (Barber pers. comm.). With this contract, the project applicant may enter into a voluntary agreement with the SJVAPCD to mitigate/reduce project emissions beyond the requirements of Rule 9510, through the payment of fees (on a per-ton basis) to the SJVAPCD. If the fees purchased through the development mitigation contract are sufficient to offset project- related emissions to below the SJVAPCD’s thresholds, then project emissions would be considered less than significant (Barber pers. comm.). ---PAGE BREAK--- Chapter V. Environmental Analysis Modesto General Plan Update Draft Master EIR V-2-14 Section 2. Degradation of Air Quality March 2008 d. City of Modesto Policies The following policies apply throughout the General Plan area. This list serves to describe the circumstances under which the MEIR analyzed this environmental topic. A discrete reference number is assigned to each policy listed to facilitate, where appropriate, their incorporation as a mitigation measure into subsequent projects analyzed under this Master EIR AQ = Air Quality). AQ-1: The City of Modesto shall implement measures to reduce motor vehicle use and related ozone precursor and PM10 emissions through changes to the transportation infrastructure. Potential measures to be implemented may include those measures listed in Table V-2-2 in the Final Master Environmental Impact Report. (General Plan Policy VII-H.2[a]) AQ-2: Table V-2-2. Air Quality Measures Involving Changes to Transportation Infrastructure Table V-2-2. Air Quality Measures Involving Changes to Transportation Infrastructure (Note: In order to maintain consistency with the General Plan reference, this table does not follow the nomenclature used for tables elsewhere in this Master EIR.) 1. The following mitigation measures shall be implemented by the City of Modesto, and incorporated into development plans and public facility plans as appropriate: a. The City of Modesto shall vigorously pursue and use state and federal funds earmarked for bicycle and transit improvements. b. The City shall establish transit services on key arterials to locate stops within ¼ mile of residences/work places, and reevaluate quality and frequency of services, as appropriate as development progresses and demand increases. c. The City of Modesto shall consider measures to increase the capacity of the existing road network prior to constructing more capacity (additional lanes, new freeways, etc.). 2. The following measures should be strongly encouraged, and incorporated into development plans and public facility plans, when it is shown to be appropriate and feasible a. The City of Modesto shall ensure that a comprehensive system of bikeways and pedestrian paths is planned and constructed in accordance with an adopted City/County Regional plan. The City of Modesto shall ensure that regional and commuter bikeways are extended to serve new development consistent with the City of Modesto Non-Motorized Transportation Plan and the Regional Non-Motorized Transportation Plan. b. The City of Modesto shall plan for a multi-modal transportation system that meets the mobility needs of the community and improves air quality. The City of Modesto shall plan for multi-modal transfer sites that incorporate auto parking areas, bike parking, transit, pedestrian and bicycle paths, and park-and-ride points. c. The City of Modesto shall ensure that upgrades to existing roads (widening, curb and gutter, etc.) include bicycle and pedestrian improvements in their plans and implementation as outlined in the City of Modesto Non-Motorized Transportation Plan and the Regional Non-Motorized Transportation Plan. d. The City of Modesto should design all arterial and collector streets planned as transit routes to allow the efficient operation of public transit. e. The City of Modesto should plan park-and-ride lots at suitable locations serving long distance and local commuters. The City of Modesto should work with Caltrans and transit providers to identify park-and-ride sites with convenient access to public transit. f. The City of Modesto shall provide a funding mechanism for maintenance of the non-motorized transportation system as each project is developed. ---PAGE BREAK--- Chapter V. Environmental Analysis Modesto General Plan Update Draft Master EIR V-2-15 Section 2. Degradation of Air Quality March 2008 Source: City of Modesto 2000. AQ-3: The City of Modesto and project proponents shall implement measures to reduce vehicle use and associated emissions related to existing and future land use development in the City of Modesto. Potential measures to be implemented may include those measures listed in Table V-2-3 in the Final Master Environmental Impact Report. (General Plan Policy VII-H.2[b]) AQ-4: Table V-2-3. Air Quality Measures to Reduce Vehicle Use Table V-2-3. Air Quality Measures to Reduce Vehicle Use (Note: In order to maintain consistency with the General Plan reference, this table does not follow the nomenclature used for tables elsewhere in this Master EIR.) 1. The following mitigation measures shall be implemented by the City of Modesto, and incorporated into development plans and public facility plans as appropriate: a. The City of Modesto shall work with employers and developers to provide employees and residents with attractive, less-polluting, and affordable transportation alternatives (such as accommodations for bicycle use as outlined in the City of Modesto Non-Motorized Transportation Plan, transit use subsidies for employees, ridesharing incentives, etc.). b. The City of Modesto shall consider air quality and mobility when reviewing any proposed change to the land use pattern of this community. c. The City of Modesto shall plan adequate neighborhood commercial shopping areas to serve new residential development. d. Subdivision designs shall provide neighborhood parks, community parks, trails, Class I and II bike trails in proximity to activity centers such as schools, libraries, community centers, regional parks, and Class I trail routes as outlined in the City of Modesto Non-Motorized Transportation Plan. e. The City of Modesto shall plan the area around new commuter and mainline rail stations to provide convenient and safe pedestrian and bicycle access, and connections to the transit system. f. The City shall endeavor to fully develop all Class I, II and III non-motorized transportation trails, lanes and routes as outlined in the City of Modesto Non-Motorized Transportation Plan. 2. The following measures should be strongly encouraged, and incorporated into development plans and public facility plans, when it is shown to be appropriate and feasible a. Projects within the City of Modesto should propose pedestrian or transit-oriented designs at suitable locations. b. The City of Modesto should work to preserve and enhance existing neighborhoods and commercial districts having transit and pedestrian-oriented designs. c. The City of Modesto should plan areas within ¼ mile of locations identified as transit hubs and commercial centers for higher density development. d. Higher housing densities in areas served by the full range of urban services should be utilized within the City of Modesto. e. Mixed-use developments should provide commercial services such as day care centers, restaurants, banks, and stores near employment centers. f. The development of shopping areas should be located within walking distance of high density residential neighborhoods. g. The City of Modesto should protect pedestrian-oriented commercial areas from development that is incompatible in design, scale, or use. ---PAGE BREAK--- Chapter V. Environmental Analysis Modesto General Plan Update Draft Master EIR V-2-16 Section 2. Degradation of Air Quality March 2008 h. Regional shopping malls/centers should be located at sites capable of support by a full range of transportation options. i. The City of Modesto should require new major activity centers, office, and commercial development to provide secure bicycle storage and parking facilities. j. The City should establish TCMs and mandatory trip reduction and monitoring/reporting programs for all development within the BP designation. Such programs shall ignore property boundaries so that paratransit and carpooling opportunities are cooperative and in-common. k. The City of Modesto should work to establish public/private partnerships to develop satellite and neighborhood work centers for telecommuting. Source: City of Modesto 2003. AQ-5: The City of Modesto shall implement measures to reduce emissions associated with energy use by residences and businesses. Potential measures to be implemented may include those measures listed in Table V-2-4 in the Final Master Environmental Impact Report. (General Plan Policy VII-H.2[c]) AQ-6: TableV-2-4. Air Quality Measures Related to Energy Use Table V-2-4. Air Quality Measures Related to Energy Use (Note: In order to maintain consistency with the General Plan reference, this table does not follow the nomenclature used for tables elsewhere in this Master EIR.) 1. The following mitigation measures shall be implemented by the City of Modesto, and incorporated into development plans and public facility plans as appropriate: a. The City of Modesto shall work with local energy providers on voluntary incentive-based programs to encourage the use of energy efficient designs and equipment. b. The City shall not allow new residential development to include conventional open-hearth fireplaces. With designs of new residential construction that include fireplaces, the City shall encourage installation of California Energy Commission (CEC) certified natural gas appliances over wood-burning appliances. The City shall limit the number of allowable EPA-approved/Oregon-certified wood-burning appliances to one per new residence. 2. The following measures should be strongly encouraged, and incorporated into development plans and public facility plans, when it is shown to be appropriate and feasible a. The City of Modesto should cooperate with the local building industry, utilities, and the SJVAPCD to develop and adopt new building efficiency practices (standards) for commercial, industrial, and residential buildings to reduce energy and water consumption below the amounts which would be used if the buildings only complied with the existing state standard. b. The City could implement a program to offer incentives for new developments that are more energy efficient than state energy standards at the time the building permit is issued. Incentives may include reduced permit fees or expedited permit processing. Through an annual awards program the City could recognize outstanding projects. c. The City should ensure that new residential construction and residential redevelopment include low-NOx space heaters and water heaters. Source: City of Modesto 2003. ---PAGE BREAK--- Chapter V. Environmental Analysis Modesto General Plan Update Draft Master EIR V-2-17 Section 2. Degradation of Air Quality March 2008 AQ-7: To be consistent with the SJVAPCD’s Air Quality Guidelines for General Plans, the City of Modesto should consult with the SJVAPCD during CEQA review for discretionary projects with the potential for causing adverse air quality impacts. (General Plan Policy VII-H.2[h]) AQ-8: To be consistent with the SJVAPCD’s Air Quality Guidelines for General Plans, the City of Modesto should consider supporting investment in geographic information system technology. (General Plan Policy VII-H.2[i]) AQ-9: The City of Modesto recognizes the efforts of the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (SJVAPCD) to identify the cumulative transportation and air quality impacts of all general plan amendments approved during the previous year. This measure is intended to track the effectiveness of current air-quality-related programs and guide revision to these programs through periodic review of cumulative air quality impacts in the City. The City of Modesto encourages employers to implement the following measures: In-house matching services (for carpools and vanpools) at employers with over 100 weekday employees, or at large development sites occupied by several smaller employers, or coordination with Caltrans’ “Commuter Computer” program; Employer-based dissemination of commute information; Employer subsidies for transit passes and incorporation of transit stop facilities into site design; A program to guarantee rideshare participants a ride home in case of emergency; Flex-time scheduling; Site plan design that encourages pedestrian movement between adjacent land uses; Incentives such as preferred parking for carpoolers; Encouraging submission of site plans featuring mixed land uses or “neo- traditional” design; and Encouraging employers to experiment with telecommuting options, where feasible. (General Plan Policy VII-H.2[d]) The following policies are intended to reduce impacts through inter-agency coordination. AQ-10: The City of Modesto shall work with neighboring jurisdictions and affected agencies to address cross-jurisdictional and regional transportation and air quality issues. (General Plan Policy VII-H.2[e]) AQ-11: The City of Modesto shall coordinate with other jurisdictions and other regional agencies in the San Joaquin Valley to establish parallel air quality programs and implementation measures (trip reduction ordinances, indirect source programs, etc.). (General Plan Policy VII-H.2[f]) AQ-12: The City of Modesto shall implement measures to reduce emissions associated with future development through the CEQA review process. Table V-2-5 in the MEIR describes those measures to be implemented, as well as additional measures which may be implemented at the discretion of the City. (General Plan Policy VII-H.2[g]) AQ-13: Table V-2-5. Air Quality Measures Implemented Through the CEQA Review Process ---PAGE BREAK--- Chapter V. Environmental Analysis Modesto General Plan Update Draft Master EIR V-2-18 Section 2. Degradation of Air Quality March 2008 Table V-2-5. Air Quality Measures Implemented Through the CEQA Review Process (Note: In order to maintain consistency with the General Plan reference, this table does not follow the nomenclature used for tables elsewhere in this Master EIR.) 1. The following mitigation measures shall be implemented by the City of Modesto: a. The City of Modesto shall consult with the San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District during CEQA review for all discretionary projects not previously reviewed by the District. The City of Modesto shall determine project air quality impacts using analysis methods and significance thresholds recommended by the SJVAPCD. 2. The following measures should be strongly encouraged, and incorporated into development plans and public facility plans, when it is shown to be appropriate and feasible a. The City of Modesto should require the local CO “hot spot” modeling for individual projects that would substantially affect high-volume intersections such that Levels of Service would degrade to or where Levels of Service without the project are already b. The City should ensure that air quality impacts identified during the CEQA review are consistently and fairly mitigated c. The City of Modesto should ensure that all air quality mitigation measures are feasible, implementable, and cost effective. Source: City of Modesto 2003. The following General Plan policies are intended to reduce air quality impacts through public outreach and education programs. AQ-14: The City of Modesto shall work to improve the public’s understanding of the land use, transportation, and air quality link. (General Plan Policy VII-H.2[j]) AQ-15: The City of Modesto shall encourage local public and private groups to provide air quality education programs. (General Plan Policy VII-H.2[k]) The following policies are intended to minimize exposure of the pubic to toxic air contaminants (TACs) and noxious odors from industrial, manufacturing, and processing facilities. AQ-16: The City of Modesto should encourage new pollution sources such as, but not limited to, industrial, manufacturing, and processing facilities to be located an adequate distance (based on pollutant dispersion characteristics, site orientation, prevailing winds, etc.) from residential areas and other sensitive receptors. (General Plan Policy VII-H.2[l]) AQ-17: The City of Modesto should implement measures to reduce the temporary, yet potentially significant, local air quality impacts from construction activities. Potential measures to be implemented may include those measures listed in Table V-2-6 in the Master Environmental Impact Report. (General Plan Policy VII-H.2[m]) AQ-18: Table V-2-6. Air Quality Measures to Reduce Construction Impacts ---PAGE BREAK--- Chapter V. Environmental Analysis Modesto General Plan Update Draft Master EIR V-2-19 Section 2. Degradation of Air Quality March 2008 Table V-2-6. Air Quality Measures to Reduce Construction Impacts (Note: In order to maintain consistency with the General Plan reference, this table does not follow the nomenclature used for tables elsewhere in this Master EIR.) 1. The following mitigation measures shall be implemented by the City of Modesto, and incorporated into development plans and public facility plans as appropriate: a. The City of Modesto shall work with the SJVAPCD to reduce particulate matter emissions from construction, grading, excavation, and demolition to the maximum extent feasible. b. If required by Regulation VIII (Fugitive Dust Rules) of the San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District, the City of Modesto shall require all access roads, driveways, and parking areas serving new commercial and industrial development to be constructed with materials that minimize particulate emissions and are appropriate to the scale and intensity of use. 2. The following measures should be strongly encouraged, and incorporated into development plans and public facility plans, when it is shown to be appropriate and feasible a. The City of Modesto should reduce PM10 emissions from City-maintained roads to the maximum extent feasible b. The City of Modesto should adopt a standard set of construction-related mitigation measures that can be adapted to all new, non-emergency construction projects in the City. Source: City of Modesto 2000. AQ-19: The City of Modesto shall require residential development projects and projects categorized as sensitive receptors (hospitals, schools, convalescent homes, etc.) to be located an adequate distance from existing and potential sources of toxic and/or odorous emissions such as freeways, major arterials, industrial sites, refuse transfer or disposal sites and hazardous material locations. (General Plan Policy VII-H.2[n]) The following policies are intended to accurately determine and fairly mitigate the local and regional air quality impacts of projects proposed in the City of Modesto: AQ-20: To be consistent with the SJVAPCD’s Air Quality Guidelines for General Plans, the City of Modesto should determine project air quality impacts using analysis methods and significance thresholds recommended by the SJVAPCD. (General Plan Policy VII- H.2[o]) AQ-21: To be consistent with the SJVAPCD’s Air Quality Guidelines for General Plans, the City of Modesto should ensure that air quality impacts identified during CEQA review are consistently and fairly mitigated. (General Plan Policy VII-H.2[p]) AQ-22: To be consistent with the SJVAPCD’s Air Quality Guidelines for General Plans, the City of Modesto should ensure all air quality mitigation measures are feasible, implementable, and cost effective. (General Plan Policy VII-H.2[q]) AQ-23: To be consistent with the SJVAPCD’s Air Quality Guidelines for General Plans, the City of Modesto should identify the cumulative transportation and air quality impacts of all general plan amendments approved during the previous year. (General Plan Policy VII-H.2[r]) ---PAGE BREAK--- Chapter V. Environmental Analysis Modesto General Plan Update Draft Master EIR V-2-20 Section 2. Degradation of Air Quality March 2008 AQ-24: To be consistent with the SJVAPCD’s Air Quality Guidelines for General Plans, the City of Modesto should reduce air quality impacts of development projects that may be insignificant by themselves, but cumulatively are significant. These impacts will be addressed in the initial studies required for future development. Where necessary to reduce cumulative contributions, project-specific mitigation measures will be identified and required as part of project approval. (General Plan Policy VII-H.2[s]) AQ-25: To be consistent with the SJVAPCD’s Air Quality Guidelines for General Plans, the City of Modesto should encourage innovative mitigation measures to reduce air quality impacts by coordinating with the SJVAPCD, project applicants, and other interested parties. (General Plan Policy VII-H.2[t]) AQ-26: Review of new development shall be coordinated with SJVAPCD staff to ensure all projects subject to the SJVAPCD Rule 9510 (Indirect Source Review) comply fully with the rule. This rule fulfills the SJVAPCD’s emission reduction commitments in the PM10 and Ozone Attainment Plans through emission reductions from the construction and use of development projects through design features and onsite measures. Rule 9510 applies to any applicant that seeks to gain a final discretionary approval for a development project, or any portion thereof, which upon full buildout will include any one of the following: „ 50 residential units „ 2,000 square feet of commercial space „ 25,000 square feet of light industrial space „ 100,000 square feet of heavy industrial space „ 20,000 square feet of medical office space „ 39,000 square feet of general office space „ 9,000 square feet of educational space „ 10,000 square feet of government space „ 20,000 square feet of recreational space „ 9,000 square feet of space not identified above. (General Plan Policy VII-H.2[u]) The following policies are consistent with the SJVAPCD's Air Quality Guidelines for General Plans and are intended to integrate land use planning, transportation planning, and air quality planning to make the most efficient use of public resources and to create a healthier and more livable environment: AQ-27: The City of Modesto should consider air quality when planning the land uses and transportation systems to accommodate the expected growth in this community. (General Plan Policy VII-H.2[v]) AQ-28: All City of Modesto submittals of transportation improvement projects to be included in regional transportation plans (RTP, RTIP, CMP, etc.) should be consistent with the air quality goals and policies of the General Plan. (General Plan Policy VII-H.2[w]) AQ-29: The City of Modesto should consult with transit providers to determine project impacts on long range transit plans and ensure that impacts are mitigated. (General Plan Policy VII-H.2[x]) ---PAGE BREAK--- Chapter V. Environmental Analysis Modesto General Plan Update Draft Master EIR V-2-21 Section 2. Degradation of Air Quality March 2008 AQ-30: The City of Modesto should work with the Housing Authority, transit providers, and developers to encourage the construction of low income housing developments that use transit-oriented and pedestrian-oriented design principles. (General Plan Policy VII- H.2[y]) AQ-31: The City of Modesto should work with Caltrans and the Regional Transportation Planning Agency (StanCOG) to minimize the air quality, mobility, and social impacts of large scale transportation projects on existing neighborhoods. (General Plan Policy VII-H.2[z]) The following policies are consistent with the SJVAPCD's Air Quality Guidelines for General Plans and are intended for public facilities and operations to provide a model for the private sector in implementing air quality programs: AQ-32: The City of Modesto Departments should implement employer-based trip reduction programs for their employees. (General Plan Policy VII-H.2[aa]) AQ-33: The City of Modesto’s fleet vehicle operators should replace or convert conventional fuel vehicles with clean fuel vehicles as feasible, considering budgetary constraints. (General Plan Policy VII-H.2[bb]) AQ-34: The City of Modesto supports the use of teleconferencing in lieu of employee travel to conferences and meetings when feasible. (General Plan Policy VII-H.2[cc]) The following policies are intended to ensure that new development provides the facilities and programs that improve the effectiveness of transportation control measures and congestion management programs: AQ-35: To be consistent with the SJVAPCD's Air Quality Guidelines for General Plans, the City of Modesto should work with employers and developers to provide employees and residents with attractive, affordable transportation alternatives. (General Plan Policy VII-H.2[dd]) AQ-36: The City of Modesto Non-Motorized Transportation Plan (updated and adopted January 2007) provides guidelines and policies that pertain to the development of the non-motorized transportation system and is hereby incorporated into the Modesto Urban Area General Plan. These guidelines and policies in the NMTP will help contribute to air quality improvements. (General Plan Policy VII-H.2[ee]) AQ-37: To be consistent with the SJVAPCD's Air Quality Guidelines for General Plans, the City of Modesto should work to establish public/private partnerships to develop satellite and neighborhood work centers for telecommuting. (General Plan Policy VII- H.2[ff]) AQ-38: To be consistent with the SJVAPCD's Air Quality Guidelines for General Plans, the City of Modesto should encourage the development of state of the art communication infrastructure linked to the rest of the world. (General Plan Policy VII-H.2[gg]) The following policies are consistent with the SJVAPCD's Air Quality Guidelines for General Plans and are intended to reduce emissions of PM10 and other particulates with local control potential: ---PAGE BREAK--- Chapter V. Environmental Analysis Modesto General Plan Update Draft Master EIR V-2-22 Section 2. Degradation of Air Quality March 2008 AQ-39: The City of Modesto should work with the SJVAPCD to reduce particulate emissions from construction, grading, excavation, and demolition to the maximum extent feasible in accordance with the requirements of SJVAPCD Regulation VIII. Regulation VIII was adopted to reduce the amount of particulate matter suspended in the atmosphere as a result of emissions generated from anthropogenic (man-made) fugitive dust sources. (General Plan Policy VII-H.2[hh]) AQ-40: The City of Modesto shall require all access roads, driveways, and parking areas serving new commercial and industrial development are to be constructed with materials that minimize particulate emissions in accordance with the requirements of SJVAPCD Regulation VIII and are appropriate to the scale and intensity of use. (General Plan Policy VII-H.2[ii]) AQ-41: The City of Modesto should reduce PM10 emissions from City of Modesto maintained roads to the maximum extent feasible. (General Plan Policy VII-H.2[jj]) The following controls are required to be implemented at all construction sites: AQ-42: All disturbed areas, including storage piles, which are not being actively utilized for construction purposes, shall be effectively stabilized of dust emissions using water, chemical stabilizer/suppressant, covered with a tarp or other suitable cover or vegetative ground cover. (General Plan Policy VII-H.2[kk]) AQ-43: All onsite unpaved roads and off-site unpaved access roads shall be effectively stabilized of dust emissions using water or chemical stabilizer/suppressant. (General Plan Policy VII-H.2[ll]) AQ-44: All land clearing, grubbing, scraping, excavation, land leveling, grading, cut & fill, and demolition activities shall be effectively controlled of fugitive dust emissions utilizing application of water or by presoaking. (General Plan Policy VII-H.2[mm]) AQ-45: With the demolition of buildings up to six stories in height, all exterior surfaces of the building shall be wetted during demolition. (General Plan Policy VII-H.2[nn]) AQ-46: When materials are transported off site, all material shall be covered, or effectively wetted to limit visible dust emissions, and at least six inches of freeboard space from the top of the container shall be maintained. (General Plan Policy VII-H.2[oo]) AQ-47: All operations shall limit or expeditiously remove the accumulation of mud or dirt from adjacent public streets at the end of each workday (the use of dry rotary brushes is expressly prohibited except where preceded or accompanied by sufficient wetting to limit the visible dust emissions.) (Use of blower devices is expressly forbidden.) (General Plan Policy VII-H.2[pp]) AQ-48: Following the addition of materials to, or the removal of materials from, the surface of outdoor storage piles, said piles shall be effectively stabilized of fugitive dust emissions utilizing sufficient water or chemical stabilizer/suppressant. (General Plan Policy VII-H.2[qq]) AQ-49: Within urban areas, trackout shall be immediately removed when it extends 50 or more feet from the site and at the end of each workday. (General Plan Policy VII-H.2[rr]) ---PAGE BREAK--- Chapter V. Environmental Analysis Modesto General Plan Update Draft Master EIR V-2-23 Section 2. Degradation of Air Quality March 2008 AQ-50: Any site with 150 or more vehicle trips per day shall prevent carryout and trackout. (General Plan Policy VII-H.2[ss]) The following measures should be implemented at construction sites when required to mitigate significant PM10 impacts (note, these measures are to be implemented in addition to Regulation VIII requirements): AQ-51: Limit traffic speeds on unpaved roads to 15 mph; (General Plan Policy VII-H.2[tt])and AQ-52: Install sandbags or other erosion control measures to prevent silt runoff to public roadways from sites with a slope greater than one percent (General Plan Policy VII-H.2[uu]) The following measures are strongly encouraged at construction sites that are large in area, located near sensitive receptors, or which for any other reason warrant additional emissions reductions: AQ-53: Install wheel washers for all exiting trucks, or wash off all trucks and equipment leaving the site; (General Plan Policy VII-H.2[vv]) AQ-54: Install wind breaks at windward side(s) of construction areas; (General Plan Policy VII-H.2[ww]) AQ-55: Suspend excavation and grading activity when winds exceed 20 mph (regardless of windspeed, an owner/operator must comply with Regulation VIII’s 20 percent (20%) opacity limitation); (General Plan Policy VII-H.2[xx])and AQ-56: Limit the area subject to excavation, grading, and other construction activity at any one time. (General Plan Policy VII-H.2[yy]) 5. Policies Which Avoid Impacts The following City policies are in effect and have been determined to reduce, avoid, or mitigate environmental impacts within the existing city limits and within the Planned Urbanizing General Plan areas as they annex and develop. SJVAPCD policies are included because they reduce or avoid cumulative impacts. The policy reference numbers are listed, the full text of these policies is found in Section A-4 above, Existing Policies Applying to the Study Area. a. San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District The SJVAPCD has implemented a number of programs and regulations that will limit cumulative air quality impacts and that are intended to bring the air basin into attainment with air quality standards over time. ---PAGE BREAK--- Chapter V. Environmental Analysis Modesto General Plan Update Draft Master EIR V-2-24 Section 2. Degradation of Air Quality March 2008 b. City of Modesto Policies The UAGP provides the following policies as described in Section A-4 above, related to air quality that when incorporated into subsequent projects will avoid or reduce impacts: AQ-1 through AQ-41. B. CONSIDERATION AND DISCUSSION OF SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS The following information is provided in accordance with Section 15126.2 of the State CEQA Guidelines. 1. Thresholds of Significance Suggested by the California Environmental Quality Act Thresholds of significance for air quality impacts have been established for this assessment based on the CEQA Environmental Checklist found in Appendix G of the State CEQA Guidelines. Appendix G of the State CEQA Guidelines provide guidance for the determination of significance for a proposed project. A proposed project would result in a significant impact on air quality if it would: a. Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan. b. Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to existing or projected air quality violation. c. Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is in non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions that exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors). d. Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations. e. Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people. 2. Thresholds of Significance Suggested by the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District The State CEQA Guidelines further state that the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may be relied on to make the determinations from Appendix G of the State CEQA Guidelines. The SJVAPCD has specified significance thresholds within its Guide for Assessing and Mitigating Air Quality Impacts (San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District 2002) to determine air quality impacts for projects located within the SJVAB. The SJVAPCD has determined that compliance with its Regulation VIII Fugitive PM10 Prohibitions, including implementation of all feasible control measures specified in its Guide for Assessing and Mitigating Air Quality Impacts, is sufficient mitigation to minimize adverse air ---PAGE BREAK--- Chapter V. Environmental Analysis Modesto General Plan Update Draft Master EIR V-2-25 Section 2. Degradation of Air Quality March 2008 quality effects from construction-related PM10 emissions to less-than-significant levels (San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District 2002). Since the publication of the SJVAPCD’s guidance manual, the SJVAPCD has revised various rules comprising Regulation VIII. Guidance from SJVAPCD staff indicates that implementation of a dust control plan would satisfy all of the requirements of SJVAPCD Regulation VIII (Cadrett pers. comm.). Further consultation with SJVAPCD staff indicates that, though explicit thresholds for construction-related emissions of ozone precursors are not enumerated in the Guide for Assessing and Mitigating Air Quality Impacts, the SJVAPCD considers a significant impact to occur when construction emissions of ROG or NOX exceed 10 tons per year (Barber pers. comm.). The SJVAPCD has identified the following thresholds to determine whether a project would result in a significant impact to air quality: „ expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations; „ produce more than 10 tons/year of ROG; „ produce more than 10 tons/year of NOX; „ exceed NAAQS or CAAQS for CO (9 ppm 8-hour average; 20 ppm 1-hour average); or „ not comply with the SJVAPCD’s Regulation VIII regarding particulate matter emissions from construction activities. Compliance with SJVAPCD Regulation VIII and the local zoning code will reduce particulate emission impacts to levels that are considered less than significant by the SJVAPCD. 3. Threshold of Significance Used by the City of Modesto After consideration of the methodological approaches suggested by the CEQA Guidelines, the thresholds of significance recommended by the SJVAPCD (above) are used to assess air quality impacts. 4. Significant Direct Impacts CO concentrations at sensitive receptors near congested roadways and intersections were estimated based on CALINE4 dispersion modeling. Appendix B contains a complete description of the CO model assumptions and method of analysis. Within the study area, four roadway segments for each condition were analyzed to obtain worst-case CO concentrations: segments with the highest Volume to Capacity (V/C) Ratio. Existing background CO concentrations were obtained by averaging the last five years for which complete data is available from the Modesto 14th Street monitoring station. Existing background levels for 1- and 8-hour CO were used to obtain a worse- case scenario for future conditions. As indicated in Table V-2-7, the future conditions in the study areas are not anticipated to exceed the state 1-hour or 8-hour CO standards (listed in Table 2-1a). Consequently, the impact of the proposed general plan traffic conditions on ambient CO levels in the project area is considered less than significant. ---PAGE BREAK--- Chapter V. Environmental Analysis Modesto General Plan Update Draft Master EIR V-2-26 Section 2. Degradation of Air Quality March 2008 Table V-2-7. Modeled Plan Area Carbon Monoxide Levels for Existing (2005) and Future Conditions (2025) Receptor2 2005 Existing 2025 With Project 1-hour CO3 8-hour CO4 1-hour CO3 8-hour CO4 Kansas—Carpenter to 10th 1 10.2 6.3 5.9 3.7 Bangs—Tully to McHenry 2 7.3 4.6 6.0 3.8 Kansas—West of SR102 3 7.7 4.8 5.6 3.6 Woodland—Carpenter to Kearney 4 8.7 5.4 5.9 3.7 1 Background concentrations of 5.0 ppm and 3.2 ppm were added to the modeling 1-hour and 8-hour results, respectively. 2 Receptors located 22 feet away from the centerline of each roadway, and 2000 feet from each other. 3 The federal and state 1-hour standards are 35 and 20 ppm, respectively. 4 The federal and state 8-hour standards are 9 and 9.0 ppm, respectively. Ozone precursor, CO, particulate matter, and carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions for 2005 conditions and future 2025 conditions were calculated using the EMFAC2007 modeling program and traffic data provided by Fehr & Peers that were developed for the Master EIR. Appendix C describes the methodology and model inputs used to model these pollutants. Table V-2-8 summarizes the results of emissions modeling for each of the revision areas under the existing general plan and the proposed general plan. Table V-2-8. Criteria Pollutant Emissions from Mobile Sources (tons per year) Scenario ROG NOX CO PM10 PM2.5 CO2 2005 1.76 17.41 33.22 0.68 0.52 3,647.06 2025 0.77 5.28 14.53 0.62 0.38 6,957.70 Difference -0.99 -12.13 -18.69 -0.06 -0.14 3,310.65 As indicated in Table V-2-8, implementation of the proposed general plan would result in net decreases in ROG, NOX, CO, PM10 and PM2.5 emissions, while CO2 emissions would increase. The differences in emissions between existing and 2025 project conditions represent emissions generated directly as a result of implementation of the proposed project. Vehicular emission rates are anticipated to lessen in future years due to continuing improvements in engine technology and the phasing out of older, higher-emitting vehicles. These decreases in emission rates is sufficient to offset the increases in VMT seen between existing and 2025 project conditions, resulting in the decreased ROG, NOX, CO, PM10, and PM2.5 emissions observed in Table V-2-8. Because ROG and NOX, emissions are below the SJVAPCD thresholds of 10 tons per year, this impact is considered less than significant. 5. Significant Cumulative Impacts CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines require the disclosure of the significant cumulative environmental effects, whether the project will make a cumulatively considerable contribution to any such effects, and, if so, mitigation measures intended to reduce the project’s contribution ---PAGE BREAK--- Chapter V. Environmental Analysis Modesto General Plan Update Draft Master EIR V-2-27 Section 2. Degradation of Air Quality March 2008 (Section 15130 of the State CEQA Guidelines). A cumulative effect is one that results from past, present, and probable future projects. A project which has a less-than-significant direct effect on the environment may nonetheless make a considerable contribution to a cumulative effect. A cumulative impact analysis first identifies whether there exists a cumulatively significant effect in the given resource area. If so, it determines whether the project will make a considerable contribution to that effect. Where a cumulative impact is severe, even a small contribution may be considerable. Where a project is required to implement or fund its fair share of a mitigation measure designed to alleviate the cumulative impact, its contribution will be rendered less than considerable. (Section 15130(a) of the State CEQA Guidelines.) The SJVAB is an air quality non-attainment area. Any contribution to air pollution in a non- attainment area is considered a significant cumulative air quality impact. Traffic from development in the City of Modesto would contribute, with traffic from new development in the County and region, toward a cumulative increase in roadside air pollutant levels on major roads and highways throughout the County. Within the City itself, the traffic analysis and corresponding traffic air pollutant analysis takes into account cumulative traffic volumes and is inherently cumulative in nature: The traffic study data includes cumulative traffic volumes which were utilized as an input to the air quality modeling analysis. Due to the size of Modesto and the future growth projected under its General Plan, it will make a considerable contribution to this cumulative effect. 6. Potential Impacts for Which There is Insufficient Information to Support a Full Analysis None. C. MITIGATION MEASURES ADOPTED TO MINIMIZE SIGNIFICANT EFFECTS The following information is provided in accordance with Section 15126.4 of the State CEQA Guidelines. 1. Measures Which Mitigate Direct Impacts As described above, with the implementation of the City of Modesto policies AQ-1 through AQ-56, the impact will be less than significant. 2. Measures Which Mitigate Cumulative Impacts Activities within the City of Modesto are subject to regulation by the SJVAPCD. These regulations are to improve regional air quality over time so that the basin will reach air quality attainment. However, in the shorter term, these measures do not avoid the cumulative effect. The City of ---PAGE BREAK--- Chapter V. Environmental Analysis Modesto General Plan Update Draft Master EIR V-2-28 Section 2. Degradation of Air Quality March 2008 Modesto policies, and the new mitigation measures identified above will help to reduce impacts, but not to a less-than-significant level. This impact is considered significant and unavoidable. 3. Alternatives to the Proposed Project The following information is provided in accordance with Section 15126.6 of the State CEQA Guidelines. None of the alternatives would substantially reduce or avoid the air quality impacts of the project. D. MONITORING MITIGATION MEASURES The following information is provided in accordance with Public Resources Code Section 21081.6. The mitigation measures identified in the Master EIR have been incorporated into the UAGP and are implemented by that plan. City staff provides the Modesto City Council with an annual report on UAGP implementation. Therefore, no separate mitigation monitoring program is required for the UAGP Master EIR. E. EVALUATING SUBSEQUENT PROJECTS The following information will be used to determine whether subsequent projects conform to the Master EIR, as outlined in Public Resources Code Section 21157.1(c). Anticipated future projects, as presented in Chapter II, are within the scope of analysis for the effects on air as long as the following circumstances do not occur: 1. Any changes to planned traffic patterns. 2. Any new information which adversely alters the attainment status of the Air Basin. 3. Any new emission factors and background concentrations used in the calculation of air pollutant emissions. 4. Any new or changed rules and regulations. F. KEEPING THE MASTER ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT CURRENT FOR THIS TOPIC As authorized by Public Resources Code Section 21166, the analysis contained in this section is current as long as the following circumstances have not occurred: 1. Any changes to planned traffic patterns. 2. Any new information which substantially alters the attainment status of the Air Basin. 3. Any new emission factors and background concentrations used in the calculation of air pollutant emissions. ---PAGE BREAK--- Chapter V. Environmental Analysis Modesto General Plan Update Draft Master EIR V-2-29 Section 2. Degradation of Air Quality March 2008 4. Any new or changed rules and regulations. Any changes to the above should be incorporated into this Master EIR. ---PAGE BREAK--- Chapter V. Environmental Analysis Modesto General Plan Update Final Master EIR V-3-1 Section 3. Generation of Noise October 2008 Section 3 Generation of Noise This chapter discusses the existing ambient noise conditions in the City of Modesto (City) and evaluates the potential noise impacts of the City of Modesto Urban Area General Plan (UAGP) on the City’s noise environment. Where significant impacts are identified, this section provides mitigation measures to reduce these impacts to a less-than-significant level. A. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING The following information is provided in accordance with Section 15125 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines. The environmental setting described herein provides the baseline for determining whether an impact of the UAGP is significant. 1. Study Area for Direct Impacts The direct impact study area is the Modesto area. 2. Study Area for Cumulative Impacts This analysis will be based on the plan or projection approach to examining cumulative effects, as provided under Section 15130(b)(1)(B) of the State CEQA Guidelines. Analysis will utilize growth and development projections contained in the UAGP. The cumulative impact study area is the Modesto UAGP area. 3. Terminology Different types of measurements are used to characterize the time-varying nature of sound. These measurements include the equivalent sound level (Leq), the minimum and maximum sound levels (Lmin and Lmax), percentile-exceeded sound levels (Lxx), the day-night sound level (Ldn), and the community noise equivalent level (CNEL). Below are brief definitions of these measurements and other terminology used in this evaluation. „ Sound. A vibratory disturbance created by a vibrating object, which, when transmitted by pressure waves through a medium such as air, is capable of being detected by a receiving mechanism, such as the human ear or a microphone. „ Noise. Sound that is loud, unpleasant, unexpected, or otherwise undesirable. „ Ambient Noise. The composite of noise from all sources near and far in a given environment exclusive of particular noise sources to be measured. ---PAGE BREAK--- Chapter V. Environmental Analysis Modesto General Plan Update Final Master EIR V-3-2 Section 3. Generation of Noise October 2008 „ Decibel (dB). A unitless measure of sound on a logarithmic scale, which indicates the squared ratio of sound pressure amplitude to a reference sound pressure amplitude. The reference pressure is 20 micro-pascals. „ A-Weighted Decibel (dBA). An overall frequency-weighted sound level in decibels, which approximates the frequency response of the human ear. „ Equivalent Sound Level (Leq). The average of sound energy occurring over a specified period. In effect, Leq is the steady-state sound level that in a stated period would contain the same acoustical energy as the time-varying sound that actually occurs during the same period. „ Exceedance Sound Level (Lxx). The sound level exceeded xx percent of the time during a sound level measurement period. For example, L90 is the sound level exceeded 90 percent of the time and L10 is the sound level exceeded 10 percent of the time. „ Maximum and Minimum Sound Levels (Lmax and Lmin). The maximum or minimum sound level measured during a measurement period. „ Day-Night Level (Ldn). The energy average of the A-weighted sound levels occurring during a 24-hour period, with 10 dB added to the A-weighted sound levels occurring from 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. „ Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL). The energy average of the A-weighted sound levels occurring during a 24-hour period with a 5 dB penalty added to the A-weighted sound levels occurring from 7:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m., and a 10 dB penalty added to the A-weighted sound levels occurring from 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. Ldn and CNEL values rarely differ by more than 1 dB. As a matter of practice, Ldn and CNEL values are considered to be equivalent and are treated as such in this assessment. In general, human sound perception is such that a change in sound level of 3 dB is just noticeable, a change of 5 dB is clearly noticeable, and a change of 10 dB is perceived as doubling or halving sound level. 4. Existing Physical Setting in the Study Area The major types of noise sources in the City of Modesto are described below. a. Roadways Noise sources that contribute significantly to the noise environment in the Modesto urban area include three highways, State Route (SR) 99, SR 132, and SR 108; various arterials; railroads; industrial facilities; and the Modesto City–County Airport. Of the various roadways, highest sound levels occur along SR 99, as a result of its relatively high traffic volume and truck traffic. The California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) has installed sound barriers along two portions of SR 99. In general, roadways in the City are level and at grade with adjacent properties. In addition to SRs 99, 108, and 132, truck routes in Modesto include all or portions of the following: Standiford/Sylvan Avenue, Briggsmore Avenue, Kansas Avenue/Needham Avenue, Scenic Drive, Carpenter Road, Paradise Road, Martin Luther King Drive, Tully ---PAGE BREAK--- Chapter V. Environmental Analysis Modesto General Plan Update Final Master EIR V-3-3 Section 3. Generation of Noise October 2008 Road, Claus Road, El Vista Avenue/Oakdale Road, and First, Fifth, Sixth, Seventh, Eighth, Ninth, Twelfth, Fourteenth, Seventeenth, B, D, G, H, K, L, and Nineteenth Streets. Refer to Figure V-3-1 for haul routes within the City of Modesto. These are frequented by commercial trucks. b. Railroad System The City of Modesto is a regional distribution center for commercial products, and a considerable portion of the business activity in the area is related to warehousing, transportation, and the processing of foods, wine, and related products. As a result, the city is served by three railroads: Burlington Northern–Santa Fe Railroad, Union Pacific Railroad (also includes the former Southern Pacific Transportation Company tracks), and Modesto and Empire Traction Company. The Burlington Northern–Santa Fe Railroad, which runs adjacent and parallel to Santa Fe Avenue on the eastern edge of Modesto (in Stanislaus County), has approximately 33 freight operations per day with approximately 54 percent daytime operations (7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m.) and 11 percent evening operations (7:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m.) (Stanislaus County 2005). The Union Pacific Railroad has approximately 16 freight operations per day with approximately 54 percent daytime operations (7:00 a.m. to 7:00 13 percent evening operations (7:00 p.m. to 10:00 and 33 percent nighttime operations (10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m.) (Stanislaus County 2005). The Modesto and Empire Traction Company is a short-line railroad situated in a 2000-acre industrial park known as the Beard Industrial District in Modesto. The main line is 5 miles long, with an additional 28 miles of track within the Beard Industrial District. Train speed is limited to a maximum of 20 miles per hour (mph), with an average speed of 1 mph. Train operations typically occur 24 hours per day, from 11 p.m. on Sunday through 8 a.m. on Saturday, with occasional train movements over the weekend. Operations are split into three shifts, with one crew working the 7 a.m. to 3 p.m. shift, two crews working the 3 p.m. to 11 p.m. shift, and two crews working the 11 p.m. to 7 a.m. shift. Train trips per day vary greatly, with lighter operations occurring during the daytime 7 a.m. to 3 p.m. shift (Stanislaus County 2005). c. Airport The Modesto City–County Airport is located in the southeastern portion of the city. Residential areas are adjacent to the airport to the west and northwest. The airport serves general aviation pilots (light and ultralight planes), as well as scheduled daily connector service to the San Francisco and Los Angeles International Airports. Over the first six months of 2007 an average of 7,739 passengers used these connector flights (City of Modesto 2007b). The airport had an annual total of 84,185 operations in 2007 and is tentatively forecast to have 98,850 annual operations in 2015 (Coffman Associates 2007). The draft Modesto City-County Airport Part 150 Study prepared by Coffman Associates for the City of Modesto forecasts the long-term operations to reach approximately 141,180 sometime after ---PAGE BREAK--- Chapter V. Environmental Analysis Modesto General Plan Update Final Master EIR V-3-4 Section 3. Generation of Noise October 2008 2015. The draft study estimates that 230 dwelling units are currently within the 60–65 CNEL noise contour of the airport. It should be noted that these projections will be further updated, as the Airport’s Master Plan is in the process of being updated and the Federal Aviation Regulations (FAR) Part 150, Airport Noise Compatibility Program is still in draft form. Updated projections of future Airport operations will be contained within the Airport’s Updated Master Plan and FAR Part 150. d. Industry Another potential sound source is industrial plant facilities. Sound measurements were taken at the former Proctor and Gamble facility (now the G-3 facility) and E & J Gallo Winery in 1992 by Recon Environmental Corp. and presented in the 1995 Final Master Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the UAGP. The results from these sound measurements are presented in Table V-3-1. The E & J Gallo Winery operates 24 hours per day, seven days per week. Noises associated with the winery are produced by trucking/traffic operations, outdoor generators and other mechanical equipment, and bulk handling forklifts) equipment (Byrd pers. comm.). In 1992, the noise levels measured at the Proctor & Gamble facility were largely determined by facility truck traffic entering and exiting the facility along a driveway that was adjacent to an orchard. This orchard has since been removed. The noise levels measured at the E.&J. Gallo Winery were largely determined by vehicle traffic on Santa Rosa Avenue. e. Miscellaneous An additional source of audible sound in residential neighborhoods is high school football games. For example, games are held at the Thomas Downey, Peter Johansen, Central Catholic, and Modesto Christian High Schools, as well as at Modesto Junior College (Beuving and Mendieta pers. comms.). Varsity games are primarily held on Friday nights, with other games held on Wednesdays and Thursdays. Such noise sources will increase as new high schools open (Enochs High School opened in 2006; Gregori High School will open in 2008 or 2009; both are in the northeastern quadrant of the City), assuming that those schools will use either the facilities listed above or their own fields. Other noise sources include heliports, helipads, and noise related to hospital transportation services, such as Medi- Flight. ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- Chapter V. Environmental Analysis Modesto General Plan Update Final Master EIR V-3-5 Section 3. Generation of Noise October 2008 Table V-3-1. Results of Sound Monitoring Location Start Time Measured Levels (dB) Adjacent Land Use Normally Acceptable Ldn Level (dB) 1. Along SR 99 6:46 a.m. 73 Church/residential 65 2. Along Yosemite Boulevard 12:15 p.m. 70 Commercial 70 3. Along McHenry Avenue (SR 108) 4:05 p.m. 67 Commercial 70 4. Along West Hatch Road 10:25 a.m. 72 Residential 65 5. Along Sylvan Avenue 5:11 p.m. 72 Residential/office 65 6. Along Briggsmore Avenue 2:59 p.m. 72 Residential/commercial 65 7. Along Oakdale Road 1:51 p.m. 70 Church/residential 65 8. Along Coffee Road 4:10 p.m. 71 Residential 65 9. At Scenic General Hospital 3:56 p.m. 71 Hospital/cemetery 70 10. At Doctor's Medical Center 8:00 a.m. 70 Hospital/residential 65 11. Near Davis High School 9:04 a.m. 70 Residential 65 12. Near the Proctor & Gamble factory 1:00 p.m. 67 Industrial/orchard 75 13. Near Downey High School (football game) 8:10 p.m. 54 Residential 65 14. Near the Gallo Winery 2:27 p.m. 65 Residential/industrial 65 15. Along Rumble Road (Sylvan Park) 4:55 p.m. 64 Park 70 16. Along Ninth Street 11:15 a.m. 74 Commercial 70 17. Along College Avenue 10:13 a.m. 64 School 70 18. Along South Morton Boulevard (Beard Brook Park) 12:30 p.m. 64 Park 70 19. Along La Loma Avenue (Wilson High School) 2:35 p.m. 67 School 70 Source: City of Modesto 1995. ---PAGE BREAK--- Chapter V. Environmental Analysis Modesto General Plan Update Final Master EIR V-3-6 Section 3. Generation of Noise October 2008 f. Sensitive Receptors Sensitive receptors are persons and facilities that could be adversely affected by noise. Sensitive receptors in the City of Modesto include residences, hospitals, parks, churches, and schools. Hospitals in Modesto include Doctors Medical Center, Memorial Medical Center, Modesto Rehabilitation Hospital, English Oaks Convalescent Hospital, Stanislaus Surgery Center, and Stanislaus Behavioral Health Center. The larger parks in Modesto include Davis Park, Thousand Oaks Park, and Legion Park. The high schools in Modesto include Fred C. Beyer, Grace Davis, Thomas Downey, Peter Johansen, Modesto, Robert Elliot Alternative, James C. Enochs, Central Catholic, Modesto Christian, and Joseph A. Gregori. Colleges within the City include Modesto Junior College, which has two campuses, Chapman University, Humphreys College, and Andon College. To further characterize existing noise levels in the project area, noise from traffic traveling on streets in the project area was modeled using the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) Traffic Noise Prediction Model (FHWA-RD-77-108) and traffic data provided by the City. Table V-3-2 summarizes modeled traffic noise levels under existing conditions for selected roadways in the project area. Roadways evaluated are those where a change would occur under the UAGP update. Table V-3-2 also presents the distances to various noise contours (60, 65, and 70 Ldn) in feet for the streets modeled. For example, on McHenry Avenue, between Needham and Briggsmore Avenues, the sound level is 68 dBA Ldn at 100 feet from the centerline of McHenry Avenue. Additionally, the 70 Ldn noise contour is located 63 feet from the centerline, the 65 Ldn noise contour is 136 feet from the centerline, and the 60 Ldn noise contour is 293 feet from the centerline. Figure V-3-2 illustrates the estimated location of existing and proposed noise level contours. This is an approximation of anticipated noise levels, based on noise modeling. Actual noise levels may vary based on topography, structures, and other factors. Additional noise studies will be required for individual development projects as part of Initial Studies prepared for such projects. The determination of whether to prepare an individual noise study will be made based on the noise compatibility standards illustrated on Table V-3-3. ---PAGE BREAK--- HWY 99 DALE RD LADD RD TULLY RD KIERNAN AVE SISK RD PELANDALE AVE HAMMETT RD CARVER RD BANGS AVE BACON RD TOOMES RD SNYDER AVE FINNEY RD PIRRONE RD STODDARD RD SALIDA BLV PRESCOTT RD STANDIFORD AVE MURPHY RD BRINK AVE CHEYENNE WY CHAPMAN RD VINTAGE DR VENEMAN AVE AMERICAN AVE GAGOS DR DAKOTA AVE VIADER DR MARSALA WY CLEVENGER DR BROADWAY AVE SHAWNEE DR NIGHTINGALE DR HONEY CREEK RD LONGBRIDGE DR BLUE BIRD DR BRADEN AVE SETROK DR REGENCY PARK DR SNYDER AVE KIERNAN AVE SISK RD HWY 99 PRESCOTT RD Figure V-3-2 GENERAL PLAN PROGRAM LEGEND Sheet 1 of 10 NOISE CONTOURS - EXISTING \ \ FILECORP1 \ PUB \ GIS \ PROJECTS \ CITY_OF_MODESTO \ 06826_06 \ MAPDOC \ GPU_FIG_V_2_NOISE_20081031_ME.MXD LD (10-31-08) 2,000 0 2,000 1,000 Feet 1:30,000 Data Source: Fehr and Peers 2007 Basemap: City of Modesto 2007 Project Area Boundary 60 Ldn 65 Ldn 70 Ldn 75 Ldn ---PAGE BREAK--- HWY 99 DALE RD LADD RD TULLY RD KIERNAN AVE SISK RD PELANDALE AVE HAMMETT RD CARVER RD BANGS AVE BACON RD TOOMES RD SNYDER AVE FINNEY RD PIRRONE RD STODDARD RD SALIDA BLV PRESCOTT RD STANDIFORD AVE MURPHY RD BRINK AVE CHEYENNE WY CHAPMAN RD VINTAGE DR VENEMAN AVE AMERICAN AVE GAGOS DR DAKOTA AVE VIADER DR MARSALA WY CLEVENGER DR BROADWAY AVE SHAWNEE DR NIGHTINGALE DR HONEY CREEK RD LONGBRIDGE DR BLUE BIRD DR BRADEN AVE SETROK DR REGENCY PARK DR SNYDER AVE KIERNAN AVE SISK RD HWY 99 PRESCOTT RD Figure V-3-2 GENERAL PLAN PROGRAM LEGEND Sheet 2 of 10 \ \ FILECORP1 \ PUB \ GIS \ PROJECTS \ CITY_OF_MODESTO \ 06826_06 \ MAPDOC \ GPU_FIG_V_2_NOISE_20081031_ME.MXD LD (10-31-08) 2,000 0 2,000 1,000 Feet 1:30,000 Data Source: Fehr and Peers 2007 Basemap: City of Modesto 2007 Project Area Boundary 60 Ldn 65 Ldn 70 Ldn 75 Ldn NOISE CONTOURS - PROPOSED ---PAGE BREAK--- TULLY RD COFFEE RD OAKDALE RD SYLVAN AVE ROSELLE AVE MC HENRY AVE PATTERSON RD FLOYD AVE CLARIBEL RD CLARATINA AVE CLAUS RD KODIAK DR LADD RD HELD DR BANGS AVE HILLGLEN AVE MABLE AVE BOWEN AVE FINE AVE KIERNAN AVE SHERWOOD AVE CELESTE DR W RUMBLE RD RICE RD W UNION AVE E RUMBLE RD ROSE AVE PELANDALE AVE KELLER ST STANDIFORD AVE WOODROW AVE LITT RD NORWEGIAN AVE MILLBROOKE AVE MILNES RD W BRIGGSMORE AVE ELLISON DR GRECIAN AVE TEMESCAL DR HASHEM DR N SANTA FE AVE SYLVAN MEADOWS DR DRAGOO PARK DR TOKAY AVE LEVELAND LN LANCEY DR MERLE AVE CLAREMONT AVE E UNION AVE PALMILLA DR SUNRISE AVE COLLEGE AVE COLONIAL DR E BRIGGSMORE AVE ENSENADA DR MANOR OAK DR CORALWOOD RD BOYCE LN SHARON AVE DRAKESHIRE DR ARIA WAY SEMALLON DR CADEN DR THORSEN AVE BRIDGEWOOD WY MONTANA DR BEAR CUB LN DERMOND RD CROCUS DR WOOD SORREL DR LA FORCE DR COLLEGE AVE COFFEE RD MERLE AVE E RUMBLE RD CLAUS RD N SANTA FE AVE FLOYD AVE Figure V-3-2 GENERAL PLAN PROGRAM LEGEND Sheet 3 of 10 NOISE CONTOURS - EXISTING \ \ FILECORP1 \ PUB \ GIS \ PROJECTS \ CITY_OF_MODESTO \ 06826_06 \ MAPDOC \ GPU_FIG_V_2_NOISE_20081031_ME.MXD LD (10-31-08) 2,000 0 2,000 1,000 Feet 1:30,000 Data Source: Fehr and Peers 2007 Basemap: City of Modesto 2007 Project Area Boundary 60 Ldn 65 Ldn 70 Ldn 75 Ldn ---PAGE BREAK--- TULLY RD COFFEE RD OAKDALE RD SYLVAN AVE ROSELLE AVE MC HENRY AVE PATTERSON RD FLOYD AVE CLARIBEL RD CLARATINA AVE CLAUS RD KODIAK DR LADD RD HELD DR BANGS AVE HILLGLEN AVE MABLE AVE BOWEN AVE FINE AVE KIERNAN AVE SHERWOOD AVE CELESTE DR W RUMBLE RD RICE RD W UNION AVE E RUMBLE RD ROSE AVE PELANDALE AVE KELLER ST STANDIFORD AVE WOODROW AVE LITT RD NORWEGIAN AVE MILLBROOKE AVE MILNES RD W BRIGGSMORE AVE ELLISON DR GRECIAN AVE TEMESCAL DR HASHEM DR N SANTA FE AVE SYLVAN MEADOWS DR DRAGOO PARK DR TOKAY AVE LEVELAND LN LANCEY DR MERLE AVE CLAREMONT AVE E UNION AVE PALMILLA DR SUNRISE AVE COLLEGE AVE COLONIAL DR E BRIGGSMORE AVE ENSENADA DR MANOR OAK DR CORALWOOD RD BOYCE LN SHARON AVE DRAKESHIRE DR ARIA WAY SEMALLON DR CADEN DR THORSEN AVE BRIDGEWOOD WY MONTANA DR BEAR CUB LN DERMOND RD CROCUS DR WOOD SORREL DR LA FORCE DR COLLEGE AVE COFFEE RD MERLE AVE E RUMBLE RD CLAUS RD N SANTA FE AVE FLOYD AVE Figure V-3-2 GENERAL PLAN PROGRAM LEGEND Sheet 4 of 10 \ \ FILECORP1 \ PUB \ GIS \ PROJECTS \ CITY_OF_MODESTO \ 06826_06 \ MAPDOC \ GPU_FIG_V_2_NOISE_20081031_ME.MXD LD (10-31-08) 2,000 0 2,000 1,000 Feet 1:30,000 Data Source: Fehr and Peers 2007 Basemap: City of Modesto 2007 Project Area Boundary 60 Ldn 65 Ldn 70 Ldn 75 Ldn NOISE CONTOURS - PROPOSED ---PAGE BREAK--- HWY 99 TULLY RD SISK RD KANSAS AVE DAKOTA AVE BRINK AVE CARVER RD SHOEMAKE AVE MAZE BLV I ST NORTH AVE N 9TH ST BLUE GUM AVE BECKWITH RD STANDIFORD AVE FINNEY RD H ST L ST (FUTURE) HWY 132 K ST 9TH ST MAZE BLVD (HWY 132) PRESCOTT RD COLLEGE AVE CALIFORNIA AVE MORSE RD ELM AVE N CARPENTER RD G ST W RUMBLE RD HWY 132 (FUTURE) W BRIGGSMORE AVE 6TH ST DALE RD J ST ENSLEN AVE TOOMES RD SHERWOOD AVE W ROSEBURG AVE MC DONALD AVE STONE AVE 5TH ST COLDWELL AVE BOWEN AVE POUST RD GRIMES AVE CHEYENNE WY KEARNEY AVE MOUNT VERNON DR PAULINE AVE W UNION AVE ROSEMORE AVE TORRID AVE WOODLAND AVE VIRGINIA AVE NEBRASKA AVE WOODROW AVE VINTAGE DR TUOLUMNE BLV HOUSER LN HAHN DR W GRANGER AVE CONANT AVE VENEMAN AVE S CARPENTER RD SPENCER AVE MERCY AVE VIADER DR W MORRIS AVE GRAPHICS DR NEEDHAM AVE PARK PL JANNA AVE SHELDON DR SHAWNEE DR SYCAMORE AVE MONTCLAIR DR SHADDOX AVE GLENWOOD DR BUDD ST CLEVENGER DR LEVELAND LN MARSALA WY CHAPPARAL PL BRIGGS AVE SIERRA DR S EMERALD AVE NORTHRIDGE DR 14TH ST VENEMAN AVE N VINE ST BRENNER WY NIGHTINGALE DR N MARTIN LUTHER KING DR W ORANGEBURG AVE EVERGREEN AVE SHARON WAY LONGBRIDGE DR 3RD ST PARADISE AVE GRISWOLD AVE PLAZA PARKWAY DR S WASHINGTON ST BRADEN AVE COLUMBINE DR NEEDHAM OVPS PRINCETON AVE SUNSET BLV SETROK DR LEONARD AVE CROCUS DR STODDARD AVE S DAKOTA AVE W RUMBLE RD HWY 99 STODDARD AVE MORSE RD CONANT AVE W BRIGGSMORE AVE W ORANGEBURG AVE COLLEGE AVE SYCAMORE AVE SHERWOOD AVE WOODLAND AVE HWY 99 BLUE GUM AVE Figure V-3-2 GENERAL PLAN PROGRAM LEGEND Sheet 5 of 10 NOISE CONTOURS - EXISTING \ \ FILECORP1 \ PUB \ GIS \ PROJECTS \ CITY_OF_MODESTO \ 06826_06 \ MAPDOC \ GPU_FIG_V_2_NOISE_20081031_ME.MXD LD (10-31-08) 2,000 0 2,000 1,000 Feet 1:30,000 Data Source: Fehr and Peers 2007 Basemap: City of Modesto 2007 Project Area Boundary 60 Ldn 65 Ldn 70 Ldn 75 Ldn ---PAGE BREAK--- HWY 99 TULLY RD SISK RD KANSAS AVE DAKOTA AVE BRINK AVE CARVER RD SHOEMAKE AVE MAZE BLV I ST NORTH AVE N 9TH ST BLUE GUM AVE BECKWITH RD STANDIFORD AVE FINNEY RD H ST L ST (FUTURE) HWY 132 K ST 9TH ST MAZE BLVD (HWY 132) PRESCOTT RD COLLEGE AVE CALIFORNIA AVE MORSE RD ELM AVE N CARPENTER RD G ST W RUMBLE RD HWY 132 (FUTURE) W BRIGGSMORE AVE 6TH ST DALE RD J ST ENSLEN AVE TOOMES RD SHERWOOD AVE W ROSEBURG AVE MC DONALD AVE STONE AVE 5TH ST COLDWELL AVE BOWEN AVE POUST RD GRIMES AVE CHEYENNE WY KEARNEY AVE MOUNT VERNON DR PAULINE AVE W UNION AVE ROSEMORE AVE TORRID AVE WOODLAND AVE VIRGINIA AVE NEBRASKA AVE WOODROW AVE VINTAGE DR TUOLUMNE BLV HOUSER LN HAHN DR W GRANGER AVE CONANT AVE VENEMAN AVE S CARPENTER RD SPENCER AVE MERCY AVE VIADER DR W MORRIS AVE GRAPHICS DR NEEDHAM AVE PARK PL JANNA AVE SHELDON DR SHAWNEE DR SYCAMORE AVE MONTCLAIR DR SHADDOX AVE GLENWOOD DR BUDD ST CLEVENGER DR LEVELAND LN MARSALA WY CHAPPARAL PL BRIGGS AVE SIERRA DR S EMERALD AVE NORTHRIDGE DR 14TH ST VENEMAN AVE N VINE ST BRENNER WY NIGHTINGALE DR N MARTIN LUTHER KING DR W ORANGEBURG AVE EVERGREEN AVE SHARON WAY LONGBRIDGE DR 3RD ST PARADISE AVE GRISWOLD AVE PLAZA PARKWAY DR S WASHINGTON ST BRADEN AVE COLUMBINE DR NEEDHAM OVPS PRINCETON AVE SUNSET BLV SETROK DR LEONARD AVE CROCUS DR STODDARD AVE S DAKOTA AVE W RUMBLE RD HWY 99 STODDARD AVE MORSE RD CONANT AVE W BRIGGSMORE AVE W ORANGEBURG AVE COLLEGE AVE SYCAMORE AVE SHERWOOD AVE WOODLAND AVE HWY 99 BLUE GUM AVE Figure V-3-2 GENERAL PLAN PROGRAM LEGEND Sheet 6 of 10 \ \ FILECORP1 \ PUB \ GIS \ PROJECTS \ CITY_OF_MODESTO \ 06826_06 \ MAPDOC \ GPU_FIG_V_2_NOISE_20081031_ME.MXD LD (10-31-08) 2,000 0 2,000 1,000 Feet 1:30,000 Data Source: Fehr and Peers 2007 Basemap: City of Modesto 2007 Project Area Boundary 60 Ldn 65 Ldn 70 Ldn 75 Ldn NOISE CONTOURS - PROPOSED ---PAGE BREAK--- E HATCH RD YOSEMITE BLV HWY 99 CLAUS RD CHURCH ST SCENIC DR E ORANGEBURG AVE S 7TH ST G ST ROSE AVE H ST MITCHELL RD COFFEE RD I ST RIVER RD MC HENRY AVE 9TH ST S 9TH ST GARST RD OAKDALE RD FINCH RD HELD DR J ST ENCINA AVE S SANTA FE AVE 14TH ST LINCOLN AVE TENAYA DR MILLER AVE B ST D ST ZEFF RD E BRIGGSMORE AVE EL VISTA AVE MARIPOSA RD LA LOMA AVE LUCERN AVE CELESTE DR WYLIE DR GARNER RD CODONI AVE PARKER RD LARAMIE DR K ST E MORRIS AVE NORSEMAN DR PENNY LN TIOGA DR S MC CLURE RD NORWEGIAN AVE EL VECINO AVE ROSELLE AVE PHOENIX AVE SONOMA AVE CREEKWOOD DR SURREY AVE FINE AVE ELLISON DR S RIVERSIDE DR RICHLAND AVE BRIGHTON AVE OREGON DR LAKEWOOD AVE S SANTA CRUZ AVE KRUGER DR DRY CREEK DR LOCKE RD N MC CLURE RD LILLIAN DR NEECE DR TOKAY AVE EASTRIDGE DR LANCEY DR MERLE AVE POPPYPATCH DR ROSINA AVE N RIVERSIDE DR COVENA AVE EDGEBROOK DR L ST TEMESCAL DR SYCAMORE AVE MC GUIRE DR ENSENADA DR PECOS AVE MANOR OAK DR N CONEJO AVE BODEM ST SHERWOOD AVE S MORTON BLV E GRANGER AVE CAPISTRANO DR PEPPERMINT DR SHARON AVE MONTEREY AVE BOULDER AVE WYCLIFFE DR LEGION PARK DR BURNEY ST E ROSEBURG AVE W HATCH RD SUNRISE AVE CROWS LANDING RD S SANTA ROSA AVE SIERRA DR W MORRIS AVE GRISWOLD AVE STODDARD AVE MUIRSWOOD WY W GRANGER AVE ARDIA AVE DOWNEY AVE DERMOND RD CLOGSTON WY GLENBROOK WY ENCINA AVE HWY 99 CROWS LANDING RD MERLE AVE EDGEBROOK DR E BRIGGSMORE AVE BURNEY ST SCENIC DR E BRIGGSMORE AVE E BRIGGSMORE AVE E ORANGEBURG AVE SUNRISE AVE Figure V-3-2 GENERAL PLAN PROGRAM LEGEND Sheet 7 of 10 NOISE CONTOURS - EXISTING \ \ FILECORP1 \ PUB \ GIS \ PROJECTS \ CITY_OF_MODESTO \ 06826_06 \ MAPDOC \ GPU_FIG_V_2_NOISE_20081031_ME.MXD LD (10-31-08) 2,000 0 2,000 1,000 Feet 1:30,000 Data Source: Fehr and Peers 2007 Basemap: City of Modesto 2007 Project Area Boundary 60 Ldn 65 Ldn 70 Ldn 75 Ldn ---PAGE BREAK--- E HATCH RD YOSEMITE BLV HWY 99 CLAUS RD CHURCH ST SCENIC DR E ORANGEBURG AVE S 7TH ST G ST ROSE AVE H ST MITCHELL RD COFFEE RD I ST RIVER RD MC HENRY AVE 9TH ST S 9TH ST GARST RD OAKDALE RD FINCH RD HELD DR J ST ENCINA AVE S SANTA FE AVE 14TH ST LINCOLN AVE TENAYA DR MILLER AVE B ST D ST ZEFF RD E BRIGGSMORE AVE EL VISTA AVE MARIPOSA RD LA LOMA AVE LUCERN AVE CELESTE DR WYLIE DR GARNER RD CODONI AVE PARKER RD LARAMIE DR K ST E MORRIS AVE NORSEMAN DR PENNY LN TIOGA DR S MC CLURE RD NORWEGIAN AVE EL VECINO AVE ROSELLE AVE PHOENIX AVE SONOMA AVE CREEKWOOD DR SURREY AVE FINE AVE ELLISON DR S RIVERSIDE DR RICHLAND AVE BRIGHTON AVE OREGON DR LAKEWOOD AVE S SANTA CRUZ AVE KRUGER DR DRY CREEK DR LOCKE RD N MC CLURE RD LILLIAN DR NEECE DR TOKAY AVE EASTRIDGE DR LANCEY DR MERLE AVE POPPYPATCH DR ROSINA AVE N RIVERSIDE DR COVENA AVE EDGEBROOK DR L ST TEMESCAL DR SYCAMORE AVE MC GUIRE DR ENSENADA DR PECOS AVE MANOR OAK DR N CONEJO AVE BODEM ST SHERWOOD AVE S MORTON BLV E GRANGER AVE CAPISTRANO DR PEPPERMINT DR SHARON AVE MONTEREY AVE BOULDER AVE WYCLIFFE DR LEGION PARK DR BURNEY ST E ROSEBURG AVE W HATCH RD SUNRISE AVE CROWS LANDING RD S SANTA ROSA AVE SIERRA DR W MORRIS AVE GRISWOLD AVE STODDARD AVE MUIRSWOOD WY W GRANGER AVE ARDIA AVE DOWNEY AVE DERMOND RD CLOGSTON WY GLENBROOK WY ENCINA AVE HWY 99 CROWS LANDING RD MERLE AVE EDGEBROOK DR E BRIGGSMORE AVE BURNEY ST SCENIC DR E BRIGGSMORE AVE E BRIGGSMORE AVE E ORANGEBURG AVE SUNRISE AVE Figure V-3-2 GENERAL PLAN PROGRAM LEGEND Sheet 8 of 10 \ \ FILECORP1 \ PUB \ GIS \ PROJECTS \ CITY_OF_MODESTO \ 06826_06 \ MAPDOC \ GPU_FIG_V_2_NOISE_20081031_ME.MXD LD (10-31-08) 2,000 0 2,000 1,000 Feet 1:30,000 Data Source: Fehr and Peers 2007 Basemap: City of Modesto 2007 Project Area Boundary 60 Ldn 65 Ldn 70 Ldn 75 Ldn NOISE CONTOURS - PROPOSED ---PAGE BREAK--- HWY 99 I ST H ST 9TH ST G ST MAZE BLV W SERVICE RD E HATCH RD S 7TH ST KANSAS AVE S CARPENTER RD MORGAN RD W HATCH RD RIVER RD L ST PAULINE AVE YOSEMITE BLV K ST S 9TH ST GRIMES AVE CALIFORNIA AVE J ST NEBRASKA AVE CROWS LANDING RD ELM AVE W WHITMORE AVE ENCINA AVE HWY 132 (FUTURE) ROUSE AVE 6TH ST 14TH ST SCENIC DR GLENN AVE TENAYA DR E WHITMORE AVE DALLAS ST B ST D ST ZEFF RD SUTTER AVE MILLER AVE LA LOMA AVE PARADISE RD ROSELAWN AVE 5TH ST CENTRAL AVE USTICK RD MORSE RD MITCHELL RD EL VISTA AVE CHICAGO AVE ROBERTSON RD TORRID AVE TIOGA DR COLORADO AVE PELTON AVE PHOENIX AVE TUOLUMNE BLV HOUSER LN LODI AVE RICHLAND AVE OREGON DR S SANTA CRUZ AVE NEEDHAM AVE SPENCER AVE NEECE DR N 9TH ST N CARPENTER RD BEVERLY DR ROSINA AVE BOISE AVE BUTTE AVE SIERRA DR COVENA AVE EDGEBROOK DR JIM WY GUTHERIE ST HAMMOND ST PECOS AVE N CONEJO AVE BRIGGS AVE SOUTH AVE S MORTON BLV S EMERALD AVE VINE ST MONTEREY AVE BOULDER AVE LEGION PARK DR BURNEY ST N MARTIN LUTHER KING DR GRAPHICS DR S SANTA ROSA AVE HARRIS AVE 3RD ST PARADISE AVE MERCY AVE SHASTA AVE MC HENRY AVE ALGEN AVE S WASHINGTON ST GARDEN AVE NEEDHAM OVPS SUNSET BLV RELIANCE ST STODDARD AVE MONTICELLO LN NICKERSON DR CIELITO DR CROWS LANDING RD HWY 99 PARADISE RD E WHITMORE AVE ENCINA AVE GLENN AVE HWY 99 PARADISE RD HWY 99 S CARPENTER RD BURNEY ST Figure V-3-2 GENERAL PLAN PROGRAM LEGEND Sheet 9 of 10 NOISE CONTOURS - EXISTING \ \ FILECORP1 \ PUB \ GIS \ PROJECTS \ CITY_OF_MODESTO \ 06826_06 \ MAPDOC \ GPU_FIG_V_2_NOISE_20081031_ME.MXD LD (10-31-08) 2,000 0 2,000 1,000 Feet 1:30,000 Data Source: Fehr and Peers 2007 Basemap: City of Modesto 2007 Project Area Boundary 60 Ldn 65 Ldn 70 Ldn 75 Ldn ---PAGE BREAK--- HWY 99 I ST H ST 9TH ST G ST MAZE BLV W SERVICE RD E HATCH RD S 7TH ST KANSAS AVE S CARPENTER RD MORGAN RD W HATCH RD RIVER RD L ST PAULINE AVE YOSEMITE BLV K ST S 9TH ST GRIMES AVE CALIFORNIA AVE J ST NEBRASKA AVE CROWS LANDING RD ELM AVE W WHITMORE AVE ENCINA AVE HWY 132 (FUTURE) ROUSE AVE 6TH ST 14TH ST SCENIC DR GLENN AVE TENAYA DR E WHITMORE AVE DALLAS ST B ST D ST ZEFF RD SUTTER AVE MILLER AVE LA LOMA AVE PARADISE RD ROSELAWN AVE 5TH ST CENTRAL AVE USTICK RD MORSE RD MITCHELL RD EL VISTA AVE CHICAGO AVE ROBERTSON RD TORRID AVE TIOGA DR COLORADO AVE PELTON AVE PHOENIX AVE TUOLUMNE BLV HOUSER LN LODI AVE RICHLAND AVE OREGON DR S SANTA CRUZ AVE NEEDHAM AVE SPENCER AVE NEECE DR N 9TH ST N CARPENTER RD BEVERLY DR ROSINA AVE BOISE AVE BUTTE AVE SIERRA DR COVENA AVE EDGEBROOK DR JIM WY GUTHERIE ST HAMMOND ST PECOS AVE N CONEJO AVE BRIGGS AVE SOUTH AVE S MORTON BLV S EMERALD AVE VINE ST MONTEREY AVE BOULDER AVE LEGION PARK DR BURNEY ST N MARTIN LUTHER KING DR GRAPHICS DR S SANTA ROSA AVE HARRIS AVE 3RD ST PARADISE AVE MERCY AVE SHASTA AVE MC HENRY AVE ALGEN AVE S WASHINGTON ST GARDEN AVE NEEDHAM OVPS SUNSET BLV RELIANCE ST STODDARD AVE MONTICELLO LN NICKERSON DR CIELITO DR CROWS LANDING RD HWY 99 PARADISE RD E WHITMORE AVE ENCINA AVE GLENN AVE HWY 99 PARADISE RD HWY 99 S CARPENTER RD BURNEY ST Figure V-3-2 GENERAL PLAN PROGRAM LEGEND Sheet 10 of 10 \ \ FILECORP1 \ PUB \ GIS \ PROJECTS \ CITY_OF_MODESTO \ 06826_06 \ MAPDOC \ GPU_FIG_V_2_NOISE_20081031_ME.MXD LD (10-31-08) 2,000 0 2,000 1,000 Feet 1:30,000 Data Source: Fehr and Peers 2007 Basemap: City of Modesto 2007 Project Area Boundary 60 Ldn 65 Ldn 70 Ldn 75 Ldn NOISE CONTOURS - PROPOSED ---PAGE BREAK--- Chapter V. Environmental Analysis Modesto General Plan Update Final Master EIR V-3-7 Section 3. Generation of Noise October 2008 Table V-3-2. Summary of Noise Modeling for Existing Conditions Roadway From: To: Sound Level (dB) at 100 feet from Centerline (Ldn) Distance to Contour (Feet) 75 Ldn 70 Ldn 65 Ldn 60 Ldn 1. Kiernan Avenue SR 99 northbound ramp Sisk Road 65 NA1 NA1 NA1 NA1 2. McHenry Avenue Standiford Avenue General Plan boundary (¼ mile north of Kiernan Avenue) 67 22 46 100 215 3. McHenry Avenue Needham Avenue Briggsmore Avenue 68 29 63 136 293 4. Pelandale Avenue SR 99 Dale Road 69 34 74 158 341 5. Beckwith Road General Plan boundary Future Brink Road 65 40 86 185 398 6. Beckwith/Standiford Avenue Future Brink Road Dale Road 67 22 46 100 215 7. Carpenter Road SR 99 Maze Boulevard 69 40 86 185 398 8. Briggsmore Avenue SR 99 Prescott Road 63 16 34 74 158 9. Shoemake Avenue Future Morse Road Brink Road 51 3 5 12 25 10. Shoemake Road SR 99 Briggsmore Avenue NA1 NA1 NA1 NA1 NA1 11. Kansas Avenue Carpenter Road 9th Street 63 16 34 74 158 12. SR 132 West of Dakota Avenue NA NA NA NA NA 13. Claus Road North of Claribel Road NA NA NA NA NA 14. Claus Road Claribel Road Sylvan Avenue 68 34 74 158 341 15. Claus Road Sylvan Avenue Floyd Avenue NA1 NA1 NA1 NA1 NA1 16. Claus Road Floyd Avenue Briggsmore Avenue NA1 NA1 NA1 NA1 NA1 17. Claus Road Briggsmore Avenue Scenic Drive 70 46 100 215 464 18. Sisk Road Pelandale Avenue Kiernan Avenue 63 16 34 74 158 19. SR 99 Briggsmore Avenue Kansas Avenue 75 100 215 464 1,000 20. SR 99 Crows Landing Road Stanislaus/Merced County Line 72 63 136 293 631 21. SR 99 Northbound on- ramp at the Kiernan Avenue interchange 71 54 117 251 541 22. Bangs Avenue Tully Road McHenry Avenue 63 16 34 74 158 23. Pelandale Avenue McHenry Avenue Oakdale Road 67 29 63 136 293 24. Kansas Avenue West of SR 99 71 54 117 251 541 ---PAGE BREAK--- Chapter V. Environmental Analysis Modesto General Plan Update Final Master EIR V-3-8 Section 3. Generation of Noise October 2008 Roadway From: To: Sound Level (dB) at 100 feet from Centerline (Ldn) Distance to Contour (Feet) 75 Ldn 70 Ldn 65 Ldn 60 Ldn 25. Kansas Avenue East of SR 99 62 14 29 63 136 26. Tuolumne Boulevard West of SR 99 62 14 29 63 136 27. Tuolumne Boulevard East of SR 99 64 18 40 86 185 28. Sisk Road (southbound) Pelandale Avenue Save Mart Shopping Center southern driveway 66 25 54 117 251 29. Standiford Avenue SR 99 (northbound ramp) Dale Road 67 29 63 136 293 30. Woodland/Coldwell Avenue Carpenter Road Kearney Avenue 62 14 29 63 136 31. Garst Road Claus Road Church Street 44 1 2 4 9 32. Garner Road Yosemite Boulevard Hatch Road 65 22 46 100 215 33. Pelandale Avenue West of McHenry Avenue 66 25 54 117 251 34. Pelandale Avenue East of McHenry Avenue 62 14 29 63 136 35. Kiernan Avenue/ Claribel Road West of McHenry Avenue 70 46 100 215 464 36. Kiernan Avenue/ Claribel Road McHenry Avenue Coffee Road 68 34 74 158 341 37. Claribel Road Coffee Road Oakdale Road 68 34 74 158 341 38. Claribel Road East of Oakdale Road 68 34 74 158 341 39. Parker Road Claus Road Atchison-Topeka and Santa Fe Railroad 66 25 54 117 251 40. Dakota Road SR 99 New alignment of SR 132 65 22 46 100 215 41. Whitmore Avenue Carpenter Road Ustick Road 58 7 16 34 74 Note: Where barriers are located between the roadway and adjacent residences, the predicted sound level would be approximately 3 to 5 dB less, and the distance to the contour would be approximately half the distance indicated. 1 Traffic data is not available for all segments. NA indicates that traffic data is lacking. 2 Noise contour does not extend beyond roadway. 5. Existing Regulatory Setting in the Study Area A discrete reference number is assigned to each policy listed to facilitate, where appropriate, their incorporation as a mitigation measure into subsequent projects analyzed under this Master EIR N = Noise). ---PAGE BREAK--- Chapter V. Environmental Analysis Modesto General Plan Update Final Master EIR V-3-9 Section 3. Generation of Noise October 2008 a. Federal Regulations Under Housing and Urban Development (HUD) regulations, an initial determination must be made for noise impacts for each request for funding to ascertain that the project does not involve development of noise sensitive uses, or that the ambient noise level is 65 Ldn or less, based upon the HUD Noise Assessment Guidelines (NAG) for calculating noise levels. These standards apply only to HUD-funded projects. The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) administers the airport noise compatibility programs established under the Aviation Safety and Noise Abatement Act of 1979 (14 Code of Federal Regulations [CFR], Part 150). The Part 150 noise study is a voluntary planning process that results in two documents that are intended to mitigate or eliminate current and future airport noise impacts: Noise Exposure Maps and a Noise Compatibility Program. The Noise Exposure Maps illustrate the noise levels expected to result from airport operations as contours lain over a map of the surrounding area. The Noise Compatibility Program includes strategies by which aircraft operations can be tuned to reduce the impacts of airport noise. The FAA adopted land use compatibility guidelines as part of its 14 CFR Part 150 regulations. These guidelines generally set 65 Ldn as the threshold in excess of which residential, school, church, auditorium, and outdoor arena and amphitheater development should incorporate noise reduction components. Commercial, government services, and manufacturing land uses have a threshold of 70 Ldn. b. State Policies Section 216 of the California Streets and Highways Code relates to the noise level produced by the traffic on, or by the construction of, a state freeway measured in the classrooms, libraries, multipurpose rooms, and spaces used for pupil personnel services of a public or private elementary or secondary school. The code states that if the interior noise level produced by freeway traffic, or the construction of a freeway, exceeds 52 dBA Leq, the department shall undertake a noise abatement program in any such classroom, library, multipurpose room, or space used for pupil personnel services to reduce the freeway traffic noise level therein to 52 dBA Leq or less, by measures including, but not limited to, installing acoustical materials, eliminating windows, installing air conditioning, and constructing sound baffle structures. The California Code of Regulations (CCR) (Title 24 Noise Insulation Standards) contains requirements for the construction of new hotels, motels, apartment houses, and dwellings other than detached single-family dwellings to limit the extent of noise transmitted into habitable spaces. These requirements are known collectively as the California Noise Insulation Standards and set forth an interior standard of 45 dB (CNEL or Ldn). Where exterior noise levels exceed 60 dB, CNEL or Ldn, an acoustical analysis is required to show that the proposed design will limit exterior noise to the prescribed allowable interior level. These standards are typically enforced by local agencies through the building permit application process. California cities and counties are required to adopt a noise element as part of their general plans (Government Code Section 65302). The purpose of the noise element is to establish a ---PAGE BREAK--- Chapter V. Environmental Analysis Modesto General Plan Update Final Master EIR V-3-10 Section 3. Generation of Noise October 2008 land use pattern that minimizes the exposure of residents of the community to excessive noise when possible. The California General Plan Guidelines published by the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR) define land use compatibility criteria for noise exposure. These criteria, which are shown in Table V-3-3 below, are the basis for most compatibility criteria used by cities and counties. ---PAGE BREAK--- Chapter V. Environmental Analysis Modesto General Plan Update Final Master EIR V-3-11 Section 3. Generation of Noise October 2008 Table V-3-3. State Land Use Compatibility Standards for Community Noise Environment Land Use Category Community Noise Exposure - Ldn or CNEL (dB) 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 Residential—Low-Density Single-Family, Duplex, Mobile Home Residential—Multi-Family Transient Lodging—Motel, Hotel Schools, Libraries, Churches, Hospitals, Nursing Homes Auditorium, Concert Hall, Amphitheaters Sports Arena, Outdoor Spectator Sports Playgrounds, Neighborhood Parks Golf Courses, Riding Stables, Water Recreation, Cemeteries Office Buildings, Business Commercial and Professional Industrial, Manufacturing, Utilities, Agriculture Normally Acceptable: Specified land use is satisfactory, based upon the assumption that any buildings involved are of normal conventional construction, without any special noise insulation requirements. Conditionally Acceptable: New construction or development should be undertaken only after a detailed analysis of the noise reduction requirements is made and needed noise insulation features are included in the design. Normally Unacceptable: New construction or development should be discouraged. If new construction or development does proceed, a detailed analysis of the noise reduction requirement must be made and needed noise insulation features included in the design. Clearly Unacceptable: New construction or development generally should not be undertaken. Source: City of Modesto. ---PAGE BREAK--- Chapter V. Environmental Analysis Modesto General Plan Update Final Master EIR V-3-12 Section 3. Generation of Noise October 2008 c. Stanislaus County Policies The Stanislaus County General Plan Noise Element goals, policies, and implementation measures limit the unincorporated community’s exposure to excessive noise, and the Noise Element was comprehensively revised in 2006 in conjunction with the update of the County Circulation Element. The County has adopted a modified version of the OPR compatibility criteria (Table V-3-4). Table V-3-4. County of Stanislaus Noise Element Standards Maximum Allowable Noise Exposure from Stationary Noise Sources1 Daytime dB (7:00 a.m.–10:00 p.m.) Nighttime dB (10:00 p.m.–7:00 a.m.) Hourly Leq 55 45 Maximum Level 75 65 1 As determined at the property line of the receiving land use. When determining the effectiveness of noise mitigation measures, the standards may be applied on the receptor side of noise barriers or other property line noise mitigation measures. Source: Stanislaus County 2006. The County’s noise standards affect lands within the City limits that adjoin the County. Otherwise, within the City, City standards apply exclusively. The County does not have a noise ordinance. d. City of Modesto Policies The City uses the state’s Land Use Compatibility Guidelines, summarized above in Table V- 3-3, for establishing guidelines for noise within the City. For areas zoned for single-family residential uses, the City has established 65 dBA Ldn as the maximum acceptable noise level. For areas zoned for other uses, the standards from Table V-3-3 shall apply. N-1: The City has also established a noise ordinance to control noise within the City. The City’s noise ordinance (Modesto Municipal Code Section 4-9.101) prohibits the “loud and raucous discharge into the open air of the steam of any steam equipment or exhaust from any stationary internal-combustion engine.” N-2: Additionally, the noise ordinance prohibits the loud and raucous operation or use of any of the following before 7:00 a.m. or after 9:00 p.m. daily (except Saturday and Sunday and state or federal holidays, when the prohibited time shall be before 9:00 a.m. and after 9:00 A hammer, or any other device or implement used to pound or strike an object. 1. An impact wrench, or other tool or equipment powered by compressed air. 2. A hand-powered saw. 3. Any tool or piece of equipment powered by an internal-combustion engine such as, but not limited to, chain saw, backpack blower, and lawn mower. 4. Any electrically powered (whether by alternating current electricity or by direct current electricity) tool or piece of equipment used for cutting, drilling, or shaping ---PAGE BREAK--- Chapter V. Environmental Analysis Modesto General Plan Update Final Master EIR V-3-13 Section 3. Generation of Noise October 2008 wood, plastic, metal, or other materials or objects, such as, but not limited to, a saw, drill, lathe, or router. 5. Any of the following: heavy equipment (such as but not limited to bulldozer, steam shovel, road grader, back hoe), ground drilling and boring equipment (such as but not limited to derrick or dredge), hydraulic crane and boom equipment, portable power generator or pump, pavement equipment (such as but not limited to pneumatic hammer, pavement breaker, tamper, compacting equipment), pile- driving equipment, vibrating roller, sand blaster, gunite machine, trencher, concrete truck, and hot kettle pump. 6. Any construction, demolition, excavation, erection, alteration, or repair activity. In the case of urgent necessity and in the interest of public health and safety, the Chief Building Official may issue a permit for exemption from these. Such period shall not exceed three working days in length while the emergency continues but may be renewed for successive periods of three days or less while the emergency continues. The Chief Building Official may limit such permit as to time of use and/or permitted action, depending upon the nature of the emergency and the type of action requested. In addition, the City has adopted the following policies as part of its UAGP. All development projects located within the Baseline Developed Area (and Redevelopment Area) are required to incorporate the policies listed below into the project. N-3: The City of Modesto shall require construction activities to comply with the City’s noise ordinance (Title 4, Chapter and noise-reducing construction practices to be implemented as conditions of approval for development projects where substantial construction-related noise impacts would be likely to occur where construction would include extended periods of pile driving, where construction would occur over an unusually long period, or where noise-sensitive uses like homes and schools would be in the immediate vicinity, etc.). The city should consider potential mitigation measures, including, but not limited to, the following: Construction equipment and vehicles should be equipped with properly operating mufflers according to the manufacturers’ recommendations. Air compressors and pneumatic equipment should be equipped with mufflers, and impact tools should be equipped with shrouds or shields. Equipment that is quieter than standard equipment should be utilized. Haul routes that affect the fewest number of people should be selected. (UAGP VII- G.3[a]) N-4: During City review of a proposed project consistent with the updated General Plan, the City of Modesto shall use the following guidelines to decide whether to require additional study and/or mitigation. Outdoor activity areas typically defined as common outdoor recreational areas, as discussed below: Single-family Residential uses: the noise would exceed 65 dBA, Ldn at outdoor activity areas. Outdoor activity areas for single-family residential uses are defined as backyards. Other proposed uses: the noise/land use compatibility guidelines those noise levels which are “conditionally acceptable,” “normally unacceptable,” or “clearly unacceptable”) shown in Table VII-2 [of the UAGP]. For multi-family residential uses, the exterior noise level shall be applied at the common outdoor recreation area, such as pools, play areas, or tennis courts. Where such areas are not provided in multi- ---PAGE BREAK--- Chapter V. Environmental Analysis Modesto General Plan Update Final Master EIR V-3-14 Section 3. Generation of Noise October 2008 family residential uses, the standards shall be applied at individual patios and balconies of the development. Outdoor activity areas of transient lodging facilities include swimming pool and picnic areas. (UAGP VII-G.3[b]) N-5: For new single-family residential development within the 65 dBA, Ldn contour, new multifamily residential development within the 65 dBA Ldn contour (Figure V-3-2), and other land uses located within the “Normally Acceptable” contour distances indicated in Table VII-2 and Figure V-3-2), the City of Modesto shall require developers to demonstrate that the proposed development will incorporate measures to reduce noise impacts to a less-than-significant level, as follows: Incorporate construction techniques to achieve an interior noise limit of 45 Ldn (these potential techniques are represented in CCR Title 24 standards). Where feasible and consistent with General Plan policy, incorporate setbacks and/or locate less-sensitive uses between a noise source and noise-sensitive uses. Provide (to the extent feasible and consistent with General Plan policy) berms, barriers, or other techniques to shield nose-sensitive uses. This policy is appropriate for more suburban, less densely populated areas of the City. More urban areas of the City would more likely require policies c. and above. (UGAP VII-G.3[c]) N-6: The City of Modesto shall use the most recent noise contour map to implement the requirements of Noise Insulation Standards contained in Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations. (Title 24 applies to multi-family housing, not single-family.) Title 24 also specifies minimum values for the sound insulation afforded by interior partitions separating different dwelling units from each other and from interior common space. (UGAP VII-G.3[d]) N-7: For proposed non-residential uses, where noise mitigation is deemed necessary for new developments to meet the exterior noise land use compatibility guidelines (Table VII-2 [of the UAGP]), the City of Modesto shall require developers to demonstrate that the proposed development will incorporate measures to reduce noise impacts to a less- than-significant level, as follows: Where feasible and consistent with General Plan policy, incorporate setbacks and/or locate less-sensitive uses between a noise source and noise-sensitive uses. Provide (to the extent feasible and consistent with General Plan policy) berms, barriers, or other techniques to shield nose-sensitive uses from noise sources. Incorporate construction techniques to achieve specified interior noise limits. One source that can be used for such specifications is the Noise Control Manual for Residential Buildings (Builder’s Guide) by David A. Harris (1997). (UAGP VII- G.3[e]) N-8: With road extension, widening and upgrade projects, the City of Modesto shall implement, as feasible, techniques to minimize noise impacts on adjacent uses. Potentially available techniques may include: „ Widened right-of-way; „ Depressed roadway alignments; „ Earthen berms or earthen/wall combination; „ Walls; „ Acoustical retrofitting to affected parties. (UAGP VII-G.3[f]) N-9: In recognition of the conservative methodology used to develop the noise contours shown on Figure V-3-2, builders, developers (for private development projects) and the ---PAGE BREAK--- Chapter V. Environmental Analysis Modesto General Plan Update Final Master EIR V-3-15 Section 3. Generation of Noise October 2008 City (for Capital projects) shall be allowed to demonstrate that detailed noise studies and/or mitigation are not necessary because future noise levels would be substantially less than depicted on Figure V-3-2 due to, for example, natural shielding from intervening topographical features or man-made structures) of a site or inapplicability of assumptions (shown on [Table V-3-5] of the Master Environmental Impact Report) used to develop the noise contours. (UAGP VII-G.3[g]) N-10: The City of Modesto shall limit trucking to specific routes, times and speeds that minimize adverse effects to sensitive land uses such as schools and residential areas. (UAGP VII-G.3[h]) N-11: Airport and aircraft noise analysis will be conducted in accordance with the Modesto City/County Airport’s Master Plan mitigation measure in the approved plan and Federal Aviation Regulation (FAR) Part 150. Mitigation will be required for new construction as necessary to meet the noise compatibility standards of the UAGP. As airport operations increase, mitigation will be provided to existing residential and other sensitive uses, either through operations or direct property improvements, in order to meet Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations Part 150 land use compatibility guidelines. (UAGP VII-G.3[i]) N-12: Proponents of new heliports where projected noise impacts from helicopter operations would exceed 65 Ldn at the nearest residential uses should utilize the latest FAA helicopter modeling tools and noise assessment criteria. (UAGP VII-G.3[j]) All development projects located within the Planned Urbanizing Area are required to incorporate the policies listed below into the project. N-13: The Focused EIR for each Comprehensive Planning District shall include a Noise Analysis prepared by a qualified person experienced in the fields of environmental noise assessment and architectural acoustics. Noise mitigation measures shall be used as a guide for establishing a pattern of land uses that minimizes the exposure of present and future community residents to excessive noise. The noise contours developed by the Noise Analysis shall be used to determine the land use pattern appropriate within the Specific Plan. (For example, noise from a freeway or expressway might indicate the need for sound barriers, or for non-residential uses adjacent to the noise source.) (UAGP VII-G.4[a]) N-14: All Noise Mitigation Policies adopted for the Baseline Developed Area apply equally in the Planned Urbanizing Area. (UAGP VII-G.4[b]) ---PAGE BREAK--- Chapter V. Environmental Analysis Modesto General Plan Update Final Master EIR V-3-16 Section 3. Generation of Noise October 2008 Table V-3-5. Noise Contour Development Assumptions Traffic Assumptions: Facility # of Lanes Speed (mph) Peak-Hour Volume1 Vehicle Mix Percentage Autos Medium Trucks Heavy Trucks Expressway Class A 6 55 7,200 94 3 3 Class B 6 50 6,000 94 3 3 Class C 6 45 4,800 94 3 3 Arterial Principal 6 45 4,800 97 2 1 Minor 4 45 3,200 98 2 0 Noise Contour Distances: Distance to Ldn Contour from Centerline (feet)2 Facility 75 Ldn 70 Ldn 65 Ldn 60 Ldn Class A 120 250 550 1,200 Class B 90 200 430 920 Class C 70 150 320 690 Arterial Principal 50 120 250 540 Minor 40 80 170 360 Note: In order to maintain consistency with the UAGP reference, this table does not follow the nomenclature used for tables elsewhere in this Master EIR. 1 Peak-Hour volume reflects the noisiest hour of the day, which reflects Level of Service (LOS) C conditions approximately 80 percent of lane capacity). 2 Estimated using the FHWA Highway Traffic Noise Prediction Model as adjusted to reflect CALVENO reference noise levels. The Ldn was assumed to equal the peak-hour noise level. Estimates reflect an attenuation rate of 4.5 dB for each doubling of the reference distance. 6. Policies Which Avoid Impacts The following City policies are in effect and have been determined to reduce, avoid, or mitigate environmental impacts within the existing city limits and within the UAGP areas as they annex and develop. The policy reference numbers are listed, and the full text of these policies is found in section A-5 above, Existing Regulatory Setting in the Study Area. a. City of Modesto Policies The UAGP provides the following policies as described in section A-5 above, related to noise that when incorporated into subsequent projects will avoid or reduce impacts: N-1 through N-14. ---PAGE BREAK--- Chapter V. Environmental Analysis Modesto General Plan Update Final Master EIR V-3-17 Section 3. Generation of Noise October 2008 B. CONSIDERATION AND DISCUSSION OF SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS The following information is provided in accordance with Section 15126.2 of the State CEQA Guidelines. 1. Thresholds of Significance Suggested by the California Environmental Quality Act Thresholds of significance for noise impacts have been established for this assessment based on the CEQA Environmental Checklist found in Appendix G of the State CEQA Guidelines. A proposed project would result in a significant noise impact if any of the following were to occur as a result of project implementation: a. Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies. b. Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels. c. A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project. d. A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project. e. For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, exposure of people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels. f. For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, exposure of people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels. 2. Thresholds of Significance Suggested by Other Analytical Methods No applicable thresholds of significance by other analytical methods are available. 3. Threshold of Significance Adopted by the City of Modesto After consideration of the methodological approaches suggested by the CEQA Guidelines, FHWA, HUD, Title 24 of the CCR, and California Governor’s Office of Planning and Research, the City has chosen to adopt the following standard: Noise impacts are considered significant when the predicted sound level at a site is in excess of 650 Ldn for residential land use. For other land uses, the applicable criteria, as recommended by the California Governor’s Office of Planning and Research are: 70 Ldn for schools, libraries, churches, hospitals, nursing homes, auditoriums, concert halls, amphitheaters, playgrounds, and office buildings, business commercial and professional; and 75 Ldn for sports arenas, golf courses, riding stables, water recreation, cemeteries, and industrial, manufacturing, utilities, and agriculture. ---PAGE BREAK--- Chapter V. Environmental Analysis Modesto General Plan Update Final Master EIR V-3-18 Section 3. Generation of Noise October 2008 4. Significant Direct Impacts CEQA requires the significance of noise impacts to be determined for proposed projects. The process of assessing the significance of noise impacts associated with the proposed project involved establishing thresholds at which significant impacts are considered to occur at noise-sensitive land uses. Next, noise levels associated with project-related activities were predicted and compared to the significance thresholds. Where a noise level would exceed a threshold, the predicted impacts were considered to be significant. Traffic noise modeling was conducted using the FHWA Traffic Noise Prediction Model (FHWA-RD-77-108) and traffic data provided by Fehr & Peers, Caltrans, and the City. Traffic noise modeling was conducted for existing and future with-project conditions. Predicted traffic noise levels expressed in Ldn in the plan area under existing and future conditions with the project are summarized in Table V-3-6. Table V-3-6 indicates that traffic noise levels for future conditions in the plan area have the potential to result in exceedances of the City’s Noise Significance Standards, as summarized above in Table V-3-3. Therefore, this impact is considered significant. Implementation of the UAGP policies will reduce construction-related, transportation- related, and industrial/commercial noise impacts, in most instances, to less-than-significant levels. ---PAGE BREAK--- Chapter V. Environmental Analysis Modesto General Plan Update Final Master EIR V-3-19 Section 3. Generation of Noise October 2008 Table V-3-6. Summary of Noise Modeling for Future Proposed Project Conditions Roadway From: To: Sound Level (dB) at 100 feet from Centerline (Ldn) Distance to Contour (Feet) 75 Ldn 70 Ldn 65 Ldn 60 Ldn 1. Kiernan Avenue SR 99 northbound ramp Sisk Road 71 54 117 251 541 2. McHenry Avenue Standiford Avenue General Plan boundary (¼ mile north of Kiernan Avenue) 70 46 100 215 464 3. McHenry Avenue Needham Avenue Briggsmore Avenue 69 40 86 185 398 4. Pelandale Avenue SR 99 Dale Road 72 63 136 293 631 5. Beckwith Road General Plan boundary Future Brink Road 72 63 136 293 631 6. Beckwith/Standiford Avenue Future Brink Road Dale Road 71 54 117 251 541 7. Carpenter Road SR 99 Maze Boulevard 71 54 117 251 541 8. Briggsmore Avenue SR 99 Prescott Road 68 34 74 158 341 9. Shoemake Avenue Future Morse Road Brink Road 50 2 5 10 22 10. Shoemake Road SR 99 Briggsmore Avenue NA1 NA1 NA1 NA1 NA1 11. Kansas Avenue Carpenter Road 9th Street 68 34 74 158 341 12. SR132 West of Dakota Avenue NA NA NA NA NA 13. Claus Road North of Claribel Road NA NA NA NA NA 14. Claus Road Claribel Road Sylvan Avenue 76 117 251 541 1,166 15. Claus Road Sylvan Avenue Floyd Avenue NA NA NA NA NA 16. Claus Road Floyd Avenue Briggsmore Avenue NA NA NA NA NA 17. Claus Road Briggsmore Avenue Scenic Drive 75 100 215 464 1,000 18. Sisk Road Pelandale Avenue Kiernan Avenue 63 16 34 74 158 19. SR 99 Briggsmore Avenue Kansas Avenue 77 136 293 631 1,359 20. SR 99 Crows Landing Road Stanislaus/Merced County Line 75 100 215 464 1,000 21. SR 99 Northbound on- ramp at the Kiernan Avenue interchange 76 117 251 541 1,166 22. Bangs Avenue Tully Road McHenry Avenue 67 29 63 136 293 23. Pelandale Avenue McHenry Avenue Oakdale Road 74 86 185 398 858 ---PAGE BREAK--- Chapter V. Environmental Analysis Modesto General Plan Update Final Master EIR V-3-20 Section 3. Generation of Noise October 2008 Roadway From: To: Sound Level (dB) at 100 feet from Centerline (Ldn) Distance to Contour (Feet) 75 Ldn 70 Ldn 65 Ldn 60 Ldn 24. Kansas Avenue West of SR 99 72 63 136 293 631 25. Kansas Avenue East of SR 99 63 16 34 74 158 26. Tuolumne Boulevard West of SR 99 65 22 46 100 215 27. Tuolumne Boulevard East of SR 99 64 18 40 86 185 28. Sisk Road (southbound) Pelandale Avenue Save Mart Shopping Center southern driveway 67 29 63 136 293 29. Standiford Avenue SR 99 (northbound ramp) Dale Road 70 46 100 215 464 30. Woodland/Coldwell Avenue Carpenter Road Kearney Avenue 66 25 54 117 251 31. Garst Road Claus Road Church Street 65 22 46 100 215 32. Garner Road Yosemite Boulevard Hatch Road 74 86 185 398 858 33. Pelandale Avenue West of McHenry Avenue 71 54 117 251 541 34. Pelandale Avenue East of McHenry Avenue 68 34 74 158 341 35. Kiernan Avenue/ Claribel Road West of McHenry Avenue 75 100 215 464 1,000 36. Kiernan Avenue/ Claribel Road McHenry Avenue Coffee Road 76 117 251 541 1,166 37. Claribel Road Coffee Road Oakdale Road 76 117 251 541 1,166 38. Claribel Road East of Oakdale Road 75 100 215 464 1,000 39. Parker Road Claus Road Atchison-Topeka and Santa Fe Railroad 68 34 74 158 341 40. Dakota Road SR 99 New alignment of SR 132 72 63 136 293 631 41. Whitmore Avenue Carpenter Road Ustick Road 61 12 25 54 117 Note: Where barriers are located between the roadway and adjacent residences, the predicted sound level would be approximately 3 to 5 dB less, and the distance to the contour would be approximately half the distance indicated. 1 Traffic data is not available. 2 Noise contour does not extend beyond roadway. ---PAGE BREAK--- Chapter V. Environmental Analysis Modesto General Plan Update Final Master EIR V-3-21 Section 3. Generation of Noise October 2008 The draft Part 150 study being prepared by Coffman Associates estimates that up to 294 dwelling units may be exposed to aircraft noise up to 65 CNEL by 2015, with no other sensitive uses being exposed to that noise level (Coffman Associates 2007). Based on theoretical increased airport operations beyond 2015, the long-range level of exposure provides an estimate of as many as 468 dwellings and 3 churches being exposed to noise levels up to 65 CNEL, and 8 dwellings potentially being exposed to levels up to 70 CNEL (Coffman Associates 2007). This study also establishes noise levels and noise abatement policies that will be integrated into the airport master plan. At the present time, absent a specific mitigation program for the airport, the future noise levels are considered a significant and unavoidable impact. Airport and aircraft noise analysis will be conducted in accordance with the Modesto City/County Airport’s Master Plan mitigation measures to be enacted in compliance with Federal Aviation Regulation Part 150. Upon implementation of regular air carrier scheduled jet service, a new noise contour will be prepared based on the daily flight frequency and type of aircraft proposed for use. New contours will be prepared for subsequent significant increases in daily scheduled jet service. The City of Modesto will regularly monitor aircraft noise levels within the airport area of influence and publish a report of the findings. 5. Significant Cumulative Impacts CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines require the disclosure of the significant cumulative environmental effects, whether the project will make a cumulatively considerable contribution to any such effects, and, if so, mitigation measures intended to reduce the project’s contribution (Section 15130 of the State CEQA Guidelines). A cumulative effect is one that results from past, present, and probable future projects. A project which has a less-than-significant direct effect on the environment may nonetheless make a considerable contribution to a cumulative effect. A cumulative impact analysis first identifies whether there exists a cumulatively significant effect in the given resource area. If so, it determines whether the project will make a considerable contribution to that effect. Where a cumulative impact is severe, even a small contribution may be considerable. Where a project is required to implement or fund its fair share of a mitigation measure designed to alleviate the cumulative impact, its contribution will be rendered less than considerable. (Section 15130(a) of the State CEQA Guidelines.) Traffic from development in the City of Modesto would contribute with traffic from new development in the County and region toward a cumulative increase in roadside noise levels on major roads and highways throughout the County. Within the City itself, the traffic analysis and corresponding traffic noise analysis take into account cumulative traffic volumes. The traffic study data includes cumulative traffic volumes, which were utilized as an input to the noise modeling analysis. Noise level projections based on the traffic levels anticipated in the UAGP indicate that noise will exceed the UAGP and noise ordinance standards. This is a significant cumulative effect. The development allowable under the UAGP will make a considerable contribution to that effect. The impact is significant and unavoidable. ---PAGE BREAK--- Chapter V. Environmental Analysis Modesto General Plan Update Final Master EIR V-3-22 Section 3. Generation of Noise October 2008 6. Potential Impacts for Which There is Insufficient Information to Support a Full Analysis Future airport operations are not sufficiently known to allow full analysis of impacts and the development of specific mitigation measures, compatible with FAA regulations. C. MITIGATION MEASURES ADOPTED TO MINIMIZE SIGNIFICANT EFFECTS The following information is provided in accordance with Section 15126.4 of the State CEQA Guidelines. 1. Measures Which Mitigate Direct Impacts The UAGP requires all development projects located within the Baseline Developed Area and Redevelopment Area to incorporate explicit noise mitigation measures to mitigate noise levels. The City’s policies are outlined in N-1 through N-14 in section A-5 above. These policies would reduce significant impacts to a less-than-significant level in most instances. However, these policies would not reduce to less than significant all of the noise impacts that would occur due to growth and development in the City to 2025. The effect is significant and unavoidable. 2 Measures Which Mitigate Cumulative Impacts This impact is considered significant in that individual projects allowed under the UAGP will contribute to the cumulative noise impact within the city. Implementation of the UAGP policies N- 1 through N-14 (as described in section A-5 above) will reduce construction-related, transportation- related, and industrial/commercial noise impacts in most instances to less-than-significant levels. However, these policies would not eliminate the contributions of the individual noise impacts that would contribute to the cumulative impact in 2025. The effect is significant and unavoidable. 3. Alternatives to the Proposed Project The following information is provided in accordance with Section 15126.6 of the State CEQA Guidelines. Alternatives 1 and 2 propose essentially the same land use distribution as the proposed UAGP. Neither of the alternatives would completely avoid noise impacts, particularly future airport noise, but both would offer a reduction of road noise along the roads proposed for expansion under the proposed project. By keeping the roads narrower, in comparison to the project, the future noise contours would be narrower as well. D. MONITORING THESE MITIGATION MEASURES The following information is provided in accordance with Public Resources Code (PRC) Section 21081.6. ---PAGE BREAK--- Chapter V. Environmental Analysis Modesto General Plan Update Final Master EIR V-3-23 Section 3. Generation of Noise October 2008 The mitigation measures identified have been incorporated into the UAGP and are implemented by that plan. No new mitigation measures are proposed. Therefore, no mitigation monitoring is required in the Master EIR. E. EVALUATING SUBSEQUENT PROJECTS The following information will be used to determine whether subsequent projects conform to the Master EIR, as outlined in PRC Section 21157.1(c). Anticipated future projects, as presented in Chapter II, are within the scope of analysis for the effects on noise as long as the following circumstances have not changed: 1. The revisions to the street system are those proposed as part of the general plan amendment described in Chapter III of this Master EIR. 2. There is no new information that substantially alters noise contours for the plan area, including new information regarding the airport. 3. There are no changes in the UAGP noise policies or noise ordinance. F. KEEPING THE MASTER ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT CURRENT FOR THIS TOPIC As authorized by PRC Section 21166, the analysis contained in this section, Generation of Noise, is current as long as the following circumstances have not occurred: 1. A substantial alteration of noise contours for the plan area 2. Any changes in the City’s Noise Policies, guidelines, laws, or regulations relating to noise exposure or control Any new information which results in the above should be incorporated into this Master EIR. ---PAGE BREAK--- Chapter V. Environmental Analysis Modesto General Plan Update Final Master EIR V-4-1 Section 4. Effects on Agricultural Lands October 2008 Section 4 Effects on Agricultural Lands This section describes how development associated with the City of Modesto Urban Area General Plan (UAGP) would affect agricultural lands, including by converting unique and prime farmland. If significant impacts are found, mitigation measures are provided to reduce these impacts to a less-than- significant level. A. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING The following information is provided in accordance with Section 15125 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines. This environmental setting is the baseline for determining whether an impact of the UAGP is significant. 1. Study Area for Direct Impacts The study area for direct impacts on agricultural lands is the Modesto planning area. 2. Study Area for Cumulative Impacts This analysis will be based on the plan or projection approach to examining cumulative impacts, as provided under Section 15130(b)(1)(B) of the State CEQA Guidelines. Pertinent plans and projections to be used for this purpose are the general plans of Stanislaus County (County) and the City of Modesto (City), as well as the projections of the state Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program (FMMP). The study area for cumulative impacts on agricultural lands includes Stanislaus and San Joaquin Counties. 3. Existing Physical Conditions in the Study Areas a. Overview Agriculture is a leading industry in Stanislaus County and San Joaquin County; the value of Stanislaus County’s agricultural commodities totaled approximately $1.98 billion in 2005, and San Joaquin County’s totaled $1.74 billion (California Department of Food and Agriculture 2006). The agriculture, forestry, and fishing industries rank second only to the public sector in number of jobs in the San Joaquin Valley, with 181,300 jobs in 2007 (J.K. 2007). In 2005, Stanislaus and San Joaquin Counties ranked as the sixth and seventh most agriculturally productive counties in California, respectively, based on the value of agricultural products sold (California Department of Food and Agriculture 2006). Stanislaus and San Joaquin Counties’ flat land, good to excellent soil quality, favorable climate, and ---PAGE BREAK--- Chapter V. Environmental Analysis Modesto General Plan Update Final Master EIR V-4-2 Section 4. Effects on Agricultural Lands October 2008 availability of water favor agriculture. In addition, the region possesses low-cost power and a good transportation system. The same resources that are essential to agriculture are attractive to urban development also. Approximately 2,523 acres of Stanislaus County and 5,833 acres of San Joaquin County farmland and grazing land were converted to urban and built-up uses from 2000 to 2002 (California Department of Conservation 2004). Modesto (both the present community and its planning area) is located on prime farmland and is surrounded by active agricultural operations. The conditions for agricultural production on lands west and east of Modesto are unique: The soil quality is excellent, water rights are secure, water quality is high, and there are relatively few drainage problems. Such conditions allow the production of orchard and vine crops, including almonds, walnuts, grapes, and peaches, that require well-drained soils and irrigation (Perry pers. comm.). b. Description of Agricultural Lands within the City of Modesto Urban Area General Plan Study Area The Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS, previously called the Soil Conservation Service) describes these soils as follows (Natural Resources Conservation Service 2007). (Note that the soil associations of Hanford, Dinuba/Hanford, and Modesto/Chualar are associated with prime agricultural lands.) Chualar Series These soils are moderately well-drained and moderately coarse-textured. They are smooth and very gently sloping to nearly level. Many areas of these soils are located in the vicinity of Modesto, especially to the north and northwest. They are important for growing a wide variety of orchard, vineyard, field, and forage crops; yields are good to excellent. Dinuba Series These soils are imperfectly drained and moderately coarse-textured. They are very gently sloping to nearly level. These soils are located north and northwest of Modesto. They are largely cultivated, primarily for irrigated pasture and grain and vine crops. Hanford Series These soils are well-drained and moderately coarse-textured. They have smooth, very gentle slopes. These soils are found along the Stanislaus and Tuolumne Rivers and on broad alluvial fans in the Modesto vicinity. They are important for a wide variety of irrigated orchards and field and truck crops. ---PAGE BREAK--- Chapter V. Environmental Analysis Modesto General Plan Update Final Master EIR V-4-3 Section 4. Effects on Agricultural Lands October 2008 Modesto Series These soils are moderately well-drained, medium, and moderately fine-textured. They occur on nearly level areas where runoff is very slow. These soils are found north and northwest of Modesto. They are used for a wide variety of field crops and for orchards and vineyards. c. Operational Characteristics of Existing Agricultural Practices This section describes some of the general operations undertaken in commercial agricultural production as they relate to the natural environment. Use of Chemicals Several types of chemicals are used often on agricultural lands to increase yields. The use and type of chemicals depend on such factors as the time of year, the weather, and pest populations. All chemicals used in California have undergone the California Department of Food and Agriculture (CDFA) pesticide registration process, which requires information on toxicology, water solubility, skin contact, and other related information. All pesticides must be applied according to manufacturers’ label instructions to ensure safe use. Most chemicals are applied by spraying by hand, tractor, or airplane. Aerial spraying of chemicals onto agricultural land located adjacent to residential development can be considered a health hazard because the chemicals might drift onto nontarget areas. The Stanislaus County Agricultural Commissioner enforces state regulations relating to agricultural pesticide application, issuing permits with conditions limiting the effects from pesticide application on human health. Water Use To supplement an average annual rainfall of only 11 to 15 inches (California Department of Water Resources 2003), local agriculture relies on irrigation to sustain its broad diversity of crops. The Modesto Irrigation District (MID) receives water from local reservoirs, the Tuolumne River, and groundwater. Groundwater is the major source of domestic and industrial water. The area is experiencing a dropping water table because of a depletion of groundwater supplies (City of Modesto and Modesto Irrigation District 2007a). Therefore, competition for water supplies has increased among urban and agricultural users. Stanislaus County used approximately 41.1 acre-feet (af) of water per acre, and San Joaquin County used approximately 38.41 af of water per acre in 2003 (California Department of Water Resources 2007a). ---PAGE BREAK--- Chapter V. Environmental Analysis Modesto General Plan Update Final Master EIR V-4-4 Section 4. Effects on Agricultural Lands October 2008 d. Air Quality San Joaquin Valley air quality is declining as the valley’s population and industry increase. The California Air Resources Board (ARB) estimates that annual ozone-related crop losses in the valley exceed $150 million. Studies have shown that grape, cotton, orange, alfalfa, and tomato yields are up to 20% below potential yields because of ozone damage to these crops (San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District 2002). 4. Existing Policies Applying to the Study Area Below is a comprehensive list of major federal, state, county, and city policies in effect that apply to the study area for direct impacts. This list provides the full range of applicable policies that a project within the study area potentially would need to comply with, including policies beyond the jurisdiction of the City. This list of laws, regulations, and programs also serves to describe the circumstances under which this master environmental impact report (Master EIR) analyzed this environmental topic. A discrete reference number, following the initials of the resource topic, is assigned to each policy or policy summary listed to facilitate its identification elsewhere in this Master EIR or, where appropriate, its incorporation as a mitigation measure into subsequent projects analyzed under this Master EIR Agricultural Lands policies are designated as AL-X where X is the discrete number). Although San Joaquin County is included in the cumulative impact scenario, the county’s policies are not identified below because state regulations preclude the City from annexing across county lines. Put another way, no lands under San Joaquin County jurisdiction will or can be annexed into the City of Modesto at any time. a. Federal Regulations There are no applicable federal policies or regulations. Federal policies apply primarily to federal projects. Federal agencies, in considering projects requiring federal permits (such as the filling of wetlands) or relying on federal funding (such as Community Development Block Grants), are required to examine whether their action will result in the loss of important farmland. b. State Policies The California Department of Conservation’s (DOC’s) Division of Land Resource Protection administers state programs relating to agricultural conservation. The FMMP tracks agricultural land conversion statewide. The California Land Conservation Act of 1965 (Government Code Section 51200 et seq.), or Williamson Act, establishes incentives for property owners to retain agricultural use on their land. The FMMP has identified important farmland in most of California’s agricultural areas. Figure V-4-1, Important Farmland Map, illustrates farmland by classification within the ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- Chapter V. Environmental Analysis Modesto General Plan Update Final Master EIR V-4-5 Section 4. Effects on Agricultural Lands October 2008 Modesto urban area. Much of the land adjacent to the developed portion of the City, especially to the north, west, and south, is prime farmland. The land immediately northeast and east of Modesto is a mixture of prime farmland, unique farmland, and farmland of local importance. Conditions for agricultural production on the lands east and west of Modesto are unique: excellent soil quality, secure water rights, good water quality, and relatively few drainage problems (Perry pers. comm.). The FMMP maps five categories of farmland as well as urban and other land. Definitions for each farmland type are listed below. 1. Prime Farmland: lands with the best combination of physical and chemical features able to sustain long-term production of crops. The land must be cropped and supported by a developed irrigation water supply that is dependable and of adequate quality during the growing season, and the land must have been used for production during the previous 4 years. 2. Farmland of Statewide Importance: lands similar to Prime Farmland but with minor shortcomings, such as greater slope or less ability to store moisture. These lands have the same reliable source of adequate-quality irrigation water available during the growing season. 3. Unique Farmland: lesser-quality soils used for producing California’s leading agricultural crops. These lands are usually irrigated but may include nonirrigated orchards or vineyards as found in some climatic zones of California. 4. Farmland of Local Importance: dryland grains and irrigated pastures not considered Prime Farmland, Farmland of Statewide Importance, or Unique Farmland. 5. Grazing Land: land on which the existing vegetation is suited to the grazing of livestock. The information gathered by the FMMP is not used for regulatory purposes; rather, it advises the government and public about the rate of agricultural land conversion. The Williamson Act restricts development on land for which the landowner has entered into a contract with the respective county to limit land uses to agriculture, open space/recreation, or grazing. This legislation is intended to discourage the conversion of agricultural land to other uses. Typically, the landowner agrees to keep the land in a restricted use for at least 10 years in return for a preferential property tax assessment based on the value of the commodity rather than the value of the land. Within the current City sphere of influence, the main areas subject to Williamson Act contracts are outside the city limits, including west of Carpenter Road and 9th Street, north of Pelandale Avenue and Claratina Avenue, south of Scenic Drive, and south of Yosemite Boulevard near the sphere-of-influence line. Most of the land immediately outside the current sphere of influence is subject to Williamson Act contracts (California Department of Conservation 2006). c. Stanislaus Local Agency Formation Commission Policies The Cortese-Knox-Hertzberg Local Government Reorganization Act (Government Code Section 56000 et seq.) empowers each Local Area Formation Commission (LAFCo) to consider the incorporation of new cities, the annexation of lands to existing cities and special ---PAGE BREAK--- Chapter V. Environmental Analysis Modesto General Plan Update Final Master EIR V-4-6 Section 4. Effects on Agricultural Lands October 2008 districts, and other changes to city and district boundaries. Through its responsibilities to govern the approval of annexations and the establishment of spheres of influence, the LAFCo considers soil quality and the availability of irrigation water when assessing the impacts of annexation on agricultural land. AL-1: LAFCo policies direct that the development or use of land for uses other than open space will be guided away from existing prime agricultural lands, unless such action would not promote the planned, orderly, efficient development of an area (Government Code 56377). d. Stanislaus County Policies The Stanislaus County General Plan (County General Plan) has the following applicable policies. Land Use Element AL-2: Agriculture, as the primary industry of the County, shall be promoted and protected. (County General Plan, Land Use Element, Goal 3, Policy 16) AL-3: Agricultural uses and churches which require discretionary approval should be referred to that city for comment. The County Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors shall consider the responses of the cities in the permit process. If the County finds that a project is inconsistent with the city's general plan designation, it shall not be approved. Agricultural use and churches shall not be considered inconsistent if the only inconsistency is with a statement that a development within the urban transition area or sphere of influence shall be discouraged (or similar sweeping statement). The city shall be asked to respond to the following questions: Is the proposed project inconsistent with the land use designation on the city's general plan? If so, please include a copy of the map (or that portion which includes the subject property) and the text describing uses permitted for the general plan designation. All findings of inconsistency must include supporting documentation. If the project is approved, specifically what type of conditions would be necessary to ensure the development will comply with city development standards such as street improvements, setbacks and landscaping? (County General Plan, Land Use Element, Spheres of Influence, Policy 2) Agricultural Element AL-4: The County shall continue to implement its Right-to-Farm Ordinance. (County General Plan, Agricultural Element, Policy 1. 9, Implementation Measure 1) AL-5: The County shall protect agricultural operations from conflicts with non-agricultural uses by requiring buffers between proposed non-agricultural uses and adjacent agricultural operations. (County General Plan, Agricultural Element, Policy 1.10 ) AL-6: The County shall require buffers and setbacks for all discretionary projects introducing or expanding non-agricultural uses in or adjacent to an agricultural area consistent with ---PAGE BREAK--- Chapter V. Environmental Analysis Modesto General Plan Update Final Master EIR V-4-7 Section 4. Effects on Agricultural Lands October 2008 the guidelines presented in Appendix of the Agricultural Element. (County General Plan, Agricultural Element, Policy 1. 10, Implementation Measure 1) AL-7: To reduce development pressures on agricultural lands, higher density development and infilling shall be encouraged (County General Plan, Agricultural Element, Policy 2.4) AL-8: To the greatest extent possible, development shall be directed away from the County’s most productive agricultural areas. (County General Plan, Agricultural Element, Policy 2.5) AL-9: The County shall encourage regional coordination of planning and development activities for the entire Central Valley. (County General Plan, Agricultural Element, Policy 1.22) AL-10: Agricultural lands restricted to agricultural use shall not be assessed to pay for infrastructure needed to accommodate urban development. (County General Plan, Agricultural Element, General Plan Agricultural Element, Policy 2.6) AL-11: Proposed amendments to the General Plan Diagram that would allow the conversion of agricultural land to non-agricultural uses shall be approved only if they are consistent with the County’s conversion criteria. (County General Plan, Agricultural Element, Policy 2.7) AL-12: The County recognizes the desire of cities and unincorporated communities to grow and prosper and shall not oppose reasonable requests consistent with city and county agreements to expand, providing the resultant growth minimizes impacts to adjacent agricultural land. (County General Plan, Agricultural Element, Policy 2.11) AL-13: In recognition that unincorporated land within sphere of influence of cities or community services districts and sanitary districts serving unincorporated communities ultimately will be urbanized, the County shall cooperate with cities and unincorporated communities in managing development in sphere of influence areas. (County General Plan, Agricultural Element, Policy 2.13) AL-14: In order to mitigate the conversion of agricultural land resulting from a discretionary project requiring a General Plan or Community Plan amendment from “Agriculture” to a residential land use designation, the County shall require the replacement of agricultural land at a 1:1 ratio with agricultural land of equal quality located in Stanislaus County. The County shall work cooperatively with the nine cities within the County and to encourage them to adopt agricultural conservation policies or ordinances which are consistent with County policies or ordinances in order to undertake an integrated, comprehensive Countywide approach to farmland conservation. It is the ultimate goal of the County to have all nine cities participate in or adopt an agricultural mitigation ordinance that is the same as or substantially similar. (County General Plan, Agricultural Element, Policies 2.15 and 2.17) ---PAGE BREAK--- Chapter V. Environmental Analysis Modesto General Plan Update Final Master EIR V-4-8 Section 4. Effects on Agricultural Lands October 2008 e. City of Modesto Policies The City’s UAGP provides the following policies related to agricultural land. Baseline Developed Area AL-15: If a subsequent project is within the Baseline Developed Area or Redevelopment Area as identified on the Urban Area General Plan Growth Strategy Diagram [Figure II-1], the project shall be considered to have minimal effect on the conversion of agricultural lands, and no mitigation for that impact is required. (UAGP Policy VII-D.3[a]) Planned Urbanizing Area AL-16: The Land Use Diagram presented in Chapter III provides adequate land and opportunities to expand and diversify Modesto’s economic base to provide for future employment needs through establishment of business park areas. These opportunities should be focused on the types of businesses that will thrive in the 21st century. Simultaneous with this diversification of the economic base, Modesto’s current agricultural and industrial bases shall be preserved for as long as possible. (UAGP Policy II-B.1[a.2]) AL-17: The City will not annex agricultural land unless urban development consistent with the General Plan has been approved by the City. (UAGP Policy VII-D.4[a]) AL-18: The City shall support the continuation of agricultural uses on lands designated for urban uses until urban development is imminent. (UAGP Policy VII-D.4[b]) AL-19: The City shall encourage the County to retain agricultural uses on land surrounding the General Plan area and on lands within the General Plan area pending their annexation to the city or development by mutual agreement with the County. (UAGP Policy VII- D.4[c]) AL-20: Where necessary to promote planned City growth, the City shall encourage the development of those agricultural lands that are already compromised by adjacent urban development or contain property required for the extension of infrastructure or other public facilities, before considering urban development on agricultural lands that are not subject to such urban pressures. (UAGP Policy VII-D.4[d]) AL-21: For any subsequent project that is adjacent to an existing agricultural use, the project proponent may incorporate measures to reduce the potential for conflicts with the agricultural use. Potential measures to be implemented may include the following: 1) Include a buffer zone of sufficient width between the proposed residences and the agricultural use. 2) Restrict the intensity of residential uses adjacent to agricultural lands. 3) Inform residents about the possible exposure to agricultural chemicals. (UAGP Policy VII-D.4[e]) ---PAGE BREAK--- Chapter V. Environmental Analysis Modesto General Plan Update Final Master EIR V-4-9 Section 4. Effects on Agricultural Lands October 2008 5. Policies Which Avoid Impacts The following City policies are in effect and have been determined to reduce, avoid, or mitigate environmental impacts within the existing city limits and within the Planned Urbanizing Area as they annex and develop. LAFCo and County policies are included because they reduce or avoid cumulative impacts. The policy reference numbers are listed. The full text of these policies is found in Section A-4 above, Existing Policies Applying to the Study Area. a. Stanislaus Local Agency Formation Commission Policies Annexation of land to the City is under LAFCo jurisdiction. The Stanislaus County LAFCo has the following applicable policy as described in Section A-4 above, which, when applied to subsequent projects, will avoid or reduce impacts: AL-1. b. Stanislaus County Policies The territory outside the city limits is under County jurisdiction. The County General Plan has the following applicable policies as described in Section A-4 above, which, when applied to subsequent projects, will avoid or reduce impacts: AL-2 through AL-14. c. City of Modesto Policies The City’s UAGP provides the following policies as described in Section A-4 above, related to agricultural land, that when incorporated into subsequent projects will avoid or reduce impacts: AL-15 through AL-21. B. CONSIDERATION AND DISCUSSION OF SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS The following information is provided in accordance with Section 15126.2 of the State CEQA Guidelines. 1. Thresholds of Significance Suggested by the California Environmental Quality Act CEQA directs agencies to analyze effects of agricultural land conversions on the environment, using either Appendix G of the State CEQA Guidelines or the model Land Evaluation and Site Assessment (LESA) system developed by the DOC (Public Resources Code [PRC] Section 21095). In addition, according to the State CEQA Guidelines (Section 15206[b][3]), projects resulting in cancellation of Williamson Act contracts for parcels of land 100 acres or more are considered to be of statewide, regional, or area-wide significance. ---PAGE BREAK--- Chapter V. Environmental Analysis Modesto General Plan Update Final Master EIR V-4-10 Section 4. Effects on Agricultural Lands October 2008 Appendix G of the State CEQA Guidelines is a sample checklist for assessing potential impacts on agricultural land. It offers the following broad suggestions for impact assessment. Would the project: a. cause a conversion of Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance, as shown on the FMMP maps; b. conflict with existing agricultural zoning or a Williamson Act contract; or c. contribute to changes in the existing environment that could result in a conversion of farmland to nonagricultural uses? 2. Thresholds of Significance Suggested by Other Analytical Methods No thresholds of significance by other analytical methods apply. 3. Thresholds of Significance Adopted by the City of Modesto The UAGP will have a significant impact on agricultural land if it will convert areas of prime agricultural land to urban uses; impairs the agricultural productivity of prime agricultural land; or results in substantial pesticide overspray, dust, and noise at urban uses. 4. Significant Direct Impacts a. Baseline Developed Area and Redevelopment Area The Baseline Developed Area and Redevelopment Area are already developed. The impacts of development in these areas on agricultural lands will be less than significant. b. Planned Urbanizing Area From 1995 to 2025, development under the UAGP would convert approximately 22,600 acres of Prime Farmland; 1,700 acres of Unique Farmland; 200 acres of Farmland of Statewide Importance; and 1,600 acres of Farmland of Local Importance to urban uses within the Planned Urbanizing Area. The UAGP would place urban uses in proximity to existing agricultural activities. These urban uses would be subject to noise, dust, and potential chemical overspray from agricultural uses, which could result in complaints, especially from residential areas. The UAGP results in an approximately 28.5-mile-long boundary between these uses. Therefore, approximately 1,200 acres of urban uses (within a 350-foot zone from the boundary) could be affected adversely. If agricultural activities are not conducted within a 350-foot zone of those uses, the efficiency of up to 1,200 acres of agricultural lands would be reduced. ---PAGE BREAK--- Chapter V. Environmental Analysis Modesto General Plan Update Final Master EIR V-4-11 Section 4. Effects on Agricultural Lands October 2008 LAFCo (AL-1) and City (AL-15 through AL-21) policies will result in the orderly conversion of agricultural land as available developable land is occupied within the city. However, these policies will not avoid the impact. This impact is significant and unavoidable. 5. Significant Cumulative Impacts CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines require the disclosure of the significant cumulative environmental impacts; whether the UAGP Amendment (the proposed project) will make a cumulatively considerable contribution to any such impacts; and, if so, mitigation measures intended to reduce the project’s contribution (Section 15130 of the State CEQA Guidelines). A cumulative effect is one that results from past, present, and probable future projects. A project that has a less-than-significant direct effect on the environment may nonetheless make a considerable contribution to a cumulative effect. A cumulative impact analysis first identifies whether a cumulatively significant effect exists in the given resource area. If so, it determines whether the project will make a considerable contribution to that effect. Where a cumulative impact is severe, even a small contribution may be considerable. Where a project is required to implement or fund its fair share of a mitigation measure designed to alleviate the cumulative impact, its contribution will be rendered less than considerable (Section 15130[a] of the State CEQA Guidelines). Development in Stanislaus and San Joaquin Counties, including unincorporated areas and the cities, and the development envisioned in the UAGP would result in cumulative impacts related to the conversion of agricultural land. Modesto, as the largest city in the county, is expected and planned to accommodate a substantial share of Stanislaus County’s projected population growth. Although policies in the UAGP and County General Plan encourage efficient land use and minimize agricultural conversion, the loss of agricultural land from projected regional population growth is inevitable. Accordingly, growth within Modesto’s planning area would contribute considerably to this loss. This impact is considered significant and unavoidable. 6. Potential Impacts for Which There Is Insufficient Information to Support a Full Analysis There is no such impact on agricultural resources. C. MITIGATION MEASURES ADOPTED TO MINIMIZE SIGNIFICANT EFFECTS The following information is provided in accordance with Section 15126.4 of the State CEQA Guidelines. 1. Measures Which Mitigate Direct Impacts No mitigation measure is proposed. The applicable policies of the Modesto UAGP, listed in part A-5.c of this section, Policies Which Avoid Impacts, would reduce (but not eliminate) direct ---PAGE BREAK--- Chapter V. Environmental Analysis Modesto General Plan Update Final Master EIR V-4-12 Section 4. Effects on Agricultural Lands October 2008 impacts by encouraging higher density development than is typical for new development in California. Implementation of UAGP policies also would reduce (but not eliminate) direct impacts by phasing annexation and development so that these actions occur in a logical progression based on sewer capacity and the completion of comprehensive plans for each area of new development. The City is considering adopting an agricultural land conversion mitigation measure but is not ready to commit to specific mitigation at this time. This sort of major policy decision is beyond the scope of this proposed project, whose objective is to make minor updates to the UAGP necessary to incorporate previously adopted policies. 2. Measures Which Mitigate Cumulative Impacts No mitigation measure is proposed. The adopted policies of the UAGP listed in part A.5.c of this section, Policies Which Avoid Impacts, would reduce (but not eliminate) cumulative impacts by encouraging infill and discouraging development in unincorporated, nonurbanized areas except where necessary to accommodate Modesto growth. 3. Alternatives to the Proposed Project The following information is provided in accordance with Section 15126.6 of the State CEQA Guidelines. None of the alternatives would substantially reduce or avoid the identified impacts. D. MONITORING THESE MITIGATION MEASURES The following information is provided in accordance with PRC Section 21081.6. The mitigation measures identified in the Master EIR have been incorporated into the UAGP and are implemented by that plan. City staff provides the Modesto City Council with an annual report on UAGP implementation. Therefore, no separate mitigation monitoring program is required for the UAGP Master EIR. E. EVALUATING SUBSEQUENT PROJECTS The following information will be used to determine whether subsequent projects conform to the Master EIR, as outlined in PRC Section 21157.1(c). Anticipated future projects, as presented in Chapter II, are within the scope of analysis for the impacts on agricultural land as long as the following circumstances have not changed. 1. The lead agency for subsequent projects will be the City or any responsible agency identified in the Master EIR. 2. The LAFCo (AL-1), County (AL-2 through AL-14), and City (AL-15 through AL-21) policies described in Section A-4 above continue to be in effect to reduce, avoid, or mitigate impacts. ---PAGE BREAK--- Chapter V. Environmental Analysis Modesto General Plan Update Final Master EIR V-4-13 Section 4. Effects on Agricultural Lands October 2008 3. No additional significant effect on agricultural lands is identified within the Modesto planning area, and no new mitigation measures may be necessary. F. KEEPING THE MASTER ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT CURRENT FOR THIS TOPIC As authorized by PRC Section 21166, the analysis contained in this section is current as long as the following circumstances have not occurred. 1. The Modesto planning area population increases more rapidly than projected by the UAGP, indicating that the planning area will be insufficient to accommodate expected growth in 2025. 2. The Modesto planning area is expanded beyond the May 2008 (estimated date of Master EIR update certification) boundaries. 3. The agricultural industry becomes economically noncompetitive and suffers a serious decline. ---PAGE BREAK--- Chapter V. Environmental Analysis Modesto General Plan Update Final Master EIR V-5-1 Section 5. Increased Demand for Long-Term Water Supplies October 2008 Section 5 Increased Demand for Long-Term Water Supplies This section describes how development associated with the City of Modesto Urban Area General Plan (UAGP) would affect increased demand for long-term water supplies. If significant impacts are found, mitigation measures are provided to reduce these impacts to a less-than-significant level. A. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING The following information is provided in accordance with Section 15125 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines. This environmental setting is the baseline for determining whether an impact of the UAGP is significant. 1. Study Area for Direct Impacts The study area for direct impacts on water supplies is the City of Modesto’s (City’s) planning area. 2. Study Area for Cumulative Impacts This analysis will be based on the plan or projection approach to examining cumulative effects, as provided under Section 15130(b)(1)(B) of the State CEQA Guidelines. The California Water Plan and the UAGP will be used as the bases for analysis. The study area for cumulative impacts on water supplies is the Modesto and Turlock groundwater basins. 3. Existing Physical Conditions in the Study Area All municipal and most industrial water service in the Modesto planning area is provided by the City’s municipal water supply system. The City owns and operates the city drinking water system and 10 smaller systems for the communities of Empire, Salida, Waterford, Hickman, Del Rio, Grayson, Ceres, and three small systems in Turlock. The City derives drinking water from a combination of groundwater and surface water sources. There are over 77,000 water connections, 927 miles of water lines in the water system, 118 groundwater wells, and seven water tanks. Of the 118 groundwater wells, the City operates 90 that are located in the City’s planning area, and in 2005, 97 of the 118 wells were in operation. In January 1995, the city started deliveries of surface water from the Modesto Regional Water Treatment Plant which draws water from Modesto Reservoir located on the Tuolumne River, approximately 17 miles east of Modesto. The Modesto Irrigation District (MID) operates the under contract to the City. The City has elected to continue to diversify its water supply alternatives by developing additional surface water supplies to offset groundwater pumping. Phase Two of the will provide an additional 33,602 acre-feet per year (af/y) (per the Treatment and Delivery Agreement between the City and MID, new delivery will be 67,204 af/y) of surface water supplies to offset groundwater pumping to meet demands north of the Tuolumne River. (An acre-foot is approximately 326,000 gallons.) ---PAGE BREAK--- Chapter V. Environmental Analysis Modesto General Plan Update Final Master EIR V-5-2 Section 5. Increased Demand for Long-Term Water Supplies October 2008 a. Groundwater The City’s planning area lies at the northern end of the San Joaquin Valley and overlies two designated groundwater basins that are delineated by geographic and hydrologic features. The Turlock groundwater basin encompasses the area south of the Tuolumne River to the Merced River and from the San Joaquin River to the base of the Sierra Foothills. The Modesto groundwater basin (also known as Tuolumne and Stanislaus Rivers groundwater basin) extends north from the Tuolumne River to the Stanislaus River and east from the San Joaquin River to the base of the Sierra foothills. The groundwater basins are recharged from streamflow infiltration, deep percolation of irrigation water, and precipitation. Large areas of the county are considered principal groundwater recharge areas, as well. Both of the groundwater basins consist of similar hydrogeologic properties. The groundwater basins are composed of three units: a lower aquifer unit (Unit 1) that is confined in the west (beneath Unit 2) and unconfined in the east; a shallow, unconfined aquifer (Unit and an aquitard, known as the Corcoran Clay, an impervious barrier separating the two aquifers at a depth of 130 to 220 feet below ground surface. The Corcoran Clay, which underlies the entire San Joaquin Valley, is generally thickest near the center of the valley and progressively thinner near the edges, with the eastern edge located about 3 miles east of Modesto. The Corcoran Clay layer in the project area ranges from 40 to 60 feet in thickness. The lower aquifer (Unit 1) is up to 750 feet thick, and the thickness of the saturated zone of the upper aquifer (Unit 2) varies with seasonal pumping and recharge cycles. Within the areas where the Corcoran Clay layer is present, most wells are completed in the upper Unit 2 aquifer because water quality is generally better than in Unit 1. Extensive use of groundwater in the project area has resulted in historical conditions of overdraft (defined as the extraction of groundwater in excess of its long-term average rate of natural recharge). The City of Modesto, Stanislaus County (County), California Department of Water Resources (DWR), MID, and Turlock Irrigation District (TID) are all involved in monitoring the status of groundwater storage and associated groundwater levels in the region. The City has participated with other stakeholder agencies in the preparation of groundwater management plans for both groundwater basins (Black and Veatch et al. 1995; City of Modesto 1997) that describe the historical trends in groundwater levels and aquifer overdrafting. Groundwater levels in the Turlock groundwater basin have dropped as much as 90 feet in areas east of Modesto, with declines averaging about 5 feet west of Modesto near the San Joaquin Valley trough (City of Modesto 1997). The Turlock basin is estimated to be overdrafted by 70,000 to 85,000 af/y. Groundwater levels in the Tuolumne and Stanislaus Rivers groundwater basin have also declined; however, the estimated rate of overdrafting is much less than in the Turlock groundwater basin. Depending on the method used to evaluate overdraft, estimates range from 30,000 af/y to 3,000 af/y (Black and Veatch et al. 1995). The majority of the overdraft in the Tuolumne and Stanislaus Rivers groundwater basin is occurring in the Modesto planning area, where declines in the groundwater levels have been larger than in the rural areas of the basin. ---PAGE BREAK--- Chapter V. Environmental Analysis Modesto General Plan Update Final Master EIR V-5-3 Section 5. Increased Demand for Long-Term Water Supplies October 2008 In late 2003, the City, MID, as well as the County, DWR, and TID, participated in development of an Integrated Regional Groundwater Management Plan as part of the Stanislaus and Tuolumne Rivers’ Groundwater Basin Association. The Association’s key objectives are to maintain overall groundwater levels, in order to provide a long-term water source for the region, and to protect groundwater quality. The Final Draft Integrated Regional Groundwater Management Plan was completed in June of 2005 in compliance with the Groundwater Management Planning Act of 2002 (Senate Bill [SB] 1938) and the Integrated Regional Water Management Planning Act of 2002 (SB 1672). The Integrated Regional Groundwater Management Plan covers the entire Modesto Groundwater Subbasin as well as parts of the Eastern San Joaquin Groundwater Subbasin. The Plan was adopted by MID and the City in July of 2005. Regional actions promoted by the Integrated Regional Groundwater Management Plan are expected to advance the following water management strategies. „ Increase local and regional water supply reliability and water use efficiency. „ Promote groundwater recharge and management. „ Support water conservation. „ Implement watershed management programs. „ Promote water recycling. „ Foster conjunctive use. „ Improve water quality. „ Improve storm water capture and management. The Integrated Regional Groundwater Management Plan establishes recommended approaches for the member agencies. b. Water Supply and Demands Water consumption in the City of Modesto fluctuates seasonally with demand being lowest in the winter and highest in the summer. In the spring of 2007, the City, in cooperation with MID, adopted the 2005 Joint Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP). The 2005 UWMP identifies existing and long-term water supply sources and describes the supply and conservation management programs for a 20-year planning timeframe (City of Modesto and Modesto Irrigation District 2007b). Based on the projected city resident population and daily per capita water use, the 2005 demand for municipal water supply was 79,895 af/y (City of Modesto and Modesto Irrigation District 2007b). The existing water supply sources consist of a maximum delivery of surface water from the of 30 million gallons per day (mgd) (33,600 af/y) with the remainder provided from groundwater. The City is pursuing additional surface water supplies from the TID through implementation of a Surface Water Supply Project (SWSP), which would provide 11.5 mgd to customers in South Modesto and parts of Ceres. Currently the SWSP is in the pre-design phase and is projected to be operational in 2011. The City has a Water Shortage Contingency Plan that is discussed in detail in the UWMP. The City has identified three water shortage stages ---PAGE BREAK--- Chapter V. Environmental Analysis Modesto General Plan Update Final Master EIR V-5-4 Section 5. Increased Demand for Long-Term Water Supplies October 2008 pursuant to their current UWMP, adopted by the City in 1991. The stages specify reduction objectives ranging from 10 to 50 percent of normal demand, depending on the water shortage stage declared. In the summer of 2002, water pressures in the City of Modesto dipped below City and state water system standards. In response, the Modesto City Council adopted Stage I restrictions of the Drought Contingency Plan on March 25, 2003. The City is currently still in Stage 1 of the Water Shortage Contingency Plan. Because MID is a wholesale supplier and does not directly serve any urban customers, MID does not have a separate Water Shortage Contingency Plan. The total estimated quantity of water supply available for future demands under the UAGP varies depending on the assumptions about the future availability of surface and groundwater supplies and management actions undertaken for water conservation and use of reclaimed wastewater in lieu of freshwater supplies. The future surface water supply available to the City can be increased by expanding the capacity of the to 60 mgd (67,200 af/y); however, at this time water rights are not available to expand the system beyond 60 mgd. Based on groundwater modeling studies developed by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) in 1971 and subsequent reports commissioned by the City, MID, and the former Del Este Water Company, it was determined that the safe yield of groundwater pumping in the Modesto planning area that would ensure that overdrafting of the aquifers does not occur is about 36 mgd (40,000 af/y) (City of Modesto and Modesto Irrigation District 2007b). With the current surface water treatment capacity of 30 mgd, sustained groundwater yield of 36 mgd, and current rate of per capita water use, the existing water supplies are able to support a population of 237,676 residents, which is the population estimate as of January 2006. (City of Modesto and Modesto Irrigation District 2007b.) The UAGP and UWMP identify a number of actions that the City is currently conducting or planning to implement to reduce demands on the water supply. These measures include limiting groundwater extraction to the level considered a safe yield for the aquifers, increasing the use of reclaimed wastewater, implementing mandatory residential water metering, and implementing drought-response measures. The UWMP describes the City’s 3-staged Water Shortage Contingency Plan that is implemented during times of drought. Each stage of the drought contingency plan allows the City to implement more restrictive water rationing from relatively simple mechanisms outdoor watering restrictions, requiring leaks to be fixed, reducing restaurant water use, requiring positive shutoff and low- flow water fixtures) to very restrictive measures such as mandatory system retrofitting requirements and imposing moratoriums on new construction. The City has implemented additional distribution system improvements, maintenance programs, and automated control systems in recent years to increase system efficiency and reduce water losses. An existing City ordinance requires water meters to be installed on new construction. Although the City currently charges a flat rate for water use, installation of water meters will reduce water use by allowing the City to implement structured water pricing policies if deemed necessary. The City completed the Northern San Joaquin Valley Water Reclamation Project study in June 2005. The study included assessment of recycled water markets, review of regulatory requirements, development and evaluation of alternatives for regional water recycling and wastewater treatment, selection of a recommended alternative(s), and development of an implementation plan. A number of the cities surrounding Modesto provide municipal wastewater services in their service areas. These cities, plus local irrigation districts in the ---PAGE BREAK--- Chapter V. Environmental Analysis Modesto General Plan Update Final Master EIR V-5-5 Section 5. Increased Demand for Long-Term Water Supplies October 2008 region and other agencies such as Stanislaus County government, were identified as potential stakeholders for the Northern San Joaquin Valley Water Reclamation Project. The following potential regional participants were contacted regarding their interest in participating in a regional treatment and recycled water project: „ City of Ceres „ City of Delhi „ City of Denair „ City of Escalon „ City of Hilmar „ City of Hughson „ Community of Keyes „ City of Manteca „ City of Oakdale „ City of Patterson „ City of Ripon „ City of Riverbank „ Community of Salida „ City of Turlock „ City of Waterford „ Turlock Irrigation District „ Stanislaus County The cities of Oakdale, Riverbank, Hughson, and Waterford, along with the unincorporated communities of Grayson and Westley,did not engage in the process or express interest in the project; however, these communities are located in the vicinity of Modesto and may have interest in the future. Hilmar expressly stated they did not have interest in the project. The City currently uses approximately 29,000 af/y of reclaimed wastewater on 2,600 acres of pasture irrigation, and there is an existing demand of approximately 2,000 af/y for area golf courses and parks. The use of reclaimed water is expected to increase in the future to at least 45,000 af/y by 2030. The DWR, in its 1998 California Water Plan Update, Bulletin 160 (California Department of Water Resources 1998) projects that by 2020, while the region will have adequate water supplies during normal years, there will be a significant shortage of water supply within the San Joaquin River basin (658,000 af/y) under drought conditions. c. Water Distribution Facilities The City currently owns and operates approximately 500 miles of water distribution lines in the Modesto planning area and more than 900 miles throughout the entire system area. The system consists mostly of 6- and 8-inch pipelines emanating from grids of 10- and 12-inch pipe. The City also has six storage tanks ranging in size from 225,000 gallons to 2 million gallons, with a total storage capacity of 16 million gallons. The City tries to maintain a service standard of approximately one groundwater well per square mile of development. The City uses granular activated-charcoal filters at selected well sites to remove contaminants in the water supply. The City’s maintenance program includes routine system flushing, pump maintenance, efficiency testing, water quality testing, and exercising valves. The City has made numerous connections between the former Del Este Water Company facilities and Modesto distribution system to improve water pressure and circulation. ---PAGE BREAK--- Chapter V. Environmental Analysis Modesto General Plan Update Final Master EIR V-5-6 Section 5. Increased Demand for Long-Term Water Supplies October 2008 4. Existing Policies Applying to the Study Area Below is a comprehensive list of major federal, state and local (County and City) policies and summary of policies in effect that apply to the study area. This list provides the full range of applicable policies that a project within the study area would potentially need to comply with, including policies beyond the jurisdiction of the City. This list of laws, regulations, and programs also serves to describe the circumstances under which the Master EIR analyzed this environmental topic. A discrete reference number, following the initials of the resource topic, is assigned to each policy or policy summary listed to facilitate its identification elsewhere in this Master EIR or, where appropriate, its incorporation as a mitigation measure into subsequent projects analyzed under this Master EIR Water Supply policies are designated as WS-X, where X is the discrete number). a. Federal Policies Section V-10, Flooding and Water Quality, provides a discussion of federal policies related to drinking and surface water quality. b. State Policies Section V-10, Flooding and Water Quality, provides a discussion of state policies related to drinking and surface water quality. Other state policies related to water supplies are provided below. WS-1: Chapter 3, Division 1, of the California Water Code contains provisions that allow public and private agencies that provide water for municipal uses to implement drought water conservation programs. Such measures include encouraging water conservation through higher unit charges for higher uses, installation of water meters, and requiring installation of reasonable water-saving and water-reclamation devices for new services. (The City is currently installing water meters to meet California law.) WS-2: The Urban Water Management Planning Act (Water Code Sections 10610 et seq.) requires preparation of an UWMP by any public or private entity that provides municipal water service to more than 3,000 customers or delivers more than 3,000 af/y. The UWMP describes and evaluates reasonable, practical, and efficient uses of the entity’s water supplies, including reclamation and conservation activities. State law requires early consultation between cities and counties and affected water agencies when specific plans are adopted or when amendments or revisions to the Land Use Element of the UAGP are proposed that would result in a net increase in the stated population density or building intensity (State CEQA Guidelines Section 15083.5). The city or county must request from affected water agencies a determination of whether the projected water demand associated with the proposed project was included in their last UWMP and whether its total projected water supplies available during normal, single-dry, and multiple-dry years as included in the 20-year projection contained in their UWMP will meet the projected water demand associated with the proposed project, in addition to the water agency’s existing and planned future uses. If the lead agency determines that water supplies will not be sufficient, the lead agency must include that determination in its findings for the project. ---PAGE BREAK--- Chapter V. Environmental Analysis Modesto General Plan Update Final Master EIR V-5-7 Section 5. Increased Demand for Long-Term Water Supplies October 2008 WS-3: The DHS is responsible for ensuring that the municipal water distribution systems are designed and constructed in compliance with California Waterworks Standards. c. Stanislaus Local Agency Formation Commission Policies WS-4: Stanislaus Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCo) oversees the annexation of unincorporated lands into city limits. Prior to annexation, the applicant is required to show that the areas will have adequate water services. LAFCo develops and determines the sphere of influence of each local government agency within the County, including the present capacity for public facilities such as water supply. LAFCo discourages urban sprawl, which can best be described as irregular and disorganized growth occurring without apparent design or plan. This pattern of development is characterized by the inefficient delivery of important urban services, such as water supply. Adopted LAFCo policies include the requirement that a plan for service be prepared and submitted by the local agency being affected by the proposed annexation. The plan of service must include information that the range and level of services currently available within the existing boundaries will be at least maintained in the proposed annexation area. Annexations which reduce the existing levels of service will not be approved by the LAFCo. When determining spheres of influence for cities and special districts, LAFCo must conduct a service review of the municipal services provided in an area, as determined by the LAFCo. The municipal services review (MSR) is a comprehensive review of all the agencies that provide the service within the identified area. Typical municipal services include police, fire, sewer, water, and storm drainage services. When conducting the MSR, the LAFCo must prepare a written statement of its determinations with respect to the factors identified in Government Code Section 56430. These factors require consideration of several factors such as: growth and population projections; present and planned capacity of public facilities and adequacy of public services, including infrastructure needs and deficiencies; financial ability of agencies to provide services; status of, and opportunities for, share facilities; and accountability for community service needs, including governmental structure and operational efficiencies. d. Stanislaus County Policies WS-5: Urban development shall be discouraged in areas with growth-limiting factors such as high water table or poor soil percolation, and prohibited in geological fault and hazard areas, flood plains, riparian areas, and airport hazard areas unless measures to mitigate the problems are included as part of the application. WS-6: Future growth shall not exceed the capabilities/capacity of the provider of services such as sewer, water, public safety, solid waste management, road systems, schools, health care facilities, etc. WS-7: Protect groundwater aquifers and recharge areas, particularly those critical for the replenishment of reservoirs and aquifers. WS-8: New development that does not derive domestic water from pre-existing domestic and public water supply systems shall be required to have a documented water supply that does not adversely impact Stanislaus County water resources. ---PAGE BREAK--- Chapter V. Environmental Analysis Modesto General Plan Update Final Master EIR V-5-8 Section 5. Increased Demand for Long-Term Water Supplies October 2008 WS-9: Promote the use of water reservoirs for multiple recreational purposes, where appropriate. e. City of Modesto Policies The UAGP provides the following policies related to water supplies. WS-10: Each Specific Plan shall be accompanied by a long-range financing strategy which provides reasonable estimates of costs of on- and off-site infrastructure to support the proposed development pattern. The strategy should generally address public facility funding, including schools, for any development project which serves to implement the subject Comprehensive Plan. If new public facilities are required which will also serve the broader community, the Specific Plan should include options for broad-based funding mechanisms. (UAGP Policy III-D.1[d]) Baseline Developed Area WS-11: During review of all proposed development, the City shall require, as a condition of approval, that all developments reduce their potable water demand. The City should refer to Table 5-1 in the Joint Urban Water Management Plan for potential techniques to reduce potable water demand, as well as those identified in the City’s current UWMP. (UAGP Policy V-C.3[a]) WS-12: The City’s Public Works Director may require water infrastructure master plans for the public infrastructure or when otherwise pertinent to provision of service at adopted service levels for the specific plan areas or other projects depending on site issues and location. (UAGP Policy V-C.3[b]) WS-13: Individual development projects, including lot splits, are subject to review by the City’s Public Works Director for adequate water supply. (UAGP Policy V-C.3[c]) WS-14: According to state law (Senate Bill 1087 of 2005), no provider of water services may deny or condition the approval of an application for services, or reduce the amount of the services applied for, if the proposed development includes housing affordable to lower income households, except upon making specific findings in accordance with SB 1087. (UAGP Policy V-C.3[d]) WS-15: All new connections to the public water system shall have meters installed. In addition, on or before January 1, 2025, all existing municipal and industrial service connections shall have water meters installed. On or before January 1, 2010, the City shall charge all customers with water meters based on the volume of water delivered. (UAGP Policy V-C.3[e]) WS-16: The City of Modesto shall prepare and adopt an Urban Water Management Plan every five years in accordance with Water Code Section 10620. (UAGP Policy V-C.3[f]) WS-17: The City shall implement the Demand Measurement and Conversion Measures identified in the City's adopted Urban Water Management Plan. (UAGP Policy V- C.3[g]) WS-18: The City of Modesto shall prepare and maintain a Water Master Plan. The Water master plan shall be updated, as needed, to incorporate changes in growth projections, water supplies, and demands. (UAGP Policy V-C.3[h]) ---PAGE BREAK--- Chapter V. Environmental Analysis Modesto General Plan Update Final Master EIR V-5-9 Section 5. Increased Demand for Long-Term Water Supplies October 2008 WS-19: The City of Modesto should continue to pursue additional potential water supply alternatives available to the City to accommodate growth and meet future demand in both normal and dry years. (UAGP Policy V-C.3[i]) WS-20: The City of Modesto will encourage the optimum beneficial use of water resources within the City. The City shall strive to maintain an adequate supply of high-quality water for urban uses. At a minimum, potable water supplies (including well water) delivered to water customers shall conform to the primary maximum contaminant levels as defined in the California Code of Regulations, Title 22, Sections 64431- 64444. (UAGP Policy V-C.3[j]) WS-21: The City of Modesto will strive to stabilize groundwater levels and eliminate groundwater overdraft, as part of a conjunctive groundwater-surface water management program. The City shall view regional water resources, such as groundwater, surface water, and recycled wastewater, as an integrated hydrologic system when developing water management programs. (UAGP Policy V-C.3[k]) WS-22: The City of Modesto will be the sole provider of municipal and industrial water services to the area within the City’s Sphere of Influence, with the exception of private wells. The City will cooperate with the overlying agricultural water providers, MID and TID, and with adjacent municipal and industrial providers for the mutually beneficial management of the limited water resources. The City will also take into consideration its public trust duty with regard to environmental uses of water resources. (UAGP Policy V-C.3[l]) WS-23: The City will provide water service within the original Del Este service area. (UAGP Policy V-C.3[m]) WS-24: Water facilities will be constructed, operated, maintained, and replaced in a manner that will provide the best possible service to the public. The City shall ensure that infrastructure is installed before or concurrently with development. The City will take a comprehensive approach to financing, using a blend of special taxes, benefit assessments, and other methods to ensure that infrastructure installation occurs in a timely manner. (UAGP Policy V-C.3[n]) WS-25: The City will continue to establish guidelines, policies, and programs to implement water conservation to the maximum extent feasible. Funding for large conservation rebate or exchange programs should be in place. The City shall strive to maximize the utilization of water resources when developing and implementing its Economic Development Strategy. (UAGP Policy V-C.3[o]) WS-26: The City of Modesto shall participate in the development of a TID Surface Water Supply Project (SWSP). (UAGP Policy V-C.3[p]) WS-27: The City of Modesto shall implement Local Basin Management Objectives (BMOs), discussed in the Integrated Regional Groundwater Management Plan, that relate to the specific approaches to water management goals including groundwater supply, groundwater quality, and protection against inelastic land surface subsidence. (UAGP Policy V-C.3[q]) WS-28: The City of Modesto shall support the Regional BMOs discussed in the Integrated Regional Groundwater Management Plan. (UAGP Policy V-C.3[r]) This section addresses the requirements of Government Code Section 66455.3 for proposed residential subdivisions of over 500 dwellings. ---PAGE BREAK--- Chapter V. Environmental Analysis Modesto General Plan Update Final Master EIR V-5-10 Section 5. Increased Demand for Long-Term Water Supplies October 2008 WS-29: For projects within the City’s water service area, a copy of any project application shall be sent to the City’ Public Works Department within 5 days of the application being accepted as complete for processing by the City of Modesto. (UAGP Policy V-C.3[t]) WS-30: When approving a proposed residential subdivision of over 500 dwelling units, the City of Modesto must include a condition requiring a sufficient water supply to be available. Proof of availability of water supply depends upon several factors. (UAGP Policy V- C.3[u]) This section addresses the requirements of Senate Bill 221 and 610 of 2001 that establish the requirement for public water systems to prepare water supply assessments for projects as follows: WS-31: A project means any of the following (consistent with Water Code Section 10912): a proposed residential development of more than 500 dwelling units; a proposed shopping center or business establishment employing more than 1,000 persons or having more than 250,000 square feet of floor space; a proposed hotel or motel, or both, having more than 500 rooms; a proposed industrial, manufacturing, or processing plant, or industrial park planned to house more than 1,000 persons, occupying more than 40 acres of land, or having more than 650,000 square feet of floor area; a mixed- use project that includes one or more of the projects identified above; or a project that would demand an amount of water equivalent to, or greater than, the amount of water required by a 500 dwelling unit project. (UAGP Policy V-C.3[v]) WS-32: The City shall consider adopting more specific or restrictive standards for the definition of a project within its water service area. (UAGP Policy V-C.3[w]) WS-33: For projects requiring an environmental impact report, negative declaration, or mitigated negative declaration under CEQA, the City, as the retail water supplier, shall prepare a Water Supply Assessment (WSA) which complies with the requirements of SB610 and SB221 in evaluating the sufficiency of water supply to serve the project, and include the findings of the WSA in the CEQA document. (UAGP Policy V- C.3[x]) This section addresses the requirements of Senate Bill 2095 of 2000 (Government Code Section 65601 et seq.) that relate to the mandated use of recycled water for landscaping purposes as follows: WS-34: Any local public or private entity that produces recycled water and determines that within 10 years it will provide recycled water within the boundaries of the City of Modesto must notify the City of that fact. Within 180 days of receipt of the notice, the City of Modesto shall adopt and enforce a specified recycled water ordinance. The recycled water ordinance must comply with the recycled water policies detailed in the City of Modesto’s Urban Water Management Plan. (UAGP Policy V-C.3[y]) Planned Urbanizing Area WS-35: All of the water policies for the Baseline Developed Area apply within the Planned Urbanizing Area. (UAGP Policy V-C.4[a]) WS-36: The City of Modesto shall coordinate land development projects with the expansion of water treatment and supply facilities. (UAGP Policy V-C.4[b]) ---PAGE BREAK--- Chapter V. Environmental Analysis Modesto General Plan Update Final Master EIR V-5-11 Section 5. Increased Demand for Long-Term Water Supplies October 2008 WS-37: The City of Modesto should develop and implement a water recycling program to reduce the demands for new water supplies in the City and basin. (UAGP Policy V- C.3[s]) The City is currently working with other local stakeholder agencies to formulate groundwater management plans pursuant to the Groundwater Management Act (also known as AB 3030 process) as outlined in California Water Code Sections 10750 et seq. Draft groundwater management plans have been prepared for both the Turlock Groundwater Basin and the Stanislaus and Tuolumne Rivers’ Groundwater Basin. Groundwater management plans are developed to address identification and management of wellhead protection and recharge zones, regulation of migration of contaminated groundwater, control of saline intrusion, administration of well abandonment, mitigation of overdraft, replenishment of groundwater, monitoring of groundwater levels and storage, facilitation of conjunctive use operations, administration of local groundwater cleanup projects, development of relationships with state and federal regulatory agencies, and review and coordination of land-use plans. The City is also working with MID to develop an Integrated Water Resources Plan (IWRP) designed to evaluate all sources of water and their potential uses, including surface water, groundwater, wastewater, and storm water. 5. Policies Which Avoid Impacts The policy reference numbers are listed, and the full text of these policies is found in Section A-4 above, Existing Policies Applying to the Study Area. a. Stanislaus LAFCo Policies LAFCo annexation policies require the provision of water supply to areas annexing into the City. These policies are summarized in WS-4. b. Stanislaus County Policies The Land Use Element of the County General Plan ensures that an effective level of service for water supplies is provided in unincorporated areas. These policies are summarized in WS-5. c. City Policies The following City policies are in effect and have been determined to reduce, avoid, or mitigate environmental impacts within the existing city limits and within the Planned Urbanizing Area. 1. Citywide: WS-10. ---PAGE BREAK--- Chapter V. Environmental Analysis Modesto General Plan Update Final Master EIR V-5-12 Section 5. Increased Demand for Long-Term Water Supplies October 2008 2. Baseline Developed Area: WS-11 through WS-34 3. Planned Urbanizing Area: WS-35 through WS-37 In addition, the City has adopted the Turlock Groundwater Basin Management Plan and is in the process of completing the Tuolumne and Stanislaus Rivers’ Groundwater Basin Management Plan in cooperation with other stakeholder agencies. Also, the City requires all new development to install stormwater drainage facilities that result in percolation of at least 80% of the urban runoff into the groundwater. B. CONSIDERATION AND DISCUSSION OF SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS The following information is provided in accordance with Section 15126.2 of the State CEQA Guidelines. 1. Thresholds of Significance Suggested by CEQA Appendix G of the state CEQA Guidelines is a sample checklist for assessing potential impacts on water supplies. It offers the following broad suggestions for impact assessment. Would the project: a. substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere with groundwater recharge; b. require or result in the construction of new water treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects; or c. exceed existing water supply entitlements or require expansion of entitlements? 2. Thresholds of Significance Suggested by Other Analytical Methods No applicable thresholds of significance by other analytical methods are available. 3. Thresholds of Significance Adopted by the City of Modesto The UAGP will have a significant impact on long-term water supplies if development will result in water demand that exceeds the capacity for recharge or that will contribute to overdraft of the groundwater basins. 4. Significant Direct Impacts a. Baseline Developed Area, Planned Urbanizing Area, and Redevelopment Area Future development consistent with the UAGP would result in a population of approximately 334,000 to 357,000. The upper end of this population range would require an estimated water supply of approximately 110 mgd (120,000 af/y). The is expanded from ---PAGE BREAK--- Chapter V. Environmental Analysis Modesto General Plan Update Final Master EIR V-5-13 Section 5. Increased Demand for Long-Term Water Supplies October 2008 33.6 mgd to 67.2 mgd, and the City is entering into agreement with TID for approximately 12.8 mgd. In 2005 the City produced approximately 46 mgd from groundwater pumping; however, projected level of groundwater pumping is estimated to be approximately 39 mgd by 2025. The sum of these sources would equal 120 mgd. This would be more than sufficient for the projected population growth under the UAGP. During drought years the city can extract up to 7 mgd extra from groundwater pumping. In addition, the City has a Water Shortage Contingency Plan that is discussed in detail in the UWMP, which identifies the necessary steps to take in the event of a water shortage. The UWMP indicates that mandatory residential water metering could significantly reduce the need to develop additional water sources. In this vein, the City is currently retrofitting existing non-metered connections with the goal of complete metering by 2020 (City of Modesto 2007). However, for the purposes of this analysis, it is assumed that the projected future population and associated water demand would require some increased development and entitlement of surface water supplies for the City. In addition, the additional urban development would increase the amount of impervious surface areas that could potentially restrict the amount of natural groundwater recharge from rainfall and thereby further exacerbate problems associated with declining groundwater levels. UAGP policies are established to limit groundwater extractions to the safe yield of the aquifer and thereby avoid aquifer overdrafting. In addition, the UWMP requires that new urban development would proceed in conjunction with the availability of water supplies and distribution facilities. It is assumed that increased entitlement of surface water supplies, such as a water transfer from another water purveyor, would undergo independent environmental review pursuant to CEQA. Therefore, potential impacts to surface and groundwater supplies are considered less than significant. b. Impacts on Water Distribution Facilities The projected City population would require expansion of the to its full 60 mgd capacity, development of additional groundwater wells, and construction of additional water distribution and treatment facilities. Construction of some of the required facilities would most likely require site-specific environmental impact assessments to be conducted under CEQA. Consequently, the potential environmental impacts of the UAGP are considered less than significant. 5. Significant Cumulative Impacts CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines require the disclosure of the significant cumulative environmental effects, whether the project will make a cumulatively considerable contribution to any such effects, and, if so, mitigation measures intended to reduce the project’s contribution (Section 15130 of the State CEQA Guidelines). A cumulative effect is one that results from past, present, and probable future projects. A project which has a less-than-significant direct effect on the environment may nonetheless make a considerable contribution to a cumulative effect. A cumulative impact analysis first identifies whether there exists a cumulatively significant effect in the given resource area. If so, it determines whether the project will make a considerable ---PAGE BREAK--- Chapter V. Environmental Analysis Modesto General Plan Update Final Master EIR V-5-14 Section 5. Increased Demand for Long-Term Water Supplies October 2008 contribution to that effect. Where a cumulative impact is severe, even a small contribution may be considerable. Where a project is required to implement or fund its fair-share of a mitigation measure designed to alleviate the cumulative impact, its contribution will be rendered less than considerable. (Section 15130(a) of the State CEQA Guidelines.) The population of Stanislaus County is projected to increase at a rate similar to Modesto. The California Department of Finance (DOF) estimates that the county population, approximately 521,500 persons in 2007 (California Department of Finance 2007a), will reach approximately 857,900 persons by 2030 (Finance does not have a 2025 projection) (California Department of Finance 2007b). This will result in substantial additional demands on the available water supplies. Cumulative impacts to water supplies could occur from increased groundwater extraction adjacent to the Modesto planning area boundaries that may result in overdrafting of the aquifer. The City of Modesto spans two groundwater subbasins: the Modesto Subbasin north of the Tuolumne River and the Turlock Subbasin south of the river. In 2005, the City operated 97 groundwater wells located throughout its entire water service area (81 wells in the contiguous area and 16 wells in outlying areas). The wells within the City’s contiguous service area discharge directly into the distribution system or into one of the City’s water storage tanks. An operational yield is defined as the average annual amount of groundwater that can be extracted from a groundwater basin, while maintaining a non-overdraft condition. The operational yields of the Modesto and Turlock subbasins are currently unknown, and the City is currently participating in a study with the USGS to quantify operational yields for both groundwater subbasins. The quantity of water that can be pumped by the City depends on the amount of groundwater available in the basin, the ability of the City’s wells to pump operational capacity), as well as pumping by other users. However, until an actual operational yield value can be developed for both the Modesto and Turlock subbasins through hydrogeologic studies, the City will rely on available information to develop a reasonable estimate for an operational yield. Based on well level and pumping data over the past 25 years, an operational yield for the Modesto water service area was calculated to be 54,161 af/y. However, the City’s commitment to limit groundwater extractions to a designated safe yield of 40,000 af/y would mitigate the City’s contribution to this impact. In addition, the City is in the process of converting to all metered water usage. Currently, all commercial, industrial, and institutional water accounts are metered. Since 1991, meters have been installed for all new construction, but all accounts are not necessarily being billed at metered rates. Starting in 2005, the City began retrofitting single-family flat-rate customers to meters at a rate of 6% per year. Based on the City's metering plan, existing single-family flat-rate customers will be gradually converted to metered rates once all non-metered, flat-rate customers have been converted to metered use. This will ultimately decrease the amount of per capita water use. However, during drought years, despite available options, significant water shortages are forecast for the San Joaquin River basin by 2020. Modesto would make a cumulatively considerable contribution to the cumulative impact on water supply under drought conditions. This is a significant and unavoidable impact. 6. Potential Impacts for Which There is Insufficient Information to Support a Full Analysis There is no such impact on long-term water supplies. ---PAGE BREAK--- Chapter V. Environmental Analysis Modesto General Plan Update Final Master EIR V-5-15 Section 5. Increased Demand for Long-Term Water Supplies October 2008 C. MITIGATION MEASURES ADOPTED TO MINIMIZE SIGNIFICANT EFFECTS The following information is provided in accordance with Section 15126.4 of the State CEQA Guidelines. 1. Measures Which Mitigate Direct Impacts The adopted policies for water conservation listed in Section A.5[c] of the UAGP will reduce impacts to a less-than-significant level. 2. Measures Which Mitigate Cumulative Impacts The adopted policies of Stanislaus LAFCo, the Stanislaus County General Plan, and the UAGP listed in Section A-5.a, b, and c will reduce cumulative impacts to a less-than-significant level during normal years. There will be a significant and unavoidable impact during drought years by 2020. 3. Alternatives to the Proposed Project The following information is provided in accordance with Section 15126.6 of the State CEQA Guidelines. Alternatives 1 and 2 would have essentially the same impacts as the proposed project. D. MONITORING THESE MITIGATION MEASURES The following information is provided in accordance with Public Resources Code (PRC) Section 21081.6. The mitigation measures identified in the 1995 Master EIR have been incorporated into the UAGP and are implemented by that plan. City staff provides the City Council with an annual report on UAGP implementation. Therefore, no separate mitigation monitoring program is required in the UAGP Master EIR. E. EVALUATING SUBSEQUENT PROJECTS The following information will be used to determine whether subsequent projects conform to the Master EIR, as outlined in PRC Section 21157.1(c). Anticipated future projects, as presented in Chapter II, are within the scope of analysis for the effects on groundwater quality as long as the following circumstances have not changed. 1. The lead agency for subsequent projects shall be the City of Modesto or any responsible agency identified in the Master EIR. ---PAGE BREAK--- Chapter V. Environmental Analysis Modesto General Plan Update Final Master EIR V-5-16 Section 5. Increased Demand for Long-Term Water Supplies October 2008 2. The policies identified in Section A-4 above, Existing Policies Applying to the Study Area (WS-1 through WS-36), continue to be in force to reduce, avoid, or mitigate impacts. F. KEEPING THE MASTER ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT CURRENT FOR THIS TOPIC As authorized by PRC Section 21166, the analysis contained in this section is current as long as the following circumstances have not occurred. 1. The planning area population increases more rapidly than projected by the UAGP, indicating that the planning area will be insufficient to accommodate expected growth in 2025. 2. The planning area is expanded beyond the March 10, 2003 (estimated date of certification for UAGP/Master EIR Update) boundaries. ---PAGE BREAK--- Chapter V. Environmental Analysis Modesto General Plan Update Final Master EIR V-6-1 Section 6. Increased Demand for Sanitary Sewer Services October 2008 Section 6 Increased Demand for Sanitary Sewer Services This section describes how development associated with the City of Modesto Urban Area General Plan (UAGP) would affect increased demand for sanitary sewer services. If significant impacts are found, mitigation measures are provided to reduce these impacts to a less-than-significant level. A. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING The following information is provided in accordance with Section 15125 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines. This environmental setting is the baseline for determining whether an impact of the UAGP is significant. 1. Study Area for Direct Impacts The study area for direct impacts on demand for sanitary sewer services is the Modesto planning area. The Modesto wastewater collection and treatment system serves Modesto as well as the unincorporated community of Empire and some Stanislaus County areas by agreement and a portion of the City of Ceres. The City of Modesto’s (City’s) facilities process domestic wastewater from residential and commercial sources and wastewater generated by industrial facilities local canneries) in the southeastern part of the city. The City operates a primary treatment plant on Sutter Avenue and a secondary treatment facility located south of the community on Jennings Avenue near the San Joaquin River. A limited area within the City’s sphere of influence relies on septic tanks for wastewater disposal and is not served by the sewer system, primarily in the county “islands.” 2. Study Area for Cumulative Impacts This analysis will be based on the plan or projection approach to examining cumulative impacts, as provided under Section 15130(b)(1)(B) of the State CEQA Guidelines. Pertinent plans and projections to be used for this purpose are the UAGP and City’s Wastewater Master Plan (adopted in March 2007). The study area for cumulative impacts on demand for sanitary sewer services is the Modesto planning area because that is the area that would be served by the City wastewater disposal system. 3. Existing Physical Conditions in the Study Area The City’s wastewater disposal system comprises approximately 600 miles of collector lines, 39 pumping stations, and 80 miles of trunk lines, with pipe diameters ranging from 6 to 60 inches (Turnstone Consulting 2006). The primary treatment plant provides screening and grit removal of the wastewater processes’ biosolids and transfers pretreated wastewater along 6.5 miles of 60-inch pipes to the secondary treatment facility. The 4,600-acre secondary treatment facility includes three ---PAGE BREAK--- Chapter V. Environmental Analysis Modesto General Plan Update Final Master EIR V-6-2 Section 6. Increased Demand for Sanitary Sewer Services October 2008 140-foot-diameter fixed film reactors, a 100-acre recirculating channel, 430 acres of treatment ponds, 600 acres of treated water storage ponds, and 2,500 acres of irrigated pasture. Most of the treated wastewater is sent to the irrigated pasture, and a limited amount is discharged to the San Joaquin River under permit from the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board The City does not discharge treated effluent to farmland or into the San Joaquin River during periods when conditions for discharge are not favorable. In such periods, the treated effluent is stored in the City’s storage pond system. The current capacity of the City’s waste treatment system is 62 million gallons per day (mgd) (including capacity for 33 mgd of cannery wastewater). In 2005, average annual domestic wastewater flow (exclusive of cannery segregated flow) was 25.8 mgd. During the 2005 dry season, the sewer system received an average of approximately 26.3 mgd of domestic wastewater, with a peak of 38.7 mgd. The peak wet weather domestic wastewater flow was approximately 71.7 mgd (Carollo Engineers 2007a). The City creates additional seasonal treatment capacity at the primary treatment plant by sending cannery wastewater directly to the secondary treatment plant. Cannery waste is disposed of by irrigation onto the City’s secondary treatment facility’s fields. Cannery waste consists of wash water containing organic vegetable material. The cannery segregation project began operation in July 1999. In 2005, the total volume of cannery segregated wastewater received by the City’s sewer system was 1,460 million gallons, which was discharged over an 82-day period extending from July through September. During this period, the sewer system received average daily segregated cannery flow of approximately 16.8 mgd. The equivalent average annual segregated cannery wastewater flow (seasonal volume distributed over 12 months) was 3.6 mgd (Carollo Engineers 2007a). Because the equivalent annual average cannery segregated flow historically has been on the order of approximately 4 mgd, it is assumed these flow levels will not increase substantially relative to existing conditions from the present period through the projected buildout horizon of the UAGP unless additional information is provided. Thus, impacts related to cannery segregated flow are considered less than significant and will not be discussed further in this master environmental impact report (Master EIR). 4. Existing Policies Applying to the Study Area Below is a comprehensive list of major federal, state, and local policies or summaries of policies in effect that apply to the study area. This list provides the full range of applicable policies that a project within the study area potentially would need to comply with, including policies beyond the jurisdiction of the City. This list of laws, regulations, and programs also serves to describe the circumstances under which the Master EIR analyzed this environmental topic. A discrete reference number, following the initials of the resource topic, is assigned to each policy or policy summary listed to facilitate its identification elsewhere in this Master EIR or, where appropriate, its incorporation as a mitigation measure into subsequent projects analyzed under this Master EIR Sewer Service policies are designated as SS-X, where X is the discrete number). a. Federal and State Regulations SS-1: Wastewater disposal is regulated under the Clean Water Act (33 U.S. Code Section 121 et seq.) and the state Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act (California Water ---PAGE BREAK--- Chapter V. Environmental Analysis Modesto General Plan Update Final Master EIR V-6-3 Section 6. Increased Demand for Sanitary Sewer Services October 2008 Code Section 13000 et seq.). The Central Valley implements these acts by administering the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) and by the issuing of waste discharge requirements (WDRs), respectively. The Central Valley is also responsible for ensuring that operation of City wastewater treatment facilities meets the requirements of those permits. The City’s NPDES permit allows treated effluent to be used for irrigation during proper soil and weather conditions and to be discharged into the San Joaquin River from October 1 through May 31 when river flows meet prescribed standards. The NPDES permit requirements of the Central Valley ensure that discharges from the sewage treatment plants do not affect water quality adversely. (California Water Code, Division SS-2: Title 22 of the California Code of Regulations (CCR) regulates the production of reclaimed water in California for three main types of recycled water uses: landscape irrigation, recreational impoundments, and industrial uses. The California Department of Public Health (CDPH) is responsible for reviewing proposed water recycling projects and for providing comments and recommendations to the Central Valley which issues water recycling requirements through the waste discharge permit process. Title 22 of the CCR, Division 4, Chapter 3, establishes “Water Recycling Criteria,” which include criteria for water quality, treatment process requirements, and treatment reliability criteria for reclamation operations. Title 22 of the CCR also defines requirements for sampling and analysis of reclaimed water and requires specific design requirements for facilities. Under 22 CCR, the proposed use of recycled water for landscape irrigation would fall under the guidelines for “landscape irrigation with high public contact.” To be used as a supply source for this designation, the recycled water must meet the process requirements for “disinfected tertiary recycled water,” which is defined in 22 CCR, Division 4, Chapter 3, Section 60301.230, as recycled water that has been oxidized, coagulated, clarified, filtered, and disinfected. b. Stanislaus Local Agency Formation Commission Policies SS-3: The Stanislaus Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCo) oversees the annexation of unincorporated lands to the City and the efficient provision of services to those lands. LAFCo policies discourage urban sprawl irregular and disorganized growth occurring without apparent design or plan) and promote an efficient system of service delivery (California Government Code Section 56425). Before an area is annexed, the applicant is required to show that the area will have adequate sanitary sewer service. To coordinate services provided by local government agencies, the LAFCo establishes a sphere of influence delineating the area to be served by each agency. For the City, the criteria for its sphere of influence include the capacity to provide public facilities such as sewer service. By designating a sphere of influence for each service provider, the LAFCo prevents overlapping jurisdictions and duplicated services. When determining spheres of influence for cities and special districts, the LAFCo must conduct a service review of the municipal services provided in an area, as determined by the LAFCO. The municipal services review (MSR) is a comprehensive review of all the agencies that provide the service within the identified area. Typical municipal services include police, fire, sewer, water, and storm drainage services. When conducting the MSR, the LAFCo must prepare a written statement of its determinations with respect to the factors identified in Government Code Section 56430. These factors require the consideration of several factors such as: growth and population projections; present and planned capacity of public facilities and adequacy of public services, including infrastructure needs and deficiencies; financial ability of agencies to ---PAGE BREAK--- Chapter V. Environmental Analysis Modesto General Plan Update Final Master EIR V-6-4 Section 6. Increased Demand for Sanitary Sewer Services October 2008 provide services; status of, and opportunities for, share facilities; and accountability for community service needs, including governmental structure and operational efficiencies. c. City of Modesto Policies SS-4: Under its NPDES permit, the City is required to develop, administer, implement, and enforce a comprehensive stormwater management program to reduce pollutants carried in urban runoff to the maximum extent practicable. The City’s adopted guidance manual specifically controls post-construction urban runoff pollutants from newly developed and redeveloped areas. The Erosion and Sediment Control for Construction Activities manual describes the best management practices (BMPs) that will be required as source control and treatment control measures for commercial/industrial and multifamily residential sources. In addition, the UAGP provides the following policies related to wastewater disposal services. Baseline Developed Area and Redevelopment Area SS-5: To protect public health and the environment, the City’s wastewater treatment facilities will conform to standards for wastewater and biosolids treatment and disposal, as by the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board, in compliance with the Federal Clean Water Act, the State Porter-Cologne Act, and their implementing regulations, current and future. (UAGP Policy V-D.3[a]) SS-6: The City shall support the near term expansion of the wastewater treatment and disposal capacity of the Jennings Road Secondary Treatment Plant, as well as other treatment improvements as required by future regulations. (UAGP Policy V-D.3[b]) SS-7: The City shall support both wastewater collection and treatment system improvements and associated costs needed to serve the City’s existing and future customers. (UAGP Policy V-D.3[c]) SS-8: Wastewater facilities will be constructed, operated, maintained and replaced in a manner that will provide the best possible service to the public, as required by federal and state laws and regulations. In developing implementation plans, considerations shall be given to rehabilitation of essential existing facilities, expansion to meet current excess demand, and the timely expansion for future demand. (UAGP Policy V-D.3[d]) SS-9: If available, the City shall provide wastewater services within the sewer service agreement area. (UAGP Policy V-D.3[e]) SS-10: The City’s wastewater system capacity will be allocated to existing and future residential, commercial, and industrial customers [within the City’s sewer service area or by agreement]. Discharges from environmental cleanup sites may be issued conditional discharge permits subject to the availability of excess treatment capacity. In accordance with federal and state regulations, all discharges to the wastewater system may not, or may not threaten to, upset, interfere, or pass through the wastewater system. (UAGP Policy V-D.3[g]) SS-11: The City Engineer may require wastewater infrastructure master plans for the specific public infrastructure or when otherwise pertinent to provision of service at adopted ---PAGE BREAK--- Chapter V. Environmental Analysis Modesto General Plan Update Final Master EIR V-6-5 Section 6. Increased Demand for Sanitary Sewer Services October 2008 service levels for the specific plan areas or other projects depending on site issues and location. (UAGP Policy V-D.3[h]) SS-12: Proposed lot splits are subject to review by the City’s Public Works Director for adequate wastewater collection service. (UAGP Policy V-D.3[i]) SS-13: Subject to the approval of the Stanislaus Local Agency Formation Commission, the City of Modesto will be the sole provider of wastewater services to the area within the City’s Sphere of Influence and sewer service area. (UAGP Policy V-D.3[k]) SS-14: Prior to annexation, the City must find that adequate wastewater treatment and disposal capacity can be provided for the proposed annexation. (UAGP Policy V-D.3[l]) SS-15: The City will encourage the regional beneficial reuse of reclaimed water. The City is committed to development of a full reclamation program in the long term. The City will comply with Title 22 standards for use of reclaimed water and criteria contained in the California Department of Public Health (CDPH) “Purple Book”. (UAGP Policy V- D.3[m]) SS-16: The City shall strive to use land application of biosolids as the most environmentally beneficial reuse of this resource, rather than the disposal options of landfilling or incineration. (UAGP Policy V-D.3[n]) SS-17: The City shall develop methods to discontinue the current practice of using the sanitary system to temporarily drain storm water runoff. (UAGP Policy V-D.3[o]) SS-18: The City shall establish odor buffer zones around primary and secondary wastewater plants, thereby minimizing the likelihood of odors impacting new residential or commercial development. (UAGP Policy V-D.3[p]) SS-19: The City shall utilize source control and demand management among its tools for accomplishing the most cost-effective wastewater management, protective of public health and the environment. (UAGP Policy V-D.3[q]) SS-20: The City shall establish 10th percentile river flows as the baseline condition for design to minimize risks of exceeding Waste Discharge Requirements (WDR) and National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit requirements. (UAGP Policy V-D.3[r]) SS-21: According to state law (Senate Bill 1087 of 2004), no provider of wastewater services many deny or condition the approval of an application for services, or reduce the amount of the services applied for, if the proposed development includes housing affordable to lower income households, except upon making specific findings in accordance with SB 1087. (UAGP Policy V-D.3[s]) Planned Urbanizing Area SS-22: All of the Wastewater Policies for the Baseline Developed Area apply within the Planned Urbanizing Area. (UAGP Policy V-D.4[a]) SS-23: The City of Modesto will require each new development project to be served with public sanitary sewers. Utilities located in private streets shall be part of the public sewerage system and shall be connected to a sewer lateral. (UAGP Policy V-D.4[b]) SS-24: The City of Modesto will coordinate land development proposals with the expansion of wastewater facilities. (UAGP Policy V-D.4[c]) SS-25: In general, maintenance of a five-year supply of available developable land served with urban infrastructure is desirable. (UAGP Policy II-C.1[a]) ---PAGE BREAK--- Chapter V. Environmental Analysis Modesto General Plan Update Final Master EIR V-6-6 Section 6. Increased Demand for Sanitary Sewer Services October 2008 SS-26: Measure A, the Modesto Citizens Advisory Growth Management Act of 1979, requires the Modesto City Council to hold an advisory election before it approves, authorizes, or appropriates funds for the extension of any sewer trunk. For the purposes of Measure A, the word “extension” means the addition of sewer trunk capacity to permit expansion of urban development into the Planned Urbanizing Area of the UAGP so as to require amendment of the UAGP, but it shall not include any maintenance, repairs, renovation, or improvements in an existing sewer trunk solely for the purposes of safe, efficient, and effective operation thereof. SS-27: This measure, passed on November 4, 1997, requires an advisory election be held among the citizens of Modesto prior to extending sewer improvements to new areas with five or more dwelling units, and does not apply to non-residential areas. The purpose is to allow the public to provide input into decisions concerning whether or not to allow urban expansion. Areas that have received support for expansion of development through Public Advisory Elections have not all been planned, developed, or annexed, but each area is expected to eventually annex to the City and be developed. The positive or negative result of a public advisory election is not binding upon the City Council, which may choose to either allow or prohibit growth in these areas. In order to annex to the City of Modesto, properties subject to Measure M must be in the City’s Sphere of Influence, must have been evaluated in the biennial Urban Growth Review and received authorization from the City Council to be placed on the ballot to satisfy the Measure M requirement, and must then be authorized by City Council to begin the planning process. (UAGP Policy VIII-V) SS-28: In 2007, the City approved a Wastewater Master Plan update and its related Master EIR. The 2007 Wastewater Master Plan is a long-term strategic plan to direct the improvement and expansion of the City’s wastewater collection, treatment, and disposal facilities and operation into the future. The goal of the Wastewater Master Plan is to accommodate wastewater service needs for the projected population growth and land uses described in the UAGP through 2030. The Wastewater Master Plan proposes the following major improvements to the City’s wastewater treatment system: improve the Sutter Avenue Primary Treatment Plant to expand its hydraulic capacity and solids treatment capacity and to provide protection for a 100-year flood event; re- line the primary effluent outfall (from Sutter Avenue to Jennings Road) to increase its hydraulic capacity and to improve reliability; expand and upgrade the Jennings Road Secondary Treatment Facility to increase domestic effluent disposal capacity and to comply with projected discharge requirements; and prepare scientific studies to verify appropriate biological oxygen demand (BOD) loadings and land application methodologies associated with segregated cannery process flows. The collection system improvements will include new facilities for development, rehabilitation, replacement, and reliability and capacity. The main goals of the 2007 Wastewater Master Plan update are to: „ provide a long-range plan that is flexible in meeting current and future regulatory requirements for the collection system and treatment; „ develop a prioritized and phased implementation plan; „ develop a cost-effective plan that considers total life cycle costs as well as capital costs; „ correct hydraulic capacity deficiencies in the existing system (collection system goal); „ serve new customers in the Comprehensive Planning District (CPD) (collection system goal; ---PAGE BREAK--- Chapter V. Environmental Analysis Modesto General Plan Update Final Master EIR V-6-7 Section 6. Increased Demand for Sanitary Sewer Services October 2008 „ rehabilitate existing concrete pipes (collection system goal); and „ provide reliability to the existing collection system (collection system goal). (Carollo Engineers 2007a, 2007b.) 5. Regulatory Policies Which Avoid Impacts The following City policies are in effect and have been determined to reduce, avoid, or mitigate environmental impacts within the existing city limits and within the Planned Urbanizing Area as they annex and develop. The policy reference numbers are listed; the full text of these policies is found above, under the heading Existing Policies Applying to the Study Area. a. City Policies The City provides the following policies: 1. Citywide—SS-4, 2. Baseline Developed Area and Redevelopment Area—SS-5 through SS-21, and 3. Planned Urbanizing Area—SS-22 through SS-28. B. CONSIDERATION AND DISCUSSION OF SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS The following information is provided in accordance with Section 15126.2 of the State CEQA Guidelines. 1. Thresholds of Significance Suggested by the California Environmental Quality Act CEQA has no specific thresholds for sewer services. Section 15063 of the State CEQA Guidelines provides that Appendix G of the State CEQA Guidelines can be used as a guide. It provides that a project may result in a significant effect if it would: a. exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the Central Valley b. require or result in the construction of new facilities or the expansion of existing facilities that would cause significant effects, or c. result in a finding that the wastewater treatment facilities do not have adequate capacity to serve the projected demand. 2. Thresholds of Significance Suggested by Other Analytical Methods The Central Valley would consider a project significant if it resulted in a violation of the WDRs or an NPDES permit issued by the ---PAGE BREAK--- Chapter V. Environmental Analysis Modesto General Plan Update Final Master EIR V-6-8 Section 6. Increased Demand for Sanitary Sewer Services October 2008 3. Thresholds of Significance Adopted by the City of Modesto Based on the thresholds established by the Central Valley and described above, the City of Modesto adopts the following standard. Impacts from the effects of increased demand for sewer services will be significant if demand: a. exceeds the wastewater treatment requirements of the Central Valley including the NPDES; b. requires or results in the construction of new facilities or the expansion of existing facilities that would cause significant effects beyond those analyzed in the Wastewater Master Plan Master EIR; or c. exceeds the capacity of the City’s wastewater treatment facilities. 4. Significant Direct Impacts The sewer service area projections in the 2007 Wastewater Master Plan update are based on a May 4, 2006, memo prepared by the City that includes population estimates through 2030 (sphere-of- influence buildout). The memo projects the population of the sphere-of-influence buildout to be between approximately 334,000 and 357,000 people. This projected service area population is included in the growth projections of the 2007 UAGP Amendment and is used as a basis for determining impacts on Modesto’s wastewater services and facilities in this Master EIR. Based on projected demand in the Baseline Developed Area, Redevelopment Area, and Planned Urbanizing Area under the UAGP, the Wastewater Master Plan estimates that average annual domestic wastewater flow in 2030 would be approximately 41.7 mgd. This increase in domestic wastewater demand represents an increase of approximately 62% over existing (2005) conditions. The growth provided for under the UAGP will require substantial additional sewage treatment capacity, plant improvements, sewer mains and collection lines, pump stations, and disposal capacity. a. Compliance with Waste Discharge Requirements The City’s adopted 2007 Wastewater Master Plan update describes new and upgraded facilities needed to accommodate the increased flows over the next 23 years to meet future demand for sanitary sewer services. As City wastewater treatment facilities are expanded to meet the needs of the Baseline Developed Area, Redevelopment Area, and Planned Urbanizing Area, the City will obtain the necessary wastewater discharge and NPDES permits from the Central Valley as required under UAGP Policy V-D.3(a). Implementing the Wastewater Master Plan requirement of BMPs for post-construction activities, as well as the UAGP policy cited above, will avoid violation of WDRs. As a result, this impact would be less than significant. b. Impacts From the Construction of New Wastewater Treatment Facilities The impacts of expanding the City’s sewer system to meet future needs in the Baseline Developed Area, Redevelopment Area, and Planned Urbanizing Area under the UAGP have been analyzed in the Master EIR certified for the Wastewater Master Plan. The Wastewater ---PAGE BREAK--- Chapter V. Environmental Analysis Modesto General Plan Update Final Master EIR V-6-9 Section 6. Increased Demand for Sanitary Sewer Services October 2008 Master Plan Master EIR identified the following significant impacts that can be mitigated: Excavation and construction activities would cause erosion or release chemicals that would degrade water quality; eliminating the cross-connections between the stormwater drainage system and the wastewater collection system could cause localized flooding; construction could cause substantial short-term increases in noise levels; and excavation for and installation of the wastewater system improvements could expose workers and the public to hazardous substances. Mitigation measures would include preparing a stormwater pollution prevention plan designing new stormwater conveyance and treatment structures that would avoid exacerbating existing flooding problems; limiting construction hours to minimize noise impacts on sensitive receptors; equipping construction equipment with noise abatement devices; designing construction vehicle access routes to minimize impacts on sensitive receptors; locating stationary noise sources away from existing noise-sensitive land uses; determining the presence of groundwater or soil contamination by means of soil gas surveys, soils or groundwater sampling, and/or Phase I Environmental Site Assessments; preparing a site remediation plan and health and safety plan; and preparing a waste disposal and hazardous materials transportation plan. The Wastewater Master Plan Master EIR concluded that construction of project facilities could damage the habitat of the valley elderberry longhorn beetle, burrowing owl, and Swainson’s hawk, as well as certain regulated habitats under the California Department of Fish and Game and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Mitigation measures include conducting preconstruction surveys for sensitive species, coordinating with regulatory agencies and meeting appropriate permit requirements for regulated habitats, compensating for loss of nesting and foraging habitat of special-status species, transplanting elderberry plants, and avoiding sensitive habitats during construction. The Master EIR found that the Wastewater Master Plan would result in the following significant impacts that cannot be mitigated: a permanent loss of Prime Farmland caused by the construction of the Phase IA tertiary treatment facilities at the Jennings Road Secondary Treatment Facility, an increase in pollutant loads from increased wastewater flows to the San Joaquin River, and an increase in criteria air pollutants resulting from construction activities. The Master EIR for the Wastewater Master Plan is hereby incorporated by reference. Its mitigation measures have been adopted by the City and are being implemented by the City under the Wastewater Master Plan. The Master EIR for the Wastewater Master Plan identified impacts on agricultural land from the construction of project components (significant and unavoidable), degradation of water quality from excavation and construction activities (less than significant with mitigation), localized flooding (less than significant with mitigation), degradation of surface water quality (significant and unavoidable), San Joaquin River flow (less than significant with mitigation), valley elderberry longhorn beetle habitat (less than significant with mitigation), burrowing owl habitat (less than significant with mitigation), nesting raptors (less than significant with mitigation), resources and habitats of Dry Creek and the Tuolumne River (less than significant with mitigation), Swainson’s hawk foraging habitat (less than significant with mitigation), Swainson’s hawk breeding (less than significant with mitigation), riparian habitats (less than significant with mitigation), nesting and foraging habitat for Western pond turtles and a variety of birds (less than significant with mitigation), Sacramento splittail spawning habitat (less than significant with mitigation), traffic (significant and unavoidable), air quality (significant and unavoidable), noise (less than significant with mitigation), cumulative noise (significant and unavoidable), and workers and the public from contaminated soils (less than significant with mitigation). ---PAGE BREAK--- Chapter V. Environmental Analysis Modesto General Plan Update Final Master EIR V-6-10 Section 6. Increased Demand for Sanitary Sewer Services October 2008 c. Insufficient Capacity to Meet the Project’s Projected Demand The City has adopted the Wastewater Master Plan specifically to ensure that sewer capacity will match the level of growth projected by the UAGP. Development within the Baseline Developed Area and the Planned Urbanizing Area that is consistent with the UAGP will not have a significant effect on capacity. 5. Significant Cumulative Impacts CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines require the disclosure of significant cumulative environmental impacts, of whether the project will make a cumulatively considerable contribution to any such impacts, and, if so, of mitigation measures intended to reduce the project’s contribution (Section 15130 of the State CEQA Guidelines). A cumulative effect is one that results from past, present, and probable future projects. A project that has a less-than-significant direct effect on the environment may make a considerable contribution to a cumulative effect nonetheless. A cumulative impact analysis first identifies whether there exists a cumulatively significant effect in the given resource area. If so, it determines whether the project will make a considerable contribution to that effect. Where a cumulative impact is severe, even a small contribution may be considerable. Where a project is required to implement or fund its fair-share of a mitigation measure designed to alleviate the cumulative impact, its contribution will be rendered less than considerable. (Section 15130(a) of the State CEQA Guidelines.) Because the City would provide sewer service within the Modesto planning area, the cumulative impacts on sewer service would be the same as the direct impacts. 6. Potential Impacts for Which There Is Insufficient Information to Support a Full Analysis Implementing the UAGP will involve subsequent projects, such as development within the Planned Urbanizing Area, which could result in impacts on sewer services. These impacts will be addressed by federal and state regulations, the Wastewater Master Plan, and the comprehensive plans. C. MITIGATION MEASURES ADOPTED TO MINIMIZE SIGNIFICANT EFFECTS The following information is provided in accordance with Section 15126.4 of the State CEQA Guidelines. 1. Measures Which Mitigate Direct Impacts The existing and proposed policies described above under the heading Existing Policies Applying to the Study Area will mitigate future impacts relative to the provision of wastewater treatment. Mitigation measures relative to expansion of the wastewater treatment plant and conveyance system have been implemented by the City under the Wastewater Master Plan and do not need to be ---PAGE BREAK--- Chapter V. Environmental Analysis Modesto General Plan Update Final Master EIR V-6-11 Section 6. Increased Demand for Sanitary Sewer Services October 2008 included as mitigation measures for the UAGP Master EIR. A list of these impacts and mitigation measures is attached as Appendix D. No new mitigation measures are required. 2. Measures Which Mitigate Cumulative Impacts The City will have sufficient treatment capacity to meet future needs. Therefore, there is no cumulative impact to which the project would contribute. 3. Alternatives to the Proposed Project The following information is provided in accordance with Section 15126.6 of the State CEQA Guidelines. Alternatives 1 and 2 would have essentially the same impacts as the proposed project. D. MONITORING THESE MITIGATION MEASURES The following information is provided in accordance with Public Resources Code (PRC) Section 21081.6. The mitigation measures identified in the Master EIR have been incorporated into the UAGP and are implemented by that plan. City staff provides the Modesto City Council with an annual report on UAGP implementation. Therefore, no separate mitigation monitoring program is required for the UAGP Master EIR. E. EVALUATING SUBSEQUENT PROJECTS The following information will be used to determine whether subsequent projects conform to the Master EIR, as outlined in PRC Section 21157.1(c). Anticipated future projects, as presented in Chapter II, are within the scope of analysis for the demand for sewer services as long as the following circumstances have not changed. 1. The lead agency for subsequent projects shall be the City or any responsible agency identified in the Master EIR. 2. The policies described in Section A-4 above continue to be in force to reduce, avoid, or mitigate impacts. 3. The subsequent project is within the study area for cumulative impacts defined above, under the heading Environmental Setting. ---PAGE BREAK--- Chapter V. Environmental Analysis Modesto General Plan Update Final Master EIR V-6-12 Section 6. Increased Demand for Sanitary Sewer Services October 2008 F. KEEPING THE MASTER ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT CURRENT FOR THIS TOPIC As authorized by PRC Section 21166, the analysis contained in this subchapter is current as long as the following circumstances have not changed. 1. The City is the lead agency for sewer services. 2. Land use intensity has not increased, thus requiring no revision to UAGP policies in order to maintain City sewer service. 3. New information does not indicate that there would be an additional significant effect on the environment. ---PAGE BREAK--- Chapter V. Environmental Analysis Modesto General Plan Update Final Master EIR V-7-1 Section 7. Loss of Sensitive Wildlife and Plant Habitat October 2008 Section 7 Loss of Sensitive Wildlife and Plant Habitat This section describes how development associated with the City of Modesto Urban Area General Plan (UAGP) would affect sensitive wildlife and plant habitat. If significant impacts are found, mitigation measures are provided to reduce these impacts to a less-than-significant level. A. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING The following information is provided in accordance with Section 15125 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines. This environmental setting is the baseline for determining whether an impact of the UAGP is significant. 1. Study Area for Direct Impacts The study area for sensitive wildlife and plant habitat is the City of Modesto’s (City’s) planning area. 2. Study Area for Cumulative Impacts This analysis will be based on the plan or projection approach to examining cumulative effects, as provided under Section 15130(b)(1)(B) of the State CEQA Guidelines. Pertinent plans and projections to be used for this purpose are the UAGP and Tuolumne River Regional Park Master Plan (TRRP Master Plan). The study area for cumulative impacts on sensitive wildlife and plant habitat is the San Joaquin Valley, generally extending from the Delta in the north to the Tehachapi Mountains in the south, and between the coastal ranges foothills to the west and the Sierra Nevada foothills to the east. 3. Existing Physical Conditions in the Study Area a. Vegetation and Wildlife Descriptions The following vegetation and wildlife descriptions follow the California Department of Fish and Game’s (DFG’s) Wildlife Habitat Relationships classification system (Mayer and Laudenslayer 1988) and that of California Vegetation (Holland and Keil 1989). A habitat includes those ecological conditions that support an organism or biological population. Communities are naturally occurring assemblages of plants that are relatively consistent in physiognomy and species composition from one location to another. Plant communities and their associated wildlife indicate the presence of a suitable habitat. Ruderal (“weedy”), landscaped, and agricultural plant assemblages are referred to as vegetation or cover types because they are human-induced and not naturally occurring. ---PAGE BREAK--- Chapter V. Environmental Analysis Modesto General Plan Update Final Master EIR V-7-2 Section 7. Loss of Sensitive Wildlife and Plant Habitat October 2008 Eight habitat types have been identified within Modesto’s urban area as supporting various plant communities and wildlife. These include four natural habitats: valley foothill riparian, riverine, wetland, and grassland. The four human-modified habitats are pasture, cropland, orchard-vineyard, and urban habitats. Special-status species with potential to occur in these habitats within the Modesto planning area are listed in Table E-1 of Appendix E. Valley Foothill Riparian Valley foothill riparian habitat is composed of the vegetation and wildlife areas next to rivers and streams. Riparian habitat in the Modesto area occurs along the Stanislaus and Tuolumne Rivers and along Dry Creek. Riparian areas are helpful in maintaining the stability of stream banks and the configuration of streams. Vegetation in this habitat is also beneficial to the quality of stream water since polluting nutrients are absorbed before reaching open water. Common streamside plant species include: willow, cottonwood, box elder, buttonbush, Oregon ash, wild grape, and California blackberry. Stands of elderberry shrubs may be found in riparian vegetation along the Stanislaus and Tuolumne Rivers. Elderberry shrubs are the host plant for the federally listed (threatened) valley elderberry longhorn beetle (VELB). The understory includes annual grasses and forbs, and old stands are frequently overrun by wild grape. This habitat is a significant natural area known to occur within the general vicinity of Modesto and should be surveyed for when areas next to the riparian corridor are proposed for development. The importance of riparian areas to wildlife is related primarily to vegetation structure and the presence of water. Riparian habitat provides abundant food, water, escape, nesting, and thermal cover for mammals, birds, amphibians, reptiles, and invertebrates, while also serving as migration and dispersal corridors for these animals (Stanley et al. 1991; Mayer and Laudenslayer 1988). Many invertebrates that are important food sources for other animals live entirely in or near riparian habitats. Amphibians are dependent on these habitats for breeding. Riparian areas provide important refuge areas and winter habitat for migratory bird species in the Pacific Flyway. Special-status species associated with riparian habitats include: „ San Joaquin Valley woodrat, „ riparian brush rabbit, „ pallid bat, „ Townsend’s big-eared bat, „ western yellow-billed cuckoo, „ white-tailed kite, „ Cooper’s hawk, „ sharp-shinned hawk, „ Swainson’s hawk, ---PAGE BREAK--- Chapter V. Environmental Analysis Modesto General Plan Update Final Master EIR V-7-3 Section 7. Loss of Sensitive Wildlife and Plant Habitat October 2008 „ yellow-breasted chat, „ silvery legless lizard, „ southwestern pond turtle, „ California red-legged frog, „ foothill yellow-legged frog, „ valley elderberry longhorn beetle, „ delta button-celery, and „ Hartweg’s golden sunburst. Because riparian areas are considered to be of significant inherent value for wildlife, the DFG and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) believe it is necessary to provide mitigation for any net loss of riparian habitats resulting from development of habitat alteration. Figure V-7-1, Riparian and Vernal Pool Locations, delineates at a general plan scale the approximate extent of the riparian corridors containing the Valley Foothill riparian and riverine habitats within the planning area. The riparian corridor boundaries, which should be considered preliminary and subject to refinement as site-specific information becomes available, were determined on the basis of the mapped 100-year floodplain as adjusted by the presence of developed land uses and a review of aerial photographs. Riverine Riverine habitat occurs in an association with many terrestrial habitats. Riparian habitats are found next to many rivers and streams. In the planning area, the open water zones of the Stanislaus and Tuolumne Rivers provide resting and escape cover for many species of waterfowl. Terns, bald eagles, osprey, and American peregrine falcon hunt in open water. Many species of insectivorous birds such as swallows, swifts, and flycatchers hawk their prey over water. Many species of bats also hunt insects over riverine habitats. Predators such as river otters and mink hunt in riverine habitat for fish, invertebrates, amphibians, and birds. Muskrat and beaver are common mammals found in this habitat. King or Chinook salmon spawn between October and January east of the City of Riverbank, in the Stanislaus River. Historically, they also occurred in the Tuolumne River and Dry Creek (Brown and Moyle 1993). Another special-status species that potentially occurs in the Tuolumne River is the Sacramento splittail, a large endemic minnow. Splittails require slow-moving sections of rivers containing submerged aquatic or terrestrial vegetation for major portions of their life cycle (Moyle et al. 1989). Kern Brook lamprey is a state species of concern that occurs in the San Joaquin and Kern River systems. The lamprey is found in gravel-bottomed areas where it spawns and in muddy-bottomed areas where ammocoetes can burrow and feed (California Natural Diversity Database 2007). Riverine habitat provides unique cover, sources of food, breeding and spawning, yet cannot be separated from riparian habitat when evaluating for potential impacts. ---PAGE BREAK--- Chapter V. Environmental Analysis Modesto General Plan Update Final Master EIR V-7-4 Section 7. Loss of Sensitive Wildlife and Plant Habitat October 2008 Fresh Emergent Wetland and Vernal Pool Fresh emergent wetlands are transitional areas between terrestrial and aquatic systems that include marshes, seasonally flooded grasslands, and the fringes of ponds. Mayer and Laudenslayer (1988) refer to this habitat as fresh emergent wetlands that occur in association with terrestrial habitats or aquatic habitats, such as riverine. These sensitive areas occur next to streams, lakes, and as a result of blockage of normal water run-off channels. Wetlands provide a diverse array of plant and wildlife communities and are considered to be among the most productive wildlife habitats in California. Wetlands are important to amphibians, herons and egrets, waterfowl, and shorebirds. Special- status species associated with fresh emergent wetland include: „ white-tailed kite, „ bald eagle, „ northern harrier, „ greater sandhill crane, „ short-eared owl, „ Suisun song sparrow, „ tricolor blackbird, „ southwestern pond turtle, „ giant garter snake, „ legenere, and „ little mousetail. Vernal pool is a sensitive wetland community that occurs in pastures, grasslands, and woodlands in Stanislaus County. Vernal pools are shallow, ephemeral bodies of water that occupy depressions in grasslands, pastures, and woodlands (Holland and Kiel 1989). These areas fill with water during winter rains and subsequently dry up during the spring and early summer. A specialized group of species have evolved that occupy the pools and are endemic to California. Many of these species have adapted two morphologies, one to survive while the pools are flooded and another to reproduce once the pools have dried. Special-status species that occur in vernal pools in the region include: „ vernal pool fairy shrimp, „ vernal pool tadpole shrimp, „ conservancy fairy shrimp, „ California tiger salamander, „ western spadefoot, „ alkali milk-vetch, „ crownscale, „ vernal pool saltscale, ---PAGE BREAK--- o Figure V-7-1 GENERAL PLAN PROGRAM LEGEND Sheet 1 of 4 RIPARIAN AND VERNAL POOL LOCATIONS 1 2 3 4 S: \ GIS \ PROJECTS \ CITY_OF_MODESTO \ 06826_06 \ MAPDOC \ MEIR_FIG_V_7_1_RIPARIAN.MXD LD (02-19-08) 2,000 0 2,000 1,000 Feet 1:24,000 Data Source: Jones & Stokes 2007 Basemap: NAIP 2005 Project Area Boundary Potential Biological Resource Study Area (Riparian Habitat) ---PAGE BREAK--- o Figure V-7-1 GENERAL PLAN PROGRAM LEGEND Sheet 2 of 4 RIPARIAN AND VERNAL POOL LOCATIONS 1 2 3 4 S: \ GIS \ PROJECTS \ CITY_OF_MODESTO \ 06826_06 \ MAPDOC \ MEIR_FIG_V_7_1_RIPARIAN.MXD LD (02-19-08) 2,000 0 2,000 1,000 Feet 1:24,000 Data Source: Jones & Stokes 2007 Basemap: NAIP 2005 Project Area Boundary Potential Biological Resource Study Area (Riparian Habitat) ---PAGE BREAK--- o Figure V-7-1 GENERAL PLAN PROGRAM LEGEND Sheet 3 of 4 RIPARIAN AND VERNAL POOL LOCATIONS 1 2 3 4 S: \ GIS \ PROJECTS \ CITY_OF_MODESTO \ 06826_06 \ MAPDOC \ MEIR_FIG_V_7_1_RIPARIAN.MXD LD (02-19-08) 2,000 0 2,000 1,000 Feet 1:24,000 Data Source: Jones & Stokes 2007 Basemap: NAIP 2005 Project Area Boundary Potential Biological Resource Study Area (Riparian Habitat) ---PAGE BREAK--- o Figure V-7-1 GENERAL PLAN PROGRAM LEGEND Sheet 4 of 4 RIPARIAN AND VERNAL POOL LOCATIONS 1 2 3 4 S: \ GIS \ PROJECTS \ CITY_OF_MODESTO \ 06826_06 \ MAPDOC \ MEIR_FIG_V_7_1_RIPARIAN.MXD LD (02-19-08) 2,000 0 2,000 1,000 Feet 1:24,000 Data Source: Jones & Stokes 2007 Basemap: NAIP 2005 Project Area Boundary Potential Biological Resource Study Area (Riparian Habitat) ---PAGE BREAK--- Chapter V. Environmental Analysis Modesto General Plan Update Final Master EIR V-7-5 Section 7. Loss of Sensitive Wildlife and Plant Habitat October 2008 „ succulent owl’s clover, „ Hoover’s spurge, „ dwarf downingia, „ delta button-celery, „ spiny-sepaled button-celery, „ legenere, „ Merced monardella, „ little mousetail, „ Colusa grass, „ California adder’s-tongue, „ San Joaquin Valley Orcutt grass, „ hairy Orcutt grass, „ delta woolly-marbles, and „ Greene’s tuctoria. Much of the area formerly occupied by vernal pools has been converted to agricultural uses. Urbanization has also destroyed many vernal pools and threatens still more (Holland and Kiel 1989). Potential habitat for vernal pools exists east (particularly east of Santa Fe Avenue) and north of Modesto within the Planned Urbanizing Area (Figure V-7-1). In addition, vernal pool fairy shrimp occur in the ditches along the railroad tracks near the Amtrak station site between Held Drive and Santa Fe Avenue. (Environmental Sciences Associates 1996.) Grassland Mayer and Laudenslayer (1988) divide grassland habitat into either perennial or annual grasslands. Grassland habitat is made up of a mixture of annual and perennial grasses, herbs, and wildflowers. For the most part, however, grassland plant communities are dominated by non-native annual grasses with small pockets of native perennial bunch grasses. Native bunch grasses are not classified as threatened or endangered, but their populations have declined greatly in the San Joaquin Valley with the loss of the large herds of grazing animals such as tule elk and pronghorn, species with which they co- evolved (Edwards 1991). Grasslands can also occur on alkaline soils and support annual grasses and alkaline-tolerant species such as saltbush, alkalai weed, saltgrass, gum plant, and poverty weed. Existing grasslands are associated with native oak savannahs. These savannah/grasslands provide food and cover for shrews, rodents, rabbits, deer, smaller migratory and resident birds, and reptiles. In turn, many of these wildlife species are food sources for snakes, raptors, and carnivores common to grassland communities. One of the primary impacts on grassland communities has been the practice of ---PAGE BREAK--- Chapter V. Environmental Analysis Modesto General Plan Update Final Master EIR V-7-6 Section 7. Loss of Sensitive Wildlife and Plant Habitat October 2008 continuous unplanned grazing that results in the overgrazing of plants and ultimately their decline and loss. Special-status species that may occur in grasslands include: „ San Joaquin kit fox, „ American badger, „ ferruginous hawk, „ white-tailed kite, „ northern harrier, „ golden eagle, „ Swainson’s hawk, „ greater sandhill crane, „ burrowing owl, „ short-eared owl, „ loggerhead shrike, „ California tiger salamander, „ western spadefoot, „ heartscale, „ crownscale, „ brittlescale, „ lesser saltscale, „ big tarplant, „ California jewel-flower, „ Lemmon’s jewel-flower, „ beaked clarkia, „ Hoover’s „ recurved larkspur, „ round-leaved filaree, „ diamond-petaled California poppy, „ red-flowered lotus, „ showy madia, „ Merced monardella, „ San Joaquin and „ Hartweg’s golden sunburst. ---PAGE BREAK--- Chapter V. Environmental Analysis Modesto General Plan Update Final Master EIR V-7-7 Section 7. Loss of Sensitive Wildlife and Plant Habitat October 2008 Pasture Pastures often occur in association with agricultural habitats and may be found next to riparian and grassland habitats. The vegetation is a mix of perennial grasses and legumes that provide 100 percent canopy closure. The vegetation mix varies according to management practices such as seed mixture, fertilization, soil type, irrigation, weed control, the type of livestock, stocking rates, and grazing duration. Pastures are used by a variety of wildlife. Ground-nesting birds such as waterfowl and pheasants nest in pastures if adequate vegetation is present at the onset of the nesting season. Some of the highest pheasant counts have been recorded in irrigated pastures in Stanislaus County (Mayer and Laudenslayer 1988). Flood irrigation of pastures provides feeding and roosting sites for many wetland-associated birds such as shorebirds, wading birds, waterfowl, and raptors. Deer may graze pastures provided there is adequate cover next to the pastures. Special-status species associated with pasture include greater sandhill cranes, which use irrigated pastures for foraging, and western burrowing owls, which are known to nest in pasturelands where adequate California ground squirrel burrows exist. Pastures also provide foraging habitat for golden eagles, Swainson’s hawks, and white-tailed kites. Cropland Croplands occur in association with orchard-vineyard, pasture, grassland, and riparian habitat types. Croplands are characterized by the crop cycles typical of California. Most crops tend to be annuals and are managed in a rotation system. Croplands have been established on the state’s most fertile soils, which historically supported an abundance of wildlife. Croplands have greatly reduced the wildlife richness and diversity in the state. However, many species of rodents and birds have adapted to agriculture and are considered pests to crops. Wildlife such as waterfowl and sandhill cranes that use waste grains after harvest are not considered pests or “problem wildlife.” Bats, which prey primarily on insects, and raptors that feed on rodents are beneficial to croplands. Crop patterns and cultural practices that include clean farming, double cropping, and chemical control can be detrimental to wildlife (Robinson 1990; Mayer and Laudenslayer 1988). Special-status species that may use croplands include Swainson’s hawk, white-tailed kite, short-eared owl, and greater sandhill crane. Orchard-Vineyard Orchard-vineyard habitats are generally associated with other agricultural types previously mentioned. They are frequently associated with riparian areas and grasslands. These areas have been planted on deep fertile soils that once supported diverse natural habitats. Like croplands, orchards and vineyards support some species of birds and mammals that have adapted to agriculture. Deer and rabbits may browse on the trees or vines, and squirrels and numerous birds feed on fruit and nuts. Common pests that feed on almonds and walnuts are the common flicker, scrub jay, American crow, Brewer’s blackbird, house finch, and the California ground squirrel. Mourning ---PAGE BREAK--- Chapter V. Environmental Analysis Modesto General Plan Update Final Master EIR V-7-8 Section 7. Loss of Sensitive Wildlife and Plant Habitat October 2008 doves use orchards for cover and nesting sites. Evergreen orchards provide refuge for wildlife during inclement weather or act as shade during scorching San Joaquin Valley summer days. Water used for irrigation can also be utilized by various wildlife species. In western Stanislaus County, the San Joaquin kit fox, a federally listed species, is known to use orchards for den sites. Urban Area Urban areas include a variety of plants that are relatively static because of maintenance. Extensive planting of exotic and non-native vegetation in urban areas can reduce the diversity of wildlife species within a region. Three urban categories relevant to wildlife are distinguished by Mayer and Laudenslayer (1988): downtown, urban residential, and suburbia. The downtown is usually at the center followed by concentric zones of urban residential and suburbs. There tends to be a progression outward of decreasing development and increasing vegetative cover. In the downtown area, biodiversity tends to be low, with house mice, rats, rock doves, house sparrows, and starlings composing most of the species. The urban residential zone is characterized by a more varied mosaic of vegetation, providing habitat for jays, mockingbirds, house finch, sparrows, hummingbirds, raccoons, opossum, and striped skunks. Suburban areas with mature vegetation closely approximate a somewhat natural environment and a proportionately greater number of native species occur. Various species of small passerine birds occur in this area along with California quail, deer, rabbits, striped skunk, coyote, gopher snake, and western fence lizard. Burrowing owls, a special-status species, may utilize open areas that have suitable burrows in the Modesto urban area. b. Special-Status Species The federal Endangered Species Act (ESA) and California Endangered Species Act (CESA) protect plant and animal species that have become threatened with or endangered by extinction. These regulations are discussed below in detail in Section A-4 below, Existing Regulatory Policies Applying to the Study Area. The following discussion identifies those special-status species with potential to occur in the UAGP planning area (see Appendix Federal special-status species include those that are legally protected under the ESA or other regulations and species that are considered sufficiently rare by the scientific community to qualify for listing. Special-status species include the following categories. 1. Species listed or proposed for listing as threatened or endangered under ESA (50 Code of Federal Regulations [CFR] 17.12 [listed plants], 50 CFR 17.11 [listed animals], and various notices in the FR [proposed species]). 2. Species that are candidates for possible future listing as threatened or endangered under ESA (71 FR 53755, September 12, 2006). The following special-status species occur in Stanislaus County, but either have not been recorded in the California Natural Diversity Database or have no suitable habitat within Modesto’s planning area (California Natural Diversity Database 2007). Accordingly, the following species will not be addressed further: ---PAGE BREAK--- Chapter V. Environmental Analysis Modesto General Plan Update Final Master EIR V-7-9 Section 7. Loss of Sensitive Wildlife and Plant Habitat October 2008 „ San Joaquin kit fox, „ greater western mastiff bat, „ Suisun song sparrow, „ California red-legged frog, „ foothill yellow-legged frog, „ Kern brook lamprey, „ conservancy fairy shrimp, „ Mt. Hamilton harebell, „ Mt. Hamilton thistle, „ small-flowered morning glory „ Mt. Hamilton coreopsis, „ talus fritillary, and „ Mt. Diablo phacelia. The federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act protects migratory birds and their nests. The Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act protects bald eagles and golden eagles, except under certain specified conditions, from the taking, possession, transportation, export or import, barter, or offer to sell, purchase, or barter a bald or golden eagle, alive or dead, of any part, nest, or eagle egg. As described above, several special-status species known to Stanislaus County occur in habitat types identified in the planning area. Special-status species that potentially occur in habitats of the Modesto urban area are discussed below. Species discussed herein were determined by consultation with appropriate agencies, information provided by the Habitat Conservation division of DFG from the (2007), and review of the California Native Plant Society (CNPS) online Inventory of Rare and Endangered Vascular Plants of California (California Native Plant Society 2007). Their decline can be attributed to habitat loss and degradation through agriculture and urban development, unplanned continuous grazing, and other human-induced actions. Special-Status Plants A total of 32 special-status plant species were identified as having potential to occur within the UAGP planning area (Table E-1 in Appendix These species are included in the discussions above regarding vegetation communities in the planning area. Big tarplant, which occurs in grassland habitat, is the only species recorded in the as occurring within 2 miles of the UAGP boundary (California Natural Diversity Data Base 2007). This occurrence is documented near Salida but was found in the late 1800s, and the exact location is unknown. Seven additional species are recorded within 4 to 5 miles of the boundary, including lesser saltscale, beaked clarkia, delta button- celery, Colusa grass, San Joaquin Valley orcutt grass, and Greene’s tuctoria. These species are associated with grassland or vernal pool habitats. The potential for occurrence of these eight species in the UAGP planning area is moderate to high, but they would be more likely to occur within habitats that are minimally disturbed than ---PAGE BREAK--- Chapter V. Environmental Analysis Modesto General Plan Update Final Master EIR V-7-10 Section 7. Loss of Sensitive Wildlife and Plant Habitat October 2008 those that are routinely maintained or intensively used for agriculture. While several of these special-status species are not federally or state listed, they are considered rare, threatened, or endangered in California by the CNPS. Special-Status Wildlife Species Wildlife Species of Special Concern Several California species of special concern are known to occur in Stanislaus County and adjacent to Modesto (see Appendix While species in this category have suffered declines in breeding populations, they have no special legal status. However, it is in the best interest of any proposed development, as well as the species, to afford it the same protection as legally protected species. 1. Western Spadefoot The western spadefoot is a state species of special concern. This species prefers areas of open vegetation where the soil is sandy or gravely. Often occurring in washes, floodplains of rivers, playas, and alkali flats, western spadefoot also occur in the foothills and mountains. They breed in quiet streams, stock ponds, vernal pools, and other seasonal/permanent wetlands (Stebbins 2003). Known records for this species occur in western and eastern Stanislaus County (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2005) and may occur in vernal pool areas in and adjacent to Modesto. 2. Western Pond Turtle Western pond turtle is an aquatic turtle that is found in ponds, rivers, streams, and irrigation ditches having a rocky or muddy bottom with a variety of aquatic vegetation. The turtles bask on logs, cattail mats, and mudbanks (Stebbins 2003). Nesting sites are located in upland areas and are typically located on unshaded slopes of canals, creeks, or rivers. The distance of the nests are often determined by the availability of suitable nesting habitat adjacent to aquatic habitat (Jennings and Hayes 1994). Riparian, riverine, and fresh emergent wetlands in Stanislaus County are suitable habitat for pond turtles. 3. California Horned Lizard The California horned lizard is designated as a California species of special concern. This species occurs throughout the Central Valley and Coast Range from Shasta County south to Los Angeles, Ventura, and Santa Barbara Counties. California horned lizards occur in a variety of habitats, including clearings in riparian woodlands, chamise chaparral, and grasslands with loose, friable soils (Jennings and Hayes 1994). ---PAGE BREAK--- Chapter V. Environmental Analysis Modesto General Plan Update Final Master EIR V-7-11 Section 7. Loss of Sensitive Wildlife and Plant Habitat October 2008 4. Silvery Legless Lizard The California legless lizard (Anniella pulchra) is designated as a California species of special concern. The California legless lizard is a near-endemic to California (Jennings and Hayes 1994). The distribution of the California legless lizard includes the Coast Range from Contra Costa County south to the Mexican border, the floor of the San Joaquin Valley, the Tehachapi Mountains, and scattered desert slope locations in the Antelope Valley at the western edge of the Mojave Desert (Zeiner et al. 1988; Jennings and Hayes 1994). Suitable habitat includes areas with sandy or loose loamy soils. The lizard is often found under or in close proximity to surface objects such as logs, rocks, and old boards. Rocky soils or areas disturbed by agriculture, sand mining, or other human uses apparently lack legless lizards. Soil moisture is essential for legless lizards. They prefer substrates with higher moisture content (Jennings and Hayes 1994). Riparian habitats near Modesto are potentially suitable for this species. 5. White-Tailed Kite White-tailed kite is a fully protected species in California. It is a state resident species that shifts about locally and seasonally in accordance with food supply (Grinnell and Miller 1944). It feeds primarily on small diurnal mammals, specifically the California meadow vole (Stendell and Myers 1973; Warner and Rudd 1975). These rodents are found primarily in open pastures, grasslands, meadows, and marshes. White-tailed kites hunt from a hovering position over these open areas and perch in adjacent trees or on fence posts. Isolated dense-topped trees are used for nesting (Grinnell and Miller 1944). 6. Northern Harrier The northern harrier is a medium-sized hawk raptor of upland grasslands and fresh- and saltwater marshes. In California, northern harriers are a permanent resident of the northeastern plateau, coastal areas, and Central Valley (MacWhirter and Bildstein 1996). Northern harriers breed in California in the Central Valley and Sierra Nevada (Zeiner et al. 1990). Northern harriers frequent meadows, grasslands, desert sinks, open rangelands, and fresh- and saltwater emergent wetlands; they are seldom found associated with wooded habitats. Harriers feed mostly on voles and other small mammals, birds, frogs, small reptiles, crustaceans, insects, and rarely on fish (Zeiner et al. 1990). Harriers mostly nest in emergent wetland or along rivers or lakes, but may nest in grasslands, grain fields, or sagebrush flats several miles from water (MacWhirter and Bildstein 1996). The nest is built of a large mound of sticks on wet areas and a smaller cup of grasses on dry sites. ---PAGE BREAK--- Chapter V. Environmental Analysis Modesto General Plan Update Final Master EIR V-7-12 Section 7. Loss of Sensitive Wildlife and Plant Habitat October 2008 7. Cooper’s Hawk Cooper’s hawks are designated as California species of special concern. Cooper’s hawks generally nest in coniferous forests or in deciduous riparian forests near streams (California Department of Fish and Game 2005). Although Cooper’s hawks may use the same nest in successive years, they generally build a new nest in the same area every year. The species is tolerant to habitat fragmentation and human disturbance and will nest in suburban and urban areas (Rosenfield and Bieledeldt 1993). The breeding season extends from March through August, with the peak activity being May through July. Cooper’s hawks prey on small to medium-sized birds, such as rock doves (Columbia livia), jays (Cyancitta aphleocoma), American robins (Turdus migrotorius), European starlings (Sturnus vulgaris), and northern flicker (Colaptes auratus). Mammalian prey include gray squirrels (Scuirus carolinensis), California ground squirrels (Ammospermophilus californicus), deer mice (Peromyscus maniculatus), and bats (Zeiner et al. 1900). 8. Sharp-Shinned Hawk Sharp-shinned hawk is designated as a California species of special concern. This species is a permanent resident in the Sierra Nevada, Cascade and Klamath Ranges, and north Coast Range at mid elevations and along the coast in Marin, San Francisco, San Mateo, Santa Cruz, and Monterey Counties. It winters over the rest of the state except at very high elevations. Favored habitats include woodland edges and riparian habitat, but sharp-shinned hawks may hunt in orchards. Habitat destruction, pesticides, and human disturbance at nest sites have contributed to the decline of these species (Remsen 1978). 9. Golden Eagle Golden eagle is a fully protected species in California. It is a year-round resident species that typically inhabits rolling foothill or coastal terrain where open grassland supports prey species (ground squirrels, jack rabbits, etc.). Habitat destruction, shooting, and human disturbance at nest sites are major threats to this species (Remsen 1978). The golden eagle could be expected to occur on at least an occasional basis in grassland habitat around the City. 10. Burrowing Owl Burrowing owls are designated as a California species of special concern. Burrowing owls prefer open, dry, short grassland habitats with few trees and are often associated with burrowing mammals such as California ground squirrels. They occupy burrows, typically abandoned by ground squirrels or other burrowing mammals, but may also use artificial burrows such as abandoned pipes, culverts, and debris piles (California Department of Fish and Game 1995; Haug et al. 1993). Prey includes arthropods, amphibians, small reptiles, and small mammals (Haug et al. 1993). ---PAGE BREAK--- Chapter V. Environmental Analysis Modesto General Plan Update Final Master EIR V-7-13 Section 7. Loss of Sensitive Wildlife and Plant Habitat October 2008 Burrowing owls were formerly a common permanent resident throughout much of California, but population declines were noticeable by the 1940s and have continued to the present. Farming has taken a major toll on western burrowing owl populations and their habitat by destroying nesting burrows and exposing breeders and their young to the toxic effects of pesticides (Haug et al. 1993). This small owl is known to occur east of the junction of the Tuolumne and San Joaquin Rivers. 11. Short-Eared Owl The short-eared owl is designated as a California species of special concern. This species once bred locally throughout California where suitable habitat was available. This species is not known to nest anymore in the San Joaquin Valley (Remsen 1978). This species is common in winter in marsh and grassland habitat. Destruction of these areas and shooting have reduced the population of the short-eared owls in the San Joaquin Valley and throughout its historic range in California (Remsen 1978). 12. Yellow-Breasted Chat Yellow-breasted chat is designated as a state species of special concern. This species is a local breeder in the San Joaquin Valley and inhabits riparian woodlands (Remsen 1978). Habitat destruction and parasitism of nests by cowbirds are thought to be factors in the decline of the chat (Remsen 1978). 13. Loggerhead Shrike The loggerhead shrike is designated as a California species of special concern. Loggerhead shrikes are a widespread breeding species in North America, occurring from the southern Canadian provinces south across most of the United States and into Mexico (Yosef 1996). In California, loggerhead shrikes occur in open habitats with scattered shrubs, trees, posts, fences, utility lines, and other perches. Habitats include valley foothill forests, pinyon-juniper, desert riparian, and Joshua tree habitats (California Department of Fish and Game 2005). Loggerhead shrikes are adaptable to urban environments as long as preferred habitat characteristics and abundant prey supplies are present (Yosef 1996). 14. Tricolored Blackbird The tricolored blackbird is designated as a state species of special concern. A state resident, the tricolored blackbird is partly migratory within the Sacramento-San Joaquin drainage system and breeds in the San Joaquin Valley (Grinnel and Miller 1944; Beedy 1989). Nesting habitat is in the vicinity of fresh water, primarily marshy areas. Important sites for nesting colonies are heavy growths of cattails and tules. Tricolored blackbirds also ---PAGE BREAK--- Chapter V. Environmental Analysis Modesto General Plan Update Final Master EIR V-7-14 Section 7. Loss of Sensitive Wildlife and Plant Habitat October 2008 nest in other vegetation such as thistles, willows, blackberries, mustard, nettles, salt cedar, giant cane, and wild rose (Beedy 1989). Flooded lands, grassy fields, and margins of ponds are typical foraging grounds (Grinnel and Miller 1944). 15. Pacific Western Big-Eared Bat Pacific western big-eared bats (also known as Townsend’s western big- eared bat) are designated as a state species of special concern. These bats live in a variety of communities throughout California, including broadleaf forests, oak and conifer woodlands, arid grasslands, and high elevation forests. Roost sites for this big-eared bat include limestone caves, lava tubes, mine tunnels, bridges, buildings, and other human-made structures (Williams 1986; Pierson 1988). Roost sites are known to occur in eastern Stanislaus County. 16. Pallid Bat Pallid bats are designated as a California species of special concern. This species is found in open lowland areas such as grasslands. This bat moves about locally on a seasonal basis, but is not migratory (Jameson and Peeters 1988). During the day, pallid bats roost in buildings, crevices, caves, mines, and hollow trees (Whitaker 1980). The pallid bat has declined due to destruction of maternity roosts. These bats could be expected to occur within the planning area. 17. American Badger The American badger is designated as a California species of special concern. The species is found throughout the state except in the north coast region. Badgers are most abundant in drier areas with friable soils. Other fossorial animals often use burrows made by badgers. Badgers are carnivorous and prey upon fossorial rodents, especially ground squirrels and pocket gophers, as well as reptiles, insects, earthworms, eggs, and carrion (California Department of Fish and Game 2005). Because of the elusive and nocturnal nature of this species, it is not readily observed, and nocturnal spotlight surveys would be necessary to determine its presence. Listed Wildlife Species 1. Sacramento Splittail The Sacramento splittail is federally listed as threatened. This species was once widely distributed in lakes and rivers throughout the Central Valley. These minnows currently are found in the Delta and other parts of the Sacramento-San Joaquin estuary (Moyle et al. 1989). Surveys in the San Joaquin Valley have reported observations in the San Joaquin River below the mouth of the Merced River and upstream of the confluence of the Tuolumne River (Brown and Moyle 1993). Splittails require slow-moving sections of rivers and sloughs containing vegetation for major portions of ---PAGE BREAK--- Chapter V. Environmental Analysis Modesto General Plan Update Final Master EIR V-7-15 Section 7. Loss of Sensitive Wildlife and Plant Habitat October 2008 their life cycle. The Stanislaus and Tuolumne Rivers are considered potential habitat for the splittail. 2. Valley Elderberry Longhorn Beetle The VELB is federally listed as threatened. This is a is a cylindrical beetle that is less than an inch long; it feeds and lays its eggs on elderberry shrubs in riparian and woodland communities in the Central Valley and surrounding foothills up to 3,000 feet in elevation (Steinhart 1990). VELB is threatened by urban development, insecticides and herbicides, and fluctuation in water levels. Restoration of this species to former habitats includes the protection and reintroduction of elderberry bushes. Populations of this beetle are known to occur in Stanislaus County (California Natural Diversity Database 2007). 3. Vernal Pool Fairy Shrimp The vernal pool fairy shrimp is federally listed as threatened and can be found in vernal pools containing clear to tea-colored water. It is endemic to grasslands in the Central Valley and the central and southern coastal mountains, occurring in grass bottom swales or earth sump or basalt flow depression pools in unplowed grasslands (Nagano 1992). Destruction of habitat is the major threat to this species. Loss of vernal pools is the primary cause for the decline of the tadpole shrimp. Commercial and residential development, agricultural development, off-road vehicle use, water development and flood control projects, and alteration caused by the modification of surrounding uplands have destroyed as much as 90% of the suitable habitat for these species (59 FR 48136–48153, September 16, 1994). The vernal pool fairy shrimp occurs from Tehama County down to Santa Barbara County, in the Central Valley to the Central Coast Range. Vernal pool fairy shrimp are known from a few locations in Stanislaus County and may occur in vernal pools located in or adjacent to Modesto (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2005). 4. Vernal Pool Tadpole Shrimp The vernal pool tadpole shrimp is federally listed as endangered. This freshwater invertebrate does not occur in riverine or marine habitats or in other permanent bodies of water. They occur in vernal pools and other seasonal wetlands with seasonal fluctuations in their habitat, such as the presence or absence of water at specific times of the year, duration of inundation, and other environmental factors such as salinity and pH levels. Loss of vernal pools is the primary cause for the decline of the tadpole shrimp. Commercial and residential development, agricultural development, off-road vehicle use, water development and flood control projects, and alteration caused by the modification of surrounding uplands have destroyed as much as 90% of the suitable habitat for these species. The vernal pool tadpole shrimp is found east of Redding in Shasta County, throughout the Central Valley to the San Luis National Wildlife Refuge in Merced County, and in a single population at the San Francisco Bay ---PAGE BREAK--- Chapter V. Environmental Analysis Modesto General Plan Update Final Master EIR V-7-16 Section 7. Loss of Sensitive Wildlife and Plant Habitat October 2008 National Wildlife Refuge, Alameda County. Vernal pool tadpole shrimp are known to inhabit a few locations in Stanislaus County and are likely to occur in vernal pools or other temporary water bodies in or adjacent to Modesto (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2005). 5. California Tiger Salamander The California tiger salamander is a large, stocky salamander that is federally listed as threatened. It frequents the quiet water of ponds and vernal pools during the breeding season and otherwise inhabits open woodlands and grasslands, using ground squirrel burrows for refuge (Stebbins 1985). Sightings of tiger salamander have been documented near the Stanislaus River northwest of Modesto (California Natural Diversity Database 2007). 6. Giant Garter Snake The giant garter snake is state and federally listed as threatened. This shy snake, which can grow up to 5 feet long, lives in riverine marshes, seasonal wetlands, sloughs, and irrigation ditches in the Central Valley. It feeds primarily on fish and frogs (Steinhart 1990). This snake is susceptible to pesticides and predation by skunks, house cats, raccoons, and predatory game fish such as largemouth bass (Steinhart 1990). This species may have been extirpated from the UAGP planning area, though suitable aquatic habitat is present within the planning area. 7. Greater Sandhill Crane The greater sandhill crane is state listed as threatened. This species does not nest within Central Valley, but does winter in the Sacramento and San Joaquin Valleys. These large birds feed during the day in pastures, croplands, and marshes. They are between 3 and 4 feet tall, live up to 80 years, and mate for life. Collisions with powerlines are a major cause of death in winter when utility wires are shrouded in fog (Steinhart 1990). 8. American Peregrine Falcon The American peregrine falcon is state listed as endangered. This species nests on protected ledges of high cliffs in the Coast Range, Sierra Nevada, and other mountains in northern California. Nest locations are often near wetlands, lakes, rivers, and other large water bodies that support prey species. In the winter, peregrine falcons can be found throughout the Central Valley. Peregrine falcons feed on smaller birds that are often captured in flight (Zeiner et al. 1990). 9. Bald Eagle The bald eagle is state listed as endangered. It does not nest within the Central Valley but is an occasional winter visitor to the Sacramento and San Joaquin Valleys and surrounding foothills. Bald eagles feed along ---PAGE BREAK--- Chapter V. Environmental Analysis Modesto General Plan Update Final Master EIR V-7-17 Section 7. Loss of Sensitive Wildlife and Plant Habitat October 2008 open waterways of streams and rivers. Riparian/riverine habitats are important wintering areas for this species (Mayer and Laudenslayer 1988). 10. Swainson’s Hawk Swainson’s hawk is state listed as threatened. This species nests along the Stanislaus and San Joaquin Rivers in Stanislaus County. Swainson’s hawks require suitable foraging areas such as grasslands or alfalfa or grain fields supporting rodent populations next to nesting areas. Female Swainson’s hawks require territories up to 2,200 acres, and males require four to five times that amount (Steinhart 1990). Known nest sites are located along Stanislaus River next to the City’s planning area. Additional known nest sites are located along Dry Creek and the San Joaquin River within the vicinity of the planning area (California Natural Diversity Database 2007). 11. Western Yellow-Billed Cuckoo The western yellow-billed cuckoo is a candidate species under the federal ESA and is listed as endangered under CESA and may have been extirpated from Stanislaus County. The last known occurrence was in 1973 at the mouth of the Stanislaus River (California Natural Diversity Database 2007). This species is a riparian forest nester of large river systems such as the Stanislaus. It winters in South America and returns to California in the summer to nest (Steinhart 1990). The cuckoo feeds on insects and tree frogs. 12. Riparian Woodrat The riparian woodrat is federally listed as endangered and is a California species of special concern. Riparian woodrats are known only from areas along the San Joaquin, Stanislaus, and Tuolumne Rivers. Its habitat has been diminished along riparian corridors by regulation of stream flow, stream channelization, cultivation of floodplains, and brush and tree removal (Williams 1986). 13. Riparian Brush Rabbit The riparian brush rabbit is federally and state listed as endangered. Riparian brush rabbits occupy dense thickets of wild rose, willows, and blackberries that grow along riverbanks in Stanislaus County. The only known population is found on the lower part of the Stanislaus River in Caswell State Park (Williams 1986). However, there may be other colonies along the river that have not been discovered (Williams 1986). ---PAGE BREAK--- Chapter V. Environmental Analysis Modesto General Plan Update Final Master EIR V-7-18 Section 7. Loss of Sensitive Wildlife and Plant Habitat October 2008 4. Existing Regulatory Policies Applying to the Study Area Below is a comprehensive list of major federal, state, and local (County and City) laws, regulations, and policies or summaries of these requirements that apply to the study area. This list provides the full range of applicable policies that a project within the study area would potentially need to comply with, including policies beyond the jurisdiction of the City. This list of laws, regulations, and programs also serves to describe the circumstances under which the Master Environmental Impact Report (Master EIR) analyzed this environmental topic. A discrete reference number, following the initials of the resource topic, is assigned to each policy listed to facilitate its identification elsewhere in this Master EIR or, where appropriate, their incorporation as a mitigation measure into subsequent projects analyzed under this Master EIR. All reference numbers in this section are designated as SWPH-X (Sensitive Wildlife or Plant Habitat), where X is the discrete number. a. Federal Regulations The ESA establishes a national policy to protect threatened and endangered wildlife and plant species and foster their recovery. Animals and plants listed as threatened or endangered by federal action under the act are subject to special protection. The ESA requires federal agencies to ensure that their actions, and actions which they fund, license, or permit, do not result in the “take” of threatened or endangered species. Take is defined as activities which harm, harass, pursue, injure, or kill members of the species. This includes modification or degradation of habitat that kills or injures wildlife. SWPH-1: The federal ESA is intended to protect threatened and endangered wildlife, fish, and plant species and their habitat, and to foster their recovery. Animals and plants listed as threatened or endangered by federal action under the act are subject to special protection. The ESA requires federal agencies to ensure that their actions, and actions which they fund, license, or permit, do not result in the “take” of threatened or endangered species. If a proposed project authorized, funded, or carried out by a federal agency might affect a listed species, then, under Section 7 of the act, the federal agency must consult with the USFWS regarding the potential for take. The USFWS will issue a biological opinion that includes measures to minimize or avoid project impacts and may issue an incidental take permit that essentially allows accidental losses. This requirement affects private projects that have some level of federal involvement issuance of a Section 404 permit under the Clean Water Act (CWA), delivery of federal surface water supplies by the Bureau of Reclamation and federal crop subsidies under the Department of Agriculture, funding by the Department of Housing and Urban Development, and funding of highway projects by the Federal Highway Administration). SWPH-2: If a proposed project does not involve a federal agency, but is likely to result in take of a species listed under the ESA, the project proponent must apply to the USFWS for an incidental take permit under Section 10 of the ESA. The measures to avoid or minimize take will be incorporated into a habitat conservation plan, and an incidental take permit may be issued. Section 9 of the ESA authorizes the USFWS to act against individuals and agencies if any unauthorized take occurs. SWPH-3: The USFWS is concerned over the incremental loss of rare vegetation communities in the Central Valley. In the opinion of the USFWS, such losses will hinder the ability of local jurisdictions to develop effective land use strategies for the preservation of listed wildlife ---PAGE BREAK--- Chapter V. Environmental Analysis Modesto General Plan Update Final Master EIR V-7-19 Section 7. Loss of Sensitive Wildlife and Plant Habitat October 2008 and plant species. Therefore, the USFWS recommends that mitigation be required for any impacts to rare communities, even if they were previously disturbed. Typically the USFWS recommends a minimum replacement rate of 3 acres of habitat preserved in perpetuity for each acre destroyed or degraded, though project-specific mitigation ratios will be determined through coordination with the USFWS. SWPH-4: The federal CWA (33 U.S.C. Section 121 et seq.) establishes regulations for the protection of waters from pollution. Section 404 of the Act establishes a permit program, administered by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), regulating the discharge of fill material into “waters of the United States,” including wetlands (USACE 33 CFR 328.3). Discharges can be authorized by either individual or general nationwide) permits. The USACE regulates the discharge of dredged fill material for non-water- dependent uses into special aquatic sites, including wetlands and vernal pools. Filling of these features may occur only if there is no practicable alternative that would have less adverse impact. An alternatives analysis is required prior to issuance of a permit by the USACE. The stream channels of the Tuolumne and Stanislaus Rivers and Dry Creek would be subject to Section 404 jurisdiction. Other wetlands, such as fresh emergent wetlands and vernal pools, would potentially be subject to Section 404 regulation, but would need to have a hydrologic connection to one of the rivers or creeks to qualify as a water of the United States. Where filling of a water of the United States would affect a threatened or endangered species, as may happen in vernal pools, the USACE would consult with the USFWS regarding compliance with the ESA. Separately, Executive Order 11990 (issued by President Clinton) avoids direct or indirect support of new federal construction in wetlands whenever practical alternatives exist. In the context of the Master EIR, it applies to actions undertaken or funded by the federal government, such as issuance of “incidental take” permits by the USFWS, individual Section 404 permits by the USACE, and federally funded state or local road projects. The order stipulates that new construction must provide the public an opportunity for review of proposed activities, evaluate practical alternatives, and identify practical measures to minimize the harm to wetlands. All projects that have a federal component and that may affect state water quality (including projects that require federal agency approval, such as issuance of a Section 404 permit) must also comply with Section 401 of the CWA. Thus, applicants for a Section 404 permit must also obtain certification from the Regional Water Quality Control Board For effects on wetlands that are not under USACE jurisdiction, and therefore are not regulated under Section 404, applicants must still consult with the for effects on waters of the state. The generally issues waste discharge requirements for these effects. b. State Regulations SWPH-5: The DFG is responsible for maintaining all native fish, wildlife, plant species, and natural communities in California for their intrinsic and ecological values as well as for their direct benefits to people. The DFG also administers the CESA. The CESA applies to plant and animal species that have been listed as threatened or endangered by the State Fish and Game Commission. CESA’s policies protect, restore, and enhance threatened or endangered species. The CESA mandates that state agencies should not approve projects that would jeopardize the continued existence of threatened or endangered species, if reasonable and prudent alternatives are available. The DFG may issue an incidental take permit when the potential impacts to listed species can be fully mitigated and the project proponent has committed to that mitigation (Fish and Game Code 2080 et seq.). ---PAGE BREAK--- Chapter V. Environmental Analysis Modesto General Plan Update Final Master EIR V-7-20 Section 7. Loss of Sensitive Wildlife and Plant Habitat October 2008 SWPH-6: The DFG is also responsible for the streambed alteration agreements program. Under Fish and Game Code 1600, et seq, activities that would result in the diversion, obstruction or change in the natural flow or bed, channel or bank of a stream, lake or river; would use materials from a streambed; or would result in the deposition of debris, waste, or other material into a streambed must first be approved by the DFG through issuance of a streambed alteration agreement. The purpose of the streambed program is to limit damage to stream habitats. Streambed Alteration Agreement requirements would apply to Dry Creek, the Tuolumne and Stanislaus Rivers, and all of the canals. SWPH-7: Special-status species under the CESA or other state regulations, or that are listed by the CNPS, include the following categories. „ Species listed or proposed for listing by the State of California as threatened or endangered under the CESA (14 California Code of Regulations [CCR] 670.5). „ Species meeting the definitions of rare or endangered under CEQA (State CEQA Guidelines, Section 15380). „ Plants listed as rare or endangered under the California Native Plant Protection Act (California Fish and Game Code, Section 1900 et seq.). „ Plants considered by CNPS to be “rare, threatened, or endangered in California” and included in CNPS Lists 1B and 2 (California Native Plant Society 2007). Plants included in List 1A of the CNPS Inventory are presumed extinct in California, but potentially could be rediscovered and should be considered during the preparation of environmental documents relating to CEQA. Plants on List 1B of the CNPS Inventory are considered rare, threatened, or endangered in California and elsewhere, are eligible for state listing, and are likely to meet the biological criteria that require the plants to be considered under the State CEQA Guidelines. „ Plants listed by the CNPS as plants about which more information is needed to determine their status and plants of limited distribution (Lists 3 and 4 in CNPS 2007), but that may be included as special-status species on the basis of local significance or recent biological information. Plants on the CNPS list 4 are plants of limited distribution that are of local significance and should be considered during the preparation of environmental documents. „ Animal species of special concern to the DFG (California Department of Fish & Game 2006, Jennings and Hayes 1994, Remsen 1978, Williams 1986). „ Animal species fully protected in California (California Fish and Game Code, Section 3511 [birds], Section 4700 [mammals], and Section 5050 [reptiles and amphibians]). „ In addition to the above, nesting birds and raptors are protected under Sections 3503 and 3503.5 of the California Fish and Game Code. „ State-listed, candidate, and species-of-special-concern plant and animal species possibly occurring around the City of Modesto, their status, and habitats are presented in Appendix E. California “species of special concern” have no special legal status. Species in this category are those whose breeding populations in the state have declined severely or are otherwise so low that extirpation is a real possibility (Remsen 1978). This list is to help land management agencies, developers, landowners, and the general public take action to protect these declining populations before they become threatened or endangered. SWPH-8: The California River Greenways Program of the State Lands Commission has policies that reflect the goals of protecting, restoring, and maintaining the riparian vegetation, and ---PAGE BREAK--- Chapter V. Environmental Analysis Modesto General Plan Update Final Master EIR V-7-21 Section 7. Loss of Sensitive Wildlife and Plant Habitat October 2008 providing recreational use and public access, as appropriate, to and through riparian areas. c. Stanislaus County General Plan Policies There are no applicable Stanislaus County General Plan policies. d. City of Modesto Policies The UAGP provides the following policies related to sensitive wildlife and plant habitat. Baseline Developed and Redevelopment Areas SWPH-9: For proposed development consistent with the adopted Urban Area General Plan on lands within the Baseline Developed Area and Redevelopment Plan Area, exclusive of lands within the Dry Creek and Tuolumne River Comprehensive Planning Districts, an assessment of whether any potential habitat for special-status species is present within proposed development areas shall be made. No further biological study is warranted unless habitat is present or if specific information concerning the known or potential presence of significant biological resources is identified in future updates of the California Natural Diversity Database, or through formal or informal input received from resource agencies or other qualified sources. (UAGP Policy VII-E.2[a]) Planned Urbanizing Area Focused EIRs for Comprehensive Plans in the Planned Urbanizing Area shall incorporate the following measures. SWPH-10: For all lands within the Planned Urbanizing Area, site-specific surveys shall be conducted by a qualified biologist to determine whether any sensitive natural communities or species are present within the proposed development area. These studies shall particularly focus on proposed development within any lands included within a potential biological resource study area as delineated on Figure V-7-1 in the Final Master Environmental Impact Report (Riparian Corridor Diagram). Prior to considering development applications, the City shall coordinate with the USFWS regarding listed species and potential for impacts. The City shall employ the measures recommended by the USFWS to avoid an incidental take. Surveys should be conducted at the appropriate season to best determine the likelihood of occurrence and should employ accepted methodologies as determined by California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). The significant results of such surveys should be recorded onto the City’s existing biological resources map for future planning purposes. (UAGP Policy VII-E.3[a]) SWPH-11: All areas occupied or potentially occupied by special-status species shall be avoided and preserved, where feasible. Areas that can be avoided shall be protected by fencing, signage, or establishment of buffer zones appropriate to the species and/or habitat involved. Generally, a minimum 100-foot buffer of undeveloped land would be necessary. This buffer area should be improved through sustainable habitat restoration. ---PAGE BREAK--- Chapter V. Environmental Analysis Modesto General Plan Update Final Master EIR V-7-22 Section 7. Loss of Sensitive Wildlife and Plant Habitat October 2008 The protected habitat shall be required to be managed so as to contribute to the long-term conservation of the species and ecosystems on which they depend. Where it is determined that state and/or federally listed species are present, consultation shall be carried out with the CDFG and/or USFWS in accordance with the California and/or federal Endangered Species Acts to determine mitigation measures to avoid and minimize impacts to those species. If other special-status species are determined to be present and cannot be avoided, species-specific mitigation measures shall be implemented to minimize impacts to those species through informal consultation with CDFG and/or USFWS. The mitigation measures and other recommendations of these agencies shall be incorporated into the development plan. Where a Community Plan is prepared, these shall become policies of the plan. (UAGP Policy VII-E.3[b]) SWPH-12: Additional measures to protect sensitive habitats may be implemented. Potential measures to be implemented may include measures listed in Table V-7-1 in the Final Master Environmental Impact Report. (UAGP Policy VII-E.3[c]) SWPH-13: Table V-7-1 presents additional environmental protections. Table V-7-1. Policies For Sensitive Biological Habitats (Note: This table does not use the standard nomenclature in order to be consistent with the reference contained in the Urban Area General Plan.) a. Avoid disturbance in wetland areas, including vernal pools and riparian communities along rivers and streams. Avoidance of these areas would include implementing a no-disturbance buffer at least 100 feet from the high water mark of channels that have no riparian vegetation and 250 feet from the outermost high water edge of the all marsh wetlands, vernal pools, and swales. Riparian vegetation shall be protected with a 200-foot wide no- disturbance buffer delineated from the high water mark of the surface water body. If complete avoidance is not possible, the disturbance to the wetland shall be minimized to the maximum extent possible, with restoration of the disturbed area provided. The topsoil within the wetland shall be removed and kept separate from other spoils to be used in restoration. New vegetation should consist of similar native species to those removed. Activities within or near wetlands shall occur only under permit (either individual or nationwide) from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Prior to development, wetland areas shall be delineated by a qualified biologist in accordance with the delineation standards of the Corps. b. Where wetlands or other sensitive habitats cannot be avoided, replacement habitat at a nearby off-site location shall be provided in accordance with the requirements of the applicable federal or state agency. The replacement habitat should be substantially equivalent to the nature of the habitat lost and should be provided at a ratio suitable to assure that, at a minimum, there is no net loss of habitat acreage or value. The replacement habitat shall be set aside in perpetuity for habitat use. Typically, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and California Department of Fish and Game require a ratio of three replacement acres for every one acre of riparian or wetland habitat lost. c. Confine work in or near streams, wetlands, and vernal pools to the dry season between May 1 and October 1. Minimize road widths at stream or wetland crossings, and construct roads at right angles to reduce adverse impacts to riparian corridors. d. Preserve existing and mature native trees to the extent feasible, except when such trees are diseased or otherwise constitute a hazard to persons or property. During construction, all activities and storage of equipment should occur outside the drip lines of any trees to be preserved. e. All areas within identified riparian corridors shall be maintained in a natural state, or limited to recreation and open space uses. Recreation should be limited to passive forms of recreation, with any facilities constructed to be non-intrusive to wildlife or sensitive species. f. New landscaping within or immediately adjacent to the identified riparian corridors should employ native ---PAGE BREAK--- Chapter V. Environmental Analysis Modesto General Plan Update Final Master EIR V-7-23 Section 7. Loss of Sensitive Wildlife and Plant Habitat October 2008 species ecologically consistent with natural riparian habitats. g. Within the identified riparian corridors, environmentally sensitive habitat areas shall be protected against any significant disruption of habitat values, and only uses consistent with these values shall be allowed nature education and research, fishing, habitat enhancement and protection). h. Any tree removal shall occur during the nonbreeding season for birds (mid-September through January). If construction activities or tree removal must occur during the breeding season (February through mid- September), surveys for active nests shall be conducted by a qualified biologist no more than 30 days prior to the start of construction. A minimum no-disturbance buffer of 250 feet shall be delineated around active nests until the breeding season has ended or until a qualified biologist has determined that the birds have fledged and are no longer reliant upon the nest or parental care for survival. i. The study site may contain elderberry shrubs. All projects within the study area should evaluate the project site conditions for the potential for elderberry shrubs removal. If elderberry shrubs are present, appropriate mitigation should be discussed and prior to any subsequent project approvals, early consultation with USFWS is recommended. The removal and trimming of elderberry shrubs is regulated by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). j. Burrowing owls are known to occur within the study area. Impacts to burrowing owls and their nest burrows must be avoided in order to comply with the Federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) and Department of Fish and Game (DFG) Code Sections 3503, 3503.5, and 3513. If any ground-disturbing activities occur during the burrowing owl nesting season (approximately February 1 through August 31), implementation of avoidance measures is required. DFG recommends that a preconstruction site survey be conducted no more than 30 days before the onset of any ground-disturbing activities. Further, if preconstruction surveys determine that during the nonbreeding season burrowing owls occupy the site, a passive relocation effort shall be installed. DFG’s Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation (California Department of Fish and Game 1995) recommends that impacts to occupied burrows be avoided by implementation of a no-construction buffer zone of a minimum of 250 feet, unless a qualified biologist approved by DFG verifies through noninvasive methods that either: 1) the burrowing owls have not begun egg laying and incubation; or 2) that juveniles from the occupied nest are foraging independently and are capable of independent survival. Failure to implement this buffer zone could cause adult burrowing owls to abandon nests, cause eggs or young to be directly impacted (crushed), and/or result in reproductive failure. The DFG Staff report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation also recommends that a minimum of 6.4 acres of foraging habitat per pair or unpaired resident burrowing owl should be acquired and permanently protected to offset the loss of foraging and burrowing habitat. k. The State-threatened Swainson’s hawk is known to nest within the study area. Due to loss of suitable foraging habitat and existing nesting habitat that may occur during area development, mitigation measures compensating for these potential losses of habitat should be included. DFG’s Staff Report Regarding Mitigation for Impacts to Swainson’s Hawks (California Department of Fish and Game 1994) recommends that for projects that occur within 1 mile of an active nest tree, 1.5 acres of habitat be protected in perpetuity for every acre of Swainson’s hawk foraging habitat affected; for projects that occur within 5 miles of a active nest tree, 0.75 acre of habitat should be protected in perpetuity for every acre of foraging habitat impacted; and for projects within 10 miles of an active nest tree, 0.5 acre of habitat should be protected in perpetuity for every acre of foraging habitat impacted. The project sponsor should provide funding of a sufficient long-term endowment for the management of the protected properties. The project area contains mature trees that could be used as nesting habitat. DFG considers the removal of known raptor nest trees, even outside of the nesting season, to be a significant impact under CEQA and, in the case of Swainson’s hawk, could also result in “take” under the CESA. This is especially true in species such as Swainson’s hawk, which exhibit high site fidelity to their nest and nest trees year after year (California Department of Fish and Game 1994). To avoid such impacts, surveys for nesting raptors should be conducted following the survey methodology developed by the Swainson’s Hawk Technical Advisory Committee (2000) prior to any disturbance within 5 miles of a potential nest tree). Impacts to known nest trees should be avoided at all times of year. If avoidance of a known nest tree is not feasible, consultation with DFG is warranted prior ---PAGE BREAK--- Chapter V. Environmental Analysis Modesto General Plan Update Final Master EIR V-7-24 Section 7. Loss of Sensitive Wildlife and Plant Habitat October 2008 to taking any action, and a determination of “take” potential under CESA or under Fish and Game Code Sections 3503.5 and 3513 will be made. Project-related “take” (as defined in Section 86 of the Fish and Game Code) of Swainson’s hawk must be completely avoided or a State Incidental Take Permit, pursuant to Section 2081 of the Fish and Game Code, would be warranted. Comprehensive Planning Districts in Riparian Corridors SWPH-14: All three riparian corridors within the planning area (Dry Creek, Stanislaus River, Tuolumne River) are designated as Comprehensive Planning Districts under the Urban Area General Plan. Development within these areas will be subject to a Comprehensive Plan and a Focused EIR prepared for that plan. (UAGP Exhibit III-1.) Preparation of a Park Master Plan shall suffice as the Comprehensive Plan for these areas. However, until a Park Master Plan is completed for these areas, the Tuolumne River Regional Park Master Plan shall be the guiding plan for the Dry Creek CPD. The TRRP Master Plan shall suffice as the Comprehensive Plan for Tuolumne River Comprehensive Planning District. (UAGP Policies III-5.7[b] and III-24.7[b] and The Comprehensive Planning Districts for these three corridors specify that land uses will be limited to “open space” use low-impact recreational facilities, public ownership, agriculture, low- density residential uses not exceeding one dwelling per 10 acres). Other open space policies specific to the riparian corridors require that riverfront vegetation be consistent with riparian habitat, environmentally sensitive habitat areas be protected against significant disruptions of habitat values, and land uses be limited to those dependent on the riparian resource. (UAGP Policies VII-B.8 through Measures in Table V-7-1 shall also apply to the Comprehensive Planning Districts for the riparian corridors. The Dry Creek Comprehensive Planning District intends for its 510 acres to become a linear park (UAGP Exhibit II-5). The 810-acre Stanislaus River Comprehensive Planning District is to become a regional park (UAGP Exhibit II-21). The Tuolumne River Comprehensive Planning District contains 1,380 acres, including a significant amount of public land owned by a joint-powers authority (JPA) made up of Modesto, Ceres, and Stanislaus County. It is a Regional Park designed to serve the residents of Modesto, Ceres, Stanislaus County, and the greater San Joaquin Valley area (UAGP Exhibit II-24). The JPA has completed and the City has certified a Master EIR for the Tuolumne River Regional Park (TRRP) Master Plan. The TRRP Master EIR contains mitigation measures addressing impacts on sensitive plant and wildlife habitat relating to recreation facility development and conservation activities within the TRRP. 5. Policies Which Avoid Impacts The following City policies are in effect and have been determined to reduce, avoid, or mitigate environmental impacts within the existing city limits and within the UAGP area. Federal and state policies are included because they reduce or avoid cumulative impacts. The policy reference numbers are listed below, the full text of these policies is found above in Section A-4 above, Existing Regulatory Policies Applying to the Study Area. ---PAGE BREAK--- Chapter V. Environmental Analysis Modesto General Plan Update Final Master EIR V-7-25 Section 7. Loss of Sensitive Wildlife and Plant Habitat October 2008 a. Federal Policies Enforcement of the federal CWA, the ESA, the CESA, and related regulations will minimize future impacts on wildlife and plant habitat, including cumulative impacts. Federal policies include SWPH-1 through SWPH-6. b. State Policies Enforcement of the CESA, Streambed Alternation Agreement statute, and related regulations will minimize future impacts on wildlife and plant habitat, including cumulative impacts. State policies include SWPH-7 through SWPH-10. d. City of Modesto Policies The following existing or proposed UAGP policies would mitigate or avoid impacts on sensitive wildlife and plant habitat. 1. Baseline Developed and Redevelopment Areas: SWPH-9 2. Planned Urbanizing Area and Comprehensive Planning Districts in Riparian Areas: SWPH-10 through SWPH-14 B. CONSIDERATION AND DISCUSSION OF SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS The following information is provided in accordance with Section 15126.2 of the State CEQA Guidelines. 1. Thresholds of Significance Suggested by the California Environmental Quality Act CEQA directs agencies to analyze effects on biological resources using Appendix G of the State CEQA Guidelines and the “mandatory findings of significance” (Section 15065). Appendix G of the State CEQA Guidelines is a sample checklist for assessing potential impacts on agricultural land. It offers the following broad suggestions for impact assessment. Would the project: a. Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special-status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? b. Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? c. Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marshes, vernal pools, coastal wetlands, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? ---PAGE BREAK--- Chapter V. Environmental Analysis Modesto General Plan Update Final Master EIR V-7-26 Section 7. Loss of Sensitive Wildlife and Plant Habitat October 2008 d. Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? e. Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? f. Conflict with the provisions of an adopted habitat conservation plan, natural community conservation plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? Section 15065 of the State CEQA Guidelines identifies several mandatory findings of significance which require the preparation of an EIR. The one involving wildlife and plant habitat is as follows, in part: The project has the potential to substantially degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self- sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, substantially reduce the number or restrict the range of an endangered, rare, or threatened species . 2. Thresholds of Significance Suggested by Other Analytical Methods The regulations contained in the ESA and the CESA clearly establish that actions which would result in the “take” of a listed species or that would adversely impact protected species are significant. Under the ESA, habitat loss is seen as a contributor to take and losses of species-related habitat are considered significant. Under the CWA, filling of waters of the United States may be significant. 3. Thresholds of Significance Adopted by the City of Modesto Federal and state laws regarding special-status species and species of concern establish a comprehensive regulatory scheme specifically designed to protect those wildlife and plant species from extinction. Compliance with these laws and regulations avoids the need to make the mandatory finding of significance described in Section 15065 of the State CEQA Guidelines. The City finds that actions which would violate the federal and state laws described in this section (and related regulations), including but not limited to the ESA, the CESA, and the federal CWA, would be significant. 4. Significant Direct Impacts a. Impacts within the Baseline Development and Redevelopment Areas There is low potential for impacts on sensitive wildlife and plant habitats within the Baseline Developed Area and Redevelopment Area. Other than lands within the designated riparian corridors, most of the land projected for development within the Baseline Developed Area and the Redevelopment Area are vacant lands generally characterized by weedy, non-native vegetation and habitats of limited value. Implementation of policy SWPH-12 would address ---PAGE BREAK--- Chapter V. Environmental Analysis Modesto General Plan Update Final Master EIR V-7-27 Section 7. Loss of Sensitive Wildlife and Plant Habitat October 2008 potential impacts in these areas. Potential impacts within these areas, therefore, would be considered less than significant. b. Impacts within the Planned Urbanizing Area The UAGP envisions urban development over the next 20 years within approximately 21,625 acres that fall within the Planned Urbanizing Area. The majority of this land is in agricultural use, including orchards, pasturelands with vernal pool grasslands, and some scattered urban uses. The projections of approximately 148,600 residents and 144,000 employees to be accommodated in the Planned Urbanizing Area under the UAGP will convert much of this area to urban uses, thereby reducing the acreages of grassland, crops, and pastureland. Biologically sensitive areas within the Planned Urbanizing Area include land within the riparian corridors, riverine habitat, fresh emergent wetlands, and grasslands east of the Burlington Northern and Santa Fe Railway that may support vernal pools. Development within the Planned Urbanizing Area has potential to affect these sensitive habitats and special-status species that can occur in these habitats (Tables E-1 and E-2 in Appendix The impact of development in the Planned Urbanizing Area on these habitats will be less than significant with implementation of UAGP policies described above, measures in the TRRP Master Plan and Master EIR, and other regulations that will apply to future development the CWA, California Fish and Game Code, the ESA, and CESA). Potential Impacts on Valley Foothill Riparian, Riverine, and Fresh Emergent Wetland Habitats in the Planned Urbanizing Area The UAGP designates all riparian corridors within the planning area as open space. This designation decreases the potential impacts on valley foothill riparian, riverine habitat, and associated fresh emergent wetlands within those corridors by limiting the intensity of potential land uses. Development of recreational facilities or other open space uses will be subject to the policies of the Planned Urbanizing Area which will ensure that development will be required to meet the protective federal and state laws and regulations. A master plan has been developed for the TRRP, and a master plan will be prepared for the Dry Creek Comprehensive Planning District. These two areas encompass all riparian, riverine, and associated fresh emergent wetland habitats in the Planned Urbanizing Area. Project-specific measures to protect the riparian corridor will be required when the master plan is prepared for the Dry Creek Comprehensive Planning District. The Master EIR prepared for the TRRP Master Plan (EDAW 2001) identified a number of project-specific significant effects that would result from implementation of the plan. They include impacts on riparian habitats, waters of the United States (which includes riverine and fresh emergent wetland), special-status fish species and their habitat, VELB, and nesting raptors. With implementation of the mitigation measures required under the TRRP Master EIR, the impacts would be less than significant. The impacts are detailed in the Master EIR prepared for the TRRP Master Plan, which is hereby ---PAGE BREAK--- Chapter V. Environmental Analysis Modesto General Plan Update Final Master EIR V-7-28 Section 7. Loss of Sensitive Wildlife and Plant Habitat October 2008 incorporated by reference. The TRRP impacts and project-specific mitigation measures are in Appendix F. Therefore, with implementation of the TRRP mitigation and measures to be developed as part of the Dry Creek master plan, the potential impacts of the UAGP on riparian, riverine, and fresh emergent wetland habitats and their associated special-status species will be reduced to a less-than-significant level. Potential Impacts on Vernal Pool Habitat in the Planned Urbanizing Area Areas with potential to support vernal pools occur in the Santa Fe East Comprehensive Planning District. Implementation of SWPH-16 would address these potential impacts on vernal pool habitat and special-status species with potential to occur in vernal pools. 5. Significant Cumulative Impacts CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines require the disclosure of the significant cumulative environmental effects, whether the project will make a cumulatively considerable contribution to any such effects, and, if so, mitigation measures intended to reduce the project’s contribution (Section 15130 of the State CEQA Guidelines). A cumulative effect is one that results from past, present, and probable future projects. A project that has a less-than-significant direct effect on the environment may nonetheless make a considerable contribution to a cumulative effect. A cumulative impact analysis first identifies whether there exists a cumulatively significant effect in the given resource area. If so, it determines whether the project will make a considerable contribution to that effect. Where a cumulative impact is severe, even a small contribution may be considerable. Where a project is required to implement or fund its fair-share of a mitigation measure designed to alleviate the cumulative impact, its contribution will be rendered less than considerable. (Section 15130(a) of the State CEQA Guidelines.) The project will contribute to the cumulative impact of habitat loss within the San Joaquin Valley. Under the ESA, habitat loss can be considered a significant impact. This impact will be reduced by UAGP policies, in concert with the ESA, the CESA, and related regulations, but will still be a considerable contribution. The environmental vision of the UAGP states that the UAGP “promotes residential development at higher densities to avoid low-density sprawl and promotes staged urban growth so that the conversion of agricultural land [and, by inference, habitat] is focused to a few villages, not spread broadly around the City’s urban perimeter.” Providing for higher residential density than the suburban norm and a compact pattern of growth within the designated planning area to 2025 will minimize the City’s contribution to the cumulative loss of habitat. Nonetheless, this is a significant and unavoidable impact. ---PAGE BREAK--- Chapter V. Environmental Analysis Modesto General Plan Update Final Master EIR V-7-29 Section 7. Loss of Sensitive Wildlife and Plant Habitat October 2008 6. Potential Impacts for Which There Is Insufficient Information to Support a Full Analysis Implementation of the UAGP would involve subsequent projects, in addition to the development of the land uses designated in the UAGP, which could result in site-specific impacts to sensitive habitats and/or special-status species. The types of impacts that these subsequent projects could have on biological resources include: direct habitat loss (including wetlands and other sensitive natural communities); habitat loss or disruption causing adverse effects on special-status species; and indirect effects on habitats or species due to altered drainage, creation of barriers to wildlife movement, and increased human activity in natural areas. Because the details of the subsequent projects (including project- and site-specific mitigation measures) are not known at this time, the specific potential impacts of the projects cannot be fully disclosed. If there are impacts in addition to those described above, additional environmental review will be required for specific subsequent projects. Area-specific impacts, based on the proposed land-use pattern contained in future Comprehensive Plans, will be analyzed and disclosed in the Focused EIRs prepared for the respective Comprehensive Plans. C. MITIGATION MEASURES ADOPTED TO MINIMIZE SIGNIFICANT EFFECTS The following information is provided in accordance with Section 15126.4 of the State CEQA Guidelines. 1. Measures Which Mitigate Direct Impacts There are no significant direct effects that are not mitigated through implementation of the UAGP’s existing or proposed policies, measures in the TRRP Master Plan and Master EIR, or other regulations that will apply to future development the CWA, the California Fish and Game Code, the ESA, and the CESA. 2. Measures Which Mitigate Cumulative Impacts The UAGP policies described above, measures in the TRRP Master Plan and Master EIR, and other regulations that will apply to future development the federal CWA, the California Fish and Game Code, the ESA, and the CESA) will reduce cumulative impacts. No new mitigation measures are proposed. The total projected population of Stanislaus County will be approximately 857,900 in 2030 (there is no estimate for 2025) (California Department of Finance 2007b). The addition of structures and, to some degree, increased human activity in open space/natural areas that would be associated with this population increase would potentially significantly impact sensitive plant and wildlife habitat. However, the compact concentration of population in the Modesto area (where more than 40% of the total county population is projected to live), as envisioned in the UAGP, would help decrease development pressures in the eastern and western portions of the county, where most of the significant biological resources are located. ---PAGE BREAK--- Chapter V. Environmental Analysis Modesto General Plan Update Final Master EIR V-7-30 Section 7. Loss of Sensitive Wildlife and Plant Habitat October 2008 Development in the areas most likely to result in cumulative impacts—the riparian areas along Dry Creek, the Stanislaus River, and the Tuolumne River, and undeveloped lands within the Planned Urbanizing Area—will require further site- and project-specific studies to be undertaken, habitat to be set aside, and compensation habitat established, if necessary. At this time, the UAGP has established a policy foundation to ensure that future actions limit their contributions to habitat loss. Nonetheless, they will make a considerable contribution to the cumulative loss of habitat. 3. Alternatives to the Proposed Project The following information is provided in accordance with Section 15126.6 of the State CEQA Guidelines. Alternative 1 would have somewhat more severe impacts than described above because it does not include updated protective policies in Table V-7-1. Alternative 2 would have similar impacts to those described above. D. MONITORING THESE MEASURES The following information is provided in accordance with Public Resources Code (PRC) Section 211081.6. The mitigation measures for the TRRP Master EIR are monitored under the mitigation monitoring program adopted for that plan. The mitigation measures identified in the Master EIR have been incorporated into the UAGP and are implemented by that plan. City staff provides the Modesto City Council with an annual report on UAGP implementation. Therefore, no separate mitigation monitoring program is required for the UAGP Master EIR. E. EVALUATING SUBSEQUENT PROJECTS The following information will be used to determine whether subsequent projects conform to the Master EIR, as outlined in PRC Section 21157.1(c). Anticipated future projects, as presented in Chapter II, are within the scope of analysis for the effects on sensitive wildlife and plant habitat as long as the following circumstances have not changed. 1. The lead agency for subsequent projects shall be the City of Modesto or a responsible agency identified in the Master EIR. 2. The following City policies that reduce, avoid, or mitigate environmental effects will continue to be in effect and, therefore, would be applied to subsequent projects where appropriate. The policy reference numbers are listed; the full text of these policies is found in Section A-4 above, Existing Regulatory Policies Applying to the Study Area. a. Baseline Developed and Redevelopment Areas: SWPH-12. b. Planned Urbanizing Area: SWPH-13 through SWPH-17. ---PAGE BREAK--- Chapter V. Environmental Analysis Modesto General Plan Update Final Master EIR V-7-31 Section 7. Loss of Sensitive Wildlife and Plant Habitat October 2008 3. Federal and state regulations relating to special-status species do not change in a manner that is less restrictive on development than current law would not offer the same level of protection assumed under this Master EIR). 4. No specific information concerning the known or potential presence of significant biological resources is identified in future updates of the or through formal or informal input received from resource agencies or other qualified sources. 5. The development will occur within the boundaries of the City’s planning area as established in the UAGP. 6. Development within the TRRP will comply with all mitigation measures identified in the TRRP Master Plan Master EIR. F. KEEPING THE MASTER ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT CURRENT FOR THIS TOPIC As authorized by PRC Section 21166, the analysis contained within this subchapter is current as long as the following circumstances have not changed. 1. No new information, as defined in State CEQA Guidelines Section 15162(a)(3), becomes available relative to sensitive wildlife and plant species and habitat which would require major revisions in the Master EIR by indicating that there would be an additional significant effect on the environment and that new or additional mitigation measures or alternatives may be required. 2. There are no substantial changes with respect to the circumstances under which the UAGP is being undertaken which would require major revisions in the Master EIR by indicating that there would be an additional significant effect on the environment and that new or additional mitigation measures or alternatives may be required. 3. There is no new information, including the listing of additional species, new special-status species occurrence, or substantial changes to the which increases either the species or habitats considered “sensitive” in this analysis. 4. The policies within the Dry Creek, Stanislaus River, and Tuolumne River Comprehensive Planning Districts restrict development to open space uses within a linear park or regional park setting. 5. Policies remain in place that require site-specific surveys by qualified biologists, consultation with state and federal agencies, and avoidance or other mitigation of impacts on habitats as a prerequisite to future development. ---PAGE BREAK--- Chapter V. Environmental Analysis Modesto General Plan Update Final Master EIR V-8-1 Section 8. Disturbance of Archaeological/Historical Sites October 2008 Section 8 Disturbance of Archaeological/Historical Sites This section describes how development associated with the City of Modesto Urban Area General Plan (UAGP) would affect cultural resources, including prehistoric and historic archaeological sites, historic architectural resources, and places of importance to Native Americans. If significant impacts are found, mitigation measures are provided to reduce these impacts to a less-than-significant level. A. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING The following information is provided in accordance with Section 15125 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines. This environmental setting is the baseline for determining whether an impact of the UAGP is significant. 1. Study Area for Direct Impacts The study area for direct impacts on cultural resources is the City of Modesto’s (City’s) planning area. 2. Study Area for Cumulative Impacts This analysis will be based on the plan or projection approach to examining cumulative effects, as provided under Section 15130(b)(1)(B) of the State CEQA Guidelines. Pertinent plans and projections to be used for this purpose are the UAGP and the Tuolumne River Regional Park Master Plan (TRRP Master Plan). The study area for cumulative impacts on cultural resources is the UAGP’s planning area. 3. Existing Physical Conditions in the Study Area a. Prehistoric Background Although there is little archaeological evidence of human use of the of the Central Valley region during the late Pleistocene and early Holocene (14,000 to 8,000 before present this is likely a product of the archaeological record itself, rather than the area’s lack of use. Most Pleistocene and Holocene era sites are buried deeply in accumulated gravels and silts, or have eroded away. The earliest archaeological evidence of human use dates from approximately 5,000 BP. The period from 8,000 to 4,000 BP is referred to as the Early Horizon, and, during this period, a more specialized strategy is thought to have replaced a generalized subsistence strategy. This intensification can be seen in what Fredrickson (1973) has identified as the Windmiller Pattern. Artifact assemblages and faunal remains at Windmiller sites indicate that a diverse range of resources was exploited, including seeds, a variety of small game, and fish. ---PAGE BREAK--- Chapter V. Environmental Analysis Modesto General Plan Update Final Master EIR V-8-2 Section 8. Disturbance of Archaeological/Historical Sites October 2008 The Middle Horizon dates from approximately 4,000 to 1,500 BP. Sites from this period have also been found in the Central Valley. The adaptive pattern that is found most frequently during this period is called the Berkeley Pattern (Fredrickson 1973), though sites displaying the Windmiller Pattern assemblages have also been dated to the Middle Horizon. The Berkeley Pattern differs from the Windmiller Pattern primarily in the increased emphasis on the exploitation of the acorn as a staple, which is shown by the more numerous and varied mortars and pestles. This complex is also noted for its especially well-developed bone industry and such technological innovations as ribbon flaking of chipped stone artifacts. During this period, flexed burials replace extended burials, and the use of grave goods generally declines (Moratto 2004). The period between 1,500 BP and the arrival of the Spanish in central California has been named the Late Horizon. The predominant pattern during this period is called the Augustine Pattern (Fredrickson 1973). This period is characterized by large village sites, increasing evidence of acorn and nut processing, introduction and use of the bow and arrow, and use of clamshell disc beads as the primary medium of exchange. During the last part of the Late Horizon, cremation became a common mortuary practice. b. Ethnographic Background The aboriginal inhabitants of the Modesto area were the Northern Valley Yokuts. The following brief discussion is summarized from W. J. Wallace (1978) except where noted. Northern Valley Yokuts territory is defined roughly by the crest of the Diablo Range on the west and the Sierra Nevada foothills on the east. The southern boundary is approximately where the San Joaquin River bends northward, and the northern boundary is roughly halfway between the Calaveras and Mokelumne Rivers. The Yokuts may have been fairly recent arrivals in the San Joaquin Valley, perhaps being pushed out of the foothills about 500 years ago by peoples expanding out of the Great Basin from the east. Population estimates for the Northern Valley Yokuts vary from 11,000 to more than 31,000 individuals. Populations were concentrated along waterways and on the more hospitable east side of the San Joaquin River. Principal settlements were located on the tops of low mounds, on or near the banks of the larger watercourses. Settlements were composed of single-family dwellings, sweathouses, and ceremonial assembly chambers. Dwellings were small and constructed, semisubterranean, and oval. The public structures were large and earth- covered. Sedentism was fostered by the abundance of riverine resources in the area. Subsistence among the Northern Valley Yokuts revolved around the waterways and marshes of the lower San Joaquin Valley. Fishing with dragnets, harpoons, and hook and line yielded salmon, white sturgeon, river perch, and other species of edible fish. Waterfowl and small game attracted to the water also provided a source of protein. The contribution of big game to the diet was probably minimal. Vegetal staples included acorns, tule roots, and seeds. Goods not available locally were obtained through trade, with overland transport facilitated by a network of trails and tule rafts used for water transport. Paiute and Shoshone groups on the eastern side of the Sierra Nevada were suppliers of obsidian. Shell beads and mussels were obtained from Salinan and Ohlone groups. Trading relations with Miwok groups yielded baskets and bows and arrows. ---PAGE BREAK--- Chapter V. Environmental Analysis Modesto General Plan Update Final Master EIR V-8-3 Section 8. Disturbance of Archaeological/Historical Sites October 2008 Most Northern Valley Yokuts groups had their first contact with Europeans in the early 1800s, when the Spanish began exploring the Delta, and the erosion of Yokuts culture began during the Spanish mission period. Escaped mission neophytes brought foreign habits and tastes (both European and other Native American), and there were Spanish expeditions sent to recover escapees. Epidemics of European diseases played a large role in the decimation of the native population. Then, with the secularization of the missions and the release of neophytes, tribal and territorial adjustments were set in motion. People returned to other groups, and a number of polyglot “tribes” were formed. The final blow to the aboriginal population came with the Gold Rush and its aftermath. In the rush to the southern mines, native populations were pushed out of their territories. Former miners settling in the fertile valley applied further pressure to the native groups, and altered the landforms and waterways of the valley. Many Yokuts resorted to wage labor on farms and ranches. Others were settled on land set aside for them on the Fresno and Tule River Reserves. c. Historical Background During the late 1700s, the Spanish limited their settlement of “Alta California” to a thin strip of coastal lands represented by the chain of missions constructed during this period. Explorers of the time limited their incursions into the Central Valley to the pursuit of escaped neophytes, the punishment of raiders, and the location of lost or stolen cattle. By the early 1800s, noted Spanish explorers, such as Lt. Gabriel Moraga, lead more frequent expeditions into the valley. Following Mexico’s independence from Spain in 1821, the colonization of California progressed rapidly, with Mexican governors dividing Indian lands into rancho lands. With the exception of a few grants in the Sacramento Valley, these ranchos were located in the same general areas as the missions. Stanislaus County had only five ranchos, so the area remained largely unsettled before gold was discovered. Once gold was found in the Sierra Nevada Mountains, the number of people relocating to California exploded. However, early settlement patterns in Stanislaus County reflected prospectors’ desire to forsake valley lands and towns for the more financially lucrative foothills. There were few communities in this early period, and they were primarily considered mining camps. Larger and more permanent settlements sprang up later along the Stanislaus River, including the towns of New Hope, Adamsville, and Paradise. These types of towns increased as disenchanted gold seekers, many with farming backgrounds, realized the agricultural potential of Stanislaus valley lands. Establishment of Modesto—1870 By 1870, Collis Huntington, Leland Stanford, Mark Hopkins, and Charles Crocker announced plans to construct a railroad down the San Joaquin Valley in order to connect the northern and southern portions of the state. However, instead of connecting San Francisco with Los Angeles directly, the “Big Four” decided to build in the valley, reasoning that usable land within coastal counties was already privately owned; and, since the San Joaquin Valley was largely government-owned, it was ideal because land grants secured by the railroad in exchange for completion of the route ---PAGE BREAK--- Chapter V. Environmental Analysis Modesto General Plan Update Final Master EIR V-8-4 Section 8. Disturbance of Archaeological/Historical Sites October 2008 could be located directly along the route’s right-of-way. The sales of these lands helped finance the railroad’s overall construction costs. In September of 1869, John James Atherton had purchased 160 acres of land near the center of Stanislaus County from Robert Kirkland and David Monroe. Atherton purchased this land to use as the site for the new railroad town of Modesto. Subsequently, Contract and Finance Company, which was responsible for actually constructing the railroad, purchased the property from Atherton. The town of Modesto did not officially incorporate until 1884. During its formative years, the town attracted residents from nearby communities, including Empire City, Paradise, and Tuolumne City, all of which lacked a coveted rail connection. The wheat boom of California, which began in the early 1860s and lasted until 1893, played a key role in the success of Modesto as a commercial and transportation center. Wheat was a rich business that demanded high finances and a strong labor pool throughout the season, both of which could be found in Modesto. Given its proximity to the railroad and the flood of new residents, the success of Modesto as a wheat center was assured until agricultural changes were brought about by the widespread use of irrigation. Modern Modesto Following the Establishment of Irrigation—1903 As the wheat bonanza came to a close in Stanislaus County during the early 1890s, the residents realized that a dependable system of irrigation was necessary to ensure a more stable farm economy. Although irrigation was in use on a limited basis during the last half of the nineteenth century, it was not until the early twentieth century that the system, as imagined by the residents of Modesto area, was completed. In June of 1903 irrigation water that had been promised more than 16 years earlier, when the Wright Act (authorizing the creation of irrigation districts) was signed into law, finally arrived. Following years of court battles, many farmers along the main canal accessed irrigation water for the first time. The Modesto area changed rapidly after the implementation of the new irrigation system. The local population increased, land prices rose, and the larger ranches were subdivided. Almost immediately alfalfa became the dominant crop, as its demand increased to supply a new interest in dairying. Another significant change to the area was the cultivation of orchard crops such as peaches, apricots, almonds, and oranges. As the cultivation of alfalfa, orchard, and other crops increased, the processing segment of the agriculture industry, including canning, construction, and financing, also grew. By 1910, Modesto’s population was estimated at 4,500. The City continued to grow, and between 1921 and 1923 the Modesto Irrigation District (MID) and Turlock Irrigation District (TID) constructed Don Pedro Dam to provide a new source of electrical energy for the region. Stanislaus County continues to embrace its agricultural roots and is home to an expanding number of agribusinesses. However, Modesto and its surrounding area also include a number of manufacturing companies and housing developments. ---PAGE BREAK--- Chapter V. Environmental Analysis Modesto General Plan Update Final Master EIR V-8-5 Section 8. Disturbance of Archaeological/Historical Sites October 2008 Consequently, businesses are no longer clustered downtown as development of former agricultural land increases. d. Physical Conditions Cultural resources is a general term that includes many types of physical remains of past human activities as well as other types of resources important to Native Americans and other ethnic groups. Cultural resources include prehistoric and historic archaeological remains; historic architectural remains such as buildings and structures, as well as other features of the built environment; and places of importance to Native Americans. Cultural resources that are known to exist in the Modesto planning area include historic and prehistoric archaeological resources, and historic architectural resources. Such resources as are known to exist or may be discovered offer insight into the lives of the original inhabitants of the area and provide an understanding of the City’s development. These resources of the past have a place in the future of the City of Modesto. 4. Prehistoric Archaeological Resources Archaeological resources include material remains indicating the presence of Native Americans: artifacts that were made, used, or altered by people, such as lithic (stone) material, groundstone, and discarded artifacts; and human remains. These items are often found in midden deposits, a rich, organic, dark brown soil that contains charcoal, ash, and food waste (shell, bone, and seeds), but they may also be found individually, isolated from other archaeological remains. Midden deposits are evidence of human activity and generally reflect use of an area over a long period of time. Intermittent use of an area by Native Americans can also be seen in lithic scatters and food processing sites such as bedrock mortar sites or areas with mortars and pestles. Burial grounds or cemeteries are also often associated with habitation. Frequently, burials include associated artifacts, which provide significant clues about people, such as their social status, wealth, level of technology, and religious beliefs. The archaeological resource study areas, as depicted on the 1995 Master EIR diagrams, indicate areas of the Modesto planning area where there is the highest potential for impacts on cultural resources. The study area boundaries should be considered preliminary and subject to refinement as site-specific information becomes available. A number of archaeological resources have been identified within the Modesto planning area and environs. Specifically, four sites have been recorded at the Central California Information Center (CCIC), in Turlock, California. These areas include habitation sites, burials, and artifact concentrations that are located near the Stanislaus and Tuolumne Rivers, Dry Creek, and terraces above waterways. However, information on prehistoric cultural resources in the Modesto planning area is limited, and is often obtained as a result of development or other proposed activities where archaeological research is required. Agricultural use, grazing, and urban expansion often obscure evidence of archaeological resources. Previous archaeological studies in the urban area have been limited but include surface surveys by professional archaeological consultants and a survey conducted by an avocational archaeologist during the 1940s. According to a records search by the CCIC in 1994, surveys have been conducted along Dry Creek. Surveys conducted between the Stanislaus River and Dry Creek have been sporadic and limited to project-specific areas, and only a few surveys have been conducted ---PAGE BREAK--- Chapter V. Environmental Analysis Modesto General Plan Update Final Master EIR V-8-6 Section 8. Disturbance of Archaeological/Historical Sites October 2008 along the Tuolumne River. Since the 1994 records search, additional cultural resource studies have been conducted in the area, mostly for project-specific sites, and are listed with the CCIC. These studies show that areas of high sensitivity for prehistoric cultural resources include land along the various natural waterways. 5. Historic Archaeological Resources Historic archaeological resources include remains of human activities from non-Native Americans; these include trash deposits and scatters, building foundations, mining operations, farms and ranches, and roads and trails. Remnants of razed buildings lie beneath the surface and include related deposits such as trash pits. These sub-surface features are some of the only evidence of past activities, enterprises, and peoples. For example, before the institution of garbage collection, refuse was buried in residential backyards or dumped in privy pits or abandoned wells. These trash deposits are often rich in artifacts and can reveal information about early residents, providing significant social and cultural data. An example is the area designated as Chinatown on the Sanborn Maps (1885 through 1911). Although Chinatown is gone, potentially significant cultural resources relating to Chinese-Americans may still exist below present-day shops and businesses. Also, a sensitive area for historic archaeological resources is the original one-square-mile town area that dates to the 1870 founding of Modesto. And pre-urban development along the rivers and valley left sensitive areas for cultural resources relating to ranching, agriculture, mining (gold rush activities, ferry crossings), and the Mexican period. 6. Historic Architectural Resources Historic architectural resources generally include structures (residential, commercial, civic, farm, and ranching) relating to historic occupation of an area. In the Modesto planning area, known or identified historic architectural resources are primarily found within the urban area, and many have been placed on various preservation lists. Four buildings and a historic bridge are listed on the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). In addition, 120 properties are listed on the Directory of Determination of Eligibility (1990) for the NRHP. Properties are also listed on the California Points of Historical Interest (1992) and the California Inventory of Historic Resources (1978). As of 2007, the City of Modesto’s Landmark Preservation List includes 58 properties—buildings, structures, objects, and natural features of local importance. General periods of social and economic development help reveal the growth patterns of the present Modesto planning area. The physical growth periods and associated historic resources include: „ town development—1870 to 1900 (McHenry Mansion, Crow House, Davis House/Hatten Home, Bienenu Law Office, Chinatown area); „ urban expansion—1900 to1930 (historic residential area around Needham Street and Coleman, Pacific Telephone Building, McHenry Memorial Library, Graceada and Enslen Park); and „ the Depression—1930 to 1940 (U.S. Post Office, the Grange Company, Pump Station No. These resources reflect the private, civic, and commercial history and character of the City. ---PAGE BREAK--- Chapter V. Environmental Analysis Modesto General Plan Update Final Master EIR V-8-7 Section 8. Disturbance of Archaeological/Historical Sites October 2008 7. Native American Resources Places of importance to Native Americans or other ethnic groups include sacred places, burial grounds, areas where certain natural resources are collected or used, and areas where traditional cultural practices have long been conducted or observed. Pursuant to the requirements of SB 18 (Chapter 905, Statutes of 2004), the City consulted with affected Native American tribes regarding places of importance during preparation of the project. 8. Historic Property Descriptions A number of historic properties within the City of Modesto have been listed on the NRHP, the California Historical Landmarks, the California State Points of Historical Interest, and the City of Modesto Landmark Preservation Sites list. Some of the NRHP-listed properties and city landmarks are eligible for the California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR), but no formal steps have been taken to nominate them. The following provides a summary of the documented historical resources. a. National Register of Historic Places Six properties have been listed on or have been determined eligible for the NRHP. They include the McHenry Mansion, the U.S. Post Office—El Viejo Station, the Crow House, Dry Creek Bridge No. 38-54, the Southern Pacific Railroad Depot, and the Walton House. All properties, except for the Crow House, still exist at their NRHP-listed locations. 1. The McHenry Mansion is a restored historic home located at Fifteenth and I Streets. The McHenry family built the house in 1883. The mansion was listed on the NRHP in 1978. 2. The U.S. Post Office is located on Twelfth and I Streets. Wall murals inside the post office were painted by Ray Boynton, a Work Projects Administration artist. The post office was listed in the NRHP in 1983. 3. The Crow House, or the Walter B. Wood House, was originally located at 814 Twelfth Street. The house was originally owned by Walter Wood and was constructed in 1877 in the Italianate style. The house has been removed from its original location, and modern renovation of the house has compromised its NRHP designation. 4. Dry Creek Bridge, formerly on State Route 132, was recommended eligible for its design. The bridge is a major example of John B. Leonard’s bridge designs. 5. The Southern Pacific Railroad Depot was constructed in 1915 in the Mission style at the corner of J and Ninth Streets. The City of Modesto was established as a town by the Southern Pacific Railroad in 1870. The building has been restored and expanded as the City Transportation Center. 6. The Dr. Robert G. and Mary Walton House was constructed in 1957, as a development of Frank Lloyd Wright’s New York Usonian Exhibition House concept. In addition to these six properties, more than 100 properties are listed in the Directory of Determination of Eligibility (1990) for the NRHP. These properties primarily include ---PAGE BREAK--- Chapter V. Environmental Analysis Modesto General Plan Update Final Master EIR V-8-8 Section 8. Disturbance of Archaeological/Historical Sites October 2008 residences located on Alturas, Colorado, Fresno, Leon, Rosedale, and Yosemite Avenues, and Tuolumne Boulevard. b. California Register of Historical Resources The CRHR includes properties that are listed on or determined eligible for the NRHP, State Historical Landmarks, selected State Points of Historical Interest, and resources nominated directly to the CRHR. Eligible historical resources are nominated for the CRHR and may be added to the register after review of the nomination by the State Historical Resources Commission. Modesto has no historical resources listed on the CRHR. A number of the 410 properties that were inventoried in 1984 for the City of Modesto Landmark Preservation Sites, as well as buildings that were surveyed in 1997 by Carey & Co., that are now on the City’s Landmark Preservation Sites list are probably eligible for listing on the CRHR, but have not been nominated. c. California Historical Landmarks There are no cultural properties listed for the Modesto planning area that have California Historical Landmark status. d. California State Points of Historical Interest One property, the McHenry Mansion, is listed on the State Points of Historical Interest. e. City of Modesto Landmark Preservation Sites In March 1984 a survey was conducted in which 410 properties were identified as eligible for landmark status. The list was updated in October 1992 with an additional 42 properties. Structures include government buildings, churches, schools, fraternal organizations, commercial buildings, hotels, and residential and apartment buildings. As of December 2007, 58 sites have been designated as City of Modesto Landmark Preservation Sites (see Figure V-8-1). 1. McHenry Mansion, 906 15th Street, designated 12/5/89 2. McHenry Museum, 1402 I Street, designated 12/5/89 3. Modesto Arch, 9th & I Streets, designated 12/5/89 4. Modesto Ash Tree, Sierra & 3rd Streets, designated 10/9/90 5. Pump Station No. 9, 10th & Needham Streets, designated 10/9/90 6. Woolworth Co. Sign, 1014 10th Street, designated 10/9/90 7. Fire Station No. 2, 629 2nd Street, designated 10/9/90 8. Cressy Manor, 917 17th Street, designated 11/13/90 9. Turner Hitching Post, 1104 14th Street, designated 4/23/91 ---PAGE BREAK--- Figure V-8-1 ---PAGE BREAK--- Chapter V. Environmental Analysis Modesto General Plan Update Final Master EIR V-8-9 Section 8. Disturbance of Archaeological/Historical Sites October 2008 10. Modesto News Herald Building, 726 10th Street, designated 4/23/91 11. Hawke Castle, 115 Magnolia Avenue, designated 4/23/91 12. McClure Country Place, 1500 N. McClure Road, designated 11/26/91 13. U.S. Post Office & Federal Building, 1125 11th Street, designated 11/26/91 14. Seventh Street Bridge, 7th Street, designated 4/28/92 15. Fire Bell, 629 2nd Street, designated 4/28/92/ 16. Enslen Park, Stoddard & Enslen Avenues, designated 12/8/92 17. Graceada Park, Sycamore & Needham Avenues, designated 12/8/92 18. Rammed Earth House, 1027 N. Enslen Avenue, designated 7/13/93 19. Southern Pacific Transportation Center, 9th & J Streets, designated 12/7/93 20. Ralph M. Brown Home, 309 Magnolia Avenue, designated 3/22/94 21. Gallo Founder Home, 401 11th Street, designated3/22/94 22. State Theatre, 1307 J Street, designated 1/10/95 23. Graham Home, 206 Roselawn Avenue, designated 7/25/95 24. Masonic Temple, 1500 J Street, designated 7/25/95 25. Stockton Savings Bank, 1101 J Street, designated 7/25/95 26. H Street Façade of Modesto High School, 18 H Street, designated 7/25/95 27. Wissner Medical Office Building, 901 McHenry Avenue, designated 11/14/95 28. Elk’s Lodge, 1222 I Street, designated 4/2/96 29. First Church of Christ Scientist, 1328 H Street, designated 10/8/96 30. Acacia Memorial Park, 801 Scenic Drive, designated 12/3/96 31. Modesto Pioneer Cemetery, 905 Scenic Drive, designated 12/3/96 32. Modesto Cemetery, 1001 Scenic Drive, designated 12/3/96 33. St. Stanislaus Catholic Cemetery, 1141 Scenic Drive, designated 12/3/96 34. Stanislaus County Cemetery, 1001 Scenic Drive, designated 12/3/96 35. Dr. Donald Robertson Home, 211 Elmwood Court, designated 12/3/96 36. City’s Christmas Tree, 19th/H/La Loma Streets, designated 3/25/97 37. Stanley Home, 225 Stoddard Avenue, designated 6/24/97 38. John M. Walthall Home, 118 Sycamore Avenue, designated 6/24/97 39. Pacific Telephone Building, 1012 11th Street, designated 10/14/97 40. Gundlach Residence, 410 Elmwood Avenue, designated 11/12/97 41. Lish Residence, 125 Poplar Avenue, designated 3/24/98 42. Guzman Residence, 215 Stoddard Avenue, designated 3/24/98 ---PAGE BREAK--- Chapter V. Environmental Analysis Modesto General Plan Update Final Master EIR V-8-10 Section 8. Disturbance of Archaeological/Historical Sites October 2008 43. Ayres Residence, 319 Elmwood Avenue, designated 3/24/98 44. Harris Home, 230 Sycamore Avenue, designated 5/19/98 45. Large Valley Oak Tree, Tuolumne River Regional Park, designated 7/14/98 46. Bunya Bunya Tree, Graceada Park, designated 11/10/98 47. Balmannos Residence, 207 Elmwood Court, designated 5/4/99 48. Cadrett Residence, 201 Hintze Avenue, designated 7/27/99 49. Montrie & Robinson Residence, 1001 Magnolia Avenue, designated 7/27/99 50. Anderson Residence, 501 Magnolia Avenue, designated 8/24/99 51. Scully Residence, 124 Sycamore Avenue, designated 10/10/00 52. Municipal Golf Course, 400 Tuolumne Boulevard, designated 3/27/01 53. Foy Apartments, 1418–1430 I Street, designated 2/26/02 54. Centenary Methodist Church, 201 Needham Street, designated 5/14/02 55. McDonald Residence (historic name “Johnson House”), 503 West Morris Avenue, designated 8/6/03 56. Draizen Residence (historic name “Dr. J. C. Robertson House”), 215 Elmwood Court, designated 3/22/05 57. Lundgren House, 218 Elmwood Court, designated 12/15/06 58. Silva House, 216 West Morris Avenue, designated 6/12/07 Downtown Redevelopment Area The Modesto Landmark Preservation Commission reviewed the survey of downtown properties prepared by Carey & Company in 1997, which ranked each property in the Downtown Redevelopment Area according to the NRHP survey codes. The Commission determined that those properties that are in categories 1, 2, and 3 should be considered to have a significant level of historical significance for CEQA purposes. These would include sites with the following status: 1. Listed in the National Register 2. Determined eligible for the National Register in a formal process involving federal agencies 3. Appears eligible for listing in the National Register in the judgment of the person(s) completing or reviewing the form As of August 2001 there are 15 sites in the Downtown Redevelopment Area rated 1, 2, and 3 (pursuant to the National Register of Historic Preservation Status Code) that have been determined to be of historical interest by the Landmark Preservation Commission and the Redevelopment Agency: 1. Southern Pacific Transportation Center, 9th & J Streets, Rating: 1 ---PAGE BREAK--- Chapter V. Environmental Analysis Modesto General Plan Update Final Master EIR V-8-11 Section 8. Disturbance of Archaeological/Historical Sites October 2008 2. McHenry Mansion, 906 15th Street, Rating: 1 3. Federal Building (Post Office), 1125 I Street, Rating: 1 4. Modesto City Fire Department No. 1, 610 11th Street, Rating: 3 5. Davis-Hatton House, 909 14th Street:, Rating: 3 6. Abel & Ellman Office, 1015 14th Street, Rating: 3 7. Cressey Home, 915–917 17th Street, Rating: 3 8. First United Methodist Church, 850 16th Street, Rating: 3 9. McHenry Museum, 1402 I Street, Rating: 3 10. Teamster’ Hall, 1222 I Street, Rating: 3 11. Modesto Arch, 9th and I Streets, Rating: 3 12. St. Stanislaus Catholic Church, 709 J Street, Rating: 3 13. Beatty Building, 1024 J Street, Rating: 3 14. State Theater, 1307 J Street, Rating: 3 15. Modesto Water Pump Station No. 9, 10th and Needham Streets, Rating: 3 See Appendix G for a map and detailed listing of Designated Landmark Preservation sites and photographs of the Carey & Co. Inc. Number 1, 2, and 3 rated sites in downtown Modesto. 9. Existing Regulatory Policies Applying to the Study Area Below is a comprehensive list of major federal, state, and local (County and City) policies or summaries of policies in effect that apply to the study area. This list covers the full range of applicable policies that a project within the study area would potentially need to comply with, including those beyond the jurisdiction of the City. This list of laws, regulations, and programs also serves to describe the circumstances under which the Master EIR was analyzed. A discrete reference number, following the initials of the resource topic, is assigned to each policy or policy summary to facilitate its identification elsewhere in this Master EIR or, where appropriate, its incorporation as a mitigation measure into subsequent projects analyzed under this Master EIR Archaeological Historical policies are designated as AH-X, where X is the discrete number). a. Federal Regulations The National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) establishes the framework for the protection of historic and cultural resources. It applies to federal activities and has limited application to state or local actions. Its influence is most commonly felt at the state and local level when a state or local agency is seeking federal funding and the federal lead agency is subject to Section 106 regulations, or when the state or local agency is determining the significance of cultural resources under CEQA. The CRHR recognizes the significance of resources listed on the NRHP and its qualifying criteria are similar to those of the NRHP. Resources listed in ---PAGE BREAK--- Chapter V. Environmental Analysis Modesto General Plan Update Final Master EIR V-8-12 Section 8. Disturbance of Archaeological/Historical Sites October 2008 the NRHP are therefore afforded the same status under CEQA as state-listed resources. That is, a substantial adverse change in the significance of a listed resource is considered a significant effect under CEQA. The following discussion provides some additional information on the NHPA. Section 106 of the NHPA requires that projects receiving federal money or approved by federal agencies must take into account the effects of the undertaking on historic properties and afford the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP) an opportunity to comment on these actions. The NHPA also requires that federal agency heads, to the maximum extent possible, undertake such planning and actions as may be necessary to minimize harm to resources listed in or eligible for listing in the NRHP. The federal agency is required to identify historic properties, assess the effects on them, and consider alternatives to avoid or reduce these effects. The agency is then required to consult with the State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) on its findings. Section 106 review is typically undertaken as part of the federal NEPA process but may also be completed separate from NEPA review. The Section 106 process has five basic steps: 1. identify and evaluate historic properties; 2. assess effects of the project on historic properties; 3. consult with the SHPO regarding adverse effects on historic properties, resulting in a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA); 4. submit the MOA to the ACHP; and 5. proceed in accordance with the MOA. The NRHP was established to recognize resources associated with the country’s history and heritage. Guidelines for nomination are based on significance in American history, architecture, archaeology, engineering, and culture. Under federal regulations, a project has an effect on a historic property when the undertaking could alter the characteristics that may qualify the property for inclusion in the NRHP, including alteration of location, setting, or use. An undertaking may be considered to have an adverse effect on a historic property when the effect may diminish the integrity of the property’s location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, or association. Adverse effects on historic properties include but are not limited to the following: 1. physical destruction or alteration of all or part of the property; 2. isolation of the property from or alteration of the property’s setting when that characteristic contributes to the property’s qualifications for listing in the NRHP; 3. introduction of visual, audible, or atmospheric elements that are out of character with the property or that alter its setting; 4. neglect of a property resulting in its deterioration or destruction; or 5. transfer, lease, or sale of the property. (36 CFR 800.9.) Projects requiring federal permits (such as a permit under the California Water Authority) or funding are subject to the requirements of Section 106. The lead federal agency is ---PAGE BREAK--- Chapter V. Environmental Analysis Modesto General Plan Update Final Master EIR V-8-13 Section 8. Disturbance of Archaeological/Historical Sites October 2008 responsible for compliance with Section 106, but the actual tasks needed for compliance may be delegated to others. b. State Policies The CRHR serves as a guide to some of the historic resources that are to be considered when there is a discretionary action subject to CEQA. Any resource that is listed in or eligible for listing in the CRHR is to be considered under CEQA. Therefore, the lead agency on a project must determine not only if the resource is listed, but also if it is eligible for listing. Resources may be included in the CRHR in three ways. 1. Some are listed automatically, including California State Historical Landmarks from number 770 onward and all properties listed in, or formally determined eligible for, the NRHP. 2. State Historical Landmarks below number 770 and State Points of Historical Interest will be individually evaluated and recommended for listing in the CRHR based on procedures to be developed by the State Historical Resources Commission. 3. Other resources can be nominated to the CRHR by local governments, private organizations, or citizens; these include individual resources, historical resources contributing to the significance of a historical district, resources identified in a historical resources survey with a significance rating of 1 to 5, and resources designated as local landmarks or listed by City or County ordinance. To be eligible for California State Landmark registration, a cultural resource must have statewide significance as the first, only, or most significant of a type in a region; be associated with an individual who has had a profound influence on the history of California; or have architectural significance. The structure must also be visible and accessible to the public and must be maintained by the owner in its historic style (California State Landmarks Board). The criteria for governing California State Points of Historical Interest are generally the same as those which govern state landmarks, but are oriented to local, city, or county areas. Points of Historical Interest should be significant to the county or local area’s social, cultural, economical, political, religious, or military history (California State Landmarks Board). CEQA is the primary mandate governing projects under state jurisdiction that may affect cultural resources. Other laws governing cultural resources that may also pertain include Public Resources Code (PRC) Section 97.9 et seq. (Native American Heritage) and Health and Human Safety Code 7050.5 et seq. (Human Remains). Records about Native American graves, cemeteries, and sacred places, as well as information about the location of archaeological sites, are exempt from being disclosed to the public under California’s equivalent of the Freedom of Information Act (also known as “Sunshine Laws”) (California Government Code [CGC] 6254.10). Such information is considered sensitive and confidential, and should not be contained in a public document. ---PAGE BREAK--- Chapter V. Environmental Analysis Modesto General Plan Update Final Master EIR V-8-14 Section 8. Disturbance of Archaeological/Historical Sites October 2008 California Environmental Quality Act CEQA requires that public agencies assess the effects on historical resources of public or private projects the agencies finance or approve. Historical resources are defined as buildings, sites, structures, objects, or districts that may have historical, architectural, archaeological, cultural, or scientific significance. CEQA requires that if a project results in an effect that may cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource, alternative plans or mitigation measures must be considered. However, only significant historical resources need to be addressed. Therefore, before the assessment of effects or development of mitigation measures, the significance of cultural resources must be determined. The steps that are normally taken in a cultural resources investigation for CEQA compliance are as follows: 1. identify potential historical resources, 2. evaluate the eligibility of historical resources, and 3. evaluate the effects of the project on all eligible historical resources. The State CEQA Guidelines define three ways that a property may qualify as a historical resource for the purposes of CEQA review: 1. The resource is listed in or determined eligible for listing in the CRHR. 2. The resource is included in a local register of historical resources, as defined in PRC Section 5020.1(k), or identified as significant in a historical resource survey that meets the requirements of PRC Section 5024.1(g), unless the preponderance of evidence demonstrates that it is not historically or culturally significant. 3. The lead agency determines the resource to be significant as supported by substantial evidence in light of the whole record (State CEQA Guidelines 15064.5[a]). These conditions are related to the eligibility criteria for inclusion in the CRHR (PRC Sections 5020.1[k], 5024.1, 5024.1[g]). A cultural resource may be eligible for inclusion in the CRHR if it: „ is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of California’s history and cultural heritage; „ is associated with the lives of persons important in our past; „ embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or method of construction; represents the work of an important creative individual; or possesses high artistic values; or „ has yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history. In addition, properties that are listed in or eligible for listing in the NRHP are considered eligible for listing in the CRHR and thus are significant historical resources for the purposes of CEQA (PRC Section 5024.1[d][1]). According to CEQA, a project may cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource and thus may have a significant impact on the ---PAGE BREAK--- Chapter V. Environmental Analysis Modesto General Plan Update Final Master EIR V-8-15 Section 8. Disturbance of Archaeological/Historical Sites October 2008 environment (State CEQA Guidelines 15064.5[b]). CEQA also states that a substantial adverse change in the significance of a resource means the physical demolition, destruction, relocation, or alteration of the resource or its immediate surroundings such that the significance of the resource would be materially impaired. Actions that would materially impair the significance of a historical resource are any actions that would demolish or adversely alter the physical characteristics of a historical resource that convey its historical significance and qualify it for inclusion in the CRHR or in a local register or survey that meet the requirements of PRC Sections 5020.1(k) and 5024.1(g). Unique Archaeological Resource CEQA (PRC Section 21083.2) states that a unique archaeological resource is an archaeological artifact, object, or site about which it can be clearly demonstrated that, without merely adding to the current body of knowledge, there is a high probability that it: „ contains information needed to answer important scientific research questions and there is a demonstrable public interest in that information; „ has a special and particular quality, such as being the oldest of its type or the best available example of its type; or „ is directly associated with a scientifically recognized important prehistoric or historic event or person. California Government Code 65352.3-5 (Senate Bill 18): Local Government–Tribal Consultation CGC Section 65352.3-5, formerly known as Senate Bill (SB) 18, states that before adoption or amendment of a city or county general plan or specific plan, the city or county shall consult with California Native American tribes that are on the contact list maintained by the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC). This legislation is intended to preserve or mitigate impacts on places, features, and objects, as defined in PRC Sections 5097.9 and 5097.993, that are located within the city’s or county’s jurisdiction. The bill also states that the city or county shall protect the confidentiality of information concerning the specific identity, location, character, and use of those places, features, and objects identified by Native American consultation. CGC 65362.3-5 applies to all general and specific plans and amendments proposed after March 1, 2005. The process for consultation under SB 18 is apart from CEQA, but can occur simultaneously. AH-1: CEQA requires that if a project results in an effect that may cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource, then alternative plans or mitigation measures must be considered; however, only significant historical resources need to be addressed. Therefore, prior to the assessment of effects or the development of mitigation measures, the significance of cultural resources must first be determined. The steps that are normally taken in a cultural resources investigation for CEQA compliance are as follows: 1. Identify potential historical resources, based on the criteria discussed above. ---PAGE BREAK--- Chapter V. Environmental Analysis Modesto General Plan Update Final Master EIR V-8-16 Section 8. Disturbance of Archaeological/Historical Sites October 2008 2. Evaluate the eligibility of unlisted historical resources for listing in either the CRHR or NRHP. 3. Evaluate the effects of a project on all eligible historical resources. A project that would demolish, destroy, or otherwise adversely affect the identified resource cannot proceed until a final Environmental Impact Report (EIR) is prepared and adopted by the public agency. The EIR must identify mitigation measures and consider alternatives that would reduce or avoid the adverse effect. AH-2: According to CEQA, a project with an effect that may cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource is a project that may have a significant effect on the environment (State CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5[b]). CEQA further states that a substantial adverse change in the significance of a resource means the physical demolition, destruction, relocation, or alteration of the resource or its immediate surroundings such that the significance of a historical resource would be materially impaired. Actions that would materially impair the significance of a historic resource are any actions that would demolish or adversely alter those physical characteristics of a historical resource that convey its historical significance and qualify it for inclusion in the CRHR (California Register of Historic Resources) or in a local register or survey that meet the requirements of Sections 5020.1(k) and 5024.1(g) of the Public Resources Code. When determining what is a significant resource, CEQA presumes that any resource listed in or eligible for listing in the CRHR or NRHP is significant, creates a rebuttable presumption that any resource that is on a local list is significant, and allows a public agency to decide that other resources may also be significant. (CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5) c. Stanislaus County General Plan Policies There are no applicable Stanislaus County General Plan policies. d. City of Modesto Policies AH-3: The City of Modesto Landmark Preservation Ordinance establishes the recognition, preservation, enhancement, perpetuation, and use of structures, natural features, sites, and areas within the City of Modesto that have historic, architectural, archaeological, structural engineering, or aesthetic significance. The eligibility of a site is determined after public hearings by Modesto Landmark Preservation Commission recommendation, plus public hearing and final determination by the City Council (Municipal Ordinance No. 2619). Redevelopment Area, Baseline Developed Area, and Planned Urbanizing Area AH-4: The City of Modesto shall implement regulations that identify important historic resources, and preserve the important aspects of those resources. The City could encourage adaptive reuse of National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) and California Register of Historic Resources (CRHR) eligible or potentially eligible buildings, including historically sensitive restoration, as a means of preserving eligible structures. Restoration and renovation of buildings should be performed in accordance with the “Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties” ---PAGE BREAK--- Chapter V. Environmental Analysis Modesto General Plan Update Final Master EIR V-8-17 Section 8. Disturbance of Archaeological/Historical Sites October 2008 and the State Historic Building Code. The standards serve as guidelines for rehabilitation, restoration, preservation, retaining, and preserving historic character of a property. (UAGP Policy VII.F.2[a]) AH-5: The City shall ensure that zoning provisions for structures of historical significance are sufficiently flexible to ensure that parking or other structures requirements of the Zoning Ordinance allow the historic structures to remain viable in the future. (UAGP Policy VII.F.2[b]) AH-6: The modification of historic structures and places can be mitigated through the application of existing regulations and consultation with the State Historic Preservation Officer, an interim procedure whereby the City evaluates proposals to modify historic structure and develops a program to reduce the impacts on an individual basis. Projects that require federal funding or permits will be addressed through Section 106 compliance in consultation with SHPO. If the project appears to have impacts on eligible or potentially eligible structures, the project proponent will resolve adverse effects through consultation with the SHPO. Demolition of significant (eligible) buildings and removing landmarks from the Modesto inventory cannot be mitigated to a less than significant level and will require CEQA review. (UAGP Policy VII.F.2[c]) AH-7: When structures or areas of historical significance more than 50 years old are proposed for demolition, alteration, or where construction is proposed within 100 feet of that structure, the applicant shall submit data to the City regarding the structure’s history or locations prepared by a qualified architectural historian. The City shall evaluate the historical significance of the proposal and require measures be implemented to preserve all structures and places it deems historically significant. (UAGP Policy VII.F.2[d]) AH-8: As an ongoing measure, the City of Modesto shall maintain professional standard inventories of historic resources, with the findings of those inventories concurred by the SHPO and kept on file with the State Office of Historic Preservation. The records will provide a preliminary assessment of eligibility at the initial study stage to indicate whether CEQA regulations would apply in the case of a project application or whether the resource has previously been determined ineligible. When no previous survey has been conducted, buildings and structures more than 50 years old must be evaluated by a professional historian or architectural historian prior to project approval to determine whether the resource is a historically significant resource, for purposes of CEQA. When CEQA regulations are applied, the character-defining elements of resources that will be affected should be identified by a qualified architectural historian, qualified City staff member, or other professional qualified under Secretary of Interior Standards to review such projects. It is these elements that are a crucial part of the ability of the resource to convey its historic significance. Projects that would alter character- defining elements would cause a compromise in historic integrity and would constitute a significant impact. Projects that follow Secretary of Interior Standards, in consultation with SHPO, can be considered mitigated to a level of less than significant. The modification of historic structures and places can be mitigated through the application of existing regulations and consultation with the State Historic Preservation Officer, an interim procedure whereby the City evaluates proposals to modify historic structures and develops a program to reduce the impacts on an individual basis. (UAGP Policy VII.F.2[e]) AH-9: For all proposed development within an archaeological resource study area a combination of archival research, particularly through the Central California Information Center at Turlock, and preliminary surface field reconnaissance as well as consultations with the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) and those individuals and organizations identified by the NAHC shall be employed to identify ---PAGE BREAK--- Chapter V. Environmental Analysis Modesto General Plan Update Final Master EIR V-8-18 Section 8. Disturbance of Archaeological/Historical Sites October 2008 any areas that may have been used by Native Americans. Areas containing prehistoric deposits shall be recorded and mapped. Only in those areas where proposed development might affect the resources will an evaluation of their significance be necessary. (UAGP Policy VII.F.2[f]) AH-10: Prior to the adoption or amendment of the City of Modesto’s UAGP, the City shall conduct consultations with the NAHC and those individuals and organizations identified by the NAHC for the purpose or preserving specified places, features, and objects that are located within the City’s jurisdiction in compliance with SB 18 of 2005. (UAGP Policy VII.F.2[g]) AH-11: If land designated or proposed to be designated for development within the City of Modesto contains a sacred or traditional place, the City shall conduct consultations with the Native American Heritage Commission and the appropriate Native American groups and individuals for the purpose of determining the level of confidentiality required to protect the cultural place and for the purpose of developing treatment with appropriate dignity of the cultural place in any corresponding management plan. Avoid and preserve sacred sites whenever feasible. (UAGP Policy VII.F.2[h]) AH-12: Any project subject to CEQA that involves substantial earth-disturbing activities, where excavation/construction would occur outside of areas where previous development has occurred, or where excavation/construction would occur at depths greater than existing foundations, roads and/or trenches in the immediate vicinity, shall require evaluation of the site by a qualified archaeologist retained by the project applicant, which would include at minimum a records search, a Phase I pedestrian survey, and preparation of an archaeological report containing the results of this cultural resources inventory identification effort for submittal to the Central California Information Center. (UAGP Policy VII.F.2[i]) AH-13: If Phase II archaeological evaluations are recommended, a report of all such surveys and excavations with recommendations shall be completed prior to Project approval. (UAGP Policy VII.F.2[j]) AH-14: Any project that involves earth-disturbing activities shall require consultation by the applicant for the purposes of determining archaeological and cultural resources impacts and creating appropriate mitigation to address such impacts. (UAGP Policy VII.F.2[k]) AH-15: Any project that involves earth-disturbing activities within previously undisturbed soils in an area determined to be archaeologically or culturally sensitive by the City of Modesto through consultation with the Project Applicant and a qualified archaeologist shall be subject to archaeological and Native American monitoring during all ground- disturbing activities. (UAGP Policy VII.F.2[l]) AH-16: Any project that involves earth-disturbing activities within previously undisturbed soils in an area determined to be archaeologically or culturally sensitive by the City of Modesto through consultation with the Project Applicant and a qualified archaeologist and the Native Americans will be required to have the following mitigation measures, at a minimum: 1. If prehistoric archaeological remains are discovered during the project construction (inadvertent discoveries), all work in the area of the find shall cease, and a qualified archaeologist shall be retained by the project sponsor to investigate the find, and make recommendations as to treatment and mitigation. In the event of the discovery of a burial, human bone or suspected human bone, all excavation or grading in the vicinity of the find shall halt immediately and the area of the find shall be protected and the project applicant immediately shall notify the County Coroner of the find and comply with the provisions of Cal. Health and Safety Code ---PAGE BREAK--- Chapter V. Environmental Analysis Modesto General Plan Update Final Master EIR V-8-19 Section 8. Disturbance of Archaeological/Historical Sites October 2008 Section 7050.5, including Cal. Public Resources Code Section 5097.98, if applicable. If human remains are identified, the project sponsor will also retain a Native American monitor. 2. A qualified archaeological monitor will be present and will have the authority to stop and redirect grading activities, in consultation with the Native Americans and their designated monitors, to evaluate the significance of any Native American archaeological resources discovered on the property. 3. Native American monitors from the appropriate Native American Tribes, as determined by the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) shall be allowed to monitor all groundbreaking activities, including all archaeological testing and data recovery excavations that are likely to affect Native American resources, as determined by a qualified archaeologist. The project proponent will be responsible for compensating Native American monitors. If human remains are discovered, the NAHC will assign a Most Likely Descendent (MLD). 4. The landowner agrees to relinquish ownership of all Native American human remains and associated burial artifacts that are found within the project area, to the appropriate Native American MLD, as assigned by the NAHC, for proper treatment and disposition. The MLD will decide whether standard archaeological analysis will be allowed on human remains and associated artifacts from burials. (UAGP Policy VII.F.2[m]) AH-17: The City of Modesto shall promote historical awareness through provision of educational opportunities for residents of all ages. (UAGP Policy VII.F.2[n]) 10. Policies That Avoid Impacts The following policies are in effect and have been determined to reduce, avoid, or mitigate environmental impacts within the existing city limits and within the UAGP area. Federal and state policies are included because they reduce or avoid cumulative impacts. The policy reference numbers are listed; the full text of these policies is found in Section A-9 above, Existing Regulatory Policies Applying to the Study Area. a. Federal Regulations Federal regulations limit impacts where projects are undertaken by the federal government, on federal land, with federal funding or federal permitting. There are no federal regulations that directly apply to City activities. In cases where federal funding is being used for City actions, the involved Federal agency will be subject to the NHPA. b. State Policies State policies apply when projects are subject to CEQA and require mitigation to be developed if a project would have a potentially significant adverse impact on cultural resources. The following reduce and avoid impacts to cultural resources: AH-1 and AH-2. ---PAGE BREAK--- Chapter V. Environmental Analysis Modesto General Plan Update Final Master EIR V-8-20 Section 8. Disturbance of Archaeological/Historical Sites October 2008 c. City of Modesto Policies The City of Modesto Landmark Preservation Ordinance No. 2619 preserves and enhances structures and natural features with historic or archaeological significance. The UAGP provides the following policies related to cultural resources in the Redevelopment Area, Baseline Developed Area, and Planned Urbanizing Area: AH-3 through AH-17. B. CONSIDERATION AND DISCUSSION OF SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS The following information is provided in accordance with Section 15064.5 of the State CEQA Guidelines. 1. Thresholds of Significance Suggested by the California Environmental Quality Act According to the CEQA, a project with an effect that may cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of historical resources is a project that may have a significant effect on the environment (CEQA rev. 1998 Section 15064.5[b]). CEQA further states that a substantial adverse change in the significance of a resource means the physical demolition, destruction, relocation, or alteration of the resource or its immediate surroundings such that the significance of a historical resource would be materially impaired. Actions that would materially impair the significance of a historic resource are any actions that would demolish or adversely alter those physical characteristics of a historical resource that convey its historical significance and qualify it for inclusion in the CRHR or in a local register or survey that meets the requirements of Sections 5020.1(k) and 5024.1(g) of the PRC. 2. Thresholds of Significance Suggested by Other Analytical Methods a. National Historic Preservation Act The NHPA establishes eligibility requirements for inclusion on the NRHP as discussed above. Cultural resources that are determined to be eligible for listing on the NRHP are automatically eligible for listing on CRHR and are significant resources under CEQA. b. State Historic Preservation Office SHPO coordinates state participation in the implementation of the NHPA by making determinations of eligibility and consulting on federal project undertakings. ---PAGE BREAK--- Chapter V. Environmental Analysis Modesto General Plan Update Final Master EIR V-8-21 Section 8. Disturbance of Archaeological/Historical Sites October 2008 c. The Landmark Preservation Commission The City Landmark Preservation Commission is responsible for the designation of historic landmarks within Modesto. The Landmark Preservation Commission recommends the following be used as the Standard for Local Significance: Criteria for “Local Significance” Historical resources shall be deemed of “Local Significance” to the Modesto community if they meet any one of the following criteria. 1. General Criteria The quality of the information, example, interest or meaning represented by the resource helps the citizens of the present day to understand and appreciated the past culture of the Modesto community or the prehistoric inhabitants of the area. 2. Historic Criteria The resource is associated with activities, processes, events, trends, or persons of importance to the Modesto community. 3. Architectural Criteria The resource possesses distinctive characteristics of a style, place, period, method or materials of construction, builder, or architect important to the Modesto community. 4. Cultural Criteria The resource is located within a significant setting of man-made or natural features (including significant trees or other plant life located thereon), possessing meaning primarily by long association with the Modesto community, prehistoric peoples, or Native Americans. 3. Threshold of Significance Adopted by the City of Modesto A project completed under the UAGP would have a significant impact on cultural resources if the project: „ results in modification that would result in a substantial adverse change in the significance of the resource or demolition of a listed or eligible historic resource; „ has an adverse effect on any structure more than 50 years old; „ involves the removal of known resources, „ results in discovery of undiscovered archaeological resources, or „ involves construction within an area of high sensitivity. It would also be significant if it met any of the Landmark Preservation Commission standards described above. ---PAGE BREAK--- Chapter V. Environmental Analysis Modesto General Plan Update Final Master EIR V-8-22 Section 8. Disturbance of Archaeological/Historical Sites October 2008 4. Significant Direct Impacts The accommodation of up to 400,000 residents and 304,000 employees at plan buildout, including about 148,600 residents and 144,000 employees in the Planned Urbanizing Area, could impact prehistoric and historic resources. Known historical resources are primarily located within the Baseline Developed Area, which is already developed. Impacts of new construction, therefore, apply to development within 100 feet of a structure more than 50 years old because activities may affect that structure. If a site-specific project involves the modification or demolition of a qualifying structure more than 50 years old, the impacts may be significant. Areas of high probability for archaeological resources are located within the riparian corridors along the Tuolumne River, Dry Creek, and the Stanislaus River. These areas are designated for conservation and recreational use by the UAGP, so the possibility for impact is low. In addition, development within the TRRP Master Plan will be subject to the project-specific mitigation measures identified in that plan’s Master EIR. There, the potential impact comes from earthmoving activities that could result in disturbance of resources or human remains. That Master EIR, which is incorporated by reference, has identified mitigation measures to avoid a significant impact (see Appendix Development within the other two riparian corridors will similarly be subject to a subsequent environmental analysis and mitigation measures. Impacts within the riparian corridors would be less than significant. There is a low probability that archaeological resources will be uncovered in areas outside of the riparian corridors when soils are excavated as a result of construction activities. Should this occur, it would have a significant effect. The City Zoning Ordinance requires that when substantial changes to a structure are proposed, the development will be required to comply with other Zoning Ordinance provisions such as parking or landscaping requirements. This could result in modifications to the structure which substantially reduce its historical significance. This would be a less-than-significant impact with the imposition of Policies AH-4 through AH-8. Demolition of a significant building cannot be mitigated to a less- than-significant level, and, even with implementation of mitigation measures, the impact would be significant. 5. Significant Cumulative Impacts CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines require the disclosure of significant cumulative environmental effects, of whether the project will make a cumulatively considerable contribution to any such effects, and, if so, any mitigation measures intended to reduce the project’s contribution (Section 15130 of the State CEQA Guidelines). A cumulative effect is one that results from past, present, and probable future projects. A project which has a less-than-significant direct effect on the environment may nonetheless make a considerable contribution to a cumulative effect. A cumulative impact analysis first identifies whether there exists a cumulatively significant effect in the given resource area. If so, it determines whether the project will make a considerable contribution to that effect. Where a cumulative impact is severe, even a small contribution may be considerable. Where a project is required to implement or fund its fair share of a mitigation ---PAGE BREAK--- Chapter V. Environmental Analysis Modesto General Plan Update Final Master EIR V-8-23 Section 8. Disturbance of Archaeological/Historical Sites October 2008 measure designed to alleviate the cumulative impact, its contribution will be rendered less than considerable. (Section 15130(a) of the State CEQA Guidelines.) Given the magnitude of this project and the thorough analysis undertaken by the City of Modesto in the preparation of its 1995 UAGP, the direct impacts described in this section are the same as “cumulative impacts” as described in Section 15126(e) of the State CEQA Guidelines. No further mitigation is required for cumulative impacts, and cumulative impact analysis for prehistoric and historic resources will not be required for any anticipated subsequent projects that require a Mitigated Negative Declaration (Section 21157.5) or a Focused EIR (Section 21158). The project will not make a considerable contribution to a cumulative impact. 6. Impacts for Which There Is Insufficient Information to Support a Full Analysis Implementation of the UAGP would involve subsequent projects, in addition to the development of the land uses designated in the UAGP, which could result in impacts on archaeological or historical sites. These projects would include, among other actions, construction of new roadways or roadway widening, installation of new infrastructure water and sewer lines), and construction of new public facilities. The types of impacts that these subsequent site-specific projects would have on cultural resources include damage to or destruction of known and unknown archaeological sites, and damage to buildings and sites of known or potential historic significance. Because the details of the subsequent projects are not known, the site-specific impacts of the projects cannot be fully disclosed at this time. If there are impacts in addition to those described above, additional environmental review would be required for specific subsequent projects. C. MITIGATION MEASURES ADOPTED TO MINIMIZE SIGNIFICANT EFFECTS The following information is provided in accordance with Section 15126.4 of the State CEQA Guidelines. 1. Measures That Mitigate Direct Impacts The mitigation measures have been adopted as UAGP policies. These are described in AH-3 through AH-17 above. In addition, the City has adopted procedures for mitigating impacts on cultural resources, as shown in Table V-8-1 below. These policies will reduce the project’s impacts to a less-than-significant level except when a significant historic building would be demolished. Table V-8-1. Procedures for Mitigating and Monitoring Impacts on Cultural Resources (Note: This table does not use the standard nomenclature in order to be consistent with the reference contained in the UAGP.) a. Whenever possible, the city shall avoid disturbing or damaging archaeological resources. Preservation in place to maintain the relationship between the artifacts and the archaeological context is the preferred manner of mitigating impacts to archaeological sites. Preservation may be accomplished by: 1. planning construction to avoid archaeological sites; ---PAGE BREAK--- Chapter V. Environmental Analysis Modesto General Plan Update Final Master EIR V-8-24 Section 8. Disturbance of Archaeological/Historical Sites October 2008 2. incorporating sites within parks, green space, or other open space; 3. covering the sites with a layer of chemically stable soil; 4. deeding the site into a permanent conservation easement. When in-place mitigation is not feasible, data recovery through excavation may be necessary. A data recovery plan, which makes provisions for adequately recovering the scientifically consequential information about the site, shall be prepared and adopted prior to any excavation being undertaken. Such studies must be deposited with the Central California Information Center in Turlock, California. Special rules apply to any archaeological sites known to contain human remains (Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5; Guidelines Section 15126.4[b]). Data recovery shall not be required if the lead agency determines that testing or studies already completed have adequately recovered the necessary data, provided that the data have already been documented in another EIR and are available for review at the California Historical Resource Regional Information Center (Guidelines Section 15126.4[b]). b. Prior to excavation and construction, the prime construction contractor and any subcontractors shall be cautioned on the legal and/or regulatory implications of knowingly destroying cultural resources or removing artifacts, human remains, bottles, or other cultural materials from the project area. c. The project sponsor shall identify a qualified archaeologist prior to any demolition, excavation, or construction. The City will approve the project sponsor’s selection of a qualified archaeologist. The archaeologist would have the authority to temporarily halt excavation and construction activities in the immediate vicinity (ten-meter radius) of a find if significant or potentially significant cultural resources are exposed and/or adversely affected by construction operations. d. Reasonable time shall be allowed for the qualified archaeologist to notify the proper authorities for a more detailed inspection and examination of the exposed cultural resources. During this time, excavation and construction would not be allowed in the immediate vicinity of the find; however, those activities could continue in other areas of the project site. e. If any find is determined to be significant by the qualified archaeologist, representatives of the construction contractor and the City, the qualified archaeologist, and a representative of the Native American community (if the discovery is an aboriginal burial) would meet to determine the appropriate course of action. f. All cultural materials recovered as part of a monitoring program would be subject to scientific analysis, professional museum curation, and a report prepared according to current professional standards. 2. Measures That Mitigate Cumulative Impacts The direct impacts are considered the same as “cumulative impacts,” as described in Section 15126(e) of the State CEQA Guidelines. No further mitigation is required for cumulative impacts, and cumulative impact analysis for prehistoric and historic resources will not be required for any anticipated subsequent projects that require a Mitigated Negative Declaration (Section 21157.5) or a Focused EIR (Section 21158). 3. Alternatives to the Proposed Project The following information is provided in accordance with Section 15126.6 of the State CEQA Guidelines. ---PAGE BREAK--- Chapter V. Environmental Analysis Modesto General Plan Update Final Master EIR V-8-25 Section 8. Disturbance of Archaeological/Historical Sites October 2008 None of the alternatives analyzed would substantially reduce the project’s potential impact on cultural resources. New policies would protect more resources, and narrower arterials would have less potential to adversely affect historic structures D. MONITORING THESE MITIGATION MEASURES The following information is provided in accordance with PRC Section 211081.6. The mitigation measures identified in the Master EIR have been incorporated into the UAGP and are implemented by that plan. City staff provides the City Council with an annual report on UAGP implementation. Therefore, no separate mitigation monitoring program is required for the UAGP Master EIR. E. EVALUATING SUBSEQUENT PROJECTS Implementation of the UAGP would involve subsequent projects, in addition to the development of the land uses designated in the UAGP, which could result in impacts on archaeological or historical sites. Evaluation of subsequent projects will follow the same guidelines of historic preservation law, provided that the laws do not change. If the city adopts its own criteria for historic significance, and those criteria meet CEQA standards and are approved by the SHPO, those criteria may be used in place of current CEQA standards. F. KEEPING THE MASTER ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT CURRENT As authorized by PRC Section 21166, the analysis contained in this section is current as long as the following circumstances continue: 1. The lead agency for subsequent projects is the City of Modesto or any responsible agency identified in the Master EIR. 2. The above-mentioned policies are in force. 3. The Master EIR continues to be reviewed on a regular basis per PRC Section 21157.6 to ensure that changes to historic preservation law and other laws are incorporated into the City’s policies. ---PAGE BREAK--- Chapter V. Environmental Analysis Modesto General Plan Update Final Master EIR V-9-1 Section 9. Increased Demand for Storm Drainage October 2008 Section 9 Increased Demand for Storm Drainage This section describes how development associated with the City of Modesto Urban Area General Plan (UAGP) would affect demand for storm drainage. If significant impacts are found, mitigation measures are provided to reduce those impacts to a less-than-significant level. A. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING The following information is provided in accordance with Section 15125 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines. This environmental setting is the baseline for determining whether an impact of the UAGP is significant. 1. Study Area for Direct Impacts The study area for direct impacts on demand for storm drainage is the City of Modesto’s (City’s) planning area. 2. Study Area for Cumulative Impacts This analysis will be based on the plan or projection approach to examining cumulative effects, as provided under Section 15130(b)(1)(B) of the State CEQA Guidelines. Pertinent plans and projections to be used for this purpose are the UAGP and City’s draft Storm Drainage Master Plan. The study area for cumulative impacts on demand for storm drainage is the City’s planning area. 3. Existing Physical Conditions in the Study Area a. Overview Storm water drainage systems are designed primarily to convey runoff that occurs during storm events. Impervious surfaces collect and concentrate stormwater discharges to various drainage systems. To a lesser extent, the drainage systems also help to dispose of excess water generated from urban uses such as street sweeping, residential watering, and other activities that generate runoff during drier months of the year. The proper control of stormwater runoff is important to reduce adverse effects from increased flooding, erosion, and transport of pollutants. The city is currently requiring developers to implement the concepts of Low Impact Development (LID) for all new development and redevelopment projects, as established in the City’s Guidance Manual for New Development Stormwater Quality Control Measures. LID uses a variety of mechanisms to retain as much stormwater runoff on each individual site as possible. Runoff is infiltrated through the use of swales, vegetation, pervious pavement, French drains, rockwells, and other methods. ---PAGE BREAK--- Chapter V. Environmental Analysis Modesto General Plan Update Final Master EIR V-9-2 Section 9. Increased Demand for Storm Drainage October 2008 Storm drainage infrastructure in the Modesto urban area consists of numerous rockwells and “positive” stormwater drainage facilities. (A positive stormwater drainage system refers to the collection and conveyance of storm water in centralized storage and discharge locations through the use of catch basins, pipelines, recharge/detention basins, and pumping facilities.) Approximately two-thirds of the baseline developed area (including the Redevelopment Area) is served by rockwells that are designed to collect surface stormwater runoff and allow it to infiltrate to the groundwater. Approximately one-third of the area is served by positive stormwater drainage systems that convey runoff to localized detention basins, constructed drainage ways, or stream channels. Rockwells are rock-lined holes that are typically 6 feet in diameter and up to 50 feet deep. There are approximately 7,200 public and 2,000 private rockwells in Modesto. The rockwells are generally unable to accommodate the amount of drainage generated in the existing developed areas. In addition, the cost of maintenance for rockwells is high and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regulations for rockwells are becoming more stringent. Consequently, the City is generally requiring positive stormwater systems to be installed in the existing urban areas. Rockwells are not being constructed in new developing areas and these areas must be served by positive stormwater drainage systems. The City provides upgrades to storm drainage capacity on an as-needed basis. The City monitoring and reporting program for the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Municipal Separate Storm Sewer Systems (MS4) permit is issued pursuant to Water Code Section 13267. The MS4 permit and monitoring and reporting program are responsible for assessing the point-source runoff from the City. The City’s drainage facilities are unique since only one-third of the City drains into surface water while the remaining drainages goes to rock wells. The MS4 permit and monitoring and reporting program apply to both water quality and drainage for the City. Besides including a comprehensive assessment of water quality data, the Comprehensive Monitoring Report also identifies Best Management Practices (BMPs) contained in the drainage facilities that help reduce pollutant loading. The City was also required to do a Peak Discharge Impact Study (PDIS) as part of the MS4 Permit that was due on April 1st, 2004. The purpose of the PDIS was to determine the extent of erosion of the natural streams from the City stormwater runoff. Section V-10, Flooding and Water Quality, provides a discussion of EPA policies and the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board (Central Valley administration of the NPDES permitting program which governs the City’s pollution control and management programs for stormwater discharges throughout the urban area. Section V- 10 also describes the EPA’s Underground Injection Control (UIC) program, which governs stormwater quality management policies for the numerous rockwells located throughout the City of Modesto. Plans and specifications for new stormwater facilities within the city are reviewed and approved by the Community and Economic Development Department. Development of storm drainage facilities will be in compliance with the requirements for the installation of BMPs as defined in the City’s Comprehensive Stormwater Management Program (CSMP), Guidance Manual for New Development Stormwater Quality Control Measures and as outlined in the City’s Design Standards for Dual Use Flood Control/Recreation Facilities, adopted December 12, 2000. ---PAGE BREAK--- Chapter V. Environmental Analysis Modesto General Plan Update Final Master EIR V-9-3 Section 9. Increased Demand for Storm Drainage October 2008 b. Physical Conditions The Tuolumne River and Dry Creek receive a large fraction of stormwater runoff from the Modesto urban area. Storm water is also drained to Modesto Irrigation District (MID) canals located north of the Tuolumne River. Stormwater drainage south of the Tuolumne River is discharged to outfalls along the Tuolumne River; Turlock Irrigation District (TID) facilities located in the Ceres area are not currently used for storm drainage. The MID and TID facilities generally convey drainage west to locations along the Tuolumne River and the San Joaquin River. There is a finite existing capacity for MID canals to convey storm drainage because the canal systems were designed primarily to convey irrigation water. Consequently, canal capacities for flow conveyance are larger near the eastern edge of the county, where the irrigation water originates and is reduced near the western edge where the terminal agricultural water users are located. Therefore, the suitability of the canal systems for stormwater conveyance contrasts with the needs of urban area stormwater systems that generate more flow in the direction as more and more stormwater discharges are contributed to the channels. During the winter rainfall season, capacity in some parts of the MID canal system can be limited for acceptance of storm drainage (Ketscher pers. comm.; Gilton pers. comm.). The City generally regulates its discharges to the MID facilities by controlling the pumping systems at detention/retention-pond discharge locations. The City of Modesto controls the amount of urban storm drainage entering the channels through the operations of pumping stations that discharge flow from the surrounding landscape into the channels. MID staff will request curtailment of pumping by the City before the canals reach their capacity. MID now requires high water level monitoring and shut off sensors to be installed in City storm water discharge pumping stations that discharge to MID canals to help avoid exceeding the capacity of canals. The City is currently completing a Stormwater Master Plan that will describe the schematic layout of future storm drainage systems in all of the Planned Urbanizing Area (Gilton pers. comm.). In addition, the City is participating with MID and other local agencies on the preparation of an Integrated Water Resources Management Plan that will address water resources planning and management in the region for surface water, groundwater, wastewater, and storm drainage. MID and TID both require the City and all other parties who wish to use their facilities for disposal of excess storm drainage to enter into drainage agreements for the use of their canal facilities. The drainage agreements serve to account for the projected drainage contributions and ensure that design and installation of the needed facilities are coordinated among the responsible parties. 4. Existing Policies Applying to the Study Area Following is a comprehensive list of major federal, state, and local policies or summaries of policies in effect that apply to the study area. This list provides the full range of applicable policies that a project within the study area would potentially need to comply with, including policies ---PAGE BREAK--- Chapter V. Environmental Analysis Modesto General Plan Update Final Master EIR V-9-4 Section 9. Increased Demand for Storm Drainage October 2008 beyond the jurisdiction of the City. This list of laws, regulations, and programs also serves to describe the circumstances under which the Master Environmental Impact Report (Master EIR) analyzed this environmental topic. A discrete reference number, following the initials of the resource topic, is assigned to each policy or policy summary listed to facilitate its identification elsewhere in this Master EIR or, where appropriate, its incorporation as a mitigation measure into subsequent projects analyzed under this Master EIR Storm Drainage policies are designated as SD-X, where X is the discrete number). a. Federal Regulations There are no federal regulations governing drainage systems other than those related to water quality. b. State Policies There are no state regulations governing drainage systems other than those related to water quality. c. Stanislaus County Policies SD-1: The Stanislaus County Department of Public Works reviews and approves drainage plans involving County roadways that may pass through the Modesto urban area. The Storm Drainage Master Plan for Stanislaus County addresses storm drainage issues within the county. d. City of Modesto Policies The UAGP provides the following policies related to storm drainage. Baseline Developed Area SD-2: One-third of the Baseline Developed Area is served by “rockwells. New rockwells shall be allowed only under very limited circumstances. New storm drainage in the Baseline Developed Area shall be by means of positive storm drainage systems unless otherwise approved by the City Engineer. The new storm drainage facilities shall consider the drainage facility requirements presented in Table V-9-1 of the Final Master Environmental Impact Report and the SDMP. This policy applies to both positive storm drainage systems and to new rockwells (which are generally discouraged) in the Baseline Developed Area. (UAGP Policy V-E.3[a]) SD-3: MID shall be consulted during the preparation of drainage studies required by this General Plan. (UAGP Policy V-E.3[b]) ---PAGE BREAK--- Chapter V. Environmental Analysis Modesto General Plan Update Final Master EIR V-9-5 Section 9. Increased Demand for Storm Drainage October 2008 SD-4: The City shall prevent water pollution from urban storm runoff as established by the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board Basin Plan for surface discharges and the Environmental Protection Agency for underground injection. (UAGP Policy V-E.3[c]) SD-5: Storm water drainage facilities shall be constructed, operated, maintained and replaced in a manner that will provide the best possible service to the public, as required by federal and state laws and regulations. In developing implementation plans, consideration shall be given to rehabilitation of existing facilities, remediation of developed areas with inadequate levels of drainage service, and the timely expansion of the system for future development. (UAGP Policy V-E.3[d]) SD-6: The City shall update and maintain its Storm Drainage Master Plan to cover the entire area within the City’s Sphere of Influence. The City of Modesto shall adopt the Storm Drainage Master Plan, in consultation with Stanislaus County, MID, and TID, to address the projected cumulative flows that would be discharged to MID and TID facilities from the urbanized drainage areas. The master drainage program should include the procedures for planning, evaluation, and design of necessary stormwater drainage facilities to ensure that facilities are capable of accommodating the additional flows. The master drainage program should include capital improvement, operations, and maintenance-financing plans necessary to ensure that facilities are constructed in a timely fashion to reduce the impacts from potential flooding problems. (UAGP Policy V-E.3[e]) SD-7: New development shall comply with City requirements for conveyance, retention and detention. New development shall include onsite storage of stormwater as necessary. Rockwells shall not be allowed for new development except at infill areas smaller than three acres where no other feasible alternative is available. (UAGP Policy V-E.3[f]) SD-8: The City Engineer may require storm water drainage infrastructure master plans for the public infrastructure or when otherwise pertinent to provision of service at adopted service levels for the specific plan areas or other projects depending upon site issues and location. (UAGP Policy V-E.3[g]) SD-9: Construction activities shall comply with the requirements of the City’s Storm Water Management Plan under its municipal NPDES stormwater permit, and the State Water Resources Control Board’s General Permit for Discharges of Storm Water Associated with Construction Activity. (UAGP Policy V-E.3[h]) SD-10: For developments within a mapped 100-year floodplain, studies shall be prepared that demonstrate how the development will comply with the both the construction and post- construction programs under the City's municipal NPDES permit. Developments in these areas shall not lead to increased erosion or releases of other contaminants that would cause violations of the City's municipal NPDES permit. (UAGP Policy V- E.3[i]) SD-11: The City shall ensure that new development complies with the City of Modesto’s Stormwater Management Program: Guidance Manual for New Development Stormwater Quality Control Measures. (UAGP Policy V-E.3[j]) Planned Urbanizing Area SD-12: All of the Storm Water Drainage Policies for the Baseline Developed Area apply within the Planned Urbanizing Area. (UAGP Policy V-E.4[a]) SD-13: The City of Modesto shall require each new development area to be served with positive storm drainage systems. A positive drainage system may be comprised of ---PAGE BREAK--- Chapter V. Environmental Analysis Modesto General Plan Update Final Master EIR V-9-6 Section 9. Increased Demand for Storm Drainage October 2008 catch basins, pipelines, channels, recharge/detention basins and pumping facilities which discharge storm water to surface waters. New detention basins must include new technologies in their design that allow for full, healthy and sustainable landscaping. The City of Modesto Design Standards for Dual Use Flood Control / Recreation Facilities manual is the guiding document for the development of these facilities. The positive storm drainage facilities shall consider the requirements presented in Table V-9-1 of the Final Master Environmental Impact Report and the SDMP. (UAGP Policy V-E.4[b]) SD-14: The City of Modesto shall require positive storm drainage facilities in the Planned Urbanizing Area. Recharge shall be typically accomplished at recharge/detention basins, designed to be in compliance with applicable federal and state water quality regulations for both groundwater and surface water. (UAGP Policy V-E.4[c]) SD-15: Where feasible, dual-use flood control/recreation facilities shall be developed (dual-use facilities) as part of the storm drainage system. Dual use facilities maximize efficient use of land and funds by satisfying needs for water quality, flood control, recreation and aesthetics within a single consolidated facility. (UAGP Policy V-E.4[d]) SD-16: Dual-use facilities shall be designed and constructed in accordance with the standards in the City of Modesto’s Design Standards for Dual Use Flood Control/Recreation Facilities manual and the Open Space and Parks/Planned Urbanizing Area Policy e. (UAGP Policy V-E.4[e]) SD-17: New developments shall be required to implement an appropriate selection of permanent pollution control measures in accordance with the City’s implementation policies for the municipal NPDES stormwater permit. Permanent erosion control measures such as seeding and planting vegetation for new cut-and-fill slopes, directing runoff through vegetation, or otherwise reducing the offsite discharge of particulates and sediment will control offsite discharges of urban pollutants. (UAGP Policy V- E.4[f]) The following tables identify standards referenced in the UAGP that will apply to future development. Table V-9-1. Requirements for Drainage Plans (Note: This table does not use the standard nomenclature found elsewhere in this document in order to be consistent with the reference contained in the UAGP.) a. The plan shall be based on a drainage study prepared by a qualified engineer and shall be implemented in all construction projects where the drainage study indicates a need. b. The drainage study shall identify 100-year flood elevations before and after development, location and available capacity of any existing drainage systems, and the volume and rate of water flows created by the proposed project during the 100-year storm. c. The study shall also provide the location and capacity of retention/detention basins and/or drainage channels to accommodate the increment in water flows and siltation created by the project. d. The plan shall include water quality control measures to ensure minimized contaminants in waters discharged to surface streams or percolated into the ground. e. The water quality control measures shall address both construction and operation periods. f. The plan shall be implemented in the proposed project prior to occupancy permit issuance and during the life of the project. ---PAGE BREAK--- Chapter V. Environmental Analysis Modesto General Plan Update Final Master EIR V-9-7 Section 9. Increased Demand for Storm Drainage October 2008 g. Fluvial erosion related to construction is controlled by a construction erosion control program that shall be filed with the City Department of Public Works office and kept current throughout any site development phase. h. The erosion control program shall include BMPs as appropriate, given the specific circumstances of the site and/or project. The City shall consult Table 9-2 in the Master EIR for examples of BMPs. i. Sediment control basins to capture eroded sediments and contain them on the project sites shall incorporate design criteria listed in Table 9-3 in the Master EIR. j. A stormwater management program (SWMP) shall be prepared for the operation of all proposed land development projects and shall be utilized to obtain an NPDES permit and be incorporated into the Drainage Plan. The SWMP shall utilize measures selected from Table 9-4 in the Master EIR. Table V-9-2. Examples of Best Management Practices (Note: This table does not use the standard nomenclature in order to be consistent with the reference contained in the UAGP.) a. Minimize long, unbroken flow paths by placing transverse sandbag lines across flow paths. b. Make drainage swales broad and flat to reduce hydraulic efficiency. c. Control offsite drainage and route it around newly graded areas. d. Provide berms along the tops of slopes to prevent water from running uncontrolled down the slopes. e. Collect the water in these berms and take it down the slopes in an erosion-proof system. f. Provide energy dissipaters and erosion control pads at the bottom of downdrains. g. Direct site drainage into a sediment control basin before releasing it from the site. h. Install permanent landscaping, as soon as practical, after the completion of grading. i. Maintain facilities in operable condition at all times. j. Inspect facilities at the end of each work day to ensure they are ready for service. Table V-9-3. Design Criteria for Sediment Control Basins (Note: This table does not use the standard nomenclature in order to be consistent with the reference contained in the UAGP.) a. Provide 15 cubic yards of sediment storage per acre of tributary drainage area. b. Provide an erosion-proof spillway from the basin to a protected outlet. c. Do not provide a drain in the basin since this would allow some sediment to escape. d. If site conditions permit, build an oversize basin so it will not have to be cleaned out during the life of the grading project. e. Maintain and clean out basin as necessary. f. Inspect basin at end of each work day to assure it is in working order. ---PAGE BREAK--- Chapter V. Environmental Analysis Modesto General Plan Update Final Master EIR V-9-8 Section 9. Increased Demand for Storm Drainage October 2008 Table V-9-4. Measures That Can Be Incorporated into an SWMP (Note: This table does not use the standard nomenclature in order to be consistent with the reference contained in the UAGP.) a. Educate the public regarding the problem of contaminants in urban runoff and solutions they can utilize to reduce the amount of contaminants in urban runoff. b. Design projects so that soils with vegetation separate runoff on impermeable surfaces created from hard-lined drainage facilities, and so that impermeable surfaces are minimized. c. Promote efficient and safe housekeeping practices when handling fertilizers, pesticides, cleaning solutions, paint products, automotive products, and swimming pool chemicals. These substances should be utilized and stored according to labels and instructions, and shall not be disposed of in a manner that will allow them to contaminate storm flows. d. Minimize the use of and utilize the least harmful fertilizers, pesticides, cleaning solutions, automotive and paint products where alternatives exist. e. Hazardous materials shall be stored as follows: in the minimum amount necessary; in designated areas; utilizing secondary containment; and shall be subject to regular inspections. f. Employees and contractors shall be trained in appropriate storage methods and procedures for cleanup of spills. g. Discourage illegal dumping by stenciling elements of the drainage system with a sign prohibiting dumping and indicating the reason for the sign. h. Set up or encourage private businesses to set up used-oil disposal facilities that arrange for recycling of bulk used oil. i. Project operators shall ensure that vehicle maintenance occurs in appropriate facilities and that spills are reduced, contained, and cleaned up before they contaminate urban runoff. j. Discharge of pollutants to storm water from above ground storage tanks shall be minimized by installation of secondary containment, regular inspections, and training in spill cleanup techniques. k. Prevent unwarranted physical connections to the storm drain system from sanitary sewer, and floor drains through regulation, inspection, testing, and education. l. Identify and repair sewer blockages, infiltration, inflow, and wet weather overflows from sanitary sewers to the stormwater drain system. m. Reduce the discharges of pollutants from roadway and parking lot surfaces by conducting street cleaning on a regular basis. n. Maintain catch basins and stormwater inlets on a regular basis to remove pollutants and restore basin sediment trapping capacity. o. Regularly remove illegally dumped items and materials from storm drainage canals and creeks. p. Retention/detention basins and other infiltration devices shall be utilized in drainage systems where conditions permit. q Wet ponds permanent water pools used to treat incoming stormwater) or constructed wetlands shall be utilized where warranted and conditions permit. r. Vegetated channels and strips shall be incorporated into drainage plans. s. Media filtration should be utilized where sediment is a problem and there is no other adequate alternative sediment-control method available. t. Oil/water separators shall be installed and maintained in all facilities where automotive maintenance or industrial facilities result in oil release. u. Vehicle fueling and washing facilities, including steam cleaning, shall utilize concrete floors, protected from the rain and drained to a sump to assure contaminants are contained. ---PAGE BREAK--- Chapter V. Environmental Analysis Modesto General Plan Update Final Master EIR V-9-9 Section 9. Increased Demand for Storm Drainage October 2008 v. Outdoor container storage of liquids and outdoor equipment shall include a dike to contain spills and storm water, and be covered to minimize storm water in the area. w. Materials stored outdoors shall be covered, have secondary equipment and be designed to prevent stormwater runoff. 5. Policies Which Avoid Impacts The following policies are in effect and have been determined to reduce, avoid, or mitigate environmental impacts within the existing city limits and within the Planned Urbanizing Area. County policies are included because they reduce or avoid cumulative impacts. The policy reference initials and numbers are listed below; the full text of these policies is found in Section A- 4 above, Existing Policies Applying to the Study Area. a. Federal Regulations Federal regulations, as described above, will avoid or reduce impacts related to drainage water quality: SD-1. b. City of Modesto Policies Baseline Developed Area: Modesto policies ensuring that there will be adequate storm drainage capacity, that MID will be consulted during preparation of additional drainage studies, and for the avoidance of polluted surface discharges are: SD-2 through SD-11. Planned Urbanizing Area: Modesto policies addressing these issues within the Planned Urbanizing Area are: SD- 12 through SD-17. B. CONSIDERATION AND DISCUSSION OF SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS The following information is provided in accordance with Section 15126.2 of the State CEQA Guidelines. 1. Thresholds of Significance Suggested by the California Environmental Quality Act Appendix G of the State CEQA Guidelines is a sample checklist for assessing potential impacts on storm drainage. It offers the following broad suggestions for impact assessment. ---PAGE BREAK--- Chapter V. Environmental Analysis Modesto General Plan Update Final Master EIR V-9-10 Section 9. Increased Demand for Storm Drainage October 2008 a. Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner that would result in flooding on site or off site, and b. Create or contribute runoff water that would exceed the capacity of existing or planned storm drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff. 2. Thresholds of Significance Suggested by Other Analytical Methods No applicable thresholds of significance are selected. 3. Thresholds of Significance Adopted by the City of Modesto Impacts will be significant if the project would substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner that would result in flooding on site or off site, or create or contribute runoff water that would exceed the capacity of existing or planned storm drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff. 4. Significant Direct Impacts The City must address existing drainage inadequacies in the Baseline Developed Area and Redevelopment Area linked to the historic use of rockwells. In the Planned Urbanizing Area, the emphasis must be on new facilities to serve anticipated urban development. Planned urban development in the Modesto planning area, and the associated increase in impervious areas created by pavement and structures, has the potential to increase the amount of runoff and contribution to storm drainage facilities in the urban area. Because storm drainage occurs on a regular basis during most winter seasons, the City is able to monitor the capacity of storm drainage facilities as new areas are developed. The potential impacts on storm drainage that could occur from the project were qualitatively evaluated with respect to several factors, including the extent of the projected increase in urban surface area compared to undeveloped ground, the magnitude of projected changes to hydrologic and physical site characteristics of the study area compared to existing conditions, the regulatory criteria and guidelines, and professional judgment. Based on the above threshold of significance, the potential impacts of the UAGP on storm drainage are considered less than significant because the UAGP includes policies that require new development in all three sections of the planning area to install approved drainage facilities. New development is required under the UAGP to install storm drainage facilities that restrict the amount of post-development runoff from exceeding predevelopment conditions. In the Planned Urbanizing Area, this will include the installation of dual-use facilities that will provide recreational opportunities as well. Additionally, the UAGP includes policies for the City to maintain and upgrade storm drainage facilities as needed. Pursuant to the recent directive to the City to incorporate LID design elements into new development policies, small, onsite infiltration will be utilized wherever possible, allowing large, regional basins and other storm drainage structures to be downsized. ---PAGE BREAK--- Chapter V. Environmental Analysis Modesto General Plan Update Final Master EIR V-9-11 Section 9. Increased Demand for Storm Drainage October 2008 5. Significant Cumulative Impacts CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines require the disclosure of the significant cumulative environmental effects, whether the project will make a cumulatively considerable contribution to any such effects, and, if so, mitigation measures intended to reduce the project’s contribution (Section 15130 of the State CEQA Guidelines). A cumulative effect is one that results from past, present, and probable future projects. A project that has a less-than-significant direct effect on the environment may nonetheless make a considerable contribution to a cumulative effect. A cumulative impact analysis first identifies whether there exists a cumulatively significant effect in the given resource area. If so, it determines whether the project will make a considerable contribution to that effect. Where a cumulative impact is severe, even a small contribution may be considerable. Where a project is required to implement or fund its fair-share of a mitigation measure designed to alleviate the cumulative impact, its contribution will be rendered less than considerable. (Section 15130(a) of the State CEQA Guidelines.) The population of Stanislaus County is projected to increase in a fashion similar to that of Modesto, resulting in additional urban development and associated increases in impervious areas and associated urban storm drainage. Cumulative hydrologic impacts of stormwater flows from Modesto urban areas and other areas of the county could occur due to the fixed capacity of MID and TID irrigation canals to convey drainage west to the San Joaquin River. If drainage channels in some areas prove insufficient to handle the increased drainage discharges, existing stormwater runoff from urban and agricultural areas during large storm events would have to be interrupted until water levels receded to a point that would allow the resumption of discharges to the channel. Ceasing discharges to drainage channels could cause inundation in and around the drainage conveyance pipeline systems, surface drainage channels, detention basins, and other urban areas. This impact is considered significant. 6. Potential Impacts for Which There is Insufficient Information to Support a Full Analysis The potential impacts resulting from the construction and operation of specific, future drainage control facilities that will be proposed in the Storm Drainage Master Plan cannot be fully assessed at this time. C. MITIGATION MEASURES ADOPTED TO MINIMIZE SIGNIFICANT EFFECTS The following information is provided in accordance with Section 15126.4 of the State CEQA Guidelines. 1. Measures Which Mitigate Direct Impacts Proposed UAGP update policies SD-2 through SD-17 will reduce direct impacts to a less-than- significant level. ---PAGE BREAK--- Chapter V. Environmental Analysis Modesto General Plan Update Final Master EIR V-9-12 Section 9. Increased Demand for Storm Drainage October 2008 2. Measures Which Mitigate Cumulative Impacts Proposed UAGP update policies SD-2 through SD-17, especially, SD-6, which requires that the City update and maintain its Storm Drainage Master Plan to cover the entire area within the City’s Sphere of Influence will reduce the project’s contribution to the cumulative drainage impact, but not to a less than cumulatively considerable level. 3. Alternatives to the Proposed Project The following information is provided in accordance with Section 15126.6 of the State CEQA Guidelines. Alternative 1 would have greater impacts on drainage than the proposed project in that it would not contain the protective policies proposed with the UAGP amendment. The impacts of Alternative 2 would be similar to those of the proposed project. (See Chapter 8, Alternatives Analysis, for a detailed discussion of the impacts.) D. MONITORING THESE MITIGATION MEASURES The following information is provided in accordance with Public Resources Code (PRC) Section 21081.6. The mitigation measures identified in the Master EIR have been incorporated into the UAGP and are implemented by that plan. City staff provides the Modesto City Council with an annual report on UAGP implementation. Therefore, no separate mitigation monitoring program is required for the UAGP Master EIR. E. EVALUATING SUBSEQUENT PROJECTS The following information will be used to determine whether subsequent projects conform to the Master EIR, as outlined in PRC Section 21157.1(c). Anticipated future projects, as presented in Chapter II, are within the scope of analysis for the effects on drainage as long as the following circumstances have not changed. 1. The lead agency for subsequent projects shall be the City of Modesto or any responsible agency identified in the Master EIR. 2. The following City policies continue to be in force to reduce, avoid, or mitigate impacts. The analysis contained in this Master EIR assumes that the following City policies, which reduce, avoid or mitigate environmental effects, would continue to be in effect and therefore would be applied to subsequent projects where appropriate. The policy reference initials and numbers are listed; the full text of these policies is found in Section A-4 above, Existing Policies Applying to the Study Area. a. Baseline Developed Area: SD-2 through SD-11. b. Planned Urbanizing Area: SD-12 through SD-17. ---PAGE BREAK--- Chapter V. Environmental Analysis Modesto General Plan Update Final Master EIR V-9-13 Section 9. Increased Demand for Storm Drainage October 2008 3. No new significant effect on drainage facilities is identified within the planning area. F. KEEPING THE MASTER ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT CURRENT FOR THIS TOPIC As authorized by PRC Section 21166, the analysis contained in this section is current as long as the following circumstances have not occurred. 1. The planning area population increases more rapidly than projected by the UAGP, indicating that the planning area will be insufficient to accommodate expected growth in 2025. 2. The planning area is expanded beyond the March 2003 (estimated date of certification General Plan/Master EIR Update) boundaries. 3. No new information, as defined in State CEQA Guidelines Section 15162(a)(3), becomes available pertaining to drainage facilities that would require major revisions in the Master EIR by indicating that there would be an additional significant effect on the environment and that new or additional mitigation measures or alternatives may be required. There are no substantial changes, with respect to the circumstances under which the UAGP is being undertaken, that would require major revisions in the Master EIR resulting in additional significant effects on the environment and new or additional mitigation measures or alternatives that would be required. ---PAGE BREAK--- Chapter V. Environmental Analysis Modesto General Plan Update Final Master EIR V-10-1 Section 10. Flooding and Water Quality October 2008 Section 10 Flooding and Water Quality A. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING This section describes how development associated with the City of Modesto Urban Area General Plan (UAGP) would affect flooding and water quality. If significant impacts are found, mitigation measures are provided to reduce these impacts to a less-than-significant level. 1. Study Area for Direct Impacts The study area for direct impacts on flooding and water quality is the City of Modesto’s (City’s) planning area. 2. Study Area for Cumulative Impacts This analysis will be based on the plan or projection approach to examining cumulative effects, as provided under Section 15130(b)(1)(B) of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines. The pertinent plan and projection to be used for this purpose is the Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM). The cumulative impact study area for flooding and water quality is the boundaries of Stanislaus County. 3. Existing Physical Conditions in the Study Area The City of Modesto is located at the confluence of the Tuolumne River and Dry Creek. The Tuolumne drains a 1,800-square-mile watershed, and Dry Creek drains an area of about 190 square miles. The Stanislaus River forms the northern boundary of Stanislaus County, about 7 miles north of this confluence, and drains an area of about 1075 square miles at its intersection with SR 99. The topography is generally flat, with gently sloping lands from east to west toward the San Joaquin River approximately 10 miles west of the city limits. The elevation in the downtown Modesto area is approximately 100 feet above sea level. Annual precipitation is approximately 11.4 inches per year, and occurs mainly from October through May. The City obtains a portion of its drinking water supplies from Modesto Reservoir and groundwater aquifers that underlie the region. Groundwater conditions of the Turlock and Modesto groundwater basins and the City’s management of available drinking water supplies are described in Section V-5 of this document, Increased Demand for Long-Term Water Supplies. ---PAGE BREAK--- Chapter V. Environmental Analysis Modesto General Plan Update Final Master EIR V-10-2 Section 10. Flooding and Water Quality October 2008 a. Area Streams and Watercourses The flow of the Tuolumne River is regulated by reservoirs and powerplants upstream from Modesto, including Hetch Hetchy Reservoir, owned by the San Francisco Water Department. Don Pedro Reservoir, with a capacity of 2,030,000 acre-feet (af), provides flood control for the Modesto area and is jointly operated by the Modesto Irrigation District (MID) and the Turlock Irrigation District (TID). Modesto Reservoir (29,000 af) and Turlock Lake (49,000 af) receive and store Tuolumne River water via canals. MID and TID own and operate major surface irrigation water canals in the region with hundreds of miles of laterals to provide water service to large agricultural service areas. b. Flooding and Drainage The Tuolumne, Stanislaus, and Merced Rivers all have extensively mapped, designated 100- year and 500-year floodplains. Due to the level topography of the region, the floodplain generally occupies a confined area that follows the river channel, ranging from several hundred yards to 1.5 miles wide. There are no federal flood control facilities in the Modesto urban area. The Tuolumne River experienced severe flooding during the storms of January 1997 and established a new record height at 71.2 feet from data extending back to 1897 (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 1999). Although inflows to Don Pedro Reservoir were record-setting, the peak flow on January 4, 1997, of 55,800 cubic feet per second (cfs) in downtown Modesto, was lower than the peak flow of 57,000 cfs recorded in 1950 prior to the new Don Pedro dam being constructed. Floodplain and habitat on a 5-mile reach of the Tuolumne River below Don Pedro Reservoir was severely damaged during the January 1997 flooding. Levees were breached, and surrounding land and gravel operations were engulfed by what has become a new channel for the Tuolumne River (California Department of Water Resources 1997). Extensive flooding also occurred in urban areas of Modesto adjacent to the main river channel. The objective flow from Don Pedro Reservoir is 9,000 cfs. This provides protection from a flood that would be projected to occur only once in every 55 years. The January 1997 flood on the Tuolumne River was considered a 100-year flood (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 1999). Dry Creek flows contributed to the flood of January 1997 on the Tuolumne in the Modesto urban area because there are no upstream reservoirs to help regulate flow in the channel. Although inflows to New Melones Reservoir (2,400,000 af) during the January 1997 storms were at record levels, the areas along the Stanislaus River did not experience as severe flooding problems as the Tuolumne system because there was available storage capacity to control the peak outflows from the dam. Since New Melones Reservoir was completed in 1978, the peak recorded flow has been 7,820 cfs, occurring on June 3, 1975. An estimated $78,000,000 worth of damage to private and public property occurred in Stanislaus County during the January 1997 flood. Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) maps the designated floodplains along major streams and rivers and administers the National Flood Insurance Program for those ---PAGE BREAK--- Chapter V. Environmental Analysis Modesto General Plan Update Final Master EIR V-10-3 Section 10. Flooding and Water Quality October 2008 communities that have enacted local ordinances restricting development within the 100-year floodplain. U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development requires determinations for funding requests to ascertain whether projects involve property acquisition, management, construction, or improvement within FEMA-designated 100-year floodplains. Executive Order 11988 requires projects with federal funding or involvement to evaluate alternatives to floodplain encroachment and avoid adverse impacts to floodplain functions. FEMA issues FIRMs that designate areas within the 100-year flood plain. There are three FIRMs that cover the City of Modesto area, and the maps were last revised on May 7, 2001 (Federal Emergency Management Agency 2001a, 2001b, 2001c). The State Board of Reclamation (Reclamation) is a responsible agency in local flood control management of Stanislaus County rivers. The Tuolumne River, Stanislaus River, and Dry Creek are Designated Floodways subject to regulation by Reclamation (the Designated Floodway includes the area within FEMA’s 100-year floodplain, which is larger than the federally designated floodway). It regulates development that will affect flood control levees under its jurisdiction through an encroachment permit program for federal flood-control project levees and State Designated Floodways. c. Water Quality The City conducts extensive routine monitoring of drinking water supplies from the Modesto Regional Water Treatment Plant and City wells. Drinking water must be protected from a variety of potential contaminants including inorganic chemicals (minerals, salts, metals), organic compounds (hydrocarbons, chemicals, pesticides), microbial pathogens (viruses, bacteria, protozoa), and radioactive constituents. State and federal water- quality standards are constantly undergoing revisions that result in modifications to water treatment and management operations. The City’s water-quality monitoring program data indicate that water quality is good and meets state and federal drinking water standards, known as Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs), for the regulated constituents (City of Modesto 2000a). Groundwater in Stanislaus County wells generally has good quality characteristics for domestic consumption. Groundwater tends to have higher concentrations of inorganic minerals than surface water supplies as a result of the interaction with soil and rock structures, and chemical quality varies in different areas due to differing geohydrologic properties of the source aquifers. There are areas within the county where groundwater is unsuitable for domestic and agricultural uses. High salinity groundwater is known to occur near the San Joaquin River and is believed to be upwelling of salt water from deep aquifer materials of marine origin (Black and Veatch et al. 1995; City of Modesto 1997). In addition, there are areas of shallow groundwater that have high nitrate levels that are generally indicative of leaching from overlying land-use activities such as septic leachate or agricultural fertilizers. Nitrate is a concern to drinking water supplies due to potentially adverse health effects in humans. Iron and manganese are elevated in some areas and are associated mainly with aesthetic qualities of the water. Levels of boron, arsenic, and radionuclides are currently within acceptable regulatory limits. Pesticide contamination is primarily the result of widespread historic use of the agricultural soil fumigant dibromochloropropane (DBCP), primarily in orchards and vineyards where it was used. Ethylene dibromide (EDB) is also a ---PAGE BREAK--- Chapter V. Environmental Analysis Modesto General Plan Update Final Master EIR V-10-4 Section 10. Flooding and Water Quality October 2008 pesticide of concern in some groundwater areas. There are also localized areas within the county that have contamination from the organic compounds trichloroethylene (TCE), tetrachloroethylene (PCE), and carbon tetrachloride that are used in dyes, dry cleaning industries, and as degreasers. The Modesto urban area has some groundwater areas that experience elevated levels of salinity, hardness, nitrates, and naturally occurring uranium. Among the approximately 90 City production wells, 12 wells are treated with granular activated charcoal (GAC) units to remove DBCP; two other wells have GAC units for removal of PCE and carbon tetrachloride. Groundwater is chlorinated as it is added into the City’s water distribution system to prevent microbial pollution. Surface drinking water supplies provided from the have excellent mineral water quality characteristics because the source of water is Sierra mountain runoff from the Tuolumne River watershed. However, the watershed surrounding Modesto Reservoir has relatively open access and could be vulnerable to contaminant sources such as livestock, development, and recreational use. Modesto Reservoir also provides unrestricted use for water-based recreation activities such as swimming and boating that can also contribute potential contaminants. There is an increased concern in the drinking water industry over pollutants such as the gasoline additive methyl tertiary butyl ether (MTBE), and pathogens such as and giardia. MTBE was detected in surface water samples from in 2000; however, levels were below the secondary water-quality standard that applies to aesthetic taste and odor) quality only (City of Modesto 2000a). Gasoline with MTBE is no longer allowed at Modesto Reservoir. treats water to remove potential contaminants through a series of processes including ozonation, flocculation and sedimentation, filtration, and chlorination. The Clean Water Act (CWA), Section 303(d), establishes the Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) process to assist in guiding the application of state water-quality standards, requiring states to identify streams whose water quality is “impaired” (affected by the presence of pollutants or contaminants), and to establish the TMDL—the maximum quantity of a particular constituent that a waterbody can assimilate and still meet water quality standards. The impaired section of the Tuolumne River runs from Don Pedro Lake to the confluence of the San Joaquin River. The Tuolumne River is impaired for diazinon, Group A Pesticides, and unknown toxicity (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 2006). Don Pedro is also listed as impaired for mercury (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 2006). The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is the federal agency with primary authority for a number of water quality regulations pursuant to the CWA and Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA). On October 25, 2006, the CWA Section 303(d) List was updated and approved by the State Water Resources Control Board. Many regulations are currently undergoing substantial revisions. The EPA administers the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permitting program in conjunction with the State Water Resources Control Board for controlling point source and stormwater discharges to waterbodies. The EPA also administers the Underground Injection Control program, which governs the City’s pollution control and management programs for stormwater discharges to rockwells located throughout the Modesto urban area. The EPA establishes national drinking water standards under the SDWA. The SDWA requires states to develop a Wellhead Protection Program (WPP) designed to identify the ---PAGE BREAK--- Chapter V. Environmental Analysis Modesto General Plan Update Final Master EIR V-10-5 Section 10. Flooding and Water Quality October 2008 zones around water supply wells and recharge areas where land use must be controlled to minimize the possibility of contamination of the water supply. California has not adopted a formal WPP, but relies on the Groundwater Management Plan process described below to provide an equivalent level of protection. Recent revisions to SDWA include the Interim Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule (FR 63 volume 241 pages 69478-69521, December 16, 1998), which established new removal requirements, tightened turbidity performance criteria, and mandated that states perform sanitary surveys for all drinking water systems that use surface water. The Stage 1 Disinfectants and Disinfection Byproducts Rule (FR 63 volume 241 pages 69330-69476, December 16, 1998) established a new MCL for total trihalomethanes, MCL goals for several individual disinfection byproducts, and new concentration goals for residual disinfectants in the finished drinking water. MCLs are regulatory drinking-water standards that must be complied with, whereas MCL goals are non- mandatory performance objectives. Recently proposed drinking water regulations include a new MCL for radon of 300 picoCuries per liter (pCi/l) in municipal systems that use groundwater (FR 64 volume 211 pages 59246-59378, November 2, 1999), and was promulgated on August 6, 2000. The Modesto water supply is not currently monitored for radon, so future compliance with this proposed MCL is not known. The EPA is also proposing to reduce the existing MCL for arsenic from 50 micrograms per liter (μg/l) to 10 μg/l in a rule that was promulgated in January 2006 (FR 65 volume 121, pages 38888-38983, June 22, 2000). In 2000, EPA revised the MCLs for radionuclides in drinking water, to include a new MCL for uranium in the range of 20–80 pCi/l. In 1999, the average concentration of uranium in the City’s water supply system was 10.85 pCi/l (City of Modesto 2000a). In addition, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) administers the CWA Section 404- permitting program, which serves to limit adverse discharges of fill to waters of the United States, including wetlands. Executive Order 11990, Protection of Wetlands, also directs the USACE to avoid adverse impacts on wetlands whenever there is a practical alternative. The and the associated regional office of the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board are responsible for designating beneficial uses of County waterbodies and groundwater aquifers and setting applicable water quality objectives in the Water Quality Control Plan (Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board 2007). The Central Valley locally administers the federal NPDES-permitting programs and issues Waste Discharge Requirements (WDRs) for other discharges of wastes to land and water pursuant to the State Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act (Porter-Cologne Act). The also administers Section 401 Water Quality Certification under the CWA and approves applications for the right to appropriate and store surface water for domestic use. The California Department of Health Services (DHS) establishes state drinking water MCLs through Title 22, Division 4, Chapter 15 of the California Code of Regulations. Primary MCLs are derived from health-based criteria, and secondary MCLs are based on human welfare considerations taste, odor, staining properties). State water-quality policies, regulations, and associated water resource-management programs generally must be at least as restrictive as their federal counterparts. The DHS has a regulatory program that requires cities to follow the Drinking Source Water Assessment Program (DSWAP). The City completed the DSWAP in May of 2003. The DSWAP was developed to delineate areas near drinking water sources where contaminants ---PAGE BREAK--- Chapter V. Environmental Analysis Modesto General Plan Update Final Master EIR V-10-6 Section 10. Flooding and Water Quality October 2008 could move and reach a drinking water supply, inventory possible contaminating activities (PCAs), and determine the PCAs to which the drinking water sources are most vulnerable. In addition, numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants were enacted in 2000 for ambient water quality in surface waters by the EPA (FR 65 volume 97, pages 31682–31719, May 18, 2000). The so-called California Toxics Rule (CTR) establishes new criteria for protection of aquatic life, and for human health associated with ingestion of water or aquatic organisms, for about 130 inorganic and organic constituents. NPDES permits are subject to the CTR and may require new and innovative pollution control and treatment technologies to maintain compliance with the numeric criteria. The Central Valley also revised water quality objectives for boron and salt in the San Joaquin River in 2005 which may affect the allowable discharges of these constituents in drainage waters generated by municipal stormwater systems and agricultural drainage facilities. 4. Existing Policies Applying to the Study Area Below is a comprehensive list of major federal, state, and local policies or summaries of policies in effect that apply to the study area. This list provides the full range of applicable policies that a project within the study area would potentially need to comply with, including policies beyond the jurisdiction of the City. This list of laws, regulations, and programs also serves to describe the circumstances under which the Master EIR analyzed this environmental topic. A discrete reference number, following the initials of the resource topic, is assigned to each policy or policy summary listed to facilitate its identification elsewhere in the Master EIR or, where appropriate, its incorporation as a mitigation measure into subsequent projects analyzed under this Master EIR Flooding and Water Quality policies are designated as FWQ-X, where X is the discrete number). a. Federal Regulations Flooding FWQ-1: Flood insurance within federally-designated floodplains is available only to development that is consistent with the City’s NFIP-compliant floodplain management ordinance. Water Quality FWQ-2: The City will conform to federal standards for water quality, stormwater discharge, and “fill” of waters of the United States under the CWA. ---PAGE BREAK--- Chapter V. Environmental Analysis Modesto General Plan Update Final Master EIR V-10-7 Section 10. Flooding and Water Quality October 2008 b. State Regulations Flooding FWQ-3: The State Board of Reclamation (Reclamation) requires an encroachment permit for any project within the boundaries of the Designated Floodways of the Tuolumne and Stanislaus Rivers and Dry Creek. The program is administered pursuant to Title 23 of the California Code of Regulations. Water Quality FWQ-4: Development will comply with applicable NPDES-permitting programs and Waste Discharge Requirements (WDRs) pursuant to the State Porter- Cologne Act. It will also be subject to Section 401 Water Quality Certification under the CWA. c. Stanislaus County General Plan Policies There are no applicable Stanislaus County General Plan (County General Plan) policies. d. City of Modesto Policies The UAGP provides the following policies related to flooding and water quality. Flooding FWQ-5: The City of Modesto will restrict development and encroachment into the Tuolumne River and Dry Creek floodplains to ensure and maintain proper conveyance of flood flows to the San Joaquin River. The Comprehensive Planning Districts established for the Tuolumne and Stanislaus Rivers and Dry Creek by the Urban Area General Plan will limit development to open-space and related uses. Baseline Developed Area FWQ-6: When development is proposed on parcels located within any “Flood Potential Study Area” shown on Figure VI-2 [of the UAGP], the following policies apply. 1. New urban development shall be approved only when the developer shows it to be protected from “200 year” floods, and otherwise complies with the City’s Floodplain Management Ordinance (Title 9, Chapter 4 of the Modesto Municipal Code). (UAGP Policy VI-C.2[a]) 2. Undeveloped floodway areas as well as the Tuolumne River Regional Park Master Plan, the Dry Creek Master Plan, the Tuolumne River CPD, and the Dry Creek CPD shall be preserved for undeveloped and non-urban use, as provided in the City’s Floodplain Management Ordinance. (UAGP Policy VI-C.2[b]) ---PAGE BREAK--- Chapter V. Environmental Analysis Modesto General Plan Update Final Master EIR V-10-8 Section 10. Flooding and Water Quality October 2008 3. Appropriate emergency plans for the safe evacuation of people from areas subject to inundation from dam failure shall be reviewed and periodically updated. The City Fire Department, Police Department, and Public Works Department shall continue to work with other jurisdictions to develop evacuation routes to be used in case of dam failure. Evacuation routes will serve all of the jurisdictions in the County. (UAGP Policy VI-C.2[c]) Miscellaneous Policies FWQ-7: The following policies will help to minimize the future loss of life and reduce property damage as a result of floods as well as reduce the economic impact of floods. 1. Maintain the floodplain management ordinance to ensure that flood insurance can be made available to qualified property owners through State and Federal programs. (UAGP Policy VI-C.2[d]) 2. Support the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Flood Insurance Program so that residents who qualify may purchase such protection. Property owners whose property is located within certain areas identified by FEMA as flood hazard areas may purchase insurance against flood damage. (UAGP Policy VI-C.2[e]) 3. Discourage development in areas susceptible to floods, except as provided under the Flood Insurance Program and City Floodplain Management Ordinance. (UAGP Policy VI-C.2[f]) Planned Urbanizing Area FWQ-8: All of the Flood Hazard Policies adopted for the Baseline Developed Area apply equally within the Planned Urbanizing Area. (UAGP Policy VI-C.3[a]) FWQ-9: The Focused Environmental Impact Report, for any Comprehensive Planning District located within or including any portion of a “Flood Potential Study Area” on Figure VI-2 [of the UAGP], shall include a Flood Hazard Analysis developed to mitigate all of the Flood Hazard impacts identified in the Master Environmental Impact Report. (UAGP Policy VI-C.3[b]) FWQ-10: The results of the Flood Hazard Analysis shall be incorporated into the project design of any Comprehensive Plan. The Comprehensive Plan shall prohibit development within the flood channel, consistent with the City’s Floodplain Management Ordinance. Where possible, the Comprehensive Plan shall minimize development within the floodplain, consistent with the City’s Floodplain Management Ordinance, by such means as providing setbacks from flood zones, designating areas within the flood zones for low-intensity development only, or providing for setback levees. When levee improvements are necessary to achieve flood protection, the Comprehensive Plan shall include adequate funding for those improvements. Funding mechanisms may include special assessments or special taxes for both capital and maintenance costs, and shall not rely solely on impact fees. The City may work with other agencies to provide these improvements. (UAGP Policy VI-C.3[c]) Water Quality The UAGP contains the following policies relative to water quality. ---PAGE BREAK--- Chapter V. Environmental Analysis Modesto General Plan Update Final Master EIR V-10-9 Section 10. Flooding and Water Quality October 2008 Baseline Developed Area, Redevelopment Area, and Planned Urbanizing Area FWQ-11: The City shall prevent water pollution from urban storm runoff as established by the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board Basin Plan for surface discharges and Environmental Protection Agency for underground injection. (UAGP Policy V.E.3[c]) FWQ-12: New development shall comply with City requirements for conveyance, retention and detention. New development shall include onsite storage of stormwater as necessary. Rockwells shall not be allowed for new development except at infill areas smaller than three acres where no other feasible alternative is available. (UAGP Policy V.E.3[f]) FWQ-13: Construction activities shall comply with the requirements of the City’s Storm Water Management Plan under its municipal NPDES stormwater permit, and the State Water Resources Control Board’s General Permit for Discharges of Storm Water Associated with Construction Activity. (UAGP Policy V.E.3[h]) FWQ-14: For developments within a mapped 100-year floodplain, studies shall be prepared that demonstrate how the development will comply with the both the construction and post-construction programs under the City's municipal NPDES permit. Developments in these areas shall not lead to increased erosion or releases of other contaminants that would cause violations of the City's municipal NPDES permit. (UAGP Policy V.E.3[i]) FWQ-15: New developments shall be required to implement an appropriate selection of permanent pollution control measures in accordance with the City’s implementation policies for the municipal NPDES stormwater permit. Permanent erosion control measures such as seeding and planting vegetation for new cut-and-fill slopes, directing runoff through vegetation, or otherwise reducing the offsite discharge of particulates and sediment are the most effective method of controlling offsite discharges of urban pollutants. (UAGP Policy V.E.4[f]) 5. Policies Which Avoid Impacts The following policies are in effect and have been determined to reduce, avoid, or mitigate environmental impacts within the existing city limits and within the UAGP area. Federal, state, and county policies are included because they reduce or avoid cumulative impacts. The policy reference numbers are listed; the full text of these policies is found in Section A-4 above, Existing Policies Applying to the Study Area. a. Federal Policies 1. Federal policies avoiding impacts from flooding are summarized in the following: FWQ-1. 2. Federal policies avoiding impacts to water quality are summarized in the following: FWQ-2. ---PAGE BREAK--- Chapter V. Environmental Analysis Modesto General Plan Update Final Master EIR V-10-10 Section 10. Flooding and Water Quality October 2008 b. State Policies 1. State policies avoiding impacts from flooding are summarized in the following: FWQ-3. 2. State policies avoiding impacts to water quality are summarized in the following: FWQ-4. c. City of Modesto Policies 1. The following UAGP policies avoid impacts to Flooding. a. Baseline Developed Area and Redevelopment Area: FWQ-5 through FWQ-7 b. Planned Urbanizing Area: FWQ-5 and FWQ-8 through FWQ-10 2. The following UAGP policies avoid impacts to water quality. a. In the Baseline Developed Area, Redevelopment Area and Planned Urbanizing Area: FWQ-11 through FWQ-15 3. The UAGP Update includes policies to restrict development in the floodplain. Existing policies of the UAGP and the City’s Floodplain Management Ordinance will also restrict the amount of post-development runoff to no more than pre-development conditions. B. CONSIDERATION AND DISCUSSION OF SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS The following information is provided in accordance with Section 15064.5 of the State CEQA Guidelines. 1. Thresholds of Significance Suggested by the California Environmental Quality Act Appendix G of the State CEQA Guidelines is a sample checklist for assessing potential impact on flooding and water quality. It offers the following broad suggestions for impact assessment; would the project: 1. Flooding a. place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area; b. place structures within a 100-year flood hazard area that would impede or redirect flood flows; c. expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam; or d. substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area or the course of a stream or river that would result in flooding onsite or offsite? 2. Water Quality ---PAGE BREAK--- Chapter V. Environmental Analysis Modesto General Plan Update Final Master EIR V-10-11 Section 10. Flooding and Water Quality October 2008 Would the project: a. violate water-quality standards or waste discharge requirements; b. substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area or the course of a stream or river in a manner that would result in substantial erosion or siltation onsite or offsite; or c. create or contribute runoff water that would provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? 2. Thresholds of Significance Suggested by Other Analytical Methods FEMA flood insurance standards discourage development within 100-year floodplains. The Porter- Cologne Act prohibits discharge to water sources that will result in a degradation of water quality. 3. Thresholds of Significance Adopted by the City of Modesto After consideration of the methodological approaches suggested by the State CEQA Guidelines and floodplain management considerations, the City has chosen to adopt the following standard of significance: The project will have a significant effect on flooding if it will result in the placement of structures within a 100-year flood plain as defined by FEMA (Figure V-10-1). The project will have a significant effect on water quality if it will result in violations to water quality standards, including groundwater standards administered by DHS and standards for surface water quality such as the NPDES. 4. Significant Direct Impacts The potential hydrologic and water-quality impacts that could occur under UAGP implementation were qualitatively evaluated with respect to several factors, including the duration and extent of the development activities, the magnitude of projected changes to hydrologic and physical site characteristics of the study area compared to existing conditions, and regulatory criteria and guidelines. New planned business park and commercial development of approximately 6,000 acres in the Modesto planning area, and the associated increase in impervious areas created by pavement and structures, has the potential to increase the amount of runoff and contributions to flooding problems in the urban area. Compared to natural soils that allow infiltration of rainfall and stormwater runoff into the ground, the impervious paved and structural surfaces in urban areas increase the rate and amount of runoff. Increased runoff can accelerate soil erosion, stream channel scouring, and sedimentation of channels, and also increase pollutant transport to waterways. The potential impacts of the project on flooding are considered less than significant because the UAGP Update includes policies to restrict development in the floodplain and thus would avoid exposing persons and property to flood hazards. In addition, new development under the UAGP is required to install ---PAGE BREAK--- Chapter V. Environmental Analysis Modesto General Plan Update Final Master EIR V-10-12 Section 10. Flooding and Water Quality October 2008 stormwater drainage facilities that restrict the amount of post-development runoff from exceeding pre-development conditions. Increased development of urban areas could impact surface-water quality through several processes including additional short-term construction-related discharges of wastes, long-term soil erosion from construction and increased discharges of stormwater to drainage channels, and increased long- term discharges of urban pollutants. Groundwater can also be impacted from additional urban development and the associated discharges of household hazardous wastes, accidental spills, and illegal dumping of wastes. The degree to which construction practices adversely affect water quality is determined by the size and intensity of soil disturbances, storage and handling practices of construction materials, training of construction personnel, and seasonal timing of construction activities in relation to the periods of rainfall. Pollutants in urban runoff are also dependent on many factors, including the density of development, land use practices, amount of vehicular traffic and roadway areas, and hydrologic factors. The quantity of potential pollutant discharges associated with urban runoff are difficult to predict; however, numerous studies indicate the potential for urban and roadway runoff to exceed water-quality standards (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 2007a). Much of the pollutant runoff in urban areas has been shown to occur as first-flush events of large amounts of pollutants that occur after extended periods of pollutant deposition on the ground during dry weather (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 2007a). The potential impacts of the project on surface-water quality are considered less than significant because the City policies and capital improvement projects for stormwater drainage facilities would minimize discharges of urban pollutants to natural waterways. The City drainage program policies require new development to prepare drainage plans and implement urban runoff control measures; larger Specific Plan developments must have storm drainage systems designed to control pollutant runoff. The City’s implementation policies for the municipal NPDES stormwater permit require new development to implement an appropriate selection of permanent pollution control measures. Permanent erosion control measures such as seeding and planting vegetation for new cut-and-fill slopes, directing runoff through vegetation, or otherwise reducing the offsite discharge of particulates and sediment are currently some effective methods of controlling offsite discharge of urban pollutants. 5. Significant Cumulative Impacts CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines require the disclosure of the significant cumulative environmental effects, whether the project will make a cumulatively considerable contribution to any such effects, and, if so, mitigation measures intended to reduce the project’s contribution (Section 15130 of the State CEQA Guidelines). A cumulative effect is one that results from past, present, and probable future projects. A project that has a less-than-significant direct effect on the environment may nonetheless make a considerable contribution to a cumulative effect. A cumulative impact analysis first identifies whether there exists a cumulatively significant effect in the given resource area. If so, it determines whether the project will make a considerable contribution to that effect. Where a cumulative impact is severe, even a small contribution may be considerable. Where a project is required to implement or fund its fair-share of a mitigation measure designed to alleviate the cumulative impact, its contribution will be rendered less than considerable. (Section 15130(a) of the State CEQA Guidelines) ---PAGE BREAK--- VR BP SCP RC OS VR OS R OS RC o Figure V-10-1 GENERAL PLAN PROGRAM LEGEND Sheet 1 of 4 FLOOD POTENTIAL DIAGRAM 1 2 3 4 S: \ GIS \ PROJECTS \ CITY_OF_MODESTO \ 06826_06 \ MAPDOC \ MEIR_FIG_V_10_1_FLOOD.MXD LD (01-02-08) 2,000 0 2,000 1,000 Feet 1:24,000 Flood Potential Study Area General Plan Land Use Boundary Project Area Boundary Data Source: FEMA 1996, City of Modesto 2007 Basemap: Portions of Brush Lake (1976), Ceres (1987), Riverbank (1987), and Salida (1987) USGS 7.5' series quadrangles The Stanislaus River floodplain is illustrated on this figure pursuant to current FEMA mapping. Due to differences between the City base map used for this figure and the FEMA map, the location of the river is not aligned with the northern boundary of the figure. This figure is not to be used for site-specific decisionmaking by the City. ---PAGE BREAK--- R I R VR OS VR RPD BP I I R R R R MU C I R R C MU MU MU RPD OS R MU R MU MU MU C MU o Figure V-10-1 GENERAL PLAN PROGRAM LEGEND Sheet 2 of 4 FLOOD POTENTIAL DIAGRAM 1 2 3 4 S: \ GIS \ PROJECTS \ CITY_OF_MODESTO \ 06826_06 \ MAPDOC \ MEIR_FIG_V_10_1_FLOOD.MXD LD (01-02-08) 2,000 0 2,000 1,000 Feet 1:24,000 Flood Potential Study Area General Plan Land Use Boundary Project Area Boundary Data Source: FEMA 1996, City of Modesto 2007 Basemap: Portions of Brush Lake (1976), Ceres (1987), Riverbank (1987), and Salida (1987) USGS 7.5' series quadrangles ---PAGE BREAK--- I R OS R R R VR C R MU C C OS o Figure V-10-1 GENERAL PLAN PROGRAM LEGEND Sheet 3 of 4 FLOOD POTENTIAL DIAGRAM 1 2 3 4 S: \ GIS \ PROJECTS \ CITY_OF_MODESTO \ 06826_06 \ MAPDOC \ MEIR_FIG_V_10_1_FLOOD.MXD LD (01-02-08) 2,000 0 2,000 1,000 Feet 1:24,000 Flood Potential Study Area General Plan Land Use Boundary Project Area Boundary Data Source: FEMA 1996, City of Modesto 2007 Basemap: Portions of Brush Lake (1976), Ceres (1987), Riverbank (1987), and Salida (1987) USGS 7.5' series quadrangles ---PAGE BREAK--- R R VR R I R VR MU OS R BP R MU R MU C MU R R R C C MU VR R MU C MU R MU C RPD RPD C I o Figure V-10-1 GENERAL PLAN PROGRAM LEGEND Sheet 4 of 4 FLOOD POTENTIAL DIAGRAM 1 2 3 4 S: \ GIS \ PROJECTS \ CITY_OF_MODESTO \ 06826_06 \ MAPDOC \ MEIR_FIG_V_10_1_FLOOD.MXD LD (01-02-08) 2,000 0 2,000 1,000 Feet 1:24,000 Flood Potential Study Area General Plan Land Use Boundary Project Area Boundary Data Source: FEMA 1996, City of Modesto 2007 Basemap: Portions of Brush Lake (1976), Ceres (1987), Riverbank (1987), and Salida (1987) USGS 7.5' series quadrangles ---PAGE BREAK--- Chapter V. Environmental Analysis Modesto General Plan Update Final Master EIR V-10-13 Section 10. Flooding and Water Quality October 2008 The population of Stanislaus County is projected to increase in a fashion similar to Modesto, which will result in additional urban development and associated increases in impervious areas, urban runoff, and discharges of construction-related and urban pollutants. Cumulative water-quality impacts could occur from these activities. The cumulative development activities in areas outside of the UAGP area would have little impact on flooding hazards because the magnitude of floodflows is governed primarily by the unpredictable nature of storms and snowmelt runoff to upstream reservoirs. Cumulative development activities could contribute to water-quality impacts in receiving waters such as Dry Creek and the Tuolumne River, which are potentially significant. However, EPA regulations for NPDES stormwater permits and new proposed regulatory additions to the rules have become much more comprehensive in recent years and are being implemented to reduce pollutant runoff from both large- and small-scale activities. Implementation of NPDES-permitting programs throughout the county will reduce potential water-quality impacts to a less-than-significant level. 6. Impacts for Which There Is Insufficient Information to Support a Full Analysis There are no impacts in this area for which there is insufficient information for full analysis. C. MITIGATION MEASURES ADOPTED TO MINIMIZE SIGNIFICANT EFFECTS The following information is provided in accordance with Section 15126.4 of the State CEQA Guidelines. 1. Measures Which Mitigate Direct Impacts No new mitigation measure is proposed. State regulations regarding surface water quality, the adopted policies of the UAGP listed in Sections VI-C.2 and VI-C.3 of the General Plan (UAGP update Policies FWQ51 through FWQ-15), City and County floodplain ordinances, Modesto Municipal Code Title 5, Chapter 10, and the City’s Guidance Manual for New Development Stormwater Quality Control Measures would reduce direct impacts to less than significant by, among other things, restricting development within floodplains and requiring specific water-quality protections from development. 2. Measures Which Mitigate Cumulative Impacts No new mitigation measures are proposed. The adopted policies of the UAGP listed in Sections VI-C.2 and VI-C.3 of the General Plan (UAGP update Policies FWQ51 through FWQ-15), restricting development within floodplains and federal requirements (administered by the Central Valley limiting discharges into surface water would reduce cumulative impacts to less than significant. ---PAGE BREAK--- Chapter V. Environmental Analysis Modesto General Plan Update Final Master EIR V-10-14 Section 10. Flooding and Water Quality October 2008 3. Alternatives to the Proposed Project The following information is provided in accordance with Section 15126.6 of the State CEQA Guidelines. There are no significant effects on this resource, so no alternative is necessary. D. MONITORING THESE MITIGATION MEASURES The following information is provided in accordance with Public Resources Code (PRC) 21081.6. The mitigation measures identified in the Master EIR have been incorporated into the UAGP and are implemented by that plan. City staff provides the City Council with an annual report on UAGP implementation. Therefore, no separate mitigation monitoring program is required for the UAGP Master EIR. E. EVALUATING SUBSEQUENT PROJECTS The following information will be used to determine whether subsequent projects conform to the Master EIR, as outlined in PRC Section 21157.1(c). Anticipated future projects, as presented in Chapter II, are within the scope of analysis for the effects on flooding and water quality as long as the following circumstances have not changed. 1. The lead agency for subsequent projects shall be the City of Modesto or any responsible agency identified in the Master EIR. 2. The following policies continue to be in force to reduce, avoid, or mitigate impacts: FWQ-1 through FWQ-15. 3. The Guidance Manual for New Development Stormwater Quality Control Measures shall apply throughout the UAGP and per Section 2 of the manual. 4. No new significant effect on flood protection or impacts on water quality are identified within the planning area. F. KEEPING THE MASTER ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT CURRENT FOR THIS TOPIC As authorized by PRC Section 21166, the analysis contained in this section is current as long as the following circumstances have not occurred. 1. The planning area population increases more rapidly than projected by the UAGP, indicating that the planning area will be insufficient to accommodate expected growth in 2025. 2. The planning area is expanded beyond the May 2008 (estimated date of certification of UAGP/Master EIR Update) boundaries. ---PAGE BREAK--- Chapter V. Environmental Analysis Modesto General Plan Update Final Master EIR V-10-15 Section 10. Flooding and Water Quality October 2008 3. New information, as defined in State CEQA Guidelines Section 15162(a)(3), becomes available pertaining to flooding and water quality that would require major revisions in the Master EIR by indicating that there would be an additional significant effect on the environment and that new or additional mitigation measures or alternatives may be required. ---PAGE BREAK--- Chapter V. Environmental Analysis Modesto General Plan Update Final Master EIR V-11-1 Section 11. Increased Demand for Parks and Open Space October 2008 Section 11 Increased Demand for Parks and Open Space This section describes how development associated with the City of Modesto Urban Area General Plan (UAGP) would affect demand for park and recreation facilities. If significant impacts are found, mitigation measures are provided to reduce these impacts to a less-than-significant level. A. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING The following information is provided in accordance with Section 15125 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines. This environmental setting is the baseline for determining whether an impact of the UAGP is significant. 1. Study Area for Direct Impacts The study area for direct impacts on demand for park and recreation facilities is the Modesto planning area. 2. Study Area for Cumulative Impacts This analysis will be based on the plan or projection approach to examining cumulative effects, as provided under Section 15130(b)(1)(B) of the State CEQA Guidelines. Pertinent plans and projections to be used for this purpose are the UAGP and Tuolumne River Regional Park Master Plan (TRRP Master Plan). The study area for cumulative impacts on demand for park and recreation facilities is the limits of Stanislaus County. 3. Existing Physical Conditions in the Study Areas a. Overview In 1995, the Modesto city parks system consisted of 14 acres of developed or partially developed miscellaneous parks, 185 acres of developed or partially developed neighborhood parks, 71 acres of developed or partially developed community parks, 41 acres of developed or partially developed Dry Creek Park, and 180 acres of developed or partially developed Tuolumne River Regional Park (TRRP). The system also included 78.67 acres of undeveloped neighborhood parks, 23 acres of undeveloped community parks, 120 acres of undeveloped Dry Creek Park, and 192 acres of undeveloped TRRP. The existing park system is illustrated in Figure V-11-1. In early 2006, the City of Modesto (City) identified the following as parks that are developed or undeveloped: 706 acres of regional parks (324 acres developed and 382 acres undeveloped), 131 acres of community parks (65 acres developed and 66 acres undeveloped), ---PAGE BREAK--- Chapter V. Environmental Analysis Modesto General Plan Update Final Master EIR V-11-2 Section 11. Increased Demand for Parks and Open Space October 2008 337 acres of neighborhood parks (316 acres developed and 21 acres undeveloped), 8 acres of developed miscellaneous parks (including tot lots and public squares), 11 community centers (six developed and five undeveloped), one family aquatic center (undeveloped), 363 acres of golf courses (all developed), 12 acres of minor league professional baseball field complex (developed), and 208 acres of sports complex facilities (all undeveloped but planned as outlined in the Regional Sports Facility Study prepared for Stanislaus County (the County) and the City, adopted in March 2002). Planned Improvements The City park system provides excellent public areas along the Modesto urban area’s two natural waterways. Dry Creek Park already extends along much of the riparian area, and plans are in process to develop trails along the remaining undeveloped area. The TRRP has been planned since 1968, when a joint powers agreement was signed by the County, the City, and the City of Ceres. The TRRP Master Plan was adopted in 2001. Plans for this park include a wide range of activities and facilities along a 7-mile stretch of the Tuolumne River, from Carpenter Road on the west to Mitchell Road on the east. The park planning areas are illustrated in Figure V-11-2. Under the joint powers agreement’s TRRP Master Plan, over the next 20 years the parkway is to become a 500-acre regional park serving Modesto, Ceres, and the whole of Stanislaus County (Allen pers. comm.). The area along the river is intended to support a trail, and riparian areas are to be restored. Future, planned uses include a sports complex north of the Sutter Avenue wastewater treatment plant, multiuse meadows and new parking areas at the Gateway Parcel, and various improvements to Legion Park. Several boat piers and fishing piers would be installed along the river under the TRRP Master Plan also. The greatest limitation to the realization of the goals for parks and open spaces is the lack of financial resources for completion or renovation of the park system in the Baseline Developed Area and the maintenance and operation costs for not only the Baseline Developed Area, but also the Planned Urbanizing Area. 4. Existing Policies Applying to the Study Area Below is a comprehensive list of major federal, state, and local (County and City) policies or summaries of policies in effect that apply to the study area. This list provides the full range of applicable policies that a project within the study area potentially would need to comply with, including policies beyond the jurisdiction of the City. This list of laws, regulations, and programs also serves to describe the circumstances under which the Master EIR analyzed this environmental topic. A discrete reference number, following the initials of the resource topic, is assigned to each policy or policy summary listed to facilitate its identification elsewhere in this Master EIR or, where appropriate, its incorporation as a mitigation measure into subsequent projects analyzed under this Master EIR Parks and Open Space policies are designated as POS-X, where X is the discrete number). ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- Chapter V. Environmental Analysis Modesto General Plan Update Final Master EIR V-11-3 Section 11. Increased Demand for Parks and Open Space October 2008 a. Federal Regulations There are no applicable federal policies or regulations related to parks and open spaces. See Section V-7, Loss of Sensitive Wildlife and Plant Habitat, of this Master EIR for policies relating to open space habitat. b. State Policies POS-1: Pursuant to the California Subdivision Map Act, cities are encouraged to acquire lands within new subdivisions for park and recreation facilities to serve future residents. Accordingly, Section 66477 of the Government Code authorizes cities to require the dedication of land or payment in lieu of fees for parks and recreation purposes when approving subdivisions of land. c. Stanislaus County Policies There are no applicable County policies. d. City of Modesto Policies The City’s UAGP provides the following goals and policies related to recreation and parks. General Open Space and Park Goals POS-2: The City should work to provide opportunities for social interaction of residents from all backgrounds and walks of life. (UAGP Goal V-G.2[a]) POS-3: The City should work to create public places where people can gather. (UAGP Goal V-G.2[b]) POS-4: There should be an equitable distribution of open space facilities throughout the City. (UAGP Goal V-G.2[c]) Open Space and Parks Policies—Baseline Developed Area General POS-5: All acreage standards are expressed as gross acreage. This means that additional acreage must be added to the gross park acreage for offsite requirements, such as street right-of-way, in order to satisfy the minimum standard. Minimum acreage standards will be increased if necessary to accommodate the development standards for the park. (UAGP Policy V-G.3[a.1]) POS-6: Figure V-6 [of the UAGP] presents Park Planning Areas for the Baseline Developed Area. With regards to acreage, service area, location and street frontage standards, the existing park system shown on Figure V-5 [of the UAGP] shall be considered ---PAGE BREAK--- Chapter V. Environmental Analysis Modesto General Plan Update Final Master EIR V-11-4 Section 11. Increased Demand for Parks and Open Space October 2008 adequate and acceptable, as is, with the following exceptions, by the Park Planning Area designation: „ Bret Harte „ Shackleford „ Tide Water Industrial „ Burbank „ Maze Wren „ Woodland „ College West „ North East McHenry „ Empire East „ Empire West „ Airport Within these Park Planning Areas, the open space and parks system is NOT considered adequate and acceptable as is and the City will endeavor to develop facilities in accordance with all of the Open Space and Parks policies and Community and Neighborhood Park standards that apply to the Baseline Developed Area. However, the City recognizes and accepts that it may not be possible to conform precisely to all policies and meet all standards in total because of the prior development patterns and policies that were not under the City’s control. (UAGP Policy V-G.3[a.2]) POS-7: The City will endeavor to plan, acquire, and develop parks and recreation facilities adjacent to schools in order to maximize the potential for joint use of adjoining City and School District open space and recreation facilities. (UAGP Policy V-G.3[a.3]) POS-8: Only acreage owned or otherwise controlled exclusively by the City in perpetuity and planned to be developed and operated for the express and primary purpose of providing recreation facilities as set forth in the Neighborhood and Community Park standards outlined in the General Plan will count toward minimum acreage standards. Acreage planned and developed primarily for other purposes such as trails and elements of drainage systems shall not count toward meeting minimum standards for Neighborhood and Community Parks. (UAGP Policy V-G.3[a.4]) POS-9: The City shall update and maintain the Capital Facility Fee program for park development to contribute to park system development. City shall also endeavor to provide funding for land acquisition, engineering, design, development, maintenance and preservation of the parks system through funding from fund development efforts, grants, general fund contributions, Capital Facility Fees, Community Financing Districts, and other forms of revenue building. (UAGP Policy V-G.3[a.5]) POS-10: The City shall develop non-motorized connections as discussed in the Non- Motorized Transportation Plan such as multi-use paths or sidewalks and bike lanes, to ensure adequate connectivity from the surrounding neighborhoods. (UAGP Policy V-G.3[a.6]) ---PAGE BREAK--- Chapter V. Environmental Analysis Modesto General Plan Update Final Master EIR V-11-5 Section 11. Increased Demand for Parks and Open Space October 2008 Baseline Developed Area—Neighborhood Park Standards POS-11: The City will endeavor to provide at least one neighborhood park within each Park Planning Area. The park should be centrally located within the Park Planning Area and have a service radius of one half to three quarters of a mile. The park should have one collector street frontage and the remaining sides should front on residential streets. The minimum size for a neighborhood park shall be SEVEN ACRES or the total acreage based on TWO ACRES OF PARK LAND PER ONE THOUSAND POPULATION within the Park Planning Area, whichever is greater. (UAGP Policy V-G.3[b]) Baseline Developed Area—Community Park Standards POS-12: The Community Park Service Area is that area within a radius of approximately one to one-and-one-half miles of the park site. The park should have major street frontage and the remaining sides should front on residential streets. The minimum size for a community park should be TWENTY-FIVE ACRES or the total acreage based on ONE ACRE OF PARK LAND PER ONE THOUSAND POPULATION within the Community Park Service Area, whichever is greater. (UAGP Policy V-G.3[c]) Open Space and Parks Policies—Planned Urbanizing Area General POS-13 The policies and standards for the development of the park system within the Planned Urbanizing Area differ in several respects from those in the Baseline Developed Area. These policies and standards will be implemented through each “Comprehensive Plan”, in conjunction of the relevant “Comprehensive Planning District” policies presented in Chapter III [of the UAGP]. (UAGP Policy V- G.4[a.1]) POS-14: The acreage standards related to Neighborhood and Community Parks are considered minimum. Park acreage may be increased beyond the minimum standard acreage at the option of a developer with additional contiguous, clean and usable parkland, as long as the additional land is fully dedicated and design and construction are fully funded at no additional cost to the City or associated park development fee program. These acreage standards may be enhanced by additional open space to meet unique characteristics of the Specific Plans for each new Comprehensive Planning District. (UAGP Policy V-G.4[a.2]) POS-15: All acreage standards are expressed as gross acreage. This means that additional acreage must be added to the gross park acreage for off-site requirements, such as street right-of-way, in order to satisfy the minimum standard. Minimum acreage standards will be increased if necessary to accommodate the development standards for the park. (UAGP Policy V-G.4[a.3]) POS-16: Dual-use flood control/recreation facilities shall be developed wherever feasible. Only acreage owned or otherwise controlled exclusively by the City in perpetuity will count toward minimum acreage standards. Park acreage credit for dual-use facilities shall be calculated in accordance with the standards and criteria contained in the City of Modesto’s Design Standards for Dual Use Flood Control/Recreation ---PAGE BREAK--- Chapter V. Environmental Analysis Modesto General Plan Update Final Master EIR V-11-6 Section 11. Increased Demand for Parks and Open Space October 2008 Facilities manual. In contrast to the Baseline Developed area, School District open space does NOT count towards minimum park acreage requirements within the Planned Urbanizing Area. The City recognizes the community benefits of dual use flood control/recreation facilities (dual-use facilities) in that these facilities: Reduce the total acreage purchased for stormwater detention. Allow and encourage maximum recreational uses of detention lands. Allow for periodic stormwater detention storage without significantly disrupting park uses. Augment park facilities available to the local community. Maximize public use of available open space. (UAGP Policy V-G.4[a.4]) POS-17: Dual-use facilities shall be designed and constructed in accordance with the standards and criteria contained in the “Design Standards for Dual use Flood Control/Recreation Facilities” manual. (UAGP Policy V-G.4[a.5]) Planned Urbanizing Area—Neighborhood Park Standards POS-18: The City will endeavor to provide at least one neighborhood park within each residential neighborhood. The park should be centrally located within the neighborhood and have a service radius of one half to three quarters of a mile. The park should have one collector street frontage and the remaining sides should front on residential streets. The minimum size for a neighborhood park shall be SEVEN ACRES or the total acreage based on ONE ACRE OF PARK LAND PER ONE THOUSAND POPULATION within the neighborhood, whichever is greater. (UAGP Policy V- G.4[b]) Planned Urbanizing Area—Community Park Standards POS-19: The Community Park Service Area is that area within a radius of approximately one to one-and-one-half miles of the park site. The park should have one major street frontage and the remaining sides should front on residential streets. Parks should not back up to residential lots. The minimum size for a Community Park should be FORTY ACRES or the total acreage based on TWO ACRES OF PARK LAND PER ONE THOUSAND POPULATION within the Community Park Service Area. (UAGP Policy V-G.4[c]) Open Space Policies—Parks POS-20: Figure V-5 [of the UAGP] presents the existing (2007) park system. Section V-G(2) [of the UAGP] presents a variety of policies applying to parks within the Baseline Developed Area. (UAGP Policy VII-B.6[a]) POS-21: Within the Redevelopment Area, the Redevelopment Plan, adopted in 2007, contains adequate policies that are applicable to the Redevelopment Project Area. (UAGP Policy VII-B.6[b]) ---PAGE BREAK--- Chapter V. Environmental Analysis Modesto General Plan Update Final Master EIR V-11-7 Section 11. Increased Demand for Parks and Open Space October 2008 POS-22: Within the Planned Urbanizing Area, development of new parkland and open space shall be accomplished through the application of specified performance standards presented in Section V-G(3) [of the UAGP]. (UAGP Policy VII-B.6[c]) POS-23: The regional park systems for Dry Creek and the Stanislaus and Tuolumne Rivers are defined in Chapter III, as follows: the Stanislaus River Comprehensive Planning District, the Tuolumne River Comprehensive Planning District, and the Dry Creek Comprehensive Planning District. (UAGP Policy VII-B.6[d]) Open Space Policies—River Greenway Program The State Lands Commission holds a fee ownership in the bed of the Stanislaus and Tuolumne Rivers between the two ordinary low water marks. The entire rivers between the ordinary high water marks are subject to a Public Trust Easement. Both easement and fee owned lands are under the jurisdiction of the State Lands Commission (Public Resources Code Section 6301 and Section 6216). Use of lands underlying the State’s easement must be consistent with Public Trust needs in the area. In addition, the State may have a sovereign interest in Dry Creek. Due to staff limitations of the State Lands Commission, a study of this area to define the precise nature and extent of the State’s interest has not been done. However, the California State Parks Department is interested [in] providing additional recreational opportunities with the support of local jurisdictions. The California State Parks Department’s Central Valley Vision Report was completed in 2007. The report provides recommendations to develop additional recreational opportunities in the Central Valley, including the City of Modesto. One of the recommendations of the report is to significantly expand recreational opportunities, programs, and services and preserve resources particularly along river corridors. The Central Valley Vision Report identified the Tuolumne River as one of its four rivers of significant interest. One of [the] Department’s river studies currently underway includes the Tuolumne River. State Lands Commission staff believes that the general plan update is an excellent opportunity to incorporate public trust resource protection values and, specifically, a greenway concept. The City Parks and Recreation Department Director agrees with State Lands Commission staff; therefore, the following policies, collectively referred to as the “River Greenway Program,” are adopted to guide the development of parkland within the Dry Creek, Stanislaus River, and Tuolumne River Comprehensive Planning Districts (see Chapter III [of the UAGP]): POS-24: Visual corridors of the river will be protected and enhanced. (UAGP Policy VII- B.7[a]) POS-25: Visual corridors and access points on the riverfront will be recreated through redevelopment. (UAGP Policy VII-B.7[b]) POS-26: Identifiable park entrances will be created. A comprehensive program of park signage and graphics will be developed. (UAGP Policy VII-B.7[c]) POS-27: Adequate circulation throughout the park will be provided in order to accommodate pedestrians, bicyclists, and vehicles, as well as equestrians and boaters, if appropriate. Opportunities for park access via public transportation will be provided. (UAGP Policy VII-B.7[d]) POS-28: Active and passive recreational areas with universal access will be created. (UAGP Policy VII-B.7[e]) POS-29: Vehicular and pedestrian connections to the park that are direct and user-friendly will be provided. (UAGP Policy VII-B.7[f]) POS-30: Adequate parking for park activities will be provided. (UAGP Policy VII-B.7[g]) ---PAGE BREAK--- Chapter V. Environmental Analysis Modesto General Plan Update Final Master EIR V-11-8 Section 11. Increased Demand for Parks and Open Space October 2008 POS-31: A continuous trail linkage will be provided throughout the park that includes a range of experiences. (UAGP Policy VII-B.7[h]) POS-32: Public access points and linear foot and bike paths will be incorporated into residential redevelopment as discussed in the Non-Motorized Transportation Master Plan. (UAGP Policy VII-B.7[i]) POS-33: Riverfront vegetation will be consistent with riparian habitat zones. (UAGP Policy VII-B.7[j]) POS-34: Environmentally sensitive habitat areas shall be protected against any significant disruption of habitat values and only uses dependent on such resources shall be allowed within such areas nature education and research, fishing and habitat protection). (UAGP Policy VII-B.7[k]) POS-35: Sensitive habitats and natural areas, including wetlands and riparian corridors, will be protected and enhanced, when feasible. (UAGP Policy VII-B.7[l]) POS-36: Existing wildlife habitat areas will be protected and enhanced, when feasible. (UAGP Policy VII-B.7[m]) POS-37: Aquatic species and habitat will be protected and enhanced, when feasible. (UAGP Policy VII-B.7[n]) POS-38: The natural forces influencing the development of recreational areas, including potential flooding, prevailing winds, sun orientation, and topography will be considered during design. (UAGP Policy VII-B.7[o]) POS-39: A flood management program that provides protection from catastrophic flooding and contributes to the ecological values of the river corridor will be promoted. (UAGP Policy VII-B.7[p]) POS-40: The scenic resources of Public Trust lands and resources shall be considered and protected as a resource of public importance. Permitted development shall be sited and designed to protect scenic views associated with Public Trust lands and resources. (UAGP Policy VII-B.7[q]) POS-41: Areas to accommodate multiple purposes and changes in recreational preferences over time will be developed. (UAGP Policy VII-B.7[r]) POS-42: Park and trail systems will be expanded as land becomes available. (UAGP Policy VII-B.7[s]) POS-43: Adequate support facilities for recreational activities will be developed. (UAGP Policy VII-B.7[t]) POS-44: Historical and archaeological resources will be preserved and protected, when feasible. The locations of archaeological resources will not be disclosed to the public. (UAGP Policy VII-B.7[u]) POS-45: Support the California State Parks Department’s efforts to provide additional recreational opportunities within the City. (UAGP Policy VII-B.7[v]) POS-46: Support the findings and recommendations discussed within the California State Parks’ Central Valley Vision Report as well as subsequent studies that pertain to the city. (UAGP Policy VII-B.7[w]) ---PAGE BREAK--- Chapter V. Environmental Analysis Modesto General Plan Update Final Master EIR V-11-9 Section 11. Increased Demand for Parks and Open Space October 2008 5. Policies Which Avoid Impacts The following City goals and policies are in effect and have been determined to reduce, avoid, or mitigate environmental impacts within the existing city limits and within the Planned Urbanizing Area as they annex and develop. The goal and policy reference numbers are listed, and the full text of these policies is found in Section A-4 above, Existing Policies Applying to the Study Area. a. City of Modesto Policies The UAGP provides the following goals and policies identified in Section A-4, above, related to recreation and parks: 1. General Open Space and Park Goals: POS-2 through POS-4. 2. Open Space and Parks Policies—Baseline Developed Area: POS-5 through POS-12. 3. Open Space and Parks Policies—Planned Urbanizing Area: POS-13 through POS-19. 4. Open Space Policies—Parks: POS-20 through POS-23. 5. Open Space Policies—River Greenway Program: POS-24 through POS-46. B. CONSIDERATION AND DISCUSSION OF SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS The following information is provided in accordance with Section 15126.2 of the State CEQA Guidelines. 1. Thresholds of Significance Suggested by the California Environmental Quality Act CEQA directs agencies to analyze effects on the environment, including parks and open space, using Appendix G of the State CEQA Guidelines. Appendix G of the State CEQA Guidelines is a sample checklist for assessing potential impacts on parks and open space. It offers the following broad suggestions for impact assessment. Would the project: a. result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities or require the construction of new facilities, which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives related to park services; or b. cause an increase in the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated or include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? ---PAGE BREAK--- Chapter V. Environmental Analysis Modesto General Plan Update Final Master EIR V-11-10 Section 11. Increased Demand for Parks and Open Space October 2008 2. Thresholds of Significance Adopted by the City of Modesto The City will use the thresholds set out in the State CEQA Guidelines. a. Baseline Developed Area Any elimination of the existing acreage and distribution of parkland (as of January 1, 2003) will be considered a significant impact. b. Planned Urbanizing Area Any proposed project that does not meet the following park and open space ratios will have a significant adverse impact: „ neighborhood park: 1 acre of parkland and open space per 1,000 people; or „ community park: 2 acres of parkland and open space per 1,000 people. 3. Significant Direct Impacts a. Baseline Developed Area and Redevelopment Area The UAGP does not propose any elimination of existing park or open space land. Impacts on parks and open space will be less than significant. b. Planned Urbanizing Area From 1995 to 2025, the UAGP would result in a projected population of approximately 357,000 (the upper range of the estimated population). To meet anticipated demand for the entire population, using the above-mentioned criteria, the UAGP would require a minimum of 357 acres of neighborhood parks; 714 acres of community parks; 208 acres of sports complex; and full buildout of the non-motorized transportation system Class I and Class II trails, 11 community centers, and the family aquatic center. Taking into account the existing park acreage (345 acres of neighborhood and miscellaneous parks, and 131 acres of community parks, developed and undeveloped, total), the additional park acreage required would be 12 acres of neighborhood parks and 583 acres of community parks (Houx pers.comm.). All existing parkland within the Baseline Developed Area meets recreation goals, with the exceptions of the following neighborhoods: Bret Harte, Shackleford, Tide Water Industrial, Fairway, Burbank, Maze Wren, College West, McKinney Colony, Aqueduct, Empire East, Empire West, and Airport (Houx pers.comm.). New park development would be limited to the Planned Urbanizing Area. The projected population of the Planned Urbanizing Area is 148,600, requiring approximately 149 acres of neighborhood parks and approximately 298 acres of community parks. The required minimum acreages can be met through the application of existing policies and regulations, including Government Code Section 66474, ---PAGE BREAK--- Chapter V. Environmental Analysis Modesto General Plan Update Final Master EIR V-11-11 Section 11. Increased Demand for Parks and Open Space October 2008 which require developers to pay parks capital facilities fees to fund the acquisition of appropriate parkland acreage. This impact is less than significant. 4. Significant Cumulative Impacts CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines require the disclosure of a project’s significant cumulative environmental impacts, whether the project will make a cumulatively considerable contribution to any such impacts, and, if it will, mitigation measures intended to reduce the project’s contribution (Section 15130 of the State CEQA Guidelines). A cumulative impact is one that results from past, present, and probable future projects. A project that has a less-than-significant direct impact on the environment may make a considerable contribution to a cumulative impact nonetheless. A cumulative impact analysis first identifies whether there exists a cumulatively significant impact in the given resource area. If so, it determines whether the project will make a considerable contribution to that impact. Where a cumulative impact is severe, even a small contribution may be considerable. Where a project is required to implement or fund its fair share of a mitigation measure designed to alleviate the cumulative impact, its contribution will be rendered less than considerable. (Section 15130(a) of the State CEQA Guidelines.) Given the magnitude of the effects of new development on parks and open space, the direct impacts described in this section are the same as “cumulative impacts.” No further mitigation is required for cumulative impacts, and cumulative impact analysis for parks and recreation will not be required for any anticipated subsequent projects that require a mitigated negative declaration (Public Resources Code [PRC] Section 21157.5) or a focused environmental impact report (PRC Section 21158). This impact is less than significant. 5. Impacts for Which There Is Insufficient Information to Support a Full Analysis There are no such impacts associated with parks and open space. C. MITIGATION MEASURES ADOPTED TO MINIMIZE SIGNIFICANT EFFECTS The following information is provided in accordance with Section 15126.4 of the State CEQA Guidelines. 1. Measures Which Mitigate Direct Impacts No new mitigation measures are proposed. The adopted policies of the UAGP, listed in Section A- 4 above, Existing Policies Applying to the Study Area (POS-2 through POS-46), would eliminate direct impacts by requiring the provision of adequate parks and open space for new development. ---PAGE BREAK--- Chapter V. Environmental Analysis Modesto General Plan Update Final Master EIR V-11-12 Section 11. Increased Demand for Parks and Open Space October 2008 2. Measures Which Mitigate Cumulative Impacts No new mitigation measures are proposed. The adopted policies of the UAGP, listed in Section A- 4 above, Existing Policies Applying to the Study Area (POS-2 through POS-46), would ensure that as development occurred on land annexed to the City, it would be required to provide adequate parks and open space. 3. Alternatives to the Proposed Project The following information is provided in accordance with Section 15126.6 of the State CEQA Guidelines. The project does not result in significant impacts on parks and open space. No alternative designs to lessen effects are necessary. D. MONITORING THESE MITIGATION MEASURES The following information is provided in accordance with PRC Section 21081.6. The mitigation measures identified in the Master EIR have been incorporated into the UAGP and are implemented by that plan. City staff provides the Modesto City Council with an annual report on UAGP implementation. Therefore, no separate mitigation monitoring program is required for the UAGP Master EIR. E. EVALUATING SUBSEQUENT PROJECTS The following information will be used to determine whether subsequent projects conform to the Master EIR, as outlined in PRC Section 21157.1(c). Anticipated future projects, as presented in Chapter II, are within the scope of analysis for the effects on parks and open space as long as the following circumstances have not changed. 1. The lead agency for subsequent projects will be the City or any responsible agency identified in the Master EIR. 2. The following City policies found in Section A-4 above, Existing Policies Applying to the Study Area, continue to be in force to reduce, avoid, or mitigate impacts: POS-2 through POS-46. 3. No additional significant effect on parks and open space is identified within the planning area, and no new mitigation measures are required. F. KEEPING THE MASTER ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT CURRENT FOR THIS TOPIC As authorized by PRC Section 21166, the analysis contained in this resource section, Increased Demand for Parks and Open Space, is current as long as the following circumstances have not occurred. ---PAGE BREAK--- Chapter V. Environmental Analysis Modesto General Plan Update Final Master EIR V-11-13 Section 11. Increased Demand for Parks and Open Space October 2008 1. The planning area population increases more rapidly than projected by the UAGP, indicating that the planning area will be insufficient to accommodate expected growth in 2025. 2. The planning area is expanded beyond the May 2008 (estimated date of certification for UAGP/Master EIR update) boundaries. 3. There are no substantial changes with respect to the circumstances under which the UAGP is being undertaken that would require major revisions in the Master EIR by indicating that there would be an additional significant effect on the environment and that new or additional mitigation measures or alternatives may be required. ---PAGE BREAK--- Chapter V. Environmental Analysis Modesto General Plan Update Final Master EIR V-12-1 Section 12. Increased Demand for Schools October 2008 Section 12 Increased Demand for Schools This section describes how development associated with the City of Modesto Urban Area General Plan (UAGP) would affect demand for school services. If significant impacts are found, mitigation measures are provided to reduce these impacts to a less-than-significant level. A. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING The following information is provided in accordance with Section 15125 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines. This environmental setting is the baseline for determining whether an impact of the UAGP is significant. 1. Study Area for Direct Impacts The study area for direct impacts on schools is the Modesto planning area. 2. Study Area for Cumulative Impacts This analysis will be based on the plan and projection approach to examining cumulative impacts, as provided under Section 15130(b)(1)(B) of the State CEQA Guidelines. Pertinent plans and projections to be used for this purpose are the UAGP and projections of the school districts serving Modesto. The study area for cumulative impacts on schools includes the limits of the school districts serving the Modesto planning area. 3. Existing Physical Conditions in the Study Area Modesto is served by eight school districts: Modesto City Schools; and the Hart-Ransom Union, Stanislaus Union, Salida Union, Sylvan Union, Paradise Elementary, Empire Union, and Keyes Union School Districts. The Riverbank Unified and Oakdale Joint Unified School Districts, located immediately north and east, respectively, of the Modesto planning area, serve a few students living near Modesto’s city limits, and the Hughson Unified and Ceres Unified School Districts serve some students living near Modesto’s southern city limits. The majority of the city is served by the Modesto City Schools district, which includes elementary schools, middle schools, and high schools. The Modesto City Schools district has experienced significant growth in recent years. Between 1980 and the fall of 2005, the enrollment in kindergarten through 12th grade has increased from 18,294 to 33,312, representing an 82% increase. Eleven out of 23 elementary schools operate on a multitrack, year-round education schedule to accommodate overcrowding and class-size reduction. To address enrollment increases throughout the district, a new comprehensive high school, James Enochs High School, opened in the fall of 2006 and has capacity for 2,500 students. Development and acquisition efforts are under way for the development of the new Joseph A. ---PAGE BREAK--- Chapter V. Environmental Analysis Modesto General Plan Update Final Master EIR V-12-2 Section 12. Increased Demand for Schools October 2008 Gregori High School on a 79-acre site on Stoddard Road east of State Route (SR) 99 in the Salida area. This high school is planned to open in 2010. (McGarry pers. comm.) The Modesto City Schools district received an apportionment of $4.9 million from the State of California for construction of the Modesto High School math and science building in December 2002. In addition, the Modesto City Schools district plans to move forward with modernization projects at 10 schools (McGarry pers. comm.). The Modesto City Schools district also has 11 recently completed bond projects for its elementary schools, including school renovations and expansions, and currently is doing site renovation and new construction for Bret Harte Elementary. High school bond projects include electrical and heating, ventilation, and air conditioning improvements at Grace Davis and Thomas Downey High Schools and Elliott Alternative Education Center, and modernizations of the Grace Davis High School library (Modesto City Schools 2006). According to the Hart-Ransom Elementary School: School Accountability Report Card, Hart- Ransom School facilities are currently in good repair, and no new major construction or modernization has been identified (Hart-Ransom Union School District 2006). Hart-Ransom Academic Charter is currently in the process of expanding its parking facilities and classrooms, as well as modernizing its existing facilities (Hart-Ransom Union School District 2005). The Stanislaus Union School District completed construction of a new elementary school in 2004 and will be expanding Prescott Senior Elementary School in the near future (Chavez pers. comm.). In the Salida Union School District, additional schools are under consideration in response to residential development, and it is anticipated that within 5 to 10 years, an elementary and a middle school will be constructed in the district (Silva pers. comm.). The Sylvan Union School District is in the process of expanding its capacity in the Village One area through the construction of new schools. The district opened the 800-student Mary Ann Sanders Elementary School on August 6, 2007, and the 1,200-student Daniel J. Savage Middle School on August 27, 2007. Both schools are located in Village One. In addition, the district is pursuing the acquisition of a school site in the Tivoli Specific Plan area. Until new facilities are built, new students will be housed at existing sites (Speed pers. comm.). There is currently one school in the Paradise Elementary School District. No schools are currently under construction or expansion or are planned for construction within the next 20 years (Ballard pers. comm.). There are seven schools in the Empire Union School District. An expansion of Alice N. Stroud Elementary School for a classroom/computer lab is anticipated to begin June 18, 2007 (Kiger pers. comm.). Additionally, a new elementary school is planned on Church Street at Frazine Road, in coordination with the construction of new development (Wall pers. comm.). In the Keyes Union School District, Barbara Spratling Middle School was opened on January 8, 2002. No new projects are currently under way (California Department of General Services, Office of Public School Construction 2003). Modesto Junior College operates two campuses in Modesto within the Yosemite Community College District: the West Campus at Blue Gum and Carpenter Avenues and the East Campus between College Avenue and Tully Road. In the 2004–2005 school year, there was a total enrollment of approximately 17,000 students at both campuses (50states.com 2007). The West ---PAGE BREAK--- Chapter V. Environmental Analysis Modesto General Plan Update Final Master EIR V-12-3 Section 12. Increased Demand for Schools October 2008 Campus is composed mainly of new buildings; however, the administrative offices are World War II vintage buildings that were part of a military hospital. The Facilities Master Planning Committee has begun work on preparing a facilities master plan (FMP) for Modesto Junior College that will guide the renovation of existing buildings and the construction of new college buildings. 4. Existing Policies Applying to the Study Area Below is a comprehensive list of major federal, state, and local (Stanislaus County [County] and City of Modesto [City]) policies in effect that apply to the study area. This list provides the full range of applicable policies that a project within the study area potentially would need to comply with, including policies beyond the jurisdiction of the City. This list of laws, regulations, and programs also serves to describe the circumstances under which the master environmental impact report (Master EIR) analyzes this environmental topic. A discrete reference number, following the initials of the resource topic, is assigned to each policy or policy summary listed to facilitate its identification elsewhere in this Master EIR or, where appropriate, its incorporation as a mitigation measure into subsequent projects analyzed under this Master EIR Schools policies are designated as S-X, where X is the discrete number). a. Federal Regulations There are no directly applicable federal policies. b. State Policies Under the current education funding approach, the state sets operating fund revenue limits for schools, intended to equalize educational opportunities across the state. To the extent that a school’s share of local property taxes does not reach the appropriate level, the state apportions funds to make up the difference. Modesto schools receive the majority of their operational funds from the state. School construction and modernization funding is provided by a mix of state, school district (generally from property taxes, special taxes, and general obligation bonds), and developer fee sources. Upon the passage of Proposition 1A (a $9.2 billion competitive school bond measure) on November 3, 1998, the provisions of Senate Bill (SB) 50 became effective. SB 50 altered the method by which school facilities to serve new development are constructed in California. SB 50 prohibits a city from denying a residential project on the basis of inadequate school capacity (Government Code Section 65995). SB 50 also limits the fees that can be imposed on new development (Government Code Section 65995). Under SB 50, payment of development impact fees, in addition to specified other funding options, is established to be full mitigation of environmental impacts on schools (Government Code Section 65997). This law does preserve the traditional power of cities to use a general plan and zoning ordinance to reserve or designate areas for schools. ---PAGE BREAK--- Chapter V. Environmental Analysis Modesto General Plan Update Final Master EIR V-12-4 Section 12. Increased Demand for Schools October 2008 Proposition 1A bond funds were depleted by June 2002. The passage of Proposition 47, the Kindergarten-University Public Education Facilities Bond Act of 2002, in November 2002 provided a fresh $13.05 billion source of funding for SB 50. Proposition 55, a companion bond measure, was passed in 2004 under the same name to provide an additional $12.3 billion for school construction. Similarly, in November 2006, the Public Education Facilities Bond Act of 2006 was passed. It will provide up to $7.1 billion for kindergarten-through- 12th-grade school construction. California Government Code Section 65995 and Education Code Section 17620 authorize school districts to impose facility mitigation fees on new development as a method of addressing increasing enrollment resulting from that development. California Government Code Section 65995 authorizes a residential development fee of $1.93 per square foot of assessable area to assist in financing facilities needed to serve growth. This fee is adjusted over time. Pursuant to Government Code Section 65997, when the local district is availing itself of state financing, payment of development fees provides for full and complete mitigation of school impacts. School construction and modernization are funded separately from educational programs. Because school construction and modernization involve physical changes to the environment, it will be a focus of this analysis. S-1: School construction funding is the responsibility of the state (through bond funds) and school districts (through general funds, bonds, and school impact fees). Payment of school impact fees in accordance with state law is considered full and complete mitigation of school impacts. (Government Code Section 65997) S-2: An environmental impact report shall not be certified and a negative declaration shall not be approved for any project involving the construction or alteration of a facility within 1/4 of a mile of a school that might reasonably be anticipated to emit hazardous air emissions, or that would handle an extremely hazardous substance or a mixture containing extremely hazardous substances in a quantity equal to or greater than the state threshold quantity specified pursuant to subdivision of Section 25532 of the Health and Safety Code, that may pose a health or safety hazard to persons who would attend or would be employed at the school, unless both of the following occur: The lead agency preparing the environmental impact report or negative declaration has consulted with the school district having jurisdiction regarding the potential impact of the project on the school. The school district has been given written notification of the project not less than 30 days prior to the proposed certification of the environmental impact report or approval of the negative declaration. [Public Resources Code (PRC) Section 21151.4.] c. Stanislaus County Policies There are no directly applicable County policies. ---PAGE BREAK--- Chapter V. Environmental Analysis Modesto General Plan Update Final Master EIR V-12-5 Section 12. Increased Demand for Schools October 2008 d. City of Modesto Policies An objective of the UAGP is to place a hierarchy of schools in close proximity to the residential areas that they may serve, to maximize the opportunity for children to walk or bike to school, minimize the extent of busing, reduce the use of private vehicles, and maximize the use of adjoining school and park facilities. In 1991, the Modesto City Council established policies that address the impacts of new development. Any new development must provide funding mechanisms, land, or facilities to fully meet any increased demand to school services (Modesto City Council Resolution 91- 134). This policy has been superseded by SB 50 limitations. The UAGP has the following policies relating to schools. Public Schools Policies—Baseline Developed Area S-3: Work with school districts to avoid overcrowding in existing and/or planned school facilities within the provisions of SB 50 and Government Code Section 65995 et seq. (UAGP Policy III-C.1[f]) S-4: Neighborhoods should contain sufficient elementary schools necessary to serve the residential development within the neighborhood. Schools should be located on Collector streets within the neighborhood, preferably at or near the intersection of two Collector streets. (UAGP Policy III-C.2[b]) S-5: Each Specific Plan shall be accompanied by a long-range financing strategy which provides reasonable estimates of the costs of on-and off-site infrastructure to support the proposed development pattern. The strategy should generally address public facility funding, including schools, for any development project which serves to implement the subject Specific Plan. If new public facilities are required which will also serve the broader community, the Specific Plan should include options for broad- based funding mechanisms. (UAGP Policy III-D.1[e]) S-6: For families in the child-rearing years, the proximity of a public elementary school within easy walking distance is a strong criterion in their evaluation of housing choices. Elementary school closure, a school district prerogative, has significant impacts on the surrounding neighborhood. School districts are encouraged to involve the city in deliberations regarding school closure early in the process. Consistent with state statutes, school districts are encouraged to include extensive community participation in the process to close any existing schools. (UAGP Policy V-H.2[a]) S-7: Existing schools and proposed school facilities on property owned by any School District on January 1, 1995, are shown on Figure V-7 [of the UAGP]. School districts are encouraged to share their facility plans for new schools with the City. (UAGP Policy V-H.2[b]) S-8: Changes in land use or intensity of development within the Baseline Developed Area may have an impact on school services which necessitate close communication between the City and the school district. (UAGP Policy V-H.2[c]) S-9: There are specific state law prohibitions against certain uses within close proximity to schools, such as hazardous material uses and alcohol sales. Developers should contact the appropriate school district to determine if there are any known constraints to future development. (UAGP Policy V-H.2[d]) ---PAGE BREAK--- Chapter V. Environmental Analysis Modesto General Plan Update Final Master EIR V-12-6 Section 12. Increased Demand for Schools October 2008 S-10: The City shall continue to require that the developer pay, prior to issuance of any building permits, the maximum residential, commercial, and industrial development school fees in effect at the time building takes place. This requirement is in accordance with the provisions of Government Code Section 65995, et seq. (UAGP Policy V- H.2[e]) Public Schools Policies—Planned Urbanizing Area S-11: Public School Districts should be directly involved in the lead time for planning of infrastructure. A lead time of 3–5 years is desirable. (UAGP Policy V-H.3[a]) S-12: Neotraditional Planning Principles, prescribed for residential development in the Planned Urbanizing Area, call for public schools as prominent, physical keystones to the connector street network. Schools, placed conveniently to the residents to be served, will maximize opportunities for students to walk and bike to school. Opportunities should be explored for joint school/park development when planning new neighborhoods or villages. The option for joint acquisition and development of school and park sites should be continued. School districts are encouraged to consider these design principles in their facility planning efforts. (UAGP Policy V-H.3[b]) S-13: Land for new school facilities should generally meet the following minimum space requirements: 1. Elementary schools—10 acres (gross). 2. Middle schools or junior high schools—20 acres (gross). 3. High schools—50 acres (gross). (UAGP Policy V-H.3[c]) S-14: Developers of residential projects that are subject to the following policies (3e through 3k, below) should contact each affected school district prior to submitting an application to the City of Modesto. This early consultation with the school district on such matters as housing mix, timing of development, phasing, etc., will assist both parties in reaching an agreement on the best method of mitigating school impacts, should the project later be found to have the potential for significant effects on school facilities. (UAGP Policy V-H.3[e]) S-15: Once an application for a residential project, which is not exempt from CEQA, has been determined to be complete, it will be referred to the appropriate school district(s) for “review and comment” in conjunction with the preparation of the required Focused Environmental Impact Report. (UAGP Policy V-H.3[f]) S-16: Each school district will provide the City of Modesto with the information needed to evaluate the impact of the proposed residential project on their facilities, including background data necessary to document the impact that a residential project may have on that district’s facilities. Such information shall be provided to the City of Modesto in a timely manner consistent with the City’s responsibilities under CEQA. (UAGP Policy V-H.3[g]) S-17: If it is determined that a proposed residential project may have a significant effect on a school district’s facilities, the Focused EIR shall analyze this impact. It shall be the responsibility of the project applicant and school district to resolve the appropriate method of mitigation, consistent with state law. Mitigation may take several forms, including but not limited to one or more of the following: fees, land dedication, special taxes, etc. (UAGP Policy V-H.3[h]) ---PAGE BREAK--- Chapter V. Environmental Analysis Modesto General Plan Update Final Master EIR V-12-7 Section 12. Increased Demand for Schools October 2008 S-18: The impact on public school capital facilities shall be considered fully mitigated by the City of Modesto when the developer has complied with Government Code Section 65996. (UAGP Policy V-H.3[i]) S-19: Policies 3e through 3i [of Chapter V, Section H, of the UAGP] shall apply when: 1. A residential project seeks the approval of a General Plan Amendment, rezoning, prezoning, annexation, Comprehensive Plan, or other legislative act; 2. The project is located on property classified as Planned Urbanizing Area on the Growth Strategy Diagram; 3. A school district has imposed school mitigation fees; and 4. A school district has a valid application for the funding of public school capital facilities pending before the State, unless it is not eligible for such state funding, in which case the school district shall, within thirty (30) days after it has determined in good faith that it is so eligible, initiate a process leading to the filing of a valid application for such funding. (Policy V-H.3[j]) S-20: The above policies (3e through 3i) shall not apply to residential projects approved in conjunction with a General Plan Amendment, rezoning, prezoning, annexation, or other legislative act that have completed the CEQA process (certification of an environmental impact report, adoption of a negative declaration or adoption of an exemption determination) as of March 5, 1991. (Policy V-H.3[k]) 5. Policies Which Avoid Impacts The following policies are in effect and have been determined to reduce, avoid, or mitigate environmental impacts within the existing city limits and within the Planned Urbanizing Area as they annex and develop. The specific policy reference numbers are listed, and the full text of these policies is found, in Section A-4 above, Existing Policies Applying to the Study Area. a. State Policies The state provides significant funding for new school construction and renovation. State funding, along with local taxes and developer fees, provides one source of school financing. CEQA (PRC Section 21000 et seq.) provides protections for schools from new hazardous waste generators. State policies are summarized as policies S-1 and S-2 above. b. Stanislaus County Policies The Stanislaus County General Plan (County General Plan) ensures that public services are sufficient to meet the service demands of new residential development and prohibits future growth from exceeding the capacity of school facilities. County policies apply in unincorporated areas and are not directly applicable to development within the City. ---PAGE BREAK--- Chapter V. Environmental Analysis Modesto General Plan Update Final Master EIR V-12-8 Section 12. Increased Demand for Schools October 2008 c. City of Modesto Policies The construction, maintenance, and day-to-day operations of schools are not governed by the City. Pursuant to Government Code Section 53094, a school board, by a two-thirds vote, may exempt itself from zoning requirements. As a result, school districts are responsible for the actual implementation of school facilities. Therefore, the City’s role in the implementation of the above policies would be limited to coordination with the affected school districts, determining whether a development project’s impacts on school capital facilities is fully mitigated, and making appropriate findings under CEQA if the impacts are not fully mitigated. The following policies facilitate the provision of adequate school facilities: S-3 through S-20. B. CONSIDERATION AND DISCUSSION OF SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS The following information is provided in accordance with Section 15126.2 of the State CEQA Guidelines. 1. Thresholds of Significance Suggested by the California Environmental Quality Act The State CEQA Guidelines provide that a project may have a significant effect on the environment if it would result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered school facilities, or the need for new or physically altered school facilities that, in themselves, could result in significant environmental impacts. 2. Threshold of Significance Suggested by Other Analytical Methods Government Code Section 65995 and Education Code Section 17620 provide that when impact fees have been paid by a developer, they constitute full mitigation of impacts on school facilities. 3. Threshold of Significance Adopted by the City of Modesto A new project will have a significant impact on schools if the new student population exceeds the school system capacity or if the project conflicts with established educational uses of the area, except to the limits established under SB 50/Proposition 1A, as subsequently amended. 4. Alternatives to the Proposed Project Alternatives to the project must be examined when such alternatives would avoid or substantially reduce one or more of the significant impacts of the project (State CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6). No significant school impacts have been identified; therefore, no alternatives are proposed. ---PAGE BREAK--- Chapter V. Environmental Analysis Modesto General Plan Update Final Master EIR V-12-9 Section 12. Increased Demand for Schools October 2008 5. Significant Direct Impacts Complete development of the adopted Modesto planning area would result in a city of an estimated population of up to 357,000 residents (Galvez 2006). This corresponds to about 116,667 households, based on an average household size in Stanislaus County of 3.06 persons (California Department of Finance 2007c). Based on student generation factors of approximately 0.271 elementary school students, 0.083 middle school students, and 0.176 high school students per single-family household (McGarry pers. comm.), continued development in the Modesto planning area through 2025 could generate up to approximately 31,617 elementary school students, 9,683 middle school students, and 20,533 high school students. Assuming that existing facilities could not sufficiently accommodate this increase and that all of the new students would require new school facilities, continued development of the Modesto planning area would result in the need for approximately 53 elementary schools, eight middle schools, and nine high schools beyond existing levels. These estimates are derived using maximum enrollment numbers that school districts typically use for school design plans: 600 students per elementary school, 1,200 students per middle school, and 2,400 students per high school (California Department of Education 2000). Furthermore, according to Modesto City Schools’ Director of Planning and Research Dana McGarry, Modesto City Schools’ elementary attendance areas within the City’s planning area do not have excess capacity to accommodate impacts of any new residential development. The schools in the City’s planning area are on year-round schedules and have no space for portable classrooms. Additional junior high students generated by new development would need to be accommodated by the expansion of existing schools and likely would not require a new campus (McGarry pers. comm.). This increased demand for school facilities would result in a significant impact on schools in that it would exceed current capacity. By statute, however, this impact would be mitigated below a level of significance through the payment of school impact fees and the exercise of any or all of the financing options set forth in Government Code Section 65997. Future school construction would result in environmental impacts. However, the location, size, and timing of future schools are under the authority of the various school districts that will undertake CEQA analyses of those facilities before they are approved and constructed. Because these facilities will be considered under separate CEQA analyses and are outside the control of the City to regulate, no analysis will be prepared of their potential site-specific impacts. 6. Significant Cumulative Impacts CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines require the disclosure of the significant cumulative environmental impacts, whether the project will make a cumulatively considerable contribution to any such impacts, and, if so, mitigation measures intended to reduce the project’s contribution (Section 15130 of the State CEQA Guidelines). A cumulative impact is one that results from past, present, and probable future projects. A project that has a less-than-significant direct impact on the environment may make a considerable contribution to a cumulative impact nonetheless. ---PAGE BREAK--- Chapter V. Environmental Analysis Modesto General Plan Update Final Master EIR V-12-10 Section 12. Increased Demand for Schools October 2008 A cumulative impact analysis first identifies whether a cumulatively significant impact exists in the given resource area. If one does, the analysis determines whether the project will make a considerable contribution to that impact. Where a cumulative impact is severe, even a small contribution may be considerable. Where a project is required to implement or fund its fair share of a mitigation measure designed to alleviate a cumulative impact, its contribution will be rendered less than considerable (Section 15130[a] of the State CEQA Guidelines). Because continued development in the planning area would require impact fees for new school facilities, there would not be a considerable contribution to cumulative impacts. Pursuant to Government Code Section 65997, there is not a cumulative environmental impact on schools. Accordingly, the project would result in a less-than-considerable contribution. 7. Potential Impacts for Which There Is Insufficient Information to Support a Full Analysis Increased demand for schools is a result of the anticipated growth to occur within the city. Site- specific impacts related to new school construction traffic, noise, light, and glare) will need to be addressed by the affected school district as sites are selected and schools designed. C. MITIGATION MEASURES ADOPTED TO MINIMIZE SIGNIFICANT EFFECTS The following information is provided in accordance with Section 15126.4 of the State CEQA Guidelines. 1. Measures Which Mitigate Direct Impacts The above-mentioned policies (S-3 through S-20) shall constitute conformance with PRC Section 21081.6(b). As long as all anticipated subsequent projects apply these policies, no new mitigation is necessary. Further, the payment of school impact fees and compliance with SB 50 and related legislation is statutorily deemed to be full mitigation of impacts related to increased demand for school facilities (Government Code Section 65997). 2. Measures Which Mitigate Cumulative Impacts No further mitigation is required for cumulative impacts pursuant to SB 50, and cumulative impact analysis for schools will not be required for any anticipated subsequent projects that require a mitigated negative declaration (CEQA Statutes Section 21157.5) or a focused EIR (CEQA Statutes Section 21158). 3. Alternatives to the Proposed Project The following information is provided in accordance with Section 15126.6 of the State CEQA Guidelines. ---PAGE BREAK--- Chapter V. Environmental Analysis Modesto General Plan Update Final Master EIR V-12-11 Section 12. Increased Demand for Schools October 2008 The impact on schools is less than significant; therefore, there is no need to consider an alternative to avoid or reduce this impact. D. MONITORING THESE MITIGATION MEASURES The following information is provided in accordance with PRC Section 21081.6. The mitigation measures identified in the Master EIR have been incorporated into the UAGP and are implemented by that plan. City staff provides the Modesto City Council with an annual report on UAGP implementation. Therefore, no separate mitigation monitoring program is required for the UAGP Master EIR. E. EVALUATING SUBSEQUENT PROJECTS The following information will be used to determine whether subsequent projects conform to the Master EIR, as outlined in PRC Section 21157.1(c). Anticipated future projects, as presented in Chapter II, are within the scope of analysis for the impacts on increased demand for schools as long as the City is currently operating under federal, state, and local programs and policies that regulate and manage increased demand for schools within the study area. Any new development under the UAGP would be in compliance with the provisions set forth in these policies and programs. Therefore, there would be no impacts on increased demand for schools resulting from development of the UAGP, and no further analysis is required. F. KEEPING THE MASTER ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT CURRENT FOR THIS TOPIC As authorized by PRC Section 21166, the analysis contained in this section, Increased Demand for Schools, is current as long as the following circumstances remain true. 1. The lead agency for subsequent projects is the City or any responsible agency identified in the Master EIR. 2. The above-mentioned policies are in force. 3. The provisions of SB 50 setting limits on mitigation, or similar legislation, are in place. ---PAGE BREAK--- Chapter V. Environmental Analysis Modesto General Plan Update Final Master EIR V-13-1 Section 13. Increased Demand for Police Services October 2008 Section 13 Increased Demand for Police Services This section describes how development associated with the City of Modesto Urban Area General Plan (UAGP) would affect demand for police services. If significant impacts are found, mitigation measures are provided to reduce these impacts to a less-than-significant level. A. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING The following information is provided in accordance with Section 15125 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines. This environmental setting is the baseline for determining whether an impact of the UAGP is significant. 1. Study Area for Direct Impacts The study area for direct impacts on demand for police services is the area within the City of Modesto (City) limits. 2. Study Area for Cumulative Impacts This analysis will be based on the plan or projection approach to examining cumulative effects, as provided under Section 15130(b)(1)(B) of the State CEQA Guidelines. The pertinent plan to be used for this purpose is the UAGP. The study area for cumulative impacts on demand for police services is the Modesto planning area as it existed on May 1, 2007. 3. Existing Physical Conditions in the Study Area The Modesto Police Department operates from two main facilities: the department headquarters at 600 10th Street and a leased office space at 12th and F Streets. In addition, a substation located at 3705 Oakdale Road mainly handles fingerprinting as well as some crime prevention operations (Dodge pers. comm.). The Police Department also has space at the Neighborhood Center at Marshall Park, which also serves the Fire and Parks, Recreation, and Neighborhoods Departments. The Police Department consists of Operations, Investigative Services, and Support Divisions. Several special details—including special investigations, animal control, traffic, drug enforcement, crime prevention, drug education, and training—are divided among the divisions. The Operations Division handles most daily law enforcement, with personnel divided into four shifts for each 24- hour period. The Police Department maintains continuous patrols on city streets, structured to allow coverage to fluctuate according to changes in demand. The Police Department provides services to Modesto’s approximately 209,174 residents (Department of Finance 2007d. In 2006, city law enforcement services received approximately ---PAGE BREAK--- Chapter V. Environmental Analysis Modesto General Plan Update Final Master EIR V-13-2 Section 13. Increased Demand for Police Services October 2008 13,222 reports of Part 1 crimes, which consist of murder, robbery, rape, aggravated assault, burglary, grand larceny, and auto theft incidents. As of May 2007, the Police Department staffed a total of 400 employees, including 286 sworn police officers (Wasden pers. comm.). Response rates vary by type of incoming call; calls reporting crimes in progress (Priority 1P) receive the highest priority and the quickest response. In 2006, the average response time for 1P calls was 4.3 minutes. Most calls report crimes that have just occurred or situations where a police unit is needed as soon as possible. The current number of officers per thousand residents is 1.38, which is below the goal of 1.85 per thousand set by the City Council and Police Department (Findlen-Costa pers. comm.). According to the Police Department, an additional 100 officers and associated equipment and support personnel are needed to achieve adequate levels of police protection to serve the community (Wasden pers. comm.). 4. Existing Policies Applying to the Study Area Below is a comprehensive list of major federal, state, and local (County and City) policies or summaries of policies in effect that apply to the study area. This list provides the full range of applicable policies that a project within the study area would potentially need to comply with, including policies beyond the jurisdiction of the City. This list of laws, regulations, and programs also serves to describe the circumstances under which the Master Environmental Impact Report (Master EIR) analyzed this environmental topic. A discrete reference number, following the initials of the resource topic, is assigned to each policy or policy summary listed to facilitate its identification elsewhere in this Master EIR or, where appropriate, its incorporation as a mitigation measure into subsequent projects analyzed under this Master EIR Police Services policies are designated as PS-X, where X is the discrete number). a. Stanislaus Local Agency Formation Commission Policies The Stanislaus Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCo) oversees the annexation of unincorporated lands to the City under the provisions of the Cortese-Knox-Hertzberg Local Government Reorganization Act (Government Code Section 56000 et seq.). The following aspects of LAFCo policy directly affect the proposed plan. PS-1: To implement its responsibilities for planning orderly development and coordination of local government agencies, the LAFCo is required to develop and assign a sphere of influence for each local government agency in the county. With respect to the City, this includes present and probable need for police services. Under Government Code Section 56668, the LAFCo is also required to consider the need for police services before approving any annexation to the City. Adopted LAFCo policies include the requirement that a plan for service be prepared and submitted by the local agency being affected by the proposed annexation. The plan of service must include information that the range and level of services currently available within the existing boundaries will be at least maintained in the proposed annexation area. Annexations that reduce the existing levels of service will not be approved by the LAFCo. When determining spheres of influence for cities and special districts, the LAFCo must conduct a service review of the municipal services provided in an area, as determined by the LAFCo. The municipal services review (MSR) is a comprehensive review of all ---PAGE BREAK--- Chapter V. Environmental Analysis Modesto General Plan Update Final Master EIR V-13-3 Section 13. Increased Demand for Police Services October 2008 the agencies that provide the service within the identified area. Typical municipal services include police, fire, sewer, water, and storm drainage services. When conducting the MSR, the LAFCo must prepare a written statement of its determinations with respect to the factors identified in Government Code Section 56430. These factors require consideration of infrastructure needs, projected demand from future growth, financing constraints and opportunities, and options for the administration of services. c. City of Modesto Policies The following UAGP policies apply in the Baseline Developed Area and, where relevant, in the Planned Urbanizing Area. In general, however, the Modesto Police Department is only authorized to provide services within its primary jurisdiction: the incorporated Modesto city limits. Police Policies—Baseline Developed Area and Planned Urbanizing Area PS-2: The City of Modesto should maintain an adequate personnel level, to organize patrol areas and provide investigative responses to achieve a comfortable and safe community climate conducive to a high quality of life and to maintain an active and growing commercial and business environment. To the maximum economic extent feasible, police operations should include proactive law enforcement and administrative efforts, all to be expanded as the City’s population grows. (UAGP Policy V-J.2[a]) PS-3: The City of Modesto Police Department should strive to reduce the level of crime below levels of other progressive departments with comparable populations and demographics. (UAGP Policy V-J.2[b]) PS-4: The City of Modesto should strive to provide sworn officers in sufficient numbers to support basic police services consistent with other progressive departments with comparable populations and demographic statistics. The City of Modesto’s recommended long-term police staffing plan contains a ratio of 1.85 sworn officers per one thousand residents. This ratio shall be achieved through on-going evaluation of projects that generate demand for police services and facilities and by incremental increases to staffing each year. This evaluation shall include the long-term forecasting for the need and placement of police facilities. (UAGP Policy V-J.2[c]) PS-5: The City of Modesto should strive to provide civilian staff in sufficient numbers to support sworn staff and to support continuing civilianization of services such as Crime Prevention, Investigative Support, Accident Reports, and other documentation of incidents and other forms of clerical support. (UAGP Policy V-J.2[d]) PS-6: The City of Modesto should maintain its efforts to educate the public about crime deterrence through programs like the Neighborhood Watch Program within residential neighborhoods, Traffic Watch Program on residential streets, and the Business Watch Program within commercial and industrial areas. (UAGP Policy V-J.2[e]) PS-7: The City of Modesto’s Police Department should develop criteria and an implementation program to plan and locate fully-functioning police precincts throughout the City and within the General Plan boundary. (UAGP Policy V-J.2[f]) PS-8: The City of Modesto’s Police Department shall review proposed projects in order to evaluate security features, encourage crime prevention through environmental design, ---PAGE BREAK--- Chapter V. Environmental Analysis Modesto General Plan Update Final Master EIR V-13-4 Section 13. Increased Demand for Police Services October 2008 and evaluate traffic flow with respect to speed and collision mitigation. (UAGP Policy V-J.2[g]) PS-9: The City of Modesto shall ensure that the following CPTED principles are incorporated in specific sites and situations, including new developments. (UAGP Policy V-J.2[h]) PS-10: Territoriality is a design concept that clearly delineates private space from semi-public and public spaces and also creates a sense of ownership. Ownership thereby creates an environment where appearances of such strangers and intruders stand out and are more easily identified through: a) The enhanced feeling of legitimate ownership by reinforcing existing natural surveillance and natural access control strategies with additional symbolic or social ones; b) The design of space to allow for its continued use and intended purpose; c) The use of pavement treatments, landscaping, art, signage, screening and fences define and outline ownership of space. (UAGP Policy V-J.2[h.1]) PS-11: Natural surveillance is a design concept directed primarily at keeping intruders under observation. Provision of natural surveillance helps to create environments where there is sufficient opportunity for people engaged in their normal behavior to observe the space around them. Areas can be designed so they are more easily observed through: a) Design and placement of physical features to maximize visibility. This may include: building orientation, windows, entrances and exits, parking lots, refuse containers, walkways, guard gates, landscape trees and shrubs, use of wrought iron fences or walls, signage and other physical obstructions. b) Placement of persons or activities to maximize surveillance possibilities. c) Minimum maintained lighting standards that provide for nighttime illumination of parking lots, walkways, entrances, exits, and related areas to promote a safe environment. (UAGP Policy V-J.2[h.2]) PS-12: Access control is a design concept directed primarily at decreasing criminal accessibility. Provision of natural access control limits access and increases natural surveillance to restrict criminal intrusion, especially into areas where they will not be easily observed. Intruders are more readily recognized through: a) The use of sidewalks, pavement, gates, lighting and landscaping to clearly guide the public to and from entrances and exits; b) The use of gates, fences, walls, landscaping and lighting to prevent or discourage public access to or from dark or unmonitored areas. (UAGP Policy V-J.2[h.3]) PS-13: Activity support is the presence of activity planned for the space, and involves placing activity where the individuals engaged in an activity will become part of the natural surveillance system. Examples include: a) Place safe activities in areas that will discourage would-be offenders, to increase the natural surveillance of these activities and the perception of safety for normal users, and the perception of risk for offenders; b) Place high-risk activities in safer locations to overcome the vulnerability of these activities by using natural surveillance and access control of the safe area; c) Locate gathering areas in locations that provide for natural surveillance and access control or in locations away from the view of would-be offenders; d) Improve the scheduling of space to allow for effective use and appropriate intensity of accepted behaviors. (Policy V-J.2[h.4]) PS-14: Proper maintenance of landscaping, lighting treatment, and other features can facilitate the principles of CPTED. Functions include: a) Proper maintenance of lighting fixtures to prescribed standards; b) Landscaping which is maintained at prescribed standards; c) Minimizing the conflicts between surveillance and landscaping as groundcover, shrubs and trees mature. (Policy V-J.2[h.5]) PS-15: Each Specific Plan shall be accompanied by a long-range financing strategy which provides reasonable estimates of the costs of on- and off-site infrastructure to support the proposed development pattern. The strategy should generally address public facility funding, including schools, for any development project which serves to ---PAGE BREAK--- Chapter V. Environmental Analysis Modesto General Plan Update Final Master EIR V-13-5 Section 13. Increased Demand for Police Services October 2008 implement the subject Specific Plan. If new public facilities are required which will also serve the broader community, the Specific Plan should include options for broad- based funding mechanisms. (Policy III-D.1[e]) 5. Policies Which Avoid Impacts The following policies are in effect and have been determined to reduce, avoid, or mitigate environmental impacts within the existing city limits and within the Planned Urbanizing Area as they annex and develop. County policies are included because they reduce or avoid cumulative impacts. The policy reference numbers are listed, and the full text of these policies is found in Section A-4 above, Existing Policies Applying to the Study Area. a. Stanislaus Local Agency Formation Commission Policies The following LAFCo policy limits urban expansion into unincorporated areas without the provision of adequate police services: PS-1. c. City of Modesto Policies The following UAGP policies are in place to mitigate or avoid impacts on police services in all three development areas identified in the plan: PS-2 through PS-15. B. CONSIDERATION AND DISCUSSION OF SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS The following information is provided in accordance with Section 15126.2 of the State CEQA Guidelines. Existing conditions and policies were reviewed and evaluated relative to the level of development projected to occur under the UAGP in the three development areas to identify additional demand for police services that would result from a population increase. In particular, changes from the conditions under which the 2003 Master EIR was prepared were evaluated to determine whether new or more severe impacts would occur. 1. Thresholds of Significance Suggested by the California Environmental Quality Act Appendix G of the State CEQA Guidelines provides that a project could result in a significant effect if it would result in the construction of new or physically altered governmental facilities that would cause significant effects. 2. Thresholds of Significance Suggested by Other Analytical Methods There are no applicable thresholds of significance suggested by other analytical methods. ---PAGE BREAK--- Chapter V. Environmental Analysis Modesto General Plan Update Final Master EIR V-13-6 Section 13. Increased Demand for Police Services October 2008 3. Thresholds of Significance Adopted by the City of Modesto After considering the approach suggested in the State CEQA Guidelines, the City has chosen to adopt the following standard. Impacts from the effects of increased demand for police services will be significant if a project is located in an area that cannot be adequately serviced by existing or budgeted police personnel and facilities. 4. Significant Direct Impacts a. Baseline Developed Area and Redevelopment Area The 2003 Master EIR found this impact to be less than significant, considering the policies of the UAGP. Those policies are proposed to be bolstered by this UAGP amendment. As a result, this impact would remain less than significant. b. Planned Urbanizing Area Complying with the UAGP policies, particularly the policy that requires a long-range financing strategy for each Comprehensive Planning District, will allow the City to provide the resources necessary to extend service to the newly growing Planned Urbanizing Area. These policies reduce the impact to a less-than-significant level. 5. Significant Cumulative Impacts CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines require the disclosure of the significant cumulative environmental effects, whether a project will make a cumulatively considerable contribution to any such effects, and, if it will, mitigation measures intended to reduce the project’s contribution (Section 15130 of the State CEQA Guidelines). A cumulative effect is one that results from past, present, and probable future projects. A project, which has a less-than-significant direct effect on the environment, may nonetheless make a considerable contribution to a cumulative effect. A cumulative impact analysis first identifies whether a cumulatively significant effect exists in the given resource area. If so, the analysis determines whether the project will make a considerable contribution to that effect. Where a cumulative impact is severe, even a small contribution may be considerable. Where a project is required to implement or fund its fair share of a mitigation measure designed to alleviate the cumulative impact, its contribution will be rendered less than considerable. (Section 15130(a) of the State CEQA Guidelines.) There is no identified cumulative impact on police services. ---PAGE BREAK--- Chapter V. Environmental Analysis Modesto General Plan Update Final Master EIR V-13-7 Section 13. Increased Demand for Police Services October 2008 6. Potential Impacts for Which There Is Insufficient Information to Support a Full Analysis Site-specific impacts of the construction of future police facilities are unknown at this time. Potential construction impacts will require future analysis. C. MITIGATION MEASURES ADOPTED TO MINIMIZE SIGNIFICANT EFFECTS The following information is provided in accordance with Section 15126.4 of the State CEQA Guidelines. 1. Measures Which Mitigate Direct Impacts No significant direct impacts have been identified for police services, based on the implementation of policies PS-2 through PS-15; therefore, no new mitigation measure is required. 2. Measures Which Mitigate Cumulative Impacts Because there is no identified cumulative impact for police services, no new mitigation measure is required. No further mitigation is required for cumulative impacts, and a cumulative impact analysis for increased demand for police services will not be required for any anticipated subsequent projects that require a mitigated negative declaration (Public Resources Code [PRC] Section 21157.5) or a focused environmental impact report (PRC Section 21158). 3. Alternatives to the Proposed Plan The following information is provided in accordance with Section 15126.6 of the State CEQA Guidelines. No alternative is proposed because there is no significant impact associated with this resource. D. MONITORING THESE MITIGATION MEASURES The following information is provided in accordance with Public Resources Code Section 21081.6. The mitigation measures identified in the Master EIR have been incorporated into the UAGP and are implemented by that plan. City staff provides the City Council with an annual report on General Plan implementation. Therefore, no separate mitigation monitoring program is required for the UAGP Master EIR. E. EVALUATING SUBSEQUENT PROJECTS The following information will be used to determine if subsequent projects conform to the Master EIR, as outlined in PRC Section 21157.1(c). ---PAGE BREAK--- Chapter V. Environmental Analysis Modesto General Plan Update Final Master EIR V-13-8 Section 13. Increased Demand for Police Services October 2008 Anticipated subsequent projects, as presented in Chapter II, are within the scope of analysis for police services as long as the following circumstances have not changed. 1. The lead agency for subsequent projects will be the City or a responsible agency identified in the Master EIR. 2. The following City policies continue to be in force to reduce, avoid, or mitigate impacts: PS-2 through PS-15. 3. The City is able to fund necessary facilities. F. KEEPING THE MASTER ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT CURRENT FOR THIS TOPIC As authorized under PRC Section 21166, the analysis contained in this section is current as long as the following circumstances have not changed. 1. The City is the lead agency for police services. 2. Land use intensity has not increased beyond that proposed in the UAGP, thereby requiring a revision to the UAGP policies in order to maintain City police services. 3. There are no substantial changes with respect to the circumstances under which the UAGP is being undertaken that would require major revisions in the Master EIR by indicating that there would be an additional significant effect on the environment and that new or additional mitigation measures or alternatives may be required. ---PAGE BREAK--- Chapter V. Environmental Analysis Modesto General Plan Update Final Master EIR V-14-1 Section 14. Increased Demand for Fire Services October 2008 Section 14 Increased Demand for Fire Services This section describes how development associated with the City of Modesto Urban Area General Plan (UAGP) would affect demand for fire services. If significant impacts are found, mitigation measures are provided to reduce these impacts to a less-than-significant level. A. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING The following information is provided in accordance with Section 15125 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines. This environmental setting is the baseline for determining whether an impact of the UAGP is significant. 1. Study Area for Direct Impacts The study area for direct impacts on demand for fire services is the City of Modesto’s (City’s) planning area. 2. Study Area for Cumulative Impacts This analysis will be based on the plan or projection approach to examining cumulative effects, as provided under Section 15130(b)(1)(B) of the State CEQA Guidelines. The pertinent plan used for this purpose is the UAGP. The study area for cumulative impacts on fire services is the City’s planning area. 3. Existing Physical Conditions in the Study Area a. Overview Fire protection within the city limits is provided by the Modesto Fire Department. Average response time is 4.5 minutes. From 2001 to 2005, over 90 percent of all calls were answered within six minutes of dispatch, and in 2005 97.4 percent of all calls were answered within 6 minutes of dispatch. The Modesto Fire Department serves an area of approximately 37 square miles and approximately 87,000 housing units (City of Modesto Fire Department 2007). The Modesto Fire Department consists of 11 fully staffed stations, with additional stations planned in northeast Modesto. Each station in the department is equipped with at least one “Type 1” engine and three firefighters, with the exception of Station 8 (Harry Sham Field), which is staffed with two firefighters and Aircraft Rescue/Firefighting apparatus that meet the requirements of the Federal Aviation Administration and Code of Federal Regulations Part ---PAGE BREAK--- Chapter V. Environmental Analysis Modesto General Plan Update Final Master EIR V-14-2 Section 14. Increased Demand for Fire Services October 2008 139. Fire stations are strategically located throughout the City so that residents are not more than three miles from a first responder (City of Modesto Fire Department 2005). At least 47 firefighters and two battalion chiefs are on duty each 24-hour shift, and the department has a total of 189 authorized staff members and 173 sworn staff members (City of Modesto Fire Department 2007). As of 2001, the department also employs a Fire Marshal, Deputy Fire Marshal, and four Fire Technicians who direct most fire prevention programs. Fire Department equipment includes 12 engines and three trucks (City of Modesto 2007). The Fire Department strives to achieve the following standards in 90 percent of all cases: a service standard of “first in” response time in all areas of the city within six minutes of dispatch; a “full alarm assignment” consisting of three engines, one truck, one chief officer, and 14 personnel on scene within 10 minutes; and a “second alarm assignment” consisting of two additional fire units with a minimum of six personnel within 15 minutes of dispatch (City of Modesto 2007). From 2001 to 2005, the Modesto Fire Station received an average of 20,254 calls for service per year. Of those calls, 1,248 or 6.2 percent on average were for fire emergencies; 253 or 1.2 percent were for structure fires; 12,486 or 61.6 percent were for medical aid; 635 or 3. percent were for hazardous materials incidents; and 5,641 or 27.9 percent were for other emergencies. (City of Modesto 2007.) Fire services in the unincorporated areas included within the UAGP boundary are provided by the Burbank/Paradise, Salida, Industrial, and Woodland Avenue Fire Protection Districts, and the Stanislaus Consolidated Fire Protection District. Each of these districts is at least partially within the City’s Sphere of Influence. (Stanislaus Local Agency Formation Commission 2007.) The Industrial Fire District contracts for services with the Modesto and Ceres Fire Departments and is considering dissolution. These fire districts, their current staffing, and general type of service are listed in Table V-14- 1. Because most of these districts are only partially within the City’s Sphere of Influence, these staffing levels do not correspond to the number of fire fighters serving the sphere areas. Table V-14-1. Fire Protection Districts District Total Staff Full-Time Volunteers Type of Service Burbank Paradise 30 0 30 suburban Industrial 0 (work is contracted) 0 0 suburban Salida 37 11 26 suburban Stanislaus Consolidated 86 56 30 urban Woodland Avenue 26 0 26 rural Source: Stanislaus Local Agency Formation Commission 2007. The rural level of service is characterized as a fire company equipped to handle basic structural fires and related emergencies that will arrive within 15 minutes of travel time, accompanied by other vehicles and capable of sustaining a 500-gallon-per-minute fire flow for one hour. The suburban level of service is characterized as a fire company equipped to handle all “risk emergencies” that will arrive within five to six minutes of travel time and ---PAGE BREAK--- Chapter V. Environmental Analysis Modesto General Plan Update Final Master EIR V-14-3 Section 14. Increased Demand for Fire Services October 2008 capable of sustaining a flow for a 2,000-square-foot occupancy for one hour. An urban level of service is characterized as a fire company equipped to handle all risk emergencies that will arrive within five minutes of travel time 90 percent of the time, and capable of sustaining adequate fire flow for the designated risk level in the area. These are broad characterizations of levels of service and do not necessarily reflect the district’s effectiveness or efficiency in dealing with a given emergency. (Stanislaus Local Agency Formation Commission Countywide Fire Services Municipal Service Review 2007.) The Stanislaus Regional 9-1-1 Joint Powers Authority, which includes the various fire protection districts, distributes 911 emergency calls to the respective fire protection district with jurisdiction over the site of the emergency. There are mutual aid agreements among the districts to provide for cross-jurisdictional assistance should a fire district need assistance responding to an emergency. (Stanislaus Local Agency Formation Commission Countywide Fire Services Municipal Service Review 2007.) 4. Existing Policies Applying to the Study Area Below is a comprehensive list of major federal, state, and local policies or summaries of policies in effect that apply to the study area. This list provides the full range of applicable policies that a project within the study area would potentially need to comply with, including policies beyond the jurisdiction of the City. This list of laws, regulations, and programs also serves to describe the circumstances under which the Master EIR analyzed this environmental topic. A discrete reference number, following the initials of the resource topic, is assigned to each policy or policy summary listed to facilitate its identification elsewhere in this Master EIR or, where appropriate, its incorporation as a mitigation measure into subsequent projects analyzed under this Master EIR Fire Service policies are designated as FS-X, where X is the discrete number). a. Federal and State Policies There are no applicable federal or state policies. b. Stanislaus Local Agency Formation Commission Policies The Cortese-Knox-Hertzberg Local Government Reorganization Act (Government Code Section 56000, et seq.) empowers each county Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCo) to consider incorporation of new cities, annexation of lands to existing cities and special districts, and other changes to city and district boundaries. In order to carry out its responsibilities for planning orderly development and coordination of local government agencies, the LAFCo develops a sphere of influence of each local government agency within the county, with respect to present and probable need for fire services in the area. LAFCo policies discourage “sprawl” a pattern of development characterized by LAFCo by the inefficient delivery of important urban services, such as fire protection). By discouraging sprawl, the LAFCo promotes a more efficient system of local government agencies. When determining spheres of influence for cities and special districts, the LAFCo must conduct a service review of the municipal services provided in an area, as determined by the LAFCo. ---PAGE BREAK--- Chapter V. Environmental Analysis Modesto General Plan Update Final Master EIR V-14-4 Section 14. Increased Demand for Fire Services October 2008 The Municipal Service Review (MSR) is a comprehensive review of all the agencies that provide the service within the identified area. Typical municipal services include police, fire, sewer, water, and storm drainage services. When conducting the MSR, the LAFCo must prepare a written statement of its determinations with respect to the factors identified in Government Code Section 56430. These factors require consideration of infrastructure needs, projected demand from future growth, financing constraints and opportunities, and options for the administration of services. Pursuant to California Revenue and Taxation Code Section 99, as part of an annexation under the Cortese-Knox-Hertzberg Act, the annexing City must provide the LAFCo an agreement approved by the affected special district that describes how property taxes collected from the area proposed to be annexed will be split between the city and the special district. LAFCo will memorialize this agreement as part of its proceedings. The Stanislaus LAFCo considers the provision of adequate fire service in connection with approval of annexations and the establishment of spheres of influence. Adopted LAFCo policies require that when a local agency submits a resolution of application for a change in organization or a reorganization a plan for service must be prepared and submitted to the LAFCo by the local agency proposing the annexation. A Plan for Services must include information that the range and level of services currently available within the existing boundaries will be at least maintained in the proposed annexation area. Annexations that reduce the existing levels of service will not be approved by the LAFCo. c. Stanislaus County Policies The territory outside the city limits is under Stanislaus County jurisdiction. The Stanislaus County General Plan has no applicable policies for fire protection. d. City of Modesto Policies The UAGP provides the following policies related to fire protection. Baseline Developed Area, Redevelopment Area and Planned Urbanizing Area FS-1: The City of Modesto shall maintain adequate fire flows in relation to structure size, design, and requirements for construction and/or built-in fire protection systems in accordance with the California Fire Code and adopted local ordinances. Maintenance of adequate fire flows includes factors such as adequate storage, system gridding, hydrant spacing, and spacing and sizing of water mains. (UAGP Policy V-K.2[a]) FS-2: The City of Modesto shall ensure adequate ingress and egress to all structures for fire fighting and rescue purposes independent of privately owned and maintained driveways. (UAGP Policy V-K.2[b]) FS-3: The City of Modesto shall provide protection of life and property through the use of engineered fire protection systems and fire-resistive roof systems. (UAGP Policy V- K.2[c]) ---PAGE BREAK--- Chapter V. Environmental Analysis Modesto General Plan Update Final Master EIR V-14-5 Section 14. Increased Demand for Fire Services October 2008 FS-4: The City of Modesto shall practice timely adoption of the current edition of the California Fire Code including local ordinances designed to address local conditions. These codes and ordinances may be amended to suit local conditions. (UAGP Policy V-K.2[d]) FS-5: The City of Modesto shall strive to ensure that fire stations, apparatus, equipment, and personnel are in place concurrent with construction in the Planned Urbanizing Area. (UAGP Policy V-K.2[e]) FS-6: Future fire station sites and facilities should be closely coordinated with existing and planned public parks, libraries, and other activity centers in order to encourage maximum efficiency of public facilities. (UAGP Policy V-K.2[f]) FS-7: The City of Modesto shall promote fire-safe behaviors within the community through public fire education activities and programs. (UAGP Policy V-K.2[g]) FS-8: The City of Modesto shall maintain its readiness to mitigate man-made or natural disasters through maintenance and implementation of the Multi-Hazard Functional Plan, the Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan, and the Emergency Operations Plan. (UAGP Policy V-K.2[h]) FS-9: The City of Modesto Fire Department shall maintain equipment, staffing, and facilities to provide Emergency First Response Level Emergency Medical Services, Urban Search and Rescue, and Hazardous Materials emergency response capabilities. (UAGP Policy V-K.2[i]) FS-10: The City of Modesto shall provide an adequate Fire and Life Safety Delivery system through the achievement of the following standards. 1. The City of Modesto shall maintain an emergency response system capable of achieving the following standards in 90 percent of all cases. a. The first fire emergency response unit arrives within six minutes of dispatch. b. A full alarm assignment consisting of three engines, one truck, one chief officer, and 14 personnel arrives within 10 minutes of dispatch. c. A second alarm assignment consisting of two additional fire units with a minimum of six personnel arrives within 15 minutes of dispatch. 2. The City of Modesto shall maintain a fire and life safety delivery system adequate to achieve an Insurance Service Office (ISO) rating of Class 2, with the optimum goal to achieve a Class 1 rating. 3. The City shall maintain a fire and life safety delivery system adequate to achieve International Accreditation through the Center for Public Safety Excellence. (UAGP Policy V-K.2[j]) FS-11: The City of Modesto shall protect life and property by requiring engineered fire protection systems and fire resistive roof systems as part of all new construction; in situations where access is limited, fire sprinklers shall be required for new construction. (UAGP Policy V-K.2[k]) FS-12: The City of Modesto shall maintain adequate Fire Prevention staffing in order to provide an effective prevention program aimed at fire loss reduction through inspection, investigation, and public education. (UAGP Policy V-K.2[l]) FS-13: Peak Load Water Supply. The City shall ensure that adequate water fire-flows are maintained throughout the City and shall regularly monitor fire-flows to ensure adequacy. New development shall comply with the minimum fire-flow rates, as presented in Appendix B of the California Fire Code. (UAGP Policy VI-D.1[a]) ---PAGE BREAK--- Chapter V. Environmental Analysis Modesto General Plan Update Final Master EIR V-14-6 Section 14. Increased Demand for Fire Services October 2008 FS-14: Fire apparatus access roads to and around structures shall comply with the minimum requirements in chapter 5 of the California Fire Code. (UAGP Policy VI-D.1[b]) FS-15: Miscellaneous. The following policies will help to minimize the hazardous conditions that might cause loss of life. 1. Enforce State-mandated Health and Safety Codes, including but not limited to the current adopted addition of the California Fire Code, California Building Code, California Mechanical Code, California Electrical Code, California Plumbing Code, Title 19, Title 24, and the City of Modesto Municipal Code. 2. Design and maintain roads so as to ensure adequate access in hazardous conditions. 3. Require all new development to have adequate water to meet the established fire flow standards. 4. Encourage funding sources that help to maintain adequate on-going fire services for both existing and new development. (UAGP Policy VI-D.1[c]) FS-16: All building permits shall be reviewed to ensure compliance with the current adopted edition of the California Fire Code, California Building Code, California Mechanical Code, California Electrical Code, California Plumbing Code, Title 19, Title 24, and the City of Modesto Municipal Code. (UAGP Policy VI-E.1[d]) The UAGP also provides the following urban services policy within the Planned Urbanizing Area only. FS-17: Each Specific Plan shall be accompanied by a long-range financing strategy that provides reasonable estimates of the costs of on- and off-site infrastructure to support the proposed development pattern. The strategy should generally address public facility funding, including schools, for any development project that serves to implement the subject Comprehensive Plan. If new public facilities are required that will also serve the broader community, the Specific Plan should include options for broad-based funding mechanisms. (UAGP Policy III-D.1[e]) FS-18: The City of Modesto may negotiate with affected fire protection districts when an annexation to the City is contemplated and before it has been effected to determine whether the boundary change may result in the erosion of fire protection or other emergency services. Any resulting agreements must be approved by City Council and the governing board of the fire protection district prior to City Council approval of the annexation. Options range from the consolidation of the fire protection district into Modesto City Fire to revenue sharing. (UAGP Policy V-K.2[m] and VI.D.1[c][5]) 5. Policies Which Avoid Impacts The following City policies are in effect and have been determined to reduce, avoid, or mitigate environmental impacts within the existing city limits and Planned Urbanizing Area as they annex and develop. LAFCo policies are included because they reduce or avoid cumulative impacts. The policy reference numbers are listed, and the full text of these policies is found in Section A-4 above, Existing Policies Applying to the Study Area. ---PAGE BREAK--- Chapter V. Environmental Analysis Modesto General Plan Update Final Master EIR V-14-7 Section 14. Increased Demand for Fire Services October 2008 a. Stanislaus Local Agency Formation Commission Policies The LAFCo will not approve annexations without a plan for service and in a manner that would eliminate services. b. City of Modesto Policies The UAGP provides the following policies related to fire protection in the Baseline Developed Area, Redevelopment Area, and Planned Urbanizing Area: FS-1 through FS-18. B. CONSIDERATION AND DISCUSSION OF SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS The following information is provided in accordance with Section 15126.2 of the State CEQA Guidelines. 1. Thresholds of Significance Suggested by the California Environmental Quality Act CEQA directs agencies to analyze effects on the environment, including fire services, using Appendix G of the State CEQA Guidelines. Appendix G is a sample checklist for assessing potential impacts on fire services. It offers the following broad suggestions for impact assessment. a. Would the project expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? b. Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for fire protection? 2. Thresholds of Significance Suggested by Other Analytical Methods No applicable thresholds of significance by other analytical methods are selected. 3. Thresholds of Significance Adopted by the City of Modesto The UAGP will have a significant impact on fire services if it will result in increased demand for fire services in an area that cannot be adequately serviced by existing and anticipated future fire personnel and facilities. ---PAGE BREAK--- Chapter V. Environmental Analysis Modesto General Plan Update Final Master EIR V-14-8 Section 14. Increased Demand for Fire Services October 2008 4. Significant Direct Impacts a. Baseline Developed Area and Redevelopment Area The Baseline Developed Area and Redevelopment Area are already developed. The impacts of development on fire services in these areas will be less than significant. b. Planned Urbanizing Area The UAGP would result in the need for additional fire protection services due to increases in the number of employees, permanent population, and associated improvements. The projected planning horizon population and employment of approximately between 334,000 and 357,000 would generate a need for additional fire protection for the increased population and structures as areas within the City develop. The UAGP planning area includes areas with proposed development for which a 6-minute response, a full alarm within 10 minutes, and a second full alarm within 15 minutes would not be possible because no fire stations currently exist within an approximately 1.5- to 2-mile radius of those areas. City policy, as described above, requires that fire protection be in place concurrent with construction in the Planned Urbanizing Area. This policy will be implemented with the adoption of future Comprehensive and Specific Plans in the Planned Urbanizing Area. This impact would be less than significant. The UAGP would involve the expansion of the City’s sphere of influence and annexation of currently unincorporated lands. When these lands are annexed to the City, the LAFCo would determine, on a case-by-case basis, the most appropriate means of providing fire service to the annexed lands. In some cases, the annexed lands would be served by the Modesto Fire Department and detached from the County Fire Protection Districts. Detachments would ultimately both reduce the demands on the County districts for fire protection and also reduce the amount of funding received by the districts. The reduced funding could result in indirect impacts on the level of facilities, equipment, and personnel the districts could support. Funding of fire protection by the districts in the face of annexation of portions of their territory is a continuing problem, according to the Countywide Fire Services Municipal Services Review prepared by the Stanislaus LAFCo in March 2007. It states, without being specific, that “[c]ity annexations have eroded the funding base of some of the districts immediately adjacent to them.” This report identifies Burbank/Paradise, Industrial, and Salida as fire protection districts that could shrink to the point of being no longer viable as annexations continue. However, because the location and timing of future annexations is unknown, the point in time at which any district would reach such a critical point is speculative and will not be discussed in further detail. (Stanislaus Local Agency Formation Commission 2007.) Since the adoption of the Countywide Fire Services Municipal Services Review, additional information has surfaced indicating that portions of certain fire protection districts could be at risk for erosion of fire protection and emergency services. If those at-risk districts were to become insolvent, some areas might be in danger of reduction of fire protection or certain emergency services. ---PAGE BREAK--- Chapter V. Environmental Analysis Modesto General Plan Update Final Master EIR V-14-9 Section 14. Increased Demand for Fire Services October 2008 The LAFCo will take this erosion of funding into account prior to approving future City annexations/district detachments and must, by law, avoid creating a situation where services are adversely affected. As far as its indirect physical impacts increased risk of fire damage), the LAFCo is responsible for avoiding that outcome through agreements between agencies or disapproval of annexation requests. 5. Significant Cumulative Impacts CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines require the disclosure of the significant cumulative environmental effects, whether the project will make a cumulatively considerable contribution to any such effects, and, if so, mitigation measures intended to reduce the project’s contribution (CEQA Guidelines Section 15130 A cumulative effect is one that results from past, present, and probable future projects. A project that has a less-than-significant direct effect on the environment may nonetheless make a considerable contribution to a cumulative effect. A cumulative impact analysis first identifies whether there exists a cumulatively significant effect in the given resource area. If so, it determines whether the project will make a considerable contribution to that effect. Where a cumulative impact is severe, even a small contribution may be considerable. Where a project is required to implement or fund its fair-share of a mitigation measure designed to alleviate the cumulative impact, its contribution will be rendered less than considerable. (CEQA Guidelines Section 15130(a).) Cumulative impacts on fire services may occur as a result of future insolvency of some existing rural fire protection districts. The City’s Fire Chief and the Fire Chiefs of adjoining rural fire protection districts meet on an as-needed basis to discuss the financial impacts of annexations on the rural fire protection districts and how to prevent the erosion of fire protection and emergency services provided by those districts. Any agreement is subject to the approval of the governing board of the fire protection district and of the City Council. 6. Potential Impacts for Which There Is Insufficient Information to Support a Full Analysis Construction of fire stations may have environmental impacts. Construction impacts will be analyzed in future documents when the locations and designs of future stations are known. C. MITIGATION MEASURES ADOPTED TO MINIMIZE SIGNIFICANT EFFECTS The following information is provided in accordance with Section 15126.4 of the State CEQA Guidelines. 1. Measures Which Mitigate Direct Impacts No new mitigation measures are proposed. The adopted policies of the LAFCo and the UAGP (FS- 1 through FS–18) would reduce direct impacts by encouraging the provision of adequate fire services concurrent with new development. ---PAGE BREAK--- Chapter V. Environmental Analysis Modesto General Plan Update Final Master EIR V-14-10 Section 14. Increased Demand for Fire Services October 2008 2. Measures Which Mitigate Cumulative Impacts The adopted policies of the Stanislaus LAFCo under the Cortese-Knox-Hertzberg Act and proposed UAGP Policy FS-18, would avoid cumulative impacts by encouraging provision of adequate fire services. 3. Alternatives to the Proposed Project The following information is provided in accordance with Section 15126.6 of the State CEQA Guidelines. Because the impact is less than significant, no alternative is necessary. D. MONITORING THESE MITIGATION MEASURES The following information is provided in accordance with Public Resources Code (PRC) Section 21081.6. The mitigation measures identified in the Master EIR have been incorporated into the UAGP and are implemented by that plan. City staff provides the City Council with an annual report on General Plan implementation. Therefore, no separate mitigation monitoring program is required for the UAGP Master EIR. E. Evaluating Subsequent Projects The following information will be used to determine whether subsequent projects conform to the Master EIR, as outlined in PRC Section 21157.1(c). Anticipated future projects, as presented in Chapter II, are within the scope of analysis for the effects on agricultural land as long as the following circumstances have not changed. 1. The lead agency for subsequent projects shall be the City of Modesto or any responsible agency identified in the Master EIR. 2. The following policies continue to be in force, would be applied to subsequent projects where appropriate, and would reduce, avoid, or mitigate impacts. The policy reference numbers are listed; the full text of these policies is found in Section A-4 above, Existing Policies Applying to the Study Area. a. Stanislaus LAFCo policy as described above. b. Modesto policies in the Baseline Developed Area, Redevelopment Area and Planned Urbanizing Area: FS-1 through FS-18. 3. No additional significant effect on fire services is identified within the planning area, and no new mitigation measures are required. ---PAGE BREAK--- Chapter V. Environmental Analysis Modesto General Plan Update Final Master EIR V-14-11 Section 14. Increased Demand for Fire Services October 2008 F. KEEPING THE MASTER ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT CURRENT FOR THIS TOPIC As authorized by PRC Section 21166, the analysis contained in this section is current as long as the following circumstances have not occurred. 1. The planning area population increases more rapidly than projected by the UAGP, indicating that the planning area will be insufficient to accommodate expected growth in 2025. 2. The planning area is expanded beyond the May 2008 (estimated date of certification of General Plan/Master EIR Update) boundaries. 3. No new information, as defined in CEQA Guidelines Section 15162(a)(3), becomes available pertaining to fire services that would require major revisions in the Master EIR by indicating that there would be an additional significant effect on the environment and that new or additional mitigation measures or alternatives may be required. ---PAGE BREAK--- Chapter V. Environmental Analysis Modesto General Plan Update Final Master EIR V-15-1 Section 15. Generation of Solid Waste October 2008 Section 15 Generation of Solid Waste This section describes how development associated with the City of Modesto Urban Area General Plan (UAGP) would increase the demand for solid waste collection and disposal services, and increase the potential need for additional landfill capacity. If significant impacts are found, mitigation measures are provided to reduce these impacts to a less-than-significant level. A. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING The following information is provided in accordance with Section 15125 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines. This environmental setting is the baseline for determining whether an impact included in the UAGP is significant. 1. Study Area for Direct Impacts The study area for direct impacts on solid waste is the City of Modesto’s (City’s) planning area. 2. Study Area for Cumulative Impacts This analysis will be based on the plan or projection approach to examining cumulative effects, as provided under Section 15130(b)(1)(B) of the State CEQA Guidelines. The pertinent plan used for this purpose is the UAGP. The study area for cumulative impacts on solid waste is the corporate limits of Stanislaus County (County). 3. Existing Physical Conditions in the Study Area a. Overview In 2004, the City of Modesto had a population of 207,376, and generated approximately 378,130 tons of solid waste (California Integrated Waste Management Board 2006a, California Department of Finance This number is projected to increase to a total waste generation of approximately 649,740 tons per year by 2025. The City’s approximately 66,652 households account for approximately 28 percent of the City’s total waste generation. The remaining 72 percent of generation is attributable to commercial, industrial, agricultural, and public facility operations. The projected 2025 level of waste generation assumes that generation rates will remain the same. ---PAGE BREAK--- Chapter V. Environmental Analysis Modesto General Plan Update Final Master EIR V-15-2 Section 15. Generation of Solid Waste October 2008 b. Solid Waste Collection and Transport Two private firms are currently engaged in collection and transport of solid wastes in Modesto. Gilton Solid Waste Management and Bertolotti Disposal provide hauling and interim transfer stations for Modesto’s waste disposal, transformation, and diversion streams. A third hauler, Bonzi Disposal, hauls industrial waste. The Gilton transfer station has a capacity of 1,200 tons per day, and Bertolotti Disposal has a permitted capacity of 750 tons per day. (Rodriguez pers. comm.) c. Waste Disposal Waste generation information was obtained from the California Integrated Waste Management Board (CIWMB) web site as well as through personal communication with official jurisdiction representatives. The most recent CIWMB-approved diversion rate dates back to 2004. Solid waste generated by the City is primarily disposed of at the Stanislaus Resource Recovery Facility (SRRF), the adjoining Fink Road Landfill located near Crows Landing, approximately 25 miles southwest of Modesto, and Forward Landfill, Inc., located in the City of Manteca. Various other landfills accepted approximately 6,438 tons of the City’s solid waste in 2004. These other landfills include Altamont Landfill, Bakersfield Sanitary Landfill, Vasco Road Sanitary Landfill, Arvin Sanitary Landfill, Azusa Land Reclamation, Guadalupe Sanitary Landfill, Highway 59 Disposal Site, Keller Canyon Landfill, Portero Hills Landfill, Sacramento County Landfill, Bill Wright Disposal Site, Foothill Sanitary Landfill, North County Landfill, B-J Dropbox Sanitary Landfill, and Bonzi Sanitary Landfill (California Integrated Waste Management Board 2007a In 2004, the City of Modesto disposed of approximately 43 percent (162,596 tons) of its solid waste by incineration at the SRRF, a waste-to-energy facility operated by Covanta Stanislaus Inc., for the City of Modesto and Stanislaus County (Covanta Stanislaus Inc. 2007) . The facility has a designated refuse capacity of 800 tons per day and an estimated closure date of 2036 (Wilhelm pers. comm.). Approximately 17% (64,282 tons) of the City’s solid waste is disposed of at the Fink Road Landfill (California Integrated Waste Management Board 2004a). Pursuant to its permit from the CIWMB, the Fink Road Landfill has a design capacity of approximately 12 million cubic yards (cy) for Class III waste and approximately 3.1 million cy for Class II waste (Jantz and Stevens pers. comm.). As of April 2007, the landfill has approximately 2,730,008 cy of remaining Class II waste capacity and 7,740,587 cy remaining Class III waste capacity. Applying a 2 cy per ton conversion rate, the landfill has a capacity of approximately 3.8 million tons of Class III waste. At current disposal rates, the landfill has an estimated closure date of 2023. However, Stanislaus County is currently planning a 129-acre expansion of the landfill and a reconfiguration of the existing facility to occur prior to the estimated closure date. These improvements would extend the landfill's useful life by approximately 40 years (Grider pers. comm.). Additionally, the City of Modesto disposes of 36 percent (136,127 tons) of its solid waste at Forward Landfill, Inc. (California Integrated Waste Management Board). Operating under a ---PAGE BREAK--- Chapter V. Environmental Analysis Modesto General Plan Update Final Master EIR V-15-3 Section 15. Generation of Solid Waste October 2008 permit from the CIWMB, Forward Landfill Inc. has a site capacity of 51 million cy for solid waste disposal. As of February 2007, the landfill had approximately 28.2 million cy available for Class III waste. Applying its 0.85 tons of waste per cy conversion rate, the landfill still has space for approximately 24 million tons of solid waste (McClellon pers. comm.). If this rate of disposal continues as planned, the landfill is expected to close in 2020 (California Integrated Waste Management Board 2007b). Currently, there is no planned expansion of the facility (Yekta pers. comm.). AB 939 required that counties and municipalities divert at least 25 percent of their solid waste from landfills by 1995 and at least 50 percent by 2000. In 2004, the City achieved a 54 percent diversion rate, due in part to the use of programs and education aimed at promoting recycling, composting, and overall waste reduction. To continue to meet this mandate, the City’s plan calls for the following programs: 1. promotion of source reduction; 2. development of material recovery facilities; 3. active curbside recycling and local buy-back programs; 4. composting of organics; 5. business/industrial recycling; 6. cannery waste diversions for animal feed, land spreading, or alternative fuel production; 7. recycling in schools and recycling education; 8. wood waste diversion (wood is ground and sold as fuel); 9. diversion of inert materials such as concrete for use as road base materials; and 10. establishment of markets for recycling/composted material. (Reed pers. comm.) Under Assembly Bill (AB) 939, waste-to-energy facilities, such as the SRRF, are considered to be transformation facilities (as opposed to recycling facilities). Consequently, the City receives diversion credit for 10 percent of the volume of waste diverted to the SRRF (Rodriguez pers. comm.). An estimated 10,000 to 20,000 dry tons of biosolids are generated each year at the City’s wastewater treatment plant and are beneficially reused as soil amendment under Waste Discharge Requirements Order 94-030 (Reed pers. comm.). 4. Existing Policies Applying to the Study Area Below is a comprehensive list of major federal, state, and local policies, or summaries of policies, in effect that apply to the study area. This list provides the full range of applicable policies that a project within the study area would potentially need to comply with, including policies beyond the jurisdiction of the City. This list of laws, regulations, and programs also serves to describe the circumstances under which this environmental topic was analyzed in this Master Environmental Impact Report (EIR). ---PAGE BREAK--- Chapter V. Environmental Analysis Modesto General Plan Update Final Master EIR V-15-4 Section 15. Generation of Solid Waste October 2008 A discrete reference number, following the initials of the resource topic, is assigned to each policy or policy summary listed to facilitate their identification elsewhere in this Master EIR or, where appropriate, their incorporation as a mitigation measure into subsequent projects analyzed under this Master EIR Solid Waste policies are designated as SW-X, where X is the discrete number). a. Federal Regulations There are no applicable federal regulations. b. State Policies SW-1: The California Integrated Waste Management Act, AB 939 requires that counties and municipalities divert at least 25 percent of their solid waste from landfills by 1995 and at least 50 percent by 2000. Programs to reach these goals include the promotion of source reduction, development of materials-recovery facilities, curbside recycling and local buy-back programs, cannery-waste diversions for animal feed and land spreading and alternative fuel production, recycling in schools and recycling education, composting of organics, business/industrial recycling, wood waste diversion, diversion of inert materials such as concrete, and establishment of markets for recycling/composted material. Landfills operate under permits issued by the CIWMB. c. Stanislaus County Policies The territory outside the City limits is under Stanislaus County jurisdiction. The Stanislaus County General Plan has the following applicable policies. SW-2: Future growth shall not exceed the capabilities/capacity of the provider of services such as sewer, water, public safety, solid waste management, road systems, schools, health care facilities, etc. (County General Plan, Land Use Element, Policy 22) SW-3: Support efforts to minimize the disposal of solid waste through source reduction, reuse, recycling, composting, and transformation activities. (County General Plan, Conservation and Open Space Element, Goal 7) SW-4: The County will support the solid waste management hierarchy established by the California Public Resources Code (PRC), Section 40051, and actively promote the goals and objectives specified in the Countywide Integrated Waste Management Plan. (County General Plan, Conservation and Open Space Element, Policy 22) SW-5: Conserve resources through promotion of waste reduction, reuse, recycling, composting, ride-share programs, and alternative energy sources such as mini- hydroelectric plants, gas and oil exploration, and transformation facilities such as waste-to-energy plants. (County General Plan, Conservation and Open Space Element, Goal 11) d. City of Modesto Policies The UAGP provides the following policies related to solid waste. ---PAGE BREAK--- Chapter V. Environmental Analysis Modesto General Plan Update Final Master EIR V-15-5 Section 15. Generation of Solid Waste October 2008 Baseline Developed Area SW-6: The City of Modesto will continue to comply with the requirements of Assembly Bill 939 which mandates the diversion of solid waste of 50% by 2000, by way of source reduction, recycling, composting, and transformation. (UAGP Policy V-L.2) SW-7: The state’s placement of recycling and source reduction at the top of the integrated waste management hierarchy requires that the City implement and maintain recycling and source reduction programs. Some program options that may need to be considered in the future include variable can rates; expansion of the organics recycling program to include mixed and contaminated paper combined with the green waste; recycling of commercial food waste; mandatory commercial/industrial recycling programs; evaluating the current residential recycling program and making recommendations for modifications as necessary; and continuing to apply for grant funding for program implementation. A significant amount of the waste currently being generated in the City is compostable. Because of this significant diversion potential, it is essential that green waste composting (including co-composting with biosolids) and compost market development be continued and expanded. The success of the other programs outlined in the SRRE depends upon the cooperation and participation of a public that understands the importance of waste reduction and recycling objectives. The residential and business communities should continue to be targeted with comprehensive outreach efforts, including multi-media advertising and educational campaigns, community events, and incentive awards for excellence in waste reduction. (UAGP Policy V-L.2[a]) SW-8: The City will continue to participate in the existing Household Hazardous Waste Programs, including support of the drop-off facility, continued public information, participation in the oil and battery collection programs, and implementation and enforcement of existing and new regulations regarding electronic and universal waste legislation. (UAGP Policy V-L.2[b]) SW-9: The City will continue to comply with Stanislaus County’s Hazardous Waste Management Plan. (UAGP Policy V-L.2[c]) SW-10: The City shall provide for the safe collection and disposal of all solid waste generated in the City of Modesto, at rates comparable to or less than elsewhere in the state, and ensure there is access to the appropriate disposal facilities for the City’s long-term needs. Garbage service shall be provided to all residences and businesses within the City of Modesto. (UAGP Policy V-L.2[d]) SW-11: To meet the waste-disposal demands of the growing population, the City shall continue to seek alternative waste disposal methods for solid waste, including transformation, composting, and alternative energy conversion technologies. (UAGP Policy V-L.2[e]) Planned Urbanizing Area SW-12: Specific Plans, adopted pursuant to Section 65450 et seq of the California Government Code, may be used for the systematic implementation of the general plan for all or part of the area covered by the general plan. Accordingly, each specific plan shall include a text and a diagram or diagrams that specify all of the following in detail: The distribution, location, and extent of the uses of land, ---PAGE BREAK--- Chapter V. Environmental Analysis Modesto General Plan Update Final Master EIR V-15-6 Section 15. Generation of Solid Waste October 2008 including open space, within the area covered by the plan. The proposed distribution, location, and extent and intensity of major components of public and private transportation, sewage, water, drainage, solid waste disposal, energy, and other essential facilities proposed to be located within the area covered by the plan and needed to support the land uses described in the plan. Standards and criteria by which development will proceed, and standards for the conservation, development, and utilization of natural resources, where applicable. A program of implementation measures including regulations, programs, public works projects, and financing measures necessary to carry out the preceding items and Specific Plans may incorporate any of the Land Use Designations presented on the Land Use Diagram, and they may be used within any Growth Strategy Designation: Redevelopment Area, Baseline Developed Area, or Planned Urbanizing Area. Where the Neighborhood Plan Prototype is applied to a Comprehensive Planning District, it shall be implemented by Specific Plan. Any such Specific Plan shall cover a minimum of approximately 480 acres of area or be based on a logical unit of infrastructure, such as an elementary school service area or park planning area. (UAGP Policy III-C.1[d]) SW-13: In addition to the Solid Waste Disposal Policies in place for the Baseline Developed Area, as outlined above, the City should also consider implementing local land-use incentives and zoning/building code modifications to encourage source reduction, recycling, and composting and to provide adequate space for containers. Such measures to be considered include a Construction and Demolition Recycling Ordinance, an ordinance and incentive program for Green Building Projects, and mandatory recycling for commercial/industrial to complement the enforcement of Assembly Bill 2176. (UAGP Policy V-L.3[a]) SW-14 In conjunction with the processing of a Specific Plan within the Planned Urbanizing Area, the City shall consult with the firms responsible for solid waste disposal to confirm that adequate capacity exists for solid waste that would be generated by the project. (UAGP Policy V-L.3[b]) 5. Policies Which Avoid Impacts The following policies are in effect and have been determined to reduce, avoid, or mitigate environmental impacts within the existing City limits and within the Planned Urbanizing Area. County policies are included because they reduce or avoid cumulative impacts, as well as implement AB 929. The policy reference numbers are listed, and the full text of these policies is found above in Section A-4, Existing Policies Applying to the Study Area. a. Stanislaus County Policies The territory outside the city limits is under Stanislaus County jurisdiction and is subject to County policies, ordinances, and regulations. The Stanislaus County General Plan has the following applicable policies: SW-2 through SW-5. b. City of Modesto Policies 1. Baseline Developed Area: SW-6 through SW-11. ---PAGE BREAK--- Chapter V. Environmental Analysis Modesto General Plan Update Final Master EIR V-15-7 Section 15. Generation of Solid Waste October 2008 2. Planned Urbanizing Area: SW-12 through SW-14. B. CONSIDERATION AND DISCUSSION OF SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS The following information is provided in accordance with Section 15126.2 of the State CEQA Guidelines. 1. Thresholds of Significance Suggested by the California Environmental Quality Act CEQA directs agencies to analyze effects on solid waste using Appendix G of the State CEQA Guidelines, a sample checklist for assessing potential impacts on solid waste. Appendix G offers the following broad suggestions for impact assessment. Would the project: a. be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project’s solid waste disposal needs; or b. comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste? 2. Thresholds of Significance Suggested by Other Analytical Methods No applicable thresholds of significance by other analytical methods are available. 3. Threshold of Significance Adopted by the City of Modesto The City has adopted the following threshold of significance to analyze the effects of the project on solid waste: The UAGP will have a significant impact if solid waste generation exceeds the projected capacity of existing landfills and waste-reduction facilities. 4. Significant Direct Impacts a. Baseline Developed Area, Planned Urbanizing Area, and Redevelopment Area The project will result in a maximum population of approximately 357,000 residents in the project area and the generation of a total of approximately 649,740 tons of solid waste per year in 2025. Per 2004 CIWMB-accepted diversion rate, the City is diverting approximately 54 percent of its solid waste stream through source reduction, recycling, composting, and transformation. The City can expect to send approximately 2.5 million tons of waste to the SRRF to Covanta Stanislaus, Inc., and deposit approximately 2.5 million tons of waste into landfills by 2025 (California Integrated Waste Management Board 2006a). At the current loading rate, the ---PAGE BREAK--- Chapter V. Environmental Analysis Modesto General Plan Update Final Master EIR V-15-8 Section 15. Generation of Solid Waste October 2008 Fink Road Landfill has a remaining life of 15 years, and given the expansion being planned by the County its lifespan would be extended by approximately 40 years (Grider pers. comm.). Similarly, Forward Landfill, Inc. is not expected to reach capacity for another 12 years. Since the project would not exceed the capacities of these landfills, it is not identified as a significant impact. As the waste stream generated increases with population, additional landfills and methods for diversion may be needed. The project may also generate the need for additional collection and transfer facilities. The impact is less than significant. 5. Significant Cumulative Impacts CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines require the disclosure of significant cumulative environmental effects, whether the project will make a cumulatively considerable contribution to any such effects, and, if so, mitigation measures intended to reduce the project’s contribution (Section 15130 of the State CEQA Guidelines). A cumulative effect is one that results from past, present, and probable future projects. A project that has a less-than-significant direct effect on the environment may nonetheless make a considerable contribution to a cumulative effect. A cumulative impact analysis first identifies whether there exists a cumulatively significant effect in the given resource area. If so, it determines whether the project will make a considerable contribution to that effect. Where a cumulative impact is severe, even a small contribution may be considerable. Where a project is required to implement or fund its fair share of a mitigation measure designed to alleviate the cumulative impact, its contribution will be rendered less than considerable. (Section 15130(a) of the State CEQA Guidelines) The total projected population of Stanislaus County (including the City of Modesto, with an upper- end population projection of 357,000 in 2025) will be approximately 858,000 in 2030 (California Department of Finance, 2007e). The addition of people and structures associated with this population will generate approximately 1.3 million tons of solid waste annually. All cities within Stanislaus County jurisdiction, excluding the City of Modesto, have formed the Stanislaus County Regional Solid Waste Planning Agency, which adheres to a diversion rate of 50 percent or higher for solid waste per year. In 2004, the Regional Agency achieved a 64 percent diversion rate for solid waste, of which approximately 43 percent was sent to Covanta Stanislaus, Inc. to be incinerated (Kumimoto pers. comm.). The County currently sends a majority of its solid waste to either the Fink Road Landfill or the Bonzi Sanitary Landfill. Out-of-county landfills, such as Forward Landfill, Inc. and the Highway 59 Disposal Site, are used as well (California Integrated Waste Management Board). In 2004, Stanislaus County had a population of 702,123 and generated approximately 1.1 million tons of solid waste (California Department of Finance 2007d, California Integrated Waste Management Board 2006b). Using the projected population in 2025 to represent each year as well as a conservative diversion rate of 50 percent, the County will be disposing of a total of approximately 13 million tons of solid waste to landfills by 2025. Because both the City and the Stanislaus County Regional Solid Waste Planning Agency use the SRRF for the disposal of garbage, which is not source reduced, recycled, or composted (approximately 43 percent of total solid waste), they both expect to meet a diversion rate of at least 50 percent for solid waste over the next 20 years. Based on these figures, the maximum amount of ---PAGE BREAK--- Chapter V. Environmental Analysis Modesto General Plan Update Final Master EIR V-15-9 Section 15. Generation of Solid Waste October 2008 garbage that will require landfill disposal will be approximately 13 million tons. With the proposed 129-acre expansion of the Fink Road Landfill currently underway, Bonzi Sanitary Landfill’s estimated closure date not scheduled until 2019, and the remaining 24 million tons of available solid waste disposal at Forward landfill, Inc., Stanislaus County can expect to meet its disposal rates over the next 20 years (California Integrated Waste Management Board 2007c). Thus, there is no significant cumulative impact on solid waste facilities to which the project might contribute. 6. Potential Impacts for Which There Is Insufficient Information to Support a Full Analysis There is no such impact for solid waste. C. MITIGATION MEASURES ADOPTED TO MINIMIZE SIGNIFICANT EFFECTS The following information is provided in accordance with Section 15126.4 of the State CEQA Guidelines. 1. Measures Which Mitigate Direct Impacts The adopted and proposed policies of the UAGP, listed in Section A-4.d above, would avoid direct and indirect impacts by reducing the quantity of solid waste generated so that state diversion objectives continue to be met and solid waste does not exceed landfill capacity during the planning period. 2. Measures Which Mitigate Cumulative Impacts The adopted policies of the County General Plan, listed in Section A-4.c. above, would reduce (but not eliminate) cumulative impacts by allowing for future development of a landfill site. The actions of the Regional Solid Waste Planning Agency will avoid the cumulative impact on solid waste by providing future capacity beyond the planning horizon for the UAGP. 3. Alternatives to the Proposed Project The following information is provided in accordance with Section 15126.6 of the State CEQA Guidelines. Solid waste generation is a result of the anticipated growth to occur within the City. None of the alternatives would reduce the potential effects of this growth on solid waste. D. MONITORING THESE MITIGATION MEASURES The following information is provided in accordance with PRC Section 211081.6. ---PAGE BREAK--- Chapter V. Environmental Analysis Modesto General Plan Update Final Master EIR V-15-10 Section 15. Generation of Solid Waste October 2008 The mitigation measures identified in the Master EIR have been incorporated into the UAGP and are implemented by that plan. City staff provides the City Council with an annual report on General Plan implementation. Therefore, no separate mitigation monitoring is required for the UAGP Master EIR. E. EVALUATING SUBSEQUENT PROJECTS The following information will be used to determine whether subsequent projects conform to the Master EIR, as outlined in PRC Section 21157.1(c). Anticipated future projects, as presented in Chapter II, are within the scope of analysis for the effects on solid waste generation as long as the following circumstances have not changed: 1. the lead agency for the subsequent project will be the City of Modesto or any responsible agency identified in the Master EIR; and/or 2. the preceding City policies SW-8 through SW-16 continue to be in force to reduce, avoid, or mitigate impacts. F. KEEPING THE MASTER ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT CURRENT FOR THIS TOPIC As authorized by Public Resources Code Section 21166, the analysis contained in this section, Generation of Solid Waste, is current as long as the following circumstances have not occurred: 1. the planning area population increases more rapidly than projected by the UAGP, indicating that the planning area will be insufficient to accommodate expected growth in 2025; 2. the planning area is expanded beyond the May 2008 (estimated date of certification of General Plan/Master EIR) boundaries; and/or 3. new information, as defined in State CEQA Guidelines Section 15162(a)3), becomes available pertaining to solid waste that would require major revisions in the Master EIR by indicating that there would be an additional significant effect on the environment and that new or additional mitigation measures or alternatives may be required. ---PAGE BREAK--- Chapter V. Environmental Analysis Modesto General Plan Update Final Master EIR V-16-1 Section 16. Generation of Hazardous Materials October 2008 Section 16 Generation of Hazardous Materials This section describes how development associated with the City of Modesto Urban Area General Plan (UAGP) would increase the generation of hazardous materials. If significant impacts are found, mitigation measures are provided to reduce these impacts to a less-than-significant level. A. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING The following information is provided in accordance with Section 15125 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines. This environmental setting is the baseline for determining whether an impact of the UAGP is significant. For the purposes of this master environmental impact report (Master EIR), a hazardous material is defined by California Health and Safety Code (CHSC) Section 25501 as follows: “Hazardous material” means any material that, because of its quantity, concentration, or physical or chemical characteristics, poses a significant present or potential hazard to human health and safety or to the environment if released into the workplace or the environment. “Hazardous materials” include, but are not limited to, hazardous substances, hazardous waste, and any material that a handler or the administering agency has a reasonable basis for believing that it would be injurious to the health and safety of persons or harmful to the environment if released into the workplace or the environment. 1. Study Area for Direct Impacts The study area for direct impacts on hazardous materials is the Modesto planning area, as shown in Figure III-2. 2. Study Area for Cumulative Impacts This analysis will be based on the plan or projection approach to examining cumulative effects, as provided under Section 15130(b)(1)(B) of the State CEQA Guidelines. The pertinent plan used for this purpose is the City of Modesto’s (City’s) UAGP. The study area for cumulative impacts on hazardous materials is the Modesto planning area. 3. Existing Physical Conditions in the Study Area This section describes the general status of hazardous materials within Modesto. Because of existing federal, state, and local hazardous materials programs and policies already in place, the evaluation of hazardous materials is limited to a qualitative description of the existing regulatory framework under which the City is currently operating. Hazardous materials conditions are generally no more adverse than described in the 1995 Master EIR and its 2003 update. The ---PAGE BREAK--- Chapter V. Environmental Analysis Modesto General Plan Update Final Master EIR V-16-2 Section 16. Generation of Hazardous Materials October 2008 following discussion provides a description of the federal, state, and local policies in place and provides a summary of the various site classifications, by which hazardous materials are identified. The following discussion also describes Modesto’s current status of compliance with hazardous materials regulations. a. Groundwater Point Source Pollution Leaking Underground Storage Tanks Leakage from underground storage tanks (USTs), particularly those installed prior to the regulatory scheme enacted in the 1980s, is a source of soil and groundwater contamination in Modesto. Contaminants typically include fuels (gasoline and diesel), waste oil, and solvents. Agricultural tank systems of more than 1,100 gallons and all nonagricultural tank systems are tested routinely and monitored for leaks. (A tank system includes an underground tank and its associated piping.) Permits must be issued as a condition of operation and include: a. annual precision testing, b. leak monitoring, and c. inventory reconciliation. Contamination generally is discovered during the routine investigation of suspected leakage or tank removal. Inspections of USTs are administered by the Stanislaus County (County) Environmental Resources Department’s hazardous materials program. The Environmental Resources Department investigates all such sites to determine the degree of contamination and the level of cleanup needed. The County works closely with the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board during all phases of the site investigation. The State of California sometimes serves in a lead role when it is determined that the state is better able to oversee a site. The impact of leaking USTs is less than significant, based on the existing regulatory framework. Any leaks must be remediated before a site is deemed suitable for residential use. Commercial/Industrial Pollution Superfund Sites The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has identified an area near McHenry and Roseburg Avenues (the “Modesto Ground Water Contamination” site) as a Superfund site. The Superfund regulations are discussed below under Federal Regulations. The EPA, Region IX, provides the following information (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 2007b). The Modesto Ground Water Contamination site has groundwater contamination linked to Halford’s Cleaners at 941 McHenry Avenue, which discharged ---PAGE BREAK--- Chapter V. Environmental Analysis Modesto General Plan Update Final Master EIR V-16-3 Section 16. Generation of Hazardous Materials October 2008 tetrachloroethylene (PCE) into the City sewer and leaked PCE into the soil and groundwater over a period of approximately 50 years. An unknown quantity of PCE was released. The dry cleaning equipment that led to the release has been replaced with modern equipment, and PCE is no longer being discharged into the sewer. A UST at the cleaners has been removed and remediated. The dry cleaner is located approximately 1,200 feet from a municipal water well. When the City began monitoring groundwater in 1984, Municipal Well 11 was found to be contaminated with PCE above the allowable drinking water standard. The City took the well out of service, and a granular activated carbon treatment system was installed in June 1991 to remove the PCE contamination from the groundwater. Municipal Well 11 was shut off in October 1994 because it was found to be contaminated with low levels of naturally occurring uranium that are above the allowable drinking water level. Municipal Well 11 may never be returned to service as a source of drinking water because of the cost of removing the naturally occurring uranium. Information on the soil and groundwater contamination at the site was collected during a removal assessment in 1990, and a soil vapor extraction system was installed to address shallow soil contamination. Subsequent investigations determined that no immediate actions were required, and the soil vapor extraction system has been turned off until a final remedy is selected. The EPA performed preliminary investigations and determined that no immediate actions were required while the final cleanup is being planned. The EPA completed Phase 1 and Phase 2 investigations and is conducting a Phase 3 investigation to determine the nature and extent of contamination. Remediation activities have begun on a portion of the site. Other Hazardous Materials Sites Compiled Pursuant to California Government Code 65962.5 (Cortese List) The Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) has identified an area on West Service Road, approximately 8 miles southwest of Central Modesto, as a state response site. The DTSC provides the following information about the site in its Site Mitigation and Brownfields Reuse Program EnviroStor database (Department of Toxic Substances Control 2007). The Gallo Glass–Sisk Ranch site is part of a parcel owned by Sisk Ranch that was filled with 1,500 cubic yards of chromium contaminated furnace brick from the Gallo Glass manufacturing facility. Chromium leached from the bricks and contaminated the groundwater beneath the site and Evans Orchard, the adjacent property. The groundwater contaminated with chromium reached a depth of approximately 110 feet below the ground surface. In October 1986, the contaminated bricks and soil were removed as an interim remedial measure. To address groundwater contamination at the Gallo Glass– Sisk Ranch site, a remedial action plan (RAP) was completed in February 1991. The RAP specified that groundwater be extracted and treated to below the drinking water maximum contaminant level for chromium with a chemical ---PAGE BREAK--- Chapter V. Environmental Analysis Modesto General Plan Update Final Master EIR V-16-4 Section 16. Generation of Hazardous Materials October 2008 treatment system. In 1994, the DTSC approved the design of an expanded groundwater treatment system, which included the addition of three monitoring wells to verify capture, two extraction wells to increase the zone of capture, and two leach lines to increase the capacity for treated groundwater disposal. Final remedial actions at the Gallo Glass–Sisk Ranch site, as identified in an operation and maintenance plan certified by the DTSC in June 1995 and as described in the “Enforceable Agreement” between the Gallo Glass company and the DTSC, dated June 30, 1995, included groundwater extraction, chemical treatment, and the reintroduction of treated groundwater into the aquifer via percolation ponds and leach lines. 1. Implementation, Monitoring, and Report Activities In accordance with the June 1995 Enforceable Agreement between the Gallo Glass company and the DTSC, five-year review reports for the site were submitted by Gallo Glass to the DTSC on August 21, 2000, and October 28, 2005. Based on a review of the 2000 report, the DTSC determined that remedial actions at the site remained protective of human health and the environment. No areas of the site were in noncompliance with the selected remedial actions, the operation and maintenance plan, or the operation and maintenance agreement. In 2001, all the site groundwater monitoring wells showed chromium levels to be below the cleanup goal of 50 parts per billion (drinking water standard). Accordingly, the DTSC allowed Gallo Glass to shut down the on-site groundwater extraction and treatment system and continue monitoring the groundwater monitoring well network. From 2003 onward, elevated concentrations of chromium were found in one monitoring well located on the northwestern edge of the historical plume. Consequently, in its review of the 2005 report, the DTSC determined that Gallo Glass needs to implement additional remedial actions to meet the objectives of the RAP. The DTSC requested that Gallo Glass submit a revised five-year review report to address the increased levels of chromium discovered in the single well (Patenaude pers. comm.). The DTSC currently is reviewing and responding to Gallo Glass’s revised five-year review report (Patenaude pers. comm.). Nonpoint Source Pollution Nonpoint source pollution results when pollutants, such as oil and grease, fertilizers, pesticides, bacteria associated with litter and animal wastes, and solvents and household chemicals, flow through storm drains into creeks, streams, and the Tuolumne and Stanislaus Rivers. Unlike industrial waste and sanitary wastewater, stormwater is not treated, so it carries any pollutants with it directly into the creeks, streams, and rivers. Studies have shown that these nonpoint sources are a significant contributor of pollutants that appear in these waterbodies. Pollutants flow through the storm drain system and find their way to the waterbodies after being deposited on paved surfaces or spilled into gutters. Surface runoff also can flow into the canals of the Modesto Irrigation District (MID) during heavy storms. ---PAGE BREAK--- Chapter V. Environmental Analysis Modesto General Plan Update Final Master EIR V-16-5 Section 16. Generation of Hazardous Materials October 2008 The City received a municipal National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit for stormwater discharges from the Central Valley Under this permit, the City is required to develop, administer, implement, and enforce a Comprehensive Stormwater Management Program to reduce pollutants in urban runoff to the maximum extent practicable. In compliance with this requirement, the City has developed the City of Modesto Stormwater Management Program: Guidance Manual for New Development Stormwater Quality Control Measures (City of Modesto 2001a). The manual includes specific design requirements for minimizing pollutant runoff. Transfer Stations, Storage Areas, and Landfills The potential for a release of hazardous materials exists whenever solid waste is transported or transferred. Once waste is deposited into landfills, the potential exists for groundwater contamination because of leachate. The County operates the Fink Road Landfill on the west side of Interstate 5 under permit from the California Integrated Waste Management Board (CIWMB). The Fink Road Landfill is the primary repository for Modesto’s solid waste. Existing Policies Applying to the Study Area Below is a comprehensive list of major federal, state, County, and City policies in effect that apply to the study area. This list provides the full range of applicable policies that a project within the study area potentially would need to comply with, including policies beyond the jurisdiction of the City. This list of laws, regulations, and programs also serves to describe the circumstances under which the Master EIR analyzed this environmental topic. A discrete reference number, following the initials of the resource topic, is assigned to each policy or policy summary listed to facilitate its identification elsewhere in this Master EIR or, where appropriate, its incorporation as a mitigation measure into subsequent projects analyzed under this Master EIR hazardous materials policies are designated HM-X, where X is the discrete policy number). Federal Regulations The principal federal regulatory agency governing hazardous materials is the EPA. Two primary federal regulations concerning hazardous materials are described below. Other federal regulations are contained primarily in Titles 29, 40, and 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations. The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) empowers the EPA to administer a regulatory program that extends from the manufacture of hazardous materials to their disposal, regulating the generation, transportation, treatment, storage, and disposal of hazardous waste at all facilities and sites in the nation. The Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA), also known as Superfund, was passed to facilitate the cleanup of the nation’s toxic waste sites. Superfund, which is administered by the EPA, was ---PAGE BREAK--- Chapter V. Environmental Analysis Modesto General Plan Update Final Master EIR V-16-6 Section 16. Generation of Hazardous Materials October 2008 amended by the Superfund Amendment and Reauthorization Act (SARA), Title III (community right-to-know laws), in 1986. Title III states that past and present owners of land contaminated with hazardous substances will be held liable for the cost of the cleanup, with certain exceptions. A hazardous substance is defined pursuant to CERCLA 42 United States Code 9601 (14), and interpreted by EPA regulations and the courts as: 1. Any substance designated pursuant to Section 1321(b)(2)(A) of Title 33 of the Code of Federal Regulations. 2. Any element, compound, mixture, solution, or substance designated pursuant to Section 9602 of CERCLA. Federal regulations, implemented primarily by the federal government, apply to public and private activities. The EPA maintains the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Information System (CERCLIS) database to help keep track of known contamination sites. It contains data on potentially hazardous waste sites that have been reported to the EPA by states, local jurisdictions, and others under CERCLA. This list is commonly referenced during predevelopment site investigations to determine whether a site may be contaminated. State Regulations In California, state regulations governing hazardous materials are equal to or more stringent than federal regulations. The state has been granted primary oversight responsibility by the EPA to administer and enforce hazardous waste management programs. State regulations have detailed planning and management requirements to ensure that hazardous wastes are handled, stored, and disposed of properly to reduce risks to human health and the environment. Several key state laws pertaining to hazardous wastes are discussed below. In addition, the DTSC, the and the Integrated Waste Management Act regulate the generation and disposal of hazardous materials, as described below. The Hazardous Materials Release Response Plans and Inventory Act of 1985 (Section 25500 et seq. of the CHSC, also known as the Business Plan Act) requires businesses using hazardous materials to prepare a plan that describes their facilities, identifies materials, and describes their emergency response plans and training programs. Hazardous materials are defined as raw or unused materials that are part of a process or manufacturing step; they are not considered hazardous wastes. Health concerns pertaining to the release of hazardous materials, however, are similar to those relating to hazardous wastes. Often, the facilities subject to this act also generate hazardous wastes. The plan and related reports are filed with the county. The required plan also informs emergency responders of hazardous materials. The Hazardous Waste Control Act (HWCA) created the state hazardous waste management program, which is similar to, but more stringent than, the federal RCRA program. The HWCA is implemented by regulations contained in ---PAGE BREAK--- Chapter V. Environmental Analysis Modesto General Plan Update Final Master EIR V-16-7 Section 16. Generation of Hazardous Materials October 2008 California Code of Regulations Title 26, which describes requirements for the proper management of hazardous wastes. This includes criteria for: 1. identification and classification; 2. generation and transportation; 3. the design and permitting of recycling, treatment, storage, and disposal facilities; 4. treatment standards; 5. the operation of facilities and staff training; and 6. the closure of facilities and liability requirements. These regulations list more than 800 materials that may be hazardous and establish criteria for identifying, packaging, and disposing of such wastes. Pursuant to the HWCA and Title 26, the generator of hazardous waste must complete a manifest that accompanies the waste from the generator to the transporter and to the ultimate disposal location. Copies of the manifest must be filed with the DTSC. Under the Emergency Services Act, the state developed an emergency response plan to coordinate emergency services provided by federal, state, and local agencies. Quick responses to incidents involving hazardous materials or hazardous waste are a key part of the plan, which is administered by the California Office of Emergency Services (OES). The OES coordinates the responses of other agencies, including the EPA, the California Highway Patrol, air quality management districts, and county disaster response offices. Various other state regulations affect hazardous waste management. These include the regulations described below. The Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act of 1986 (Proposition 65) requires the labeling of substances known or suspected by the state to cause cancer. California Government Code Section 65962.5 requires the DTSC to compile a list of potentially contaminated sites in the state (the Cortese List). The purpose of this legislation is to inform local agencies of the existence of these sites. The DTSC and the list hazardous sites selected for remedial action and USTs with a reported unauthorized release of toxic materials. UST cleanup is administered locally, with the providing oversight. The CIWMB lists all solid waste disposal facilities from which there is known migration of hazardous substances. The CIWMB also administers the California Integrated Waste Management Act, which, among other things, oversees the development and implementation of household hazardous waste disposal plans. The CIWMB enforces solid waste facilities’ operational plans. ---PAGE BREAK--- Chapter V. Environmental Analysis Modesto General Plan Update Final Master EIR V-16-8 Section 16. Generation of Hazardous Materials October 2008 The California Environmental Protection Agency is authorized to endow qualifying local agencies with oversight and permitting responsibility for certain state programs. The agency oversees the implementation of the Unified Program, which was created by state legislation in 1993 to consolidate, coordinate, and make consistent the administrative requirements, permits, inspections, and enforcement activities for the following environmental and emergency management programs: 1. hazardous materials release response plans and inventories (business plans), 2. the California Accidental Release Prevention (CalARP) Program, 3. the UST program, 4. Aboveground Petroleum Storage Act requirements for spill prevention, control and countermeasure (SPCC) plans, 5. hazardous waste generator and onsite hazardous waste treatment (tiered permitting) programs, and 6. California Uniform Fire Code: Hazardous Material Management Plans and Hazardous Material Inventory Statements. Stanislaus County Policies Pursuant to the Integrated Waste Management Act, each county within the state is required to adopt a county integrated waste management plan (CoIWMP), part of which addresses the handling of household hazardous wastes, such as paint, motor oil, and cleaning solutions. The household hazardous waste elements for each city and the county identify programs for the safe collection, recycling, treatment, and disposal of hazardous waste. County policies, as summarized below, are relevant because they manage development in unincorporated areas within the study area. HM-1: The Stanislaus County General Plan (County General Plan) Safety Element minimizes the effects of hazardous conditions that might cause a loss of life and property. The County Environmental Resources Department investigates all such sites to determine the degree of contamination and the level of cleanup needed. The County works closely with the DTSC and the during all phases of the site investigation. HM-2: The County is Certified Unified Program Agency–authorized by the DTSC to administer a number of state programs at the local level. It regulates hazardous materials within its incorporated areas (including Modesto) and unincorporated areas. The County’s role includes taking the following actions (Stanislaus County 2007). 1. Implement risk management and prevention laws to minimize chemical releases in the community. 2. Maintain a hazardous materials response team to assist police and fire agencies during transportation and industrial accidents involving chemical spills. 3. Prepare and implement the County’s area plan for emergency responses to chemical spills in the community. 4. Permit and inspect the removal of USTs. ---PAGE BREAK--- Chapter V. Environmental Analysis Modesto General Plan Update Final Master EIR V-16-9 Section 16. Generation of Hazardous Materials October 2008 5. Permit and monitor new USTs. 6. Oversee site investigation for soil and groundwater contamination and cleanup. 7. Inspect hazardous waste generators. 8. Review procedures for the storage, treatment, and disposal of hazardous wastes. 9. Prepare and implement the County’s hazardous waste management plan. 10. Develop and implement the County’s Household Hazardous Waste collection program. 11. Inspect medical facilities to ensure compliance with state medical waste management laws. 12. Implement hazardous materials disclosure laws (business plans) to ensure access to information about chemicals handled by businesses. City of Modesto Policies The UAGP policies for hazardous materials management apply to development within incorporated areas. These policies identify programs for the safe collection, recycling, treatment and disposal of hazardous wastes generated within Modesto. The applicable UAGP policies are listed below. HM-3: The City shall comply with all existing federal and state laws which regulate the generation, transportation, storage, and disposal of hazardous materials. (UAGP Policy V-M.2[a]) HM-4: The City of Modesto should require that businesses and industries using hazardous material provide mitigation measures commensurate with the hazards they bring to the community, in accordance with the applicable Articles and Sections of the most current adopted edition of the Uniform Fire Code. (UAGP Policy V-M.2[b]) HM-5: In the event that site inspection or construction activities uncover chemical contamination, underground storage tanks, abandoned drums, or other hazardous materials or wastes at a parcel, the inspection report preparer shall so notify the City. The City shall notify the County Health Services Department. Under the direction of these agencies, a site remediation plan shall be prepared by the project applicant. The plan would specify measures to be taken to protect workers and the public from exposure to potential site hazards and certify that the proposed remediation measures would clean up the wastes, dispose the wastes, and protect public health in accordance with federal, state, and local requirements. Permitting or work in the areas of potential hazard shall not proceed until the site remediation plan is on file with the City. If a parcel is found to be contaminated to a level that prohibits the proposed use, the potential for reduction of the hazard should be evaluated. Site remediation is theoretically capable of removing hazards to levels sufficiently low to allow any use at the site. In practice, both the technical feasibility of the remediation and its cost (financial feasibility) should be evaluated in order to determine the overall feasibility of locating a specific use on a specific site. In some cases, it may require restriction to industrial use or a use that involves complete paving and covering of the parcel. In accordance with [Occupational Safety and Health Administration] requirements, any activity performed at a contaminated site shall be preceded by preparation of a separate site health and safety plan (prepared by the project applicant and filed with ---PAGE BREAK--- Chapter V. Environmental Analysis Modesto General Plan Update Final Master EIR V-16-10 Section 16. Generation of Hazardous Materials October 2008 the City) for the protection of workers and the public. All reports, plans, and other documentation shall be added to the administrative record. (UAGP Policy V-M.2[c]) HM-6: For each specific project that would generate hazardous waste, the City shall require as a condition of building permit and/or business license approval that the project sponsor prepare a hazardous material transportation program. The transportation program shall identify the location of the new facility or use and designate either specific routes to be used for transport of hazardous materials and wastes to and from the facility, or specific routes to be avoided during transport of hazardous materials and wastes to and from the facility. Routes would be selected to minimize proximity to sensitive receptors to the greatest practical degree. Passage through residential streets should be minimized and parking of waste haulers on residential streets should be prohibited. The City Fire Department shall review and approve the applicant’s hazardous materials transportation program or, working with the applicant, modify it to the satisfaction of both parties. (UAGP Policy V-M.2[d]) HM-7: The City will continue to participate in the existing Household Hazardous Waste Programs, including support of the drop-off facility, continued public information, participation in the oil and battery collection programs, and implementation and enforcement of existing and new regulations regarding electronic and universal waste legislation. (UAGP Policy V-L.2[b]) HM-8: The City will continue to comply with Stanislaus County’s Hazardous Waste Management Plan. (UAGP Policy V-L.2[c])] HM-9: Prior to the issuance of all building permits, the City shall identify the site in relation to all CERCLIS sites and to known or suspected uncontrolled or abandoned hazardous waste sites. All projects within 2,000 feet of these facilities shall conduct hazardous materials studies as necessary to identify the type and extent of contamination, if any, and the extent of risk to human health and public safety. If necessary, a remedial action program would be developed and implemented as in [UAGP Policy V-M.2(c)]. (UAGP Policy V-M.2[e]) 1. Storm Water Drainage Policies—Baseline Developed Area HM-10: One-third of the Baseline Developed Area is served by “rockwells.” New rockwells shall be allowed only under very limited circumstances. New storm drainage in the Baseline Developed Area shall be by means of positive storm drainage systems unless otherwise approved by the City Engineer. The new storm drainage facilities shall consider the drainage facility requirements presented in Table IX-1 of the Final Master Environmental Impact Report and the SDMP. This policy applies to both positive storm drainage systems, and to new rockwells (which are generally discouraged) in the Baseline Developed Area. (UAGP Policy V-E.3[a]) HM-11: MID shall be consulted during the preparation of drainage studies required by this General Plan. (UAGP Policy V-E.3[b]) HM-12: The City shall prevent water pollution from urban storm runoff as established by the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board Basin Plan for surface discharges and Environmental Protection Agency for underground injection. (UAGP Policy V-E.3[c]) HM-13: Storm water drainage facilities shall be constructed, operated, maintained and replaced in a manner that will provide the best possible service to the public, as required by federal and state laws and regulations. In developing implementation plans, consideration shall be given to rehabilitation of existing facilities, remediation ---PAGE BREAK--- Chapter V. Environmental Analysis Modesto General Plan Update Final Master EIR V-16-11 Section 16. Generation of Hazardous Materials October 2008 of developed areas with inadequate levels of drainage service, and the timely expansion of the system for future development. (UAGP Policy V-E.3[d]) HM-14: The City shall update and maintain its Storm Drainage Master Plan to cover the entire area within the City’s Sphere of Influence. The City of Modesto shall adopt the Storm Drainage Master Plan, in consultation with Stanislaus County, MID, and TID, to address the projected cumulative flows that would be discharged to MID and TID facilities from the urbanized drainage areas. The master drainage program should include the procedures for planning, evaluation, and design of necessary stormwater drainage facilities to ensure that facilities are capable of accommodating the additional flows. The master drainage program should include capital improvement, operations, and maintenance-financing plans necessary to ensure that facilities are constructed in a timely fashion to reduce the impacts from potential flooding problems. (UAGP Policy V-E.3[e]) HM-15: New development shall comply with City requirements for conveyance, retention and detention. New development shall include onsite storage of stormwater as necessary. Rockwells shall not be allowed for new development except at infill areas smaller than three acres where no other feasible alternative is available. (UAGP Policy V-E.3[f]) HM-16: The City Engineer may require storm water drainage infrastructure master plans for the public infrastructure or when otherwise pertinent to provision of service at adopted service levels for the specific plan areas or other projects depending on site issues and location. (UAGP Policy V-E.3[g]) HM-17: Construction activities shall comply with the requirements of the City’s Storm Water Management Plan under its municipal NPDES stormwater permit, and the State Water Resources Control Board’s General Permit for Discharges of Storm Water Associated with Construction Activity. (UAGP Policy V-E.3[h]) HM-18: For developments within a mapped 100-year floodplain, studies shall be prepared that demonstrate how the development will comply with both the construction and post-construction programs under the City’s municipal NPDES permit. Developments in these areas shall not lead to increased erosion or releases of other contaminants that would cause violations of the City’s municipal NPDES permit. (UAGP Policy V-E.3[i]) HM-19: The City shall ensure that new development complies with the City of Modesto’s Stormwater Management Program: Guidance Manual for New Development Stormwater Quality Control Measures. (UAGP Policy V-E.3[j]) 2. Storm Water Drainage Policies—Planned Urbanizing Area HM-20: All of the Storm Water Drainage Policies for the Baseline Developed Area apply within the Planned Urbanizing Area. (UAGP Policy V-E.4[a]) HM-21: The City of Modesto shall require each new development area to be served with positive storm drainage systems. A positive storm drainage system may be comprised of catch basins, pipe lines, channels, recharge/detention basins and pumping facilities which discharge storm water to surface waters. New detention basins must typically include new technologies in their design that allow for full, healthy and sustainable landscaping. The City of Modesto Design Standards for Dual Use Flood Control / Recreation Facilities manual is the guiding document for the development of these facilities. The positive storm drainage facilities shall consider the requirements presented in Table IX-1 of the Final Master Environmental Impact Report and the SDMP. (UAGP Policy V-E.4[b]) ---PAGE BREAK--- Chapter V. Environmental Analysis Modesto General Plan Update Final Master EIR V-16-12 Section 16. Generation of Hazardous Materials October 2008 HM-22: The City of Modesto shall require positive storm drainage facilities in the Planned Urbanizing Area. Recharge shall be typically accomplished at recharge/detention basins, designed to be in compliance with applicable federal and state water quality regulations for both groundwater and surface water. (UAGP Policy V-E.4[c]) HM-23: Where feasible, dual-use flood control/recreation facilities shall be developed (dual- use facilities) as part of the storm drainage system. Dual-use facilities maximize efficient use of land and funds by satisfying needs for water quality, flood control, recreation and aesthetics within a single consolidated facility. (UAGP Policy V- E.4[d]) HM-24: Dual-use facilities shall be designed and constructed in accordance with the standards in the City of Modesto Design Standards for Dual Use Flood Control/Recreation Facilities manual and the Open Space and Parks/Planned Urbanizing Area Policy e. (UAGP Policy V-E.4[e]) HM-25: New developments shall be required to implement an appropriate selection of permanent pollution control measures in accordance with the City’s implementation policies for the municipal NPDES stormwater permit. Permanent erosion control measures such as seeding and planting vegetation for new cut-and-fill slopes, directing runoff through vegetation, or otherwise reducing the offsite discharge of particulates and sediment are the most effective method of controlling offsite discharges of urban pollutants. (UAGP Policy V-E.4[f]) HM-26: Applicants for building permits shall determine that a site containing or formerly containing residences or farm buildings/structures has been fully investigated for the presence of hazardous materials or wastes prior to issuance of the permit. Investigation shall consist of, at minimum, a Phase I environmental site assessment and a Phase II site assessment, if found necessary as a result of the Phase I assessment. The findings of the site assessment shall be reported to the City and the County’s Department of Environmental Resources. The appropriate remediation shall occur prior to final occupancy of the approved development. (UAGP Policy V- M.2[f]) 4. Policies Which Avoid Impacts The following policies are in effect and have been determined to reduce, avoid, or mitigate environmental impacts within the existing city limits and within the planning area as it is annexed and develops. County policies are included because they reduce or avoid cumulative impacts. The policy reference numbers are listed, and the full text of these policies or policy summaries is found in Section A-3.a(3) above, Existing Policies Applying to the Study Area. a. Stanislaus County Policies The territory outside the city limits is under County jurisdiction. The County has jurisdiction within Modesto in order to apply toxic materials regulations. The County General Plan has the following applicable policies: HM-1 and HM-2. ---PAGE BREAK--- Chapter V. Environmental Analysis Modesto General Plan Update Final Master EIR V-16-13 Section 16. Generation of Hazardous Materials October 2008 b. City of Modesto The City’s proposed UAGP policies and other adopted City policies and regulations related to hazard materials include: HM-3 through HM-26. B. CONSIDERATION AND DISCUSSION OF SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS 1. Thresholds of Significance Suggested by the California Environmental Quality Act The following excerpts from the State CEQA Guidelines were selected as reference points for significant impacts of hazardous materials. The UAGP would have a significant effect on hazardous materials within Modesto if it would or may: a. attract people to a location and expose them to hazards found there (State CEQA Guidelines Section 15126); or b. create a potential public health hazard or involve the use, production, or disposal of materials that pose a hazard to people or animal or plant populations within the area affected (State CEQA Guidelines Appendix G[VII]). 2. Threshold of Significance Suggested by Other Analytical Methods Federal and state law, as described above, are established to avoid the exposure of human beings and the environment to toxic and hazardous materials. Exposure to hazardous or toxic materials or wastes at levels exceeding accepted federal and state standards would be a significant effect. 3. Threshold of Significance Adopted by the City of Modesto After consideration of the methodological approaches suggested by the State CEQA Guidelines and the County, the City has chosen to adopt the following standard of significance. Impacts will be significant if any proposed development involves an unauthorized release of the generation, use, storage, or transport of any hazardous waste or if the project is located within or adjacent to a site known to have been contaminated with toxic or hazardous substances that has not been remediated. 4. Significant Direct Impacts The impacts of the project relative to hazardous materials are less than significant, based on the existing regulatory framework and the mitigation measure provided below. The contaminated sites identified earlier in this section are being remediated and therefore would not result in a release of hazardous materials. New development would be required to comply with regulations monitoring and controlling the handling and use of hazardous and toxic materials. As a result, the project would not create new impacts. ---PAGE BREAK--- Chapter V. Environmental Analysis Modesto General Plan Update Final Master EIR V-16-14 Section 16. Generation of Hazardous Materials October 2008 Operational requirements placed on the Fink Road landfill by the CIWMB and oversight of discharge permits by the Central Valley avoid the release of materials from that source. Therefore, this impact is less than significant. 5. Significant Cumulative Impacts CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines require the disclosure of the significant cumulative environmental effects; whether the project will make a cumulatively considerable contribution to any such effects; and, if it will, mitigation measures intended to reduce the project’s contribution (Section 15130 of the State CEQA Guidelines). A cumulative effect is one that results from past, present, and probable future projects. A project that has a less-than-significant direct effect on the environment may make a considerable contribution to a cumulative effect nonetheless. A cumulative impact analysis first identifies whether a cumulatively significant effect exists in the given resource area. If one does, the analysis determines whether the project will make a considerable contribution to that effect. Where a cumulative impact is severe, even a small contribution may be considerable. Where a project is required to implement or fund its fair share of a mitigation measure designed to alleviate the cumulative impact, its contribution will be rendered less than considerable. (Section 15130(a) of the State CEQA Guidelines.) The cumulative impact of past activities is locally significant where spills or contamination have occurred. However, future development under the UAGP would not make a considerable contribution to that impact, provided that the development complies with the existing regulatory scheme and proposed UAGP policies. 6. Potential Impacts for Which There Is Insufficient Information to Support a Full Analysis Soil and groundwater can become contaminated through a variety of sources, including accidental spills, disposal on the ground surface, leaks in sewers and UST systems, and other releases. Any proposed site-specific project within the City’s UAGP update boundary must comply with federal, state, regional, and local laws that regulate the generation, transportation, storage and disposal of hazardous materials. No potential hazardous materials impacts can be identified for these future projects without entering into speculation, because the impacts will be determined by project characteristics that cannot be known at this time. C. MITIGATION MEASURES ADOPTED TO MINIMIZE SIGNIFICANT EFFECTS The following information is provided in accordance with Section 15126.4 of the State CEQA Guidelines. 1. Measures Which Mitigate Direct Impacts The generation, transportation, storage, and disposal of hazardous materials within the Baseline Developed Area and the Planned Urbanizing Area cannot be completely eliminated. However, the ---PAGE BREAK--- Chapter V. Environmental Analysis Modesto General Plan Update Final Master EIR V-16-15 Section 16. Generation of Hazardous Materials October 2008 release of hazardous materials can be controlled and reduced to a less-than-significant level through adherence to County and City policies and regulations, including HM-1 through HM-26. 2. Measures Which Mitigate Cumulative Impacts No further mitigation is required for cumulative impacts, and cumulative impact analysis for the generation of hazardous materials would not be required for any anticipated subsequent projects that require a mitigated negative declaration (Section 21157.5 of the Public Resources Code [PRC]) or a focused EIR (Section 21158 PRC). 3. Alternatives to the Proposed Project Alternatives to the project must be examined when such alternatives would avoid or substantially reduce one or more of the significant impacts of the project. (State CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6.) No significant hazardous materials impacts have been identified; therefore, no alternatives are proposed. D. MONITORING THESE MITIGATION MEASURES The following information is provided in accordance with PRC Section 21081.6. The mitigation measures identified in the Master EIR have been incorporated into the UAGP and are implemented by that plan. City staff provides the City Council with an annual report on General Plan implementation. Therefore, no separate mitigation monitoring program is required for the UAGP Master EIR. E. EVALUATING SUBSEQUENT PROJECTS The following information will be used to determine whether subsequent projects conform to the Master EIR, as outlined in PRC Section 21157.1(c). The City currently is operating under federal, state, and local programs and policies that regulate and manage hazardous materials within the study area. As a result, any new development under the UAGP would be in compliance with the provisions set forth in these policies and programs. Anticipated future projects, as presented in Chapter II, are within the scope of analysis for the effects on hazardous materials as long as the circumstances below have not changed. 1. The lead agency for subsequent projects will be the City or any responsible agency identified in the Master EIR. 2. The preceding policies, or policies of equal or stricter application, continue to be in force to reduce, avoid, or mitigate impacts. 3. There is no evidence that the project site is polluted with toxic materials or hazardous wastes, and no remediation has taken place. ---PAGE BREAK--- Chapter V. Environmental Analysis Modesto General Plan Update Final Master EIR V-16-16 Section 16. Generation of Hazardous Materials October 2008 F. KEEPING THE MASTER ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT CURRENT FOR THIS TOPIC As authorized by PRC Section 21166, the analysis contained in this section, Generation of Hazardous Materials, is current as long as the following circumstances have not occurred. 1. New sources of toxic materials or hazardous waste contamination or contaminated sites are discovered within the study area. 2. New laws or regulations increase the significance of currently acceptable levels of background contamination. 3. Additional materials currently not considered toxic or hazardous are declared to be so through governmental legislation, rule, or regulation. ---PAGE BREAK--- Chapter V. Environmental Analysis Modesto General Plan Update Final Master EIR V-17-1 Section 17. Geology, Soils, and Mineral Resources October 2008 Section 17 Geology, Soils, and Mineral Resources This section summarizes the City’s geologic setting and describes how development associated with the City of Modesto Urban Area General Plan (UAGP) would affect the potential exposure of new population and employees to earthquake and earthquake-related hazards, including liquefaction. It also addresses the potential effects of implementing the development envisioned in the UAGP on the extraction of mineral resources. If significant impacts are found, mitigation measures are provided to reduce those impacts to a less-than-significant level. A. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING The following information is provided in accordance with Section 15125 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines. This environmental setting is the baseline for determining whether an impact of the UAGP is significant. 1. Study Area for Direct Impacts The study area for direct impacts on potential for landslides and seismic activity is the City of Modesto’s (City’s) planning area. 2. Study Area for Cumulative Impacts This analysis will be based on the plan or projection approach to examining cumulative effects, as provided under Section 15130(b)(1)(B) of the State CEQA Guidelines. The pertinent plan used for this purpose is the UAGP. The study area for cumulative impacts related to geology, geologic hazards, and mineral resources is defined as Stanislaus County. 3. Existing Physical Conditions in the Study Areas a. Overview Modesto is situated at the northern end of the San Joaquin Valley, a deep, structurally controlled trough that is bounded on the north by the Sacramento Valley, on the east by the Sierra Nevada, on the south by the San Emigdio and Tehachapi Mountains, and on the west by the Coast Ranges uplift. The San Joaquin Valley is floored by a complexly layered sequence of sedimentary deposits that reaches an estimated thickness of 11,000 feet in the vicinity of Modesto (Page 1986). Under the eastern and central portions of the valley, the base of the sequence likely rests on Mesozoic rock allied to the plutons of the Sierra Nevada; to the west, basement ---PAGE BREAK--- Chapter V. Environmental Analysis Modesto General Plan Update Final Master EIR V-17-2 Section 17. Geology, Soils, and Mineral Resources October 2008 rocks are believed to be mafic and ultramafic rocks of Jurassic age. These basement rocks are immediately overlain by marine and continental (nonmarine) sedimentary rocks of Cretaceous and Tertiary age consisting mainly of sandstone, sand, siltstone, and shale, which in turn are overlain by Quaternary (Pleistocene and Holocene) alluvial and fluvial deposits of sand, gravel, silt, and clay (Norris and Webb 1990; Bartow 1991). Modesto is situated primarily on alluvial fan deposits of Pleistocene age, but limited areas in the southeastern portion of Modesto are within the active floodplains of the Tuolumne River and Dry Creek and are underlain by younger (Holocene) alluvium. To the west of the City, the central portion of the Coast Ranges uplift is predominantly formed by exposed Franciscan Complex rocks of Jurassic through early Tertiary age. The range front to the west consists of a narrow belt of marine and nonmarine sedimentary rocks of post-Franciscan Tertiary age. To the east of Modesto, the exposed ridges and slopes of the Sierra Nevada are composed primarily of Mesozoic and plutonic rocks, flanked along the valley margin by deeply dissected exposures of marine and nonmarine sedimentary rocks of Tertiary age (Bartow 1991). b. Soils Soils in the Modesto area range from hardpan soils on older alluvial fans and terraces to deep, highly fertile soils on younger alluvial fans (U.S. Department of Agriculture 1964). Four soil associations are mapped as occurring in the project area: the San Joaquin–Madera association, the Hanford-Tujunga association, the Modesto-Chualar association, and the Dinuba-Hanford association. Soils of the San Joaquin–Madera Association consist of hardpan soils on moderately old fans and terraces. These soils are typically well-drained sandy loams, loams, and clay loams with very slow permeability, slight erosion hazard, and very slow to slow runoff (U.S. Department of Agriculture 1964). Soils of the older Pleistocene fans and terraces are typically above the area’s active drainages and are not subject to flooding or active alluvial deposition. Soils of the Hanford-Tujunga association occur on young alluvial fans and in actively flooded bottomlands in the vicinity of the Stanislaus and Tuolumne Rivers. These soils consist of well-drained sandy loams and fine sandy loams and are characterized by moderately rapid to very rapid permeability, slight erosion hazard, and very slow runoff (U.S. Department of Agriculture 1964). Soils of the Modesto-Chualar association are restricted to the outer margins of the Stanislaus River fan and the inter-fan areas between the Stanislaus and Tuolumne Rivers. These soils are generally moderately well-drained sandy to clay loams with very slow to slow permeability, slight erosion hazard, and very slow runoff (U.S. Department of Agriculture 1964). The Dinuba-Hanford association comprises moderately deep to deep soils on fans of the Stanislaus and Tuolumne Rivers. These soils are generally imperfectly drained, moderately deep to deep sandy loams that exhibit a moderate permeability, slight erosion hazard, and very slow runoff (U.S. Department of Agriculture 1964). ---PAGE BREAK--- Chapter V. Environmental Analysis Modesto General Plan Update Final Master EIR V-17-3 Section 17. Geology, Soils, and Mineral Resources October 2008 c. Mineral Resources Historic mineral production in Stanislaus County has included construction materials (sand and gravel), industrial minerals (diatomite, clay, mineral pigments, magnesite, quartz, and dimension stone), and metallic minerals (chromite, placer gold, manganese, mercury, platinum, and silver) (California Department of Conservation, Division of Mines and Geology 1993). However, the only mineral commodities that are mined actively in Stanislaus County are sand and gravel. No areas classified as Mineral Resource Zones (MRZ-2a or MRZ-2b) under the Surface Mining and Reclamation Act—that is, areas where significant mineral deposits have been determined to exist—occur within the planning area. (These classifications are described further in the State Policies section below.) Modesto is entirely within an area zoned MRZ- 3a for sand and gravel (California Department of Conservation, Division of Mines and Geology 1993). This designation indicates areas containing known mineral occurrences of undetermined significance. As recently as 1998, there were five active sand and gravel operations and one specialty sand mining operation in Modesto (California Department of Conservation, Division of Mines and Geology 1999). However, no mining activity occurs in Modesto, and data from the U.S. Geological Survey regarding mineral production in California indicate that no new mines or expansions of existing mines were approved in Modesto between 1999 and 2006 (Kohler 2005, 2006; U.S. Geological Survey 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004). d. Landslides and Erosion Historically, landslides in Stanislaus County have occurred primarily in the Diablo Range in the western portion of the county, where steep slopes and unstable geologic conditions have presented a substantial limitation to development (Stanislaus County 1987). By contrast, the regional slope in the vicinity of Modesto is on the order of 0.001 vertical foot of change per foot of horizontal distance (0.1% slope). Local slopes may approach 8% in areas where former sand dunes are located. Because the planning area is generally level, it is not subject to landslides. As discussed above, the soils in the planning area typically have a slight erosion potential, and the overall erosion hazard in Modesto is considered low. However, wind or rain may cause erosion when soils are exposed during construction activities and when fields are left fallow. Erosion also may occur along streams or rivers during storm events, resulting in locally significant bank failures if the banks are not stabilized. Streambank erosion is restricted to areas immediately adjacent to the Stanislaus River, Tuolumne River, and Dry Creek and typically is not considered a significant problem in Modesto because of control of discharge in the upper reaches of the rivers, stabilization of banks, and restrictions on construction in their vicinity (Rivera pers. comm.). e. Expansive Soils Expansive soils are those that contain a substantial proportion of clay minerals that swell under wet conditions and shrink under dry conditions. Expansion and contraction as a result ---PAGE BREAK--- Chapter V. Environmental Analysis Modesto General Plan Update Final Master EIR V-17-4 Section 17. Geology, Soils, and Mineral Resources October 2008 of wetting and drying has the potential to damage improperly designed or constructed facilities, including foundations, freestanding structures, pavement, and concrete slabs. Information on the engineering properties of soils in Modesto is not readily available, but where soils are clay-rich, there may be some potential for expansive soils. Concerns related to development on expansive soils typically can be addressed through appropriate design. As discussed in the Significant Direct Impacts section below, impacts related to the location of new development on expansive soils within the planning area would be assessed through the City’s development review process, and mitigated through conformance with the most recent California Building Code (Title 24 California Code of Regulations [CCR]) standards and requirements for site-specific geotechnical studies. f. Seismic Hazards Key Terms and Concepts Earthquake activity is associated with several types of seismic hazards. The State of California divides these into primary seismic hazards (surface fault rupture and ground shaking) and secondary seismic hazards (liquefaction and other types of seismically induced ground failure, along with seismically induced landslides). Key terms are defined below. Surface fault rupture refers to rupture, breakage, or disruption at the ground surface that occurs as a result of movement (slip) along an active fault. Ground shaking results from the release of energy during an earthquake. Ground shaking is most intense at the earthquake epicenter; in general, ground shaking decreases with increasing distance from the epicenter. The nature of subsurface materials also influences the strength and duration of ground shaking in an earthquake. The intensity of ground shaking in an earthquake can be described in terms of the Modified Mercalli Intensity Scale, which assigns a range of intensity values based on the observed effects of ground shaking on people, buildings, and the natural environment. The scale’s intensities are denoted by Roman numerals ranging from I (shaking that is essentially imperceptible) to XII (total damage). The “size” of an earthquake also can be described in terms of its magnitude. Commonly used scales for earthquake magnitude include Richter magnitude and moment magnitude. The Richter magnitude scale is based on the degree of ground motion experienced as a result of the first seismic waves to affect an area. The moment magnitude scale relies on an event’s seismic moment, a measure of earthquake strength as a function of the extent (area) of fault rupture, the average displacement or slip on the ruptured surface, and the rigidity of the rock materials ruptured. Liquefaction is a phenomenon in which unconsolidated materials (soil or sediment) lose cohesion and behave as a liquid, typically as a result of earthquake shaking. Liquefaction typically occurs in sandy materials that are saturated with groundwater and is restricted to the upper 50 feet below ground surface. Liquefaction poses a ---PAGE BREAK--- Chapter V. Environmental Analysis Modesto General Plan Update Final Master EIR V-17-5 Section 17. Geology, Soils, and Mineral Resources October 2008 hazard to structures (hence to life and safety) because liquefied materials lose their strength and may become unable to support structures built on them. This can result in severe structural damage, particularly in poorly designed or constructed structures. Primary Seismic Hazards—Surface Fault Rupture and Groundshaking No faults in the Modesto area are recognized as active by the State of California and zoned pursuant to the Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act (Alquist-Priolo Act, defined further under State Policies below) (Hart and Bryant 1997), nor is the Modesto area traversed by any faults recognized by the Uniform Building Code (UBC) as active (International Conference of Building Officials 1997). The only active fault reported in Stanislaus County is the Tesla-Ortigalita fault, which is located approximately 20 miles west of Modesto (see Figure V-17-1). Based on geomorphic evidence and results of trench studies, the Ortigalita fault is believed to experience right-lateral strike-slip motion and is likely capable of generating earthquakes with a Richter scale magnitude of 6.5 to 6.75. The recurrence interval for large magnitude events on the Ortigalita is inferred to be 2,000–5,000 years on the fault as a whole and 10,000–25,000 years on individual fault segments (Anderson et al. 1982) (see Table V-17-1). The UBC (International Conference of Building Officials 1997) characterizes the Ortigalita fault as a Type B seismic source. The UBC evaluates the risk associated with active faults based on their potential to generate large earthquakes (measured as the moment magnitude for the largest earthquake anticipated on the fault) and their degree of seismic activity (measured as average annual slip rate). Under this system, a Type A seismic source is a fault that is capable of producing large-magnitude events M 7.0) and is highly active (has a high average annual slip rate). A Type B seismic source is associated with smaller maximum events and/or is less active but still constitutes a substantial seismic threat (International Conference of Building Officials 1997). It is not known to experience fault creep. Other active faults in the surrounding region include the Greenville fault, located approximately 35 miles northwest of Modesto; the Calaveras and Concord faults, located approximately 50 miles west of Modesto; the Hayward fault, located about 60 miles west of Modesto; and the San Andreas fault, approximately 75 miles west of Modesto. Based on information furnished by the Department of Mines and Geology (now the California Geological Survey) and the Office of Emergency Services, earthquakes typical of surrounding-area faults are capable of producing ground shaking to an intensity of VI or VII on the Modified Mercalli Intensity Scale (Stanislaus County 1987). Based on this scale, slight structural damage would occur as a result of an intensity-VI earthquake. Damage from an intensity-VII earthquake would be negligible in buildings of good construction and design, slight to moderate in well-built ordinary structures, and considerable in poorly built or badly designed structures (U.S. Geological Survey 2007; Wood and Neuman 1931). ---PAGE BREAK--- Chapter V. Environmental Analysis Modesto General Plan Update Final Master EIR V-17-6 Section 17. Geology, Soils, and Mineral Resources October 2008 Table V-17-1. Maximum Credible Earthquake and UBC Seismic Source Type for Principal Active Faults in the Region Surrounding Planning Area Fault Magnitude of Maximum Credible Earthquake UBC Seismic Source Type Ortigalita 6.5–6.75b, 6.9a Ba San Andreas 7.0–7.9a Aa Hayward Entire fault: 7.1a Southern segment: 6.5a Aa Ba Calaveras (southern) 6.2a Ba Greenville 6.9a Ba Concord–Green Valley 6.9a Ba Note: See Figure V-17-1 for fault locations. a Source: International Conference of Building Officials 1997. b Source: Anderson et al. 1982. Secondary Seismic Hazards—Liquefaction and Ground Failure The potential for liquefaction to occur in the Modesto area has not yet been evaluated by the State of California under the Seismic Hazards Mapping Act (California Geological Survey 2007). However, much of the substrate in the planning area consists of young, unconsolidated alluvial and fluvial (river) deposits, and groundwater data from wells in Modesto show the depth to groundwater as ranging from approximately 11.7 to 62.5 feet, based on measurements taken in November 2006 (California Department of Water Resources 2007b). Such soil and groundwater conditions may present a liquefaction hazard in portions of the planning area. 4. Existing Policies Applying to the Study Areas Below is a comprehensive list of major federal, state, and local regulations and policies or summaries of policies that apply to the study areas. This list summarizes the full range of applicable policies that a project within the study areas would need to comply with, including policies beyond the jurisdiction of the City. This list of laws, regulations, and programs also serves to describe the circumstances assumed for the master environmental impact report (Master EIR) analysis of impacts related to geology, soils, and geologic hazards. A discrete reference number, following the initials of the resource topic, is assigned to each policy or policy summary listed to facilitate its identification elsewhere in this Master EIR or, where appropriate, its incorporation as a mitigation measure into subsequent projects analyzed under this Master EIR Geology, Soils, and Mineral Resources policies are designated as GSM-X, where X is the discrete number). ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- Chapter V. Environmental Analysis Modesto General Plan Update Final Master EIR V-17-7 Section 17. Geology, Soils, and Mineral Resources October 2008 a Federal Policies The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) provides emergency relief to victims of natural disasters such as earthquakes and landslides. However, FEMA has not established federal regulations that relate to geologic hazard abatement or limit geologic hazard liabilities. b State Policies California’s Alquist-Priolo Act (Public Resources Code [PRC] Section 2621 et seq.) is intended to reduce the risk to life and property from surface fault rupture during earthquakes. The Alquist-Priolo Act prohibits the location of most types of structures intended for human occupancy across the traces of active faults and strictly regulates construction in the corridors along active faults (earthquake fault zones). Under the Alquist-Priolo Act, faults are zoned, and construction along or across them is strictly regulated if they are “sufficiently active” and “well defined.” A fault is considered sufficiently active if one or more of its segments or strands shows evidence of surface displacement during the Holocene time (defined for purposes of the Alquist-Priolo Act as referring to approximately the last 11,000 years). A fault is considered well defined if its trace can be identified clearly by a trained geologist at the ground surface or in the shallow subsurface, using standard professional techniques, criteria, and judgment (Hart and Bryant 1997). The Seismic Hazards Mapping Act of 1990 directs the state to identify and map areas subject to earthquake hazards such as liquefaction, earthquake-induced landslides, and amplified ground shaking. Pursuant to this act, cities and counties are prohibited from issuing development permits for sites within seismic hazard zones until appropriate site-specific geologic or geotechnical investigations have been carried out and measures to reduce potential damage have been incorporated into the development plans. Seismic hazard mapping has been prioritized to address coastal urban areas first, so no maps are currently available for Modesto’s planning area. The Surface Mining and Reclamation Act of 1975 (SMARA) was enacted in response to land use conflicts between urban growth and essential mineral production. It requires the California Geological Survey (formerly the California Division of Mines and Geology) to classify California lands into MRZs. The MRZ classifications are defined as follows. „ MRZ-1: areas where adequate information indicates that no significant mineral deposits are present or where it is judged that little likelihood exists for their presence. „ MRZ-2: areas where adequate information indicates that significant mineral deposits are present or where it is judged that a high likelihood for their presence exists. „ MRZ-3: areas containing mineral deposits, the significance of which cannot be evaluated from available data. „ MRZ-4: areas where available information is inadequate for assignment into any other MRZ. Based on the MRZ zoning system, SMARA creates a framework for local government to consider the impacts of new development on the availability of mineral resources. ---PAGE BREAK--- Chapter V. Environmental Analysis Modesto General Plan Update Final Master EIR V-17-8 Section 17. Geology, Soils, and Mineral Resources October 2008 Government Code Section 65560 requires a general plan’s open space element to protect “major mineral deposits.” The California Building Code (24 CCR) is adopted and regularly updated by the California Building Standards Commission. The 2007 edition will take effect on January 1, 2008. The commission is established under the California Building Standards Law (Health and Safety Code Sections 18901–18949.6) to adopt and publish a standardized set of building codes. These building codes serve as the comprehensive standards for the design and construction of buildings in California and include (among other things) provisions for seismic safety, foundation stability, and energy conservation. The California Building Code is based on the UBC, a model code adopted by the International Conference of Building Officials (International Conference of Building Officials 1997). The UBC classifies seismic risk zones ranging from 0 to 4, with building standards increasing in stringency accordingly. The California Building Code includes additional requirements beyond the UBC because of the state’s history of seismic activity. Section 1802A.6.1.1 of the California Building Code (effective January 1, 2008) provides that a geologic engineering report is required of all construction except for one-story wood frame or light steel frame buildings of 4,000 square feet or smaller that are located outside seismic hazard zones. Hospitals and other medical facilities with surgery or emergency treatment areas that are needed for emergency purposes must upgrade to state seismic safety standards under the Alfred E. Alquist Hospital Facilities Seismic Safety Act of 1983. Enforcement of this program is the responsibility of the Office of Statewide Health Planning and Development. (Health and Safety Code Section 129675 et seq.) School facilities are required to meet special seismic safety standards under the “Field Act” and are not subject to local building standards. Enforcement of this program is the responsibility of the California Department of General Services, Division of the State Architect. c. Local Policies The City has adopted the California Building Code, as have Stanislaus County (the County) and numerous other cities within the county. Portions of the California Building Code and UBC that have been adopted by the City and that are particularly relevant to geology and geologic hazards include California Building Code Chapter 16, Division IV (Structural Design Requirements—Earthquake Design), and Chapter 33 (Site Work, Demolition, and Grading), in addition to Appendix Chapter 33 (Excavation and Grading). Stanislaus County, including Modesto, is within the UBC’s Seismic Zone 3; accordingly, any future development in the planning area is required to comply with all UBC Seismic Zone 3 design standards. The City’s Grading and Erosion Control Ordinance (Section 5-10.301 et seq., Modesto Municipal Code) requires a grading and erosion control permit before any grading may occur that involves 350 cubic yards of soil or clears more than 0.5 acre of land. The City can ---PAGE BREAK--- Chapter V. Environmental Analysis Modesto General Plan Update Final Master EIR V-17-9 Section 17. Geology, Soils, and Mineral Resources October 2008 condition issuance of a permit to ensure that grading doesn’t result in erosion or a release of soil off the site. Erosion is controlled further through the City’s “Erosion and Sediment Control Standards for Construction Activities” adopted as part of the City’s National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit from the Regional Water Quality Control Board This establishes best management practices (BMPs) to avoid erosion. The following sections describe policies specific to the City. d. City of Modesto Policies The UAGP provides the following policies related to geology, geologic hazards, and mineral resources. GSM-1: The City shall continue to use building codes as the primary tool for reducing seismic risk in structures. The 2007 California Building Code, which has been adopted by Modesto, Stanislaus County, and other cities in the County, is intended to ensure that buildings resist major earthquakes of the intensity or severity of the strongest experience in California, without collapse, but with some structural as well as nonstructural damage. In most structures, it is expected that structural damage could be limited to repairable damage, even in a major earthquake. (UAGP Policy VI-B.2[a]) GSM-2: The City shall require all new buildings in the City to be built to the seismic requirements of the 2007 California Building Code (or subsequent editions). (UAGP Policy VI-B.2[b]) GSM-3: The City shall continue to explore measures to induce building owners to upgrade and retrofit structures to render them seismically safe. (UAGP Policy VI-B.2[c]). GSM-4: The City shall enforce provisions of the Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act. (UAGP Policy VI-B.2[d]) GSM-5: The City shall develop programs to identify structures that do not currently meet building standard minimums for earthquake resistance and programs that would provide funding to rehabilitate these structures. (UAGP Policy VI-B.2[e]) GSM-6: Any construction that occurs as a result of the General Plan must conform with the current UBC regulations, which address seismic safety of new structures and slope requirements. As appropriate, the City will require a geotechnical analysis prior to tentative map approval in order to ascertain site-specific subsurface information necessary to estimate foundation conditions. These geotechnical studies should reference and make use of the most recent regional geologic maps available from the California Department of Conservation Division of Mines and Geology. (UAGP Policy VI-E.1[a]) GSM-7: The City shall discourage development on lands that are subject to landslides. (UAGP Policy VI-E.1[b]) GSM-8: New public roads in areas subject to landslides shall be designed to minimize landslide risks. (UAGP Policy VI-E.1[c]) GSM-9: All building permits shall be reviewed to ensure compliance with the current adopted edition of the California Fire Code, California Building Code, California Mechanical Code, California Electrical Code, California Plumbing Code, Title 19, Title 24, and the City of Modesto Municipal Code. (UAGP Policy VI-E.1[d]) ---PAGE BREAK--- Chapter V. Environmental Analysis Modesto General Plan Update Final Master EIR V-17-10 Section 17. Geology, Soils, and Mineral Resources October 2008 GSM-10: The erosion control program shall include “best management practices” as appropriate, given the specific circumstances of the site and/or project. Table IX-2 in the Master Environmental Impact Report presents examples of best management practices. (UAGP Policy VI-E.2[b]) GSM-11: Sediment control basins to capture eroded sediments and contain them on the project sites shall be designed consistent with the criteria outlined in Table IX-3 in the Master Environmental Impact Report. (UAGP Policy VI-E.2[c]) GSM-12: The City shall promote public awareness of the following local routes for the public’s use in evacuating the City in the event of an emergency. 1. State Highways 99, 132, 219, and 108 2. Briggsmore Avenue 3. Claus Road 4. Standiford/Sylvan Avenue 5. Scenic Drive 6. Pelandale Avenue 7. Ninth Street 8. Paradise Road 9. Carpenter Road (UAGP Policy VI-E.5[a]) GSM-13: City plans and policies shall not interfere with any emergency evacuation and response plans. This would include the continued maintenance of adequate police and fire services, and identified emergency evacuation routes ([UAGP] Figure VI-3). (UAGP Policy VI-E.5[b]) GSM-14: The City shall ensure the provision of adequate and accessible evacuation routes. (UAGP Policy VI-E.5[c]) 5. Policies Which Avoid Impacts The following City policies are in effect and have been determined to reduce, avoid, or mitigate environmental impacts within the existing city limits and within the Planned Urbanizing Area. The policy reference numbers are listed, and the full text of these policies is found in Section A-4, Existing Policies Applying to the Study Areas. a. City of Modesto Policies The UAGP provides the following policies related to geology, geologic hazards, and mineral resources: Baseline Developed Area and Planned Urbanizing Area: GSM-1 through GSM-14. In addition, the City will comply with requirements of its Grading and Erosion Control Ordinance and the adopted “Erosion and Sediment Control Standards for Construction Activities.” ---PAGE BREAK--- Chapter V. Environmental Analysis Modesto General Plan Update Final Master EIR V-17-11 Section 17. Geology, Soils, and Mineral Resources October 2008 B. CONSIDERATION AND DISCUSSION OF SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS The following information is provided in accordance with Section 15126.2 of the State CEQA Guidelines. 1. Thresholds of Significance Suggested by the California Environmental Quality Act CEQA requires that agencies analyze effects on the environment of seismic and landslide hazards; a model checklist to guide analysis is provided in Appendix G of the State CEQA Guidelines. Consistent with this model checklist, impacts were identified as significant if a project would: a. expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: 1. rupture of a known earthquake fault (as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault), 2 strong seismic ground shaking, 3. seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction, or 4. landslides (including seismically induced landslides); or b. be located on expansive soil; c. result in substantial loss of topsoil resources; d. be located on soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems in areas where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater; e. result in the loss of availability of known mineral resources that would be of value to the region and the state; or f. result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan, or other land use plan. 2. Thresholds of Significance Suggested by Other Analytical Methods The significance criteria suggested in Appendix G of the State CEQA Guidelines reflect the current standard of care for geotechnical engineering and engineering geology, along with the prevailing regulatory and planning context. Other analytical methods are not needed to identify additional thresholds of significance. However, evaluating whether a given impact rises to the level of significance under the criteria above may involve a wide range of analytical techniques used in the geotechnical engineering and engineering geologic disciplines. ---PAGE BREAK--- Chapter V. Environmental Analysis Modesto General Plan Update Final Master EIR V-17-12 Section 17. Geology, Soils, and Mineral Resources October 2008 3. Thresholds of Significance Adopted by the City of Modesto The City adopts the thresholds set out in the State CEQA Guidelines, as modified above. 4. Significant Direct Impacts The general level of risk related to seismic activity, soil conditions, and the loss of mineral resource availability is similar throughout the Modesto area, and approaches to avoid and mitigate impacts related to these conditions are also very similar regardless of the location within the city. Therefore, significant direct impacts are not discussed specifically in terms of the City’s Baseline Developed Area, Redevelopment Area, or Planning Urbanizing Area, but rather are evaluated based on the Modesto planning area. a. Impacts Related to Primary Seismic Hazards No faults known to be active or zoned as active by the State of California under the Alquist- Priolo Act are within the Modesto planning area. Consequently, the risk of surface fault rupture in Modesto is considered low, and related impacts currently are identified as less than significant. Nonetheless, policies GSM-1 through GSM-6 and GSM-9 commit the City to enforcing building standards and carrying out its enforcement responsibilities under the Alquist-Priolo Act. With this commitment in place, risks to new development and redevelopment under the updated UAGP as a result of surface fault rupture are also expected to be less than significant, even if active faulting is identified within the UAGP at some future time. No mitigation is required. The planning area very likely will be subject to ground shaking as a result of earthquake activity on faults in the region, and there is some potential for significant impacts related to structural damage and concomitant hazards to safety and life. However, City policies GSM-1 through GSM-6 require all new structures to be designed and constructed to meet or exceed relevant building code requirements. Additional code compliance requirements specific to critical facilities hospitals and schools) are established under state law and are administered by the state. Finally, where appropriate, the City will require the preparation of site-specific geotechnical investigations as a condition of subdivision approval and will hold the project proponent responsible for implementing the recommendations of the geotechnical investigation (policy GSM-6). Although there would be some residual risk, in any seismically active area, residual impacts are considered less than significant with these policies in place. No additional mitigation is required. b. Impacts Related to Secondary Seismic Hazards Because topography in the planning area is not hilly, the risk of seismically induced landsliding is considered low. However, the planning area may be at some risk related to liquefaction and other types of seismically induced ground failure. Much of the substrate in the planning area consists of young, unconsolidated alluvial and fluvial (river) deposits. In addition, depth to groundwater in the planning area ranges from approximately 11.7 feet to ---PAGE BREAK--- Chapter V. Environmental Analysis Modesto General Plan Update Final Master EIR V-17-13 Section 17. Geology, Soils, and Mineral Resources October 2008 62.5 feet, based on measurements taken in November 2006 (California Department of Water Resources 2007b). Therefore, conditions exist in the planning area that could result in seismic-related ground failure such as liquefaction, lateral spreading (lurching), and differential settlement, any of which could result in structural damage, potentially exposing people to a substantial risk of injury or death. However, the City has committed, through policy GSM-6, to require a site-specific geotechnical investigation for larger residential and remodel projects located in parts of the City potentially prone to liquefaction. With these provisions in place, impacts related to liquefaction hazard would be reduced, consistent with the prevailing standard of care in the state, and any residual impact is considered less than significant. No mitigation is required. c. Impacts Related to Engineered Slope Stability Although the Modesto area is not generally subject to landslides, localized slope failure in the planning area could occur if cut slopes and fill embankments created during new project construction are improperly designed and implemented. Potential geotechnical hazards associated with cut and fill activities would be minimized through policies GSM-1, GSM-4, GSM-7, and GSM-8, which require conformance to the most recent UBC standards and avoidance of landslide areas. Conformance to these policies and adherence to good grading and excavation practices would minimize the potential for failure of cut slopes and fill embankments, reducing related impacts to a less-than-significant level. No mitigation is required. d. Impacts Related to Erosion and Sedimentation The erosion hazard for soils in the Modesto planning area is generally considered slight. However, activities required for construction, including vegetation removal, excavation, grading, and fill placement have the potential to cause accelerated soil erosion. Standard City requirements are sufficient to avoid such erosion. (Rivera pers. comm.) Preparation of an erosion control program consistent with applicable requirements of the federal Clean Water Act and the City’s Grading and Erosion Control Ordinance and “Erosion and Sediment Control Standards for Construction Activities” would ensure that adverse impacts related to accelerated construction site erosion and associated siltation increases are controlled to a less- than-significant level. No mitigation is required. e. Impacts Related to Topsoil Loss Earthwork activities associated with the development of the Modesto planning area could result in a loss of topsoil resources during site grading. Potential loss of topsoil resources would be minimized through policies GSM-10 and GSM-11. Conformance to these policies and adherence to good grading and excavation practices would minimize the potential for loss of topsoil due to grading and resulting erosion, reducing related impacts to a less-than- significant level. No mitigation is required. ---PAGE BREAK--- Chapter V. Environmental Analysis Modesto General Plan Update Final Master EIR V-17-14 Section 17. Geology, Soils, and Mineral Resources October 2008 f. Impacts Related to Expansive Soils Information about the engineering properties of soils in Modesto is not readily available, but where soils are clay-rich, there may be some potential for expansive soils. Impacts related to the location of new development on expansive soils within the Modesto planning area would be assessed through the City’s development review process and mitigated through policy GSM-1, which requires conformance with the most recent UBC standards; and policy GSM- 6, which requires the preparation of site-specific geotechnical studies for new subdivisions. With these policies and their outcomes in place, impacts related to expansive soils would be reduced substantially, and any residual impact is considered less than significant. g. Impacts Related to Mineral Resources The Modesto planning area has been classified as MRZ-3a for sand and gravel resources. This designation indicates the presence of resources of unknown significance. In the absence of major mineral resources, the UAGP will not result in a significant loss, and no mitigation is required. Impacts would be less than significant. 5. Significant Cumulative Impacts CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines require the disclosure of significant cumulative environmental impacts and the determination of whether a project would make a cumulatively considerable contribution to any such impacts. If the project would make such a contribution, mitigation measures intended to reduce the project’s contribution must be identified also (Section 15130 of the State CEQA Guidelines). A cumulative impact is one that results from past, present, and probable future projects. A project that has a less-than-significant direct effect on the environment may make a considerable contribution to a cumulative effect nonetheless. Seismic hazard exposure is the significant cumulative impact in Stanislaus County with regard to geology and mineral resources. A number of Stanislaus County municipalities have grown substantially in recent decades, representing an increase in the number of persons living and working within the area affected by the county’s ambient seismic hazards. Stringent building standards and the regulation of construction offer a substantive means of mitigating seismic hazards, but such risks cannot be avoided entirely, and in regions of rapid urban expansion, a significant cumulative impact related to increased exposure to seismic hazards may exist nonetheless. This pattern is expected to continue into the future. However, under existing City codes, all new structures would be required to meet or exceed UBC standards for Seismic Zone 3. As appropriate, projects also would be required to comply with the recommendations of a site-specific geotechnical report that identifies seismic constraints and develops engineering parameters at the project level. Finally, the City has committed to comply with any future enforcement responsibilities that become effective under the Alquist-Priolo Act and the Seismic Hazards Mapping Act of 1990. With these conditions in place, the increased seismic risk exposure associated with the proposed project has been identified as less than significant in the broad context and is not expected to increase to a cumulatively considerable level. ---PAGE BREAK--- Chapter V. Environmental Analysis Modesto General Plan Update Final Master EIR V-17-15 Section 17. Geology, Soils, and Mineral Resources October 2008 6. Potential Impacts for Which There Is Insufficient Information to Support a Full Analysis No impacts have been identified that cannot be analyzed appropriately at the program level at this time. However, seismic hazards, slope stability, and expansive soils related to specific projects implemented under the updated UAGP will receive further study under the City policies listed above, and additional mitigation may be identified at that time. C. MITIGATION MEASURES ADOPTED TO MINIMIZE SIGNIFICANT EFFECTS No measures beyond those contained in the proposed UAGP policies are necessary. 1. Measures Which Mitigate Cumulative Impacts No additional mitigation is required. 2. Alternatives to the Proposed Project. The following information is provided in accordance with Section 15126.6 of the State CEQA Guidelines. The impacts of the alternatives would be similar to those of the proposed project. The impacts under Alternative 1 most likely would be more severe than those under either the project or Alternative 2 because Alternative 1 does not include the same level of protective policies as the others. D. MONITORING THESE MITIGATION MEASURES The following information is provided in accordance with PRC Section 21081.6. The City will monitor implementation of its policies through its construction permitting process. E. EVALUATING SUBSEQUENT PROJECTS The following information will be used to determine whether subsequent projects conform to the Master EIR, as outlined in PRC Section 21157.1(c). Anticipated future projects, as presented in Chapter II, are within the scope of analysis for the impacts on landslides and seismic activity as long as the following circumstances have not changed. 1. The lead agency for subsequent projects is the City of Modesto or any responsible agency identified in the Master EIR. ---PAGE BREAK--- Chapter V. Environmental Analysis Modesto General Plan Update Final Master EIR V-17-16 Section 17. Geology, Soils, and Mineral Resources October 2008 2. The following policies continue to be in force to reduce, avoid, or mitigate impacts: GSM-1 through GSM-14. 3. The project proponent commits to implement the mitigation measures identified in this Master EIR. 4. No additional significant impact related to geologic hazards, soils conditions, or mineral resources is identified within the Modesto planning area, and no new mitigation is required. 5. No new regulatory requirements not already addressed in the updated UAGP and this Master EIR come into effect. F. KEEPING THE MASTER ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT CURRENT FOR THIS TOPIC As authorized by PRC Section 21166, the analysis contained in this section, Geology, Soils, and Mineral Resources, is current as long as the following circumstances have not occurred. 1. The following policies continue to be in force to reduce, avoid, or mitigate impacts: GSM-1 through GSM-14. 2. The project proponent commits to implement the mitigation measures identified in this Master EIR. 3. No additional significant impact related to geologic hazards, soils conditions, or mineral resources is identified within the Modesto planning area, and no new mitigation is required. 4. No new regulatory requirements not already addressed in the updated UAGP and this Master EIR come into effect. ---PAGE BREAK--- Chapter V. Environmental Analysis Modesto General Plan Update Final Master EIR V-18-1 Section 18. Energy October 2008 Section 18 Energy This section describes how development associated with the City of Modesto Urban Area General Plan (UAGP) would result in an increase in energy usage. If significant impacts are found, mitigation measures are provided to reduce these impacts to a less-than-significant level. Mitigation measures identified for traffic, air quality, and climate change in Sections V-1, V-2, and V-21 of this document, respectively, also would help to mitigate energy impacts by reducing the consumption of fossil fuels. A. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING The following information is provided in accordance with Section 15125 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines. This environmental setting is the baseline for determining whether an impact of the UAGP is significant. 1. Study Area for Direct Impacts The study area for direct impacts on energy is the Modesto planning area. 2. Study Area for Cumulative Impacts This analysis will be based on the plan or projection approach to examining cumulative effects, as provided under Section 15130(b)(1)(B) of the State CEQA Guidelines. The relevant plans used for this purpose are the UAGP and the Stanislaus County General Plan (County General Plan). The study area for cumulative impacts on energy usage is defined by the boundaries of Stanislaus County and the state. 3. Existing Physical Conditions in the Study Areas a. Overview Energy, in the form of electricity and natural gas, is used within Modesto for lighting, heating, cooling, and various industrial applications. Petroleum (gasoline and diesel) is utilized as a fuel for motor vehicles. b. Gas and Electricity Supply and Delivery Electricity is provided by the Modesto and Turlock Irrigation Districts, and natural gas is provided by Pacific Gas & Electric Company (PG&E). Gasoline is provided by various private businesses. ---PAGE BREAK--- Chapter V. Environmental Analysis Modesto General Plan Update Final Master EIR V-18-2 Section 18. Energy October 2008 4. Existing Policies Applying to the Study Areas Below is a comprehensive list of major federal, state, and local (Stanislaus County [County] and City) policies or summaries of policies in effect that apply to the study area. This list provides the full range of applicable policies that a project within the study area potentially would need to comply with, including policies beyond the jurisdiction of the City. This list of laws, regulations, and programs also serves to describe the circumstances under which the master environmental impact report (Master EIR) analyzed this environmental topic. A discrete reference number, following the initials of the resource topic, is assigned to each policy or policy summary listed to facilitate, where appropriate, its incorporation as a mitigation measure into subsequent projects analyzed under this Master EIR Energy policies are designated as E- X, where X is the discrete number). a. Federal Regulations E-1: The Clean Air Act requires compliance with national clean air standards, which require a reduction in energy usage (see Section V-2 of this Master EIR, Degradation of Air Quality, for further discussion). b. State Regulations E-2: The Warren-Alquist State Energy Resources Conservation and Development Act created the California Energy Resources Conservation and Development Commission (California Energy Commission or CEC) in 1974. The CEC prepared a state Energy Conservation Action Plan. The CEC adopted energy conservation standards for new residential building in June 1977 and revised them in 1985. Energy conservation measures for structures fall under the jurisdiction of Title 24, Division 20, Article 2 of the California Code of Regulations (CCR). E-3: Title 24 CCR Part 6 (California’s Energy Efficiency Standards for Residential and Nonresidential Buildings) reduces California’s energy consumption. Title 24 requires the design of building shells and building components to conserve energy. The standards are required to apply to new construction and reconstruction and are implemented through mandatory conformance with the California Building Code at the time that building permits are issued by the City. E-4: The 2006 Appliance Efficiency Regulations (20 CCR, Sections 1601–1608) include standards for both federally regulated appliances and non-federally regulated appliances. These energy standards apply to and are required of all qualifying appliances sold in California. The standards are met during manufacturing by the appliance manufacturer. c. San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District Programs E-5: The air pollution control district has programs to improve air quality that require reducing energy use (see Section V-2 of this Master EIR, Degradation of Air Quality, for further discussion). ---PAGE BREAK--- Chapter V. Environmental Analysis Modesto General Plan Update Final Master EIR V-18-3 Section 18. Energy October 2008 d. City of Modesto Policies The UAGP provides the following policies related to energy. E-6: Design neighborhood roadways to allow for safe and convenient pedestrian accessibility. (UAGP Policy III-C.1[g]) E-7: New development projects should incorporate the following transit-related design features (Overall Land Use Policy III.C.1.l): Locate medium and high-density development near transit services. Link residential areas to transit stops via continuous sidewalks or pedestrian paths. Where subdivision sound walls exist or are warranted, appropriate designs should be used to facilitate direct pedestrian access to transit stops. A through roadway should connect adjacent developments to permit transit circulation between developments. Commercial and industrial developments shall have easy access to major arterials and transit stops. E-8: Communities or neighborhoods should be compact so that housing, jobs, daily needs and other activities are within easy walking distance of each other. Communities should include a mix of compatible land uses within close proximity. (UAGP Policy III-C.3[a]) E-9: As many activities as possible should be located within easy walking distance of transit stops. (UAGP Policy III-C.3[b]) E-10: Roadways should be designed to allow for safe and convenient pedestrian accessibility. (UAGP Policy III-C.3[c]) E-11: Communities or neighborhoods should contain a diversity of housing types to enable citizens from a wide range of economic levels and age groups to live within their boundaries. (UAGP Policy III-C.3[d]) E-12: Businesses within a community or neighborhood should provide a range of job types for the community’s or neighborhood’s residents. (UAGP Policy III-C.3[e]) E-13: Each community or neighborhood should have a center focus that combines commercial, civic, cultural, and recreational uses. (UAGP Policy III-C.3[g]) E-14: Each community or neighborhood should contain an ample supply of specialized open space in the form of squares, greens, and parks whose frequent use is encouraged through placement and design. Linkages should be provided between recreational facilities and surrounding neighborhoods. (UAGP Policy III-C.3[h]) E-15: Streets, pedestrian paths, and bike paths should contribute to a system of fully connected and interesting routes to all destinations. Their design should encourage pedestrian and bicycle use by being small and spatially defined by buildings, trees and lighting; and by discouraging high speed traffic. Wherever possible, natural terrain, drainage, and vegetation should be preserved with superior examples contained within parks or greenbelts. (UAGP Policy III-C.3[i]) E-16: The City will implement minimum lighting and reflective surfaces standards for new development, to minimize the impact of the proposed plan’s contribution to introduced or increased light and glare. These standards are reflected in the adopted ---PAGE BREAK--- Chapter V. Environmental Analysis Modesto General Plan Update Final Master EIR V-18-4 Section 18. Energy October 2008 Small Lot Development Guidelines and Design Guidelines for Commercial and Industrial Development. (UAGP Policy III-C.3[j]) E-17: Transportation Control Measures (TCMs) should be implemented where feasible or mandated by other agencies, to reduce vehicle miles traveled, vehicle idling, or traffic congestion. Alternatives to the drive-alone auto mode, such as mass transit, ride sharing, non-motorized transportation, and telecommuting, should be encouraged. In addition, the City shall encourage innovative means to reduce traffic congestion and enhance air quality, through: „ teleconferencing centers „ fiber optic communication networks „ internet commerce and education „ alternative fuels and vehicles „ traffic flow improvements, including ‰ implementation of Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) ‰ coordination of traffic signals ‰ reducing congestion at major intersections ‰ alternative traffic controls such as roundabouts „ increased transit service, including ‰ regional express bus service ‰ transit access to airports and railroad stations ‰ expansion of public transportation ‰ bus pullouts and transit shelters ‰ bicycle racks on buses „ trip reduction programs, including ‰ transit oriented development ‰ sustainable development ‰ preferential parking and financial incentives for carpools and vanpools „ encouragement of pedestrian and bicycle travel including development of the non-motorized transportation system as outlined in the December 2006 Non- Motorized Transportation Plan and development of pedestrian and bicycle overpasses where feasible and appropriate „ development of safe routes to school and other measures as identified in the latest Modesto City Council resolution regarding Reasonably Available Control Measures. (UAGP Policy III-B.6[b]) E-18: New roadways and roadway connections shall be designed to provide a grid street system to improve connectivity; accessibility of all modes; increase route choice; better accommodate public transit services; and reduce trip length, traffic congestion, and pollution. (UAGP Policy V.B.6[s]) E-19: The City transit system shall strive to provide service on a one-half-mile grid where feasible to make the service as accessible as possible. Newly developing areas should provide a street pattern capable of accommodating transit service on a one- ---PAGE BREAK--- Chapter V. Environmental Analysis Modesto General Plan Update Final Master EIR V-18-5 Section 18. Energy October 2008 half-mile grid. Sidewalks to transit facilities shall be provided in the development of new roadway systems to minimize walking distance. (UAGP Policy V.I.2[e]) E-20: The City of Modesto shall implement measures to reduce emissions associated with energy use by residences and businesses. Potential measures to be implemented may include those measures listed in Table 2-4 of the Final Master Environmental Impact Report. (UAGP Policy VII-H.2[c]) E-21: The City of Modesto shall require shade trees, where feasible and appropriate, in landscape plans for all new development proposals. Mature trees have lower water needs. The City shall develop shade-tree specifications for different land uses (residential, commercial, parking lots, etc.) including appropriate types of trees (size, deciduous or evergreen, absence or lower branches, etc.), locations distance from structures), density within a subdivision or parking lot), and orientation (trees on the west side of a building generally provide the most benefit) for use in landscape plans. (UAGP Policy VII-I.1[a]) E-22: The City shall require the planting of large-canopy species in new development areas in such a way that they grow to full size without damaging streets and sidewalks (including but not limited to deep watering until roots are well established, proper fertilizers, root barriers, structured soils). (UAGP Policy VII-I.1[b]) E-23: Removal of street trees shall be discouraged unless they are badly diseased and have become a threat to public safety. If a tree must be removed, it should be replaced no later than the end of the next planting season with a large-canopy species. (UAGP Policy VII-I.1[c]) E-24: The goal of the street tree maintenance program is to maintain trees in the best possible health by ensuring that newly planted trees are cared for in such a way as to prevent or minimize sidewalk and street damage (including but not limited to deep watering until roots are well established, proper fertilizers, root barriers, and structured soils), pruning to remove mistletoe as often as necessary, pruning to prevent the tree from leaning, and using measures to control disease. (UAGP Policy VII-I.1[d]) E-25: The City of Modesto shall encourage the Modesto and Turlock Irrigation Districts to establish and promote a program whereby existing residential and commercial building owners are provided incentives to increase the number of shade trees in developed parts of the City. The City shall also provide information on appropriate types of trees and their locations to maximize the energy savings from the program. (UAGP Policy VII-I.1[e]) E-26: The City of Modesto shall coordinate with the Modesto and Turlock Irrigation Districts (for electricity) and Pacific Gas & Electric Company (for natural gas) on all new, large-scale, development proposals in the City. (UAGP Policy VII-I.1[f]) E-27: The City of Modesto shall encourage the use of solar energy systems for residential, agricultural, parks, public buildings, and business purposes as provided in Government Code Section 65892.13. (UAGP Policy VII-I.1[g]) E-28: Lots in new subdivisions should be oriented in such a way to maximize solar energy. (UAGP Policy VII-I.1[h]) E-29: The City of Modesto shall approve applications for solar energy systems in accordance with State Assembly Bill 2473 (2004). (UAGP Policy VII-I.1[i]) E-30: To reduce heat gain from pavement, the City should consider reducing street rights- of-way and pavement widths to pre-World War II widths (typically 22 to 34 feet curb-to-curb for local streets, 30 to 35 feet curb-to-curb for collector streets) and consider working with StanCOG to shift transportation money away from ---PAGE BREAK--- Chapter V. Environmental Analysis Modesto General Plan Update Final Master EIR V-18-6 Section 18. Energy October 2008 automobile transportation and toward non-automobile transportation; to realign CMAQ (Congestion Mitigation Air Quality Improvement Program) dollars and other similar flexible funds to non-automobile projects and clean-fuel vehicle projects; to promote increases in funding for transit, bicycle, and pedestrian projects; to promote the establishment of a regional bicycle coordinator; and to require accountability for local expenditures on bicycle and pedestrian facilities. The City shall reinstate the use of parkway strips, where feasible, which allow shading of streets by street trees. (UAGP Policy VII-I.1[j]) E-31: The City should consider instituting a development pattern that facilitates non- automobile transportation. Features of such a pattern may include redirecting growth into existing city limits in specified areas, reducing road widths, increasing sidewalk widths, and adding Class II bicycle facilities to City streets. (UAGP Policy VII- I.1[k]) E-32: The City should consider renegotiating employee union contracts to eliminate parking subsidies for public employees, encourage carpools through preferential parking and a graduated parking fee, institute parking payouts, and institute on-street metered parking that is consistent with current philosophies and technologies. (UAGP Policy VII-I.1[l]) E-33: The City shall consider purchasing clean-fuel/alternative-fuel fleet vehicles. (UAGP Policy VII-I.1[m) E-34: All commercial development projects should include bicycle racks and changing rooms to facilitate trips by bicycle and on foot by both employees and customers. (UAGP Policy VII-I.1[n]) E-35: The City shall attempt to facilitate development of “brownfields,” which is property on which development is complicated by the presence or potential presence of a hazardous substance, pollutant, or contaminant. (UAGP Policy VII-I.1[o]) E-36: The City of Modesto shall work with the local energy providers and developers on voluntary incentive based programs to encourage the use of energy efficient designs and equipment. (UAGP Policy VII-I.1[p]) E-37: The City of Modesto shall work with the local building industry, utilities, and the SJVAPCD to promote enhanced energy conservation standards for new construction. (UAGP Policy VII-I.1[q]) E-38: The City of Modesto shall encourage new residential, commercial, and industrial development to reduce air quality impacts from area sources and from energy consumption. (UAGP Policy VII-I.1[r]) E-39: The City shall consider requiring new public buildings to achieve at least the minimum Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEEDTM) “Certified” rating. LEEDTM certification must be applied for through the United States Green Building Council (www.usgbc.org), which administers the program and reviews and evaluates working drawings. Information about required and optional design elements can be found at the U.S. Green Building Council’s website. (UAGP Policy VII-I.1[s]) E-40: The City shall work with applicants and developers to encourage green building methods and practices and achieve LEEDTM standards for all new development. The City shall develop a program to promote green building methods. (UAGP Policy VII-I.1[t]) E-41: New development shall comply with Green Building Standards adopted by the California Building Standards Commission incorporated in the building codes in effect at the time of building permit application. The City shall consider adopting ---PAGE BREAK--- Chapter V. Environmental Analysis Modesto General Plan Update Final Master EIR V-18-7 Section 18. Energy October 2008 additional measures that achieve a greater reduction in energy and water use reduction than required by state law, which may include, but not be limited to: cool roofs (as defined by the California Energy Commission’s Building Energy Efficiency Standard (Title 24) and the Cool Roof Rating Council), high efficiency insulation, high efficiency plumbing fixtures, tankless water heaters, high efficiency space cooling and heating systems, and high efficiency lighting. (UAGP Policy VII- I.1[u]) E-42: The City shall encourage compliance with the new California Green Building Code Guidelines, which are expected to be adopted in 2009. (UAGP Policy VII-I.1[v]) 5. Policies Which Avoid Impacts The following City policies are in effect and have been determined to reduce, avoid, or mitigate environmental impacts within the existing city limits and within the Planned Urbanizing Area. The policy reference numbers are listed, and the full text of these policies is found in Section A-4, Existing Policies Applying to the Study Areas, above. a. City of Modesto Policies The UAGP provides the following policies related to energy: E-6 through E-42. B. CONSIDERATION AND DISCUSSION OF SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS The following information is provided in accordance with Section 15126.2 of the State CEQA Guidelines. 1. Thresholds of Significance Suggested by the California Environmental Quality Act CEQA directs agencies to analyze effects of projects on energy, using Appendix F of the State CEQA Guidelines. According to the guidelines identified there, the project would have a significant impact if it would result in wasteful, inefficient, and unnecessary consumption of energy during the project construction, operation, maintenance or removal that cannot be mitigated feasibly. 2. Thresholds of Significance Suggested by Other Analytical Methods No applicable thresholds of significance by other analytical methods are available. 3. Thresholds of Significance Approved by the City of Modesto Impacts would be significant if the project uses energy in a wasteful manner. ---PAGE BREAK--- Chapter V. Environmental Analysis Modesto General Plan Update Final Master EIR V-18-8 Section 18. Energy October 2008 4. Significant Direct Impacts a. Baseline Developed Area and Redevelopment Area The Baseline Developed Area and Redevelopment Area are already developed. New development within the Redevelopment Area would comply with 24 CCR standards as well as UAGP policies. Because energy mitigation focuses on new development, and the level of new development in the Baseline Developed Area and Redevelopment Area would be minimal, this impact is considered less than significant. b. Planned Urbanizing Area The UAGP contains various land use designations that, taken individually and collectively, create a land use pattern that is beneficial to a reduction in energy usage when compared with traditional development patterns. These can be found in UAGP Sections II- Community Growth Policies; III-B, Generalized Land Use Designations; and III-D. Comprehensive Planning Districts. Village Residential (VR), Village Residential with Business Park (VB), and Business Park (BP) land uses in the Planned Urbanizing Area all encourage pedestrian-oriented development. Better accessibility for pedestrians and bicyclists would result in fewer vehicle miles traveled from residences to shopping, schools, and places of work than otherwise would be generated in a conventional development. As noted in the CEC’s Energy Aware Planning Guide (California Energy Commission 1993), these planning strategies can result in significant energy efficiencies. As of 2005, electricity use per capita per year in California was 7,032 kilowatt-hours (kwh) (California Energy Commission 2005a), and natural-gas consumption per capita per year was 422 therms (California Energy Commission 2005b). Given the January 1, 2007, Modesto population estimate of 209,174 persons (California Department of Finance 2007f), current annual electricity use in Modesto is approximately 1,470 gigawatt-hours (gwh) (1,000,000 kwh = 1 gwh), and annual natural-gas use is approximately 88.27 million therms. Assuming the same rate of use and a projected population of up to 357,000 (Galvez 2006) in 2025, total annual energy use would increase to approximately 2,510 gwh and 150.65 million therms, or an increase of approximately 1.7 times over existing levels. Continued development in the Planned Urbanizing Area is projected to use an estimated 1,400 million cubic feet per month of natural gas, 1,300 million kwh of electricity per year, and 650,000 gallons of gasoline per day. The CEC has indicated that natural-gas resources in North America can meet the nation’s demand for at least the next 50 years at current consumption levels (California Energy Commission 2000) but that California needs to develop additional supplies of liquefied natural gas to meet its growing demand (California Energy Commission 2003). According to the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC), California’s natural-gas transportation and storage system is currently adequate to provide natural gas to its customers (California Public Utilities Commission 2001). As noted in Long Term Crude Oil Supply and Prices, prepared for the CEC, crude oil supplies currently are sufficient to serve continued development throughout the state. Nonetheless, California’s demand for petroleum products has increased during the last decade and will continue to grow, reflecting population increases and the increased demand for ---PAGE BREAK--- Chapter V. Environmental Analysis Modesto General Plan Update Final Master EIR V-18-9 Section 18. Energy October 2008 transportation fuels. Furthermore, the CEC indicates that world oil resources are finite and that world production is likely to peak in this century because of increasing global demand (ICF Consulting 2005). Such a change in production could affect California communities. Energy use could be reduced by implementing additional recommendations made in the CEC’s 1993 publication Energy Aware Planning Guide: The amount of gasoline used for commuting to and from work could be reduced by up to 14% with mixed-use residential and office development (assuming 100 housing units and a 100,000-square-foot office space). Placing shopping areas within 0.5 mile of residences and work places translates to up to 2% in gasoline savings. Medium- and high-density uses would reduce gas usage by and facilitating the use of transit further reduces gasoline use. Also, the cooling effects of shade trees have been documented as reducing summer temperatures by about 10 degrees; this cooling effect in turn reduces air-conditioning use in the summer. Well-planned bicycle and pedestrian facilities, traffic signal coordination and timing, and grid circulation systems— rather than conventional suburban cul-de-sacs—can reduce vehicle miles traveled by 50%– 60%, in turn reducing gas consumption. (California Energy Commission 1993.) Policies E-6 through E-42, as listed above, would promote these energy-saving strategies and would help to reduce energy-related impacts resulting from continued development of the Modesto planning area. Title 24 CCR also would reduce energy use and infrastructure impacts by ensuring that continued development in the UAGP would not exceed local, state, and federal energy standards for new construction. Additionally, the City, in partnership with the Modesto Irrigation District, is in a better position to manage its own energy supply portfolio and ensure that supplies are adequate for its users. However, continued development within the Planned Urbanizing Area would have an impact on available energy supplies. Because energy consumption likely would increase substantially by 2025 as a result of the increase in population of 1.7 times that of the current population, and because the measures noted in Policies E-6 through E-42 above and proposed below cannot be quantified, this impact remains significant. 5. Significant Cumulative Impacts CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines require the disclosure of the significant cumulative environmental effects, of whether the project would make a cumulatively considerable contribution to any such effects, and, if so, mitigation measures intended to reduce the project’s contribution (Section 15130 of the State CEQA Guidelines). A cumulative effect is one that results from past, present, and probable future projects. A project that has a less-than-significant direct effect on the environment may make a considerable contribution to a cumulative effect nonetheless. A cumulative impact analysis first identifies whether a cumulatively significant impact exists in the given resource area. If one does, the analysis determines whether the project would make a considerable contribution to that impact. Where a cumulative impact is severe, even a small contribution may be considerable. Where a project is required to implement or fund its fair share of a mitigation measure designed to alleviate the cumulative impact, its contribution will be rendered less than considerable. (Section 15130(a) of the State CEQA Guidelines.) Increased urban development within California has a cumulative impact on available energy supplies. There is currently no information on future energy estimates for the 2025 scenario, but ---PAGE BREAK--- Chapter V. Environmental Analysis Modesto General Plan Update Final Master EIR V-18-10 Section 18. Energy October 2008 the CEC estimates that energy demand in 2016 would be approximately 323,372 gwh in the worst- case scenario, with an average annual growth rate of about 1.28% between 1990 and 2016 (California Energy Commission 2005c). However, the energy crisis of 2001 resulting from the state’s failed attempt at deregulation was found, in part, to be a function of market manipulation and alleged predatory pricing schemes rather than a long-term shortage of energy. In its 2005 Integrated Energy Policy Report, the CEC states: Despite improvements in power plant licensing, enormously successful energy efficiency programs, and continued technological advances, development of new energy supplies is not keeping pace with the state’s increasing demand. Construction of new power plants has lagged and the number of new plant permit applications has decreased. In addition, the development of new renewable resources has been slower than anticipated, due in part to the state's complex and cumbersome Renewable Portfolio Standard process. In the transportation sector, California's refineries cannot keep up with the mounting need for petroleum fuels and consequently depend upon increasing levels of imports to meet the state’s needs. California also imports 87 percent of its natural gas supplies, which are increasingly threatened by declining production in most U.S. supply basins and growing demand in neighboring states. California’s energy infrastructure may be unable to meet the state’s energy delivery needs in the near future. The most critical infrastructure issue is the state’s electricity transmission system, which has become progressively stressed in recent years. The systematic under-investment in transmission infrastructure is reducing system reliability and increasing operational costs. Last year, transmission congestion and related reliability services cost California consumers over $1 billion. The state also experienced price spikes and several local outages over the past summer. California’s petroleum import and refinery infrastructure also faces challenges including the inherent conflict between the need to expand import, refining, and storage facilities to meet transportation fuel demands and the environmental and social concerns of local communities affected by these needed expansions. In the natural gas sector, California has made infrastructure improvements that will increase the reliability and operational flexibility of the natural gas system, but must still address the need for additional pipeline capacity to meet peak demand. [California Energy Commission 2005d.] The project will have a cumulatively considerable contribution to the use of energy. 6. Impacts for Which There Is Insufficient Information to Support a Full Analysis There are no impacts in this area for which there is insufficient information for a full analysis. C. MITIGATION MEASURES ADOPTED TO MINIMIZE SIGNIFICANT EFFECTS The following information is provided in accordance with Section 15126.4 of the State CEQA Guidelines. 1. Measures Which Mitigate Direct Impacts The adopted and proposed policies of the UAGP, described as E-6 through E-42, would reduce direct impacts to a less-than-significant level in the Baseline Developed Area and Redevelopment Area, by promoting pedestrian-oriented development; the use of shade trees; reduced residential ---PAGE BREAK--- Chapter V. Environmental Analysis Modesto General Plan Update Final Master EIR V-18-11 Section 18. Energy October 2008 and business emissions; voluntary incentive-based programs for energy providers and developers; enhanced energy conservation standards for new construction; reduced air quality impacts from area sources and from energy consumption; the use of solar energy systems for residential, agricultural, park, public building, and business purposes; the use of passive solar design; the use of small wind energy systems; grid circulation systems in new development; traffic signal coordination; and easier access to transit facilities. For the Planned Urbanizing Area, the proposed UAGP policies described in Section V-21 of this Master EIR, Climate Change, would contribute to the reduction of impacts related to inefficient energy use. However, because energy use is anticipated to increase in substantial excess of the results of energy conservation and UAGP policies, this impact remains significant. 2. Measures Which Mitigate Cumulative Impacts The adopted and proposed policies of the UAGP and 24 CCR, which require LEED certification of all new development projects, would reduce the project’s contribution to cumulative impacts through a program of energy conservation measures. However, the project’s contribution would remain cumulatively considerable because the increase in Modesto’s population of 1.7 times its current population (at the upper range of the projections) by 2025 would continue to increase energy consumption despite conservation efforts (Galvez 2006). 3. Alternatives to the Proposed Project The following information is provided in accordance with Section 15126.6 of the State CEQA Guidelines. Although the project would result in significant impacts on energy, no alternative designs that would lessen impacts are available. D. MONITORING THESE MITIGATION MEASURES The following information is provided in accordance with Public Resources Code (PRC) Section 21081.6. The mitigation measures identified in the Master EIR have been incorporated into the UAGP and are implemented by that plan. City staff provides the Modesto City Council with an annual report on general plan implementation. Therefore, no separate mitigation monitoring program is required for the UAGP Master EIR. E. EVALUATING SUBSEQUENT PROJECTS The following information will be used to determine whether subsequent projects conform to the Master EIR, as outlined in PRC Section 21157.1(c). Anticipated future projects, as presented in Chapter II, are within the scope of analysis for the impacts on energy as long as the following circumstances have not changed. ---PAGE BREAK--- Chapter V. Environmental Analysis Modesto General Plan Update Final Master EIR V-18-12 Section 18. Energy October 2008 1. The lead agency for subsequent projects is the City or any responsible agency identified in the Master EIR. 2. The policies described in Section A-4 above (E-1 through E-42) continue to be in force to reduce, avoid, or mitigate impacts. 3. No additional significant impact on energy is identified within the planning area. F. KEEPING THE MASTER ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT CURRENT As authorized by PRC Section 21166, the analysis contained in this section is current as long as the following circumstances have not occurred. 1. The planning area population increases more rapidly than projected by the UAGP, indicating that the planning area would be insufficient to accommodate expected growth in 2025. 2. The planning area is expanded beyond the May 2008 (estimated date of certification of UAGP/Master EIR update) boundaries. 3. No new energy-related information (as defined in State CEQA Guidelines Section 15162[a][3]) that would require major revisions in the Master EIR, by indicating that there would be an additional significant effect on the environment and that new or additional mitigation measures or alternatives may be required, becomes available. ---PAGE BREAK--- Chapter V. Environmental Analysis Modesto General Plan Update Final Master EIR V-19-1 Section 19. Effects on Visual Resources October 2008 Section 19 Effects on Visual Resources This section describes how development associated with the City of Modesto Urban Area General Plan (UAGP) would affect visual resources. If significant impacts are found, mitigation measures are provided to reduce these impacts to a less-than-significant level. A. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING The following information is provided in accordance with Section 15125 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines. This environmental setting is the baseline for determining whether an impact of the UAGP is significant. 1. Study Area for Direct Impacts The study area for direct impacts on visual resources is the Modesto planning area. 2. Study Area for Cumulative Impacts This analysis will be based on the plan or projection approach to examining cumulative effects, as provided under Section 15130(b)(1)(B) of the State CEQA Guidelines. Pertinent plans and projections to be used for this purpose are the Stanislaus County General Plan (County General Plan) and the UAGP. The study area for cumulative impacts on visual resources includes Stanislaus and San Joaquin Counties. 3. Existing Physical Conditions in the Study Areas a. Overview The region surrounding Modesto is visually characterized by the many agriculturally and industrially based elements that are seen along the State Route (SR) 99 and Southern Pacific Railroad (SPRR) routes that run northwest to southeast. The landform in the planning area is naturally quite flat, but parts of it have been leveled for agricultural production also. Areas of topographic relief can be found on the valley floor near major waterways in the form of bluffs, terraced floodplains, and remnant channel beds. The floodplains of the Tuolumne and Stanislaus Rivers have such features and are natural greenbelts within the Modesto urban area. Regionally, the planning area is bounded by the Sierra Nevada to the east and the Coast Ranges to the west. The flatness and openness of the terrain in the planning area allows for expansive views of these mountain ranges in the distance when atmospheric haze is at a ---PAGE BREAK--- Chapter V. Environmental Analysis Modesto General Plan Update Final Master EIR V-19-2 Section 19. Effects on Visual Resources October 2008 minimum. However, mature orchards and vineyards somewhat limit these views to the foreground in rural areas adjacent to urban areas. b. Description of Visual Resources within the Modesto Planning Area The Tuolumne River runs along the southern edge of Modesto; the Stanislaus River runs roughly parallel to the northern boundary of the Modesto urban area. Dry Creek, a tributary to the Tuolumne River, runs into the Tuolumne River from the northeast, in the southeast of Modesto. Agricultural land and associated infrastructure give the city a scenic character that is rural in nature. Orchards; row crops; vineyards; cleared fields; hay bales; farm structures; farming and ranching equipment, such as tractors; and farmhouses are some of the features that lend to the rural agricultural nature of the area. Islands of urban development bordering the agricultural areas provide contrast to this rural character. Often, agricultural and urban areas have abrupt boundaries, lacking transition from one to the other and beginning where each other ends. The planning area’s visual quality is low to moderate in vividness, intactness, and unity because of the general lack of visual continuity and coherence. Like many Central Valley cities along SR 99 and the SPRR route that have a long history of agricultural and industrial activities, Modesto has an antiquated-style main street at the city center, surrounded by old, established neighborhoods and mature trees and landscaping. Agriculture- and industry-based buildings such as silos, warehouses, and factory buildings remain visually prominent and contribute to the overall visual quality of the region. Recent development, including big-box and chain commercial shopping areas that are common to new development throughout the state, is common on the outskirts of Modesto. There are no designated scenic roadways in the planning area. 4. Existing Policies Applying to the Study Areas Below is a comprehensive list of major federal, state, and local (Stanislaus County [County] and City of Modesto [City]) policies or summaries of policies in effect that are related to visual resources and may apply to the study area. This list provides the full range of applicable policies that a project within the study area potentially would need to comply with, including policies beyond the jurisdiction of the City. This list of laws, regulations, and programs also serves to describe the circumstances under which this master environmental impact report (Master EIR) analyzed this environmental topic. A discrete reference number, following the initials of the resource topic, is assigned to each policy or policy summary listed to facilitate its identification elsewhere in this Master EIR or, where appropriate, its incorporation as a mitigation measure into subsequent projects analyzed under this Master EIR Visual Resources policies are designated as VS-X where X is the discrete number). ---PAGE BREAK--- Chapter V. Environmental Analysis Modesto General Plan Update Final Master EIR V-19-3 Section 19. Effects on Visual Resources October 2008 Although San Joaquin County is included in the cumulative impact scenario, San Joaquin County policies are not identified below because state regulations preclude the City from annexing across county lines. a. Federal Regulations No federal regulations related to visual resources are relevant to the proposed UAGP. b. State Regulations California Department of Transportation Scenic Highway Program There are no state-designated scenic highways in Modesto or in the Modesto planning area (California Department of Transportation 2007). California State Lands Commission Inventory Regarding Lands Possessing Significant Environmental Values VR-1: The Tuolumne River is state sovereign land under the jurisdiction of the State Lands Commission. Any activities within the ordinary low water mark are subject to the commission’s leasing jurisdiction. The State Lands Commission’s significant lands inventory (or inventory of unconveyed state school lands and tide and submerged lands possessing significant environmental values) identifies the Tuolumne River as category B, Limited Use, having significant environmental values. Category B is defined as lands “in which one or more closely related dominant, significant environmental values is present. Limited uses that are compatible with, and nonconsumptive of, such values may be permitted.” To provide permanent protection of environmentally significant values, a project must be designed to be consistent with the use classifications assigned under the significant lands inventory. If such consistency could not be accomplished through mitigation or alteration of the project, the project would be denied. c. City of Modesto Policies The UAGP provides the following policies related to visual resources. VR-2: Each community or neighborhood should contain an ample supply of specialized open space in the form of squares, greens and parks whose frequent use is encouraged through placement and design. Linkages should be provided between recreational facilities and surrounding neighborhoods. (UAGP Policy III-C.3[h]) VR-3: The City will implement minimum lighting and reflective surfaces standards for new development, to minimize the impact of the proposed plan’s contribution to introduced or increased light and glare. These standards are reflected in the adopted [Guidelines for Small-Lot Single-Family Residential Developments] and Design Guidelines for Commercial and Industrial Development. (UAGP Policy III-C.3[j]) VR-4: The commercial uses adjacent to State Route 99 shall be designed to present an attractive gateway to the City. (UAGP Exhibit III-2.4.b[1]) ---PAGE BREAK--- Chapter V. Environmental Analysis Modesto General Plan Update Final Master EIR V-19-4 Section 19. Effects on Visual Resources October 2008 VR-5: The Business Park uses located adjacent to State Route 99 shall be designed to present an attractive gateway to the City. (UAGP Exhibit III-4.4.b[1]) VR-6: Create identifiable park entrances. Develop an identifiable and comprehensive program of park signage and graphics. (UAGP Exhibit III-5.7.b[6]) VR-7: The Business Park uses adjacent to Highway 132 shall be designed to present an attractive gateway to the City. (UAGP Exhibit III-9.4.b[1]) VR-8: Visual corridors of the river will be protected and enhanced. (UAGP Policy VII- B.7[a]) VR-9: Visual corridors and access points on the riverfront will be recreated through redevelopment. (UAGP Policy VII-B.7[b]) VR-10: The scenic resources of Public Trust lands and resources shall be considered and protected as a resource of public importance. Permitted development shall be sited and designed to protect scenic views associated with Public Trust lands and resources. (UAGP Policy VII-B.7[q]) 5. Policies Which Avoid Impacts The following City policies are in effect and have been determined to reduce, avoid, or mitigate environmental impacts within the existing city limits and within the Planned Urbanizing Area as they annex and develop. County policies are included because they reduce or avoid cumulative impacts. The policy reference numbers are listed. The full text of these policies is found in Section A-4 above, under Existing Policies Applying to the Study Area. a. City of Modesto Policies The UAGP provides the following policies related to visual resources as described in Section A-4 above, which, when applied to subsequent projects will avoid or reduce impacts: VR-2 to VR-10. B. CONSIDERATION AND DISCUSSION OF SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS The following information is provided in accordance with Section 15126.2 of the State CEQA Guidelines. 1. Thresholds of Significance Suggested by the California Environmental Quality Act According to Appendix G of the State CEQA Guidelines, the UAGP update would be considered to result in a significant impact if it would: a. have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista; b. substantially damage scenic resources, including trees, rock outcrops, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway; ---PAGE BREAK--- Chapter V. Environmental Analysis Modesto General Plan Update Final Master EIR V-19-5 Section 19. Effects on Visual Resources October 2008 c. substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings; and d. create a new source of substantial light or glare that would adversely affect daytime or nighttime views in the area. 2. Thresholds of Significance Suggested by Other Analytical Methods No applicable thresholds of significance by other analytical methods are available. 3. Thresholds of Significance Adopted by the City of Modesto The City has adopted the State CEQA Guidelines thresholds as well as the following additional thresholds of significance to analyze the impacts of the UAGP on viewsheds from and of river parks in the planning area, including Dry Creek Park and the Tuolumne River Regional Park (TRRP): a. substantially degrade views from riverside areas and parks, and b. substantially degrade views of riverside areas from public roadways and nearby properties. 4. Significant Direct Impacts a. Baseline Developed Area and Redevelopment Area There are no designated scenic vistas or state scenic highways in the planning area. The Baseline Developed Area and Redevelopment Area contain lands that are mostly developed with urban uses and either are not expected to change substantially within the next 30 years or would allow increased density. As a result of the UAGP, there would be little change to the existing visual character and quality of this area, which is already within a developed setting, and its surroundings; therefore, no significant impacts on visual resources would occur as a result of land use changes. Because the Baseline Developed Area and Redevelopment Area are already developed with urban uses, including existing sources of light and glare, impacts related to substantial new sources of light and glare for this area are considered less than significant. b. Planned Urbanizing Area There are no designated scenic vistas in the planning area. The UAGP includes policies that encourage the preservation of views from riverside parks, as well as of riverside areas from public roadways (VR-8 and VR-9, above). Therefore, the UAGP’s impact on scenic vistas is considered less than significant. ---PAGE BREAK--- Chapter V. Environmental Analysis Modesto General Plan Update Final Master EIR V-19-6 Section 19. Effects on Visual Resources October 2008 There are no designated state scenic highways or locally designated scenic routes in the planning area. Therefore, the proposed road system policies and other policies under the UAGP would not affect a designated state scenic highway or other scenic route. The UAGP would adopt the Growth Strategy Diagram for the Planned Urbanizing Area, as presented in Chapter II. This would allow urban development on currently flat or vacant land or land that is developed with agricultural uses. Such new development would change the visual character of the land; however, the visual quality of the planning area is generally low to moderate (as described above), and it is anticipated that new, planned development would match and blend with the existing development of the area. UAGP Policy III-C.1(i) would ensure the visual compatibility of new development: “Establish and maintain an orderly and compatible land use pattern. Evaluate land use compatibility, noise, traffic, and other environmental hazards when making land use decisions.” Overall, the UAGP incorporates policies that place value on the preservation of visual resources and important vistas and viewsheds. The proposed planning principles encourage the visual enhancement of neighborhoods, planning districts, and parks. The UAGP has specific policies guiding the visual quality of riverside parks under the proposed River Greenway Program, which emphasizes the preservation of views from these parks, which would include the City’s two river parks, Dry Creek Park and the TRRP. This impact is less than significant. Adoption of the Growth Strategy Diagram for the Planned Urbanizing Area, as presented in Chapter II, could lead to new development in areas that are currently vacant or used for agricultural purposes. This could lead to the introduction of light and glare in areas that are not illuminated currently. Additionally, the adoption of proposed UAGP actions and policies that could lead to an expanded street system and enhanced transit system could increase light and glare in the planning area also. The City has adopted Guidelines for Small-Lot Single- Family Residential Developments and Design Guidelines for Commercial & Industrial Development that include standards for the design of outdoor lighting fixtures. These standards (UAGP policy VR-3) limit the size of fixtures and require that fixtures focus their light to avoid spilling onto nearby properties. This will reduce the potential for light and glare impacts from new development in the Planned Urbanizing Area, however, the impacts will not be reduced to a less than significant level. 5. Significant Cumulative Impacts CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines require the disclosure of significant cumulative environmental impacts; whether a project will make a cumulatively considerable contribution to any such impacts; and, if it will, mitigation measures intended to reduce the project’s contribution (Section 15130 of the State CEQA Guidelines). A cumulative impact is one that results from past, present, and probable future projects. A project that has a less-than-significant direct impact on the environment may make a considerable contribution to a cumulative impact nonetheless. A cumulative impact analysis first identifies whether a cumulatively significant impact exists in the given resource area. If one does, the analysis determines whether the project will make a considerable contribution to that impact. Where a cumulative impact is severe, even a small contribution may be considerable. Where a project is required to implement or fund its fair share of ---PAGE BREAK--- Chapter V. Environmental Analysis Modesto General Plan Update Final Master EIR V-19-7 Section 19. Effects on Visual Resources October 2008 a mitigation measure designed to alleviate the cumulative impact, its contribution will be rendered less than considerable (Section 15130[a] of the State CEQA Guidelines). Adoption of the Growth Strategy Diagram for the Planned Urbanizing Area, as presented in Chapter II, could lead to new development in areas that are currently vacant or used for agricultural purposes. This could lead to the introduction of light and glare in areas that are not currently illuminated. Additionally, the adoption of proposed UAGP actions and policies that could lead to an expanded street system and enhanced transit system also could increase light and glare in the planning area. This is considered a significant cumulative impact. Each new development or transportation project would be required to undergo individual environmental review at the time of proposal, which would address the project’s individual contribution to light and glare in the city and propose mitigation to lessen this impact, as necessary. This, in combination with UAGP policy VR-3 above, would reduce this cumulative impact but not to a less-than-significant level. 6. Potential Impacts for Which There Is Insufficient Information to Support a Full Analysis There is no such impact on visual resources. C. MITIGATION MEASURES ADOPTED TO MINIMIZE SIGNIFICANT EFFECTS The following information is provided in accordance with Section 15126.4 of the State CEQA Guidelines. 1. Measures Which Mitigate Direct Impacts The adopted policies of the UAGP listed in Sections V-G.3 and V-G.4 of the UAGP (UAGP policies VR-2 through VR-10), as well as the City’s adopted Guidelines for Small-Lot Single- Family Residential Developments and Design Guidelines for Commercial & Industrial Development would eliminate direct impacts by incorporating policies that encourage the preservation and enhancement of visual resources in the planning area. For impacts related to light and glare, UAGP policy VR-3 will limit the size of fixtures and require that fixtures focus their light to avoid spilling onto nearby properties, reducing the impact from new development in the Planned Urbanizing Area, however, the impact will not be reduced to a less than significant level and is therefore considered to be significant and unavoidable. 2. Measures Which Mitigate Cumulative Impacts Adopted policies of the UAGP, listed in Chapters III and VII of the UAGP, would ensure that important visual resources are preserved and enhanced and that views from riverside parks in Modesto are protected from the potential effects of new development. Additionally, the adopted policies of the County General Plan ensure the protection and preservation of natural and scenic areas throughout Stanislaus County. ---PAGE BREAK--- Chapter V. Environmental Analysis Modesto General Plan Update Final Master EIR V-19-8 Section 19. Effects on Visual Resources October 2008 UAGP policy VR-3 would reduce the project’s contribution to cumulative impacts related to light and glare, but not to a less-than-significant level. The impact would remain significant and unavoidable. 3. Alternatives to the Proposed Project The following information is provided in accordance with Section 15126.6 of the State CEQA Guidelines. The UAGP would result in significant impacts on visual resources related to new sources of light and glare. Alternative designs that incorporate policies related to dark-sky preservation and the reduction of lighting impacts from new development would lessen impacts. D. MONITORING THESE MITIGATION MEASURES The following information is provided in accordance with Public Resources Code (PRC) Section 211081.6. The mitigation measures identified in the Master EIR have been incorporated into the UAGP and are implemented by that plan. City staff provides the Modesto City Council with an annual report on General Plan implementation. Therefore, no separate mitigation monitoring program is required for the UAGP Master EIR. E. EVALUATING SUBSEQUENT PROJECTS The following information will be used to determine whether subsequent projects conform to the Master EIR, as outlined in PRC Section 21157.1(c). Anticipated future projects, as presented in Chapter II of this Master EIR, are within the scope of analysis for the impacts on visual resources as long as the following circumstances have not changed. 1. The lead agency for subsequent projects will be the City or any responsible agency identified in the Master EIR. 2. The following City policies found in Section A-4 above, Existing Policies Applying to the Study Area, continue to be in force to reduce, avoid, or mitigate impacts: VR-2 to VR-10. 3. No additional significant impact on visual resources is identified within the Modesto planning area, and no new mitigation measures are required. F. KEEPING THE MASTER ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT CURRENT As authorized by PRC Section 21166, the analysis contained in this section, Effects on Visual Resources, is current as long as the following circumstances have not occurred. 1. The Modesto planning area is expanded beyond the March 2008 (estimated as the month of certification for the UAGP/Master EIR update) boundaries. ---PAGE BREAK--- Chapter V. Environmental Analysis Modesto General Plan Update Final Master EIR V-19-9 Section 19. Effects on Visual Resources October 2008 2. There are no substantial changes with respect to the circumstances under which the UAGP is being undertaken that would require major revisions in the Master EIR by indicating that there would be an additional significant impact on the environment and that new or additional mitigation measures or alternatives may be required. ---PAGE BREAK--- Chapter V. Environmental Analysis Modesto General Plan Update Final Master EIR V-20-1 Section 20. Land Use and Planning October 2008 Section 20 Land Use and Planning This section of the master environmental impact report (Master EIR) describes existing and proposed land uses in and around the planning area and the potential impacts of the proposed project on these land uses. Information about the project area and the regional location was obtained from relevant plans, including the City of Modesto Urban Area General Plan (UAGP). Growth-inducing impacts are discussed in Chapter VI. If significant impacts are found, mitigation measures are provided to reduce these impacts to a less-than-significant level. A. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING The following information is provided in accordance with Section 15125 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines. This environmental setting is the baseline for determining whether an impact of the UAGP is significant. 1. Study Area for Direct Impacts The study area for direct impact on land use and planning is the Modesto planning area. 2. Study Area for Cumulative Impacts The cumulative analysis will be based on the plan or projection approach to examining cumulative effects, as provided under Section 15130(b)(1)(B) of the State CEQA Guidelines. Pertinent plans and projections to be used for this purpose are the Stanislaus County General Plan (County General Plan) and the City’s UAGP. The study area for cumulative impacts on land use is the limits of Stanislaus County. 3. Existing Physical Conditions in the Study Area a. Overview The City of Modesto is located in Stanislaus County in the central San Joaquin Valley, approximately 95 miles east of San Francisco and 80 miles south of Sacramento. The Tuolumne River runs along the southern edge of the city, and the Stanislaus River runs roughly parallel to the northern boundary of the City’s urban area. Modesto is intersected by State Route (SR) 99 along the north-south axis and Highway 132 along the east-west axis. In a larger context, the county is bounded by San Joaquin County to the north, Calaveras, Tuolumne, and Mariposa Counties to the east, Merced County to the south, and Santa Clara and Alameda Counties to the west. ---PAGE BREAK--- Chapter V. Environmental Analysis Modesto General Plan Update Final Master EIR V-20-2 Section 20. Land Use and Planning October 2008 b. General Plan Area Modesto is bordered by the natural greenbelts of the Stanislaus and Tuolumne Rivers. In the long-term future, the San Joaquin River flood plain and anticipated wetlands preserves will separate urban expansions of the SR 99 corridor from those of the I-5 corridor. Existing Land Use Patterns The Baseline Developed Area encompasses approximately 21,200 acres, excluding the Redevelopment Area. The Redevelopment Area encompasses approximately1,970 acres. The Baseline Developed Area and the Redevelopment Area in Modesto contain mostly developed, urbanized land uses. The approximately 19,500-acre Planned Urbanizing Area is predominantly undeveloped or fallow agricultural land, and minimally if at all supported by urban services and infrastructure. Existing Land Use Designations Residential The Residential land-use designation defines areas where residential land uses would be compatible with other existing and planned land uses throughout the planning area. Residential uses include single-family detached housing and mobile homes. Compatible uses in the residential designation may include schools, parks, and religious or community facilities. Mixed-Use (MU) The Mixed-Use land use designation (MU) describes areas of the Modesto urban area that are already developed (as of January 1, 1995) and contain a mixture of all or some of the following uses in close proximity to one another: multi-family residential, commercial, office, and institutional. Commercial The Commercial land-use designation is generally located at intersections along major arterial streets and expressways. This designation includes a variety of service and retail uses, including but not limited to offices, downtown commercial districts, and regional retail centers serving the needs of the entire region. Industrial The Industrial designation is generally located within major tracts oriented to SR 99 and to the three railroads serving the urban area. This designation includes manufacturing, food processing, trucking, packing, and recycling, as well as those enterprises that may want to combine office and production aspects of their business in the same complex. ---PAGE BREAK--- Chapter V. Environmental Analysis Modesto General Plan Update Final Master EIR V-20-3 Section 20. Land Use and Planning October 2008 Redevelopment Planning District (RPD) The Redevelopment Planning District (RPD) is a land use designation applied within redevelopment areas of Modesto. This designation includes housing and is defined by an urban forest system and transportation access. Village Residential (VR) The Village Residential land-use designation (VR) provides for the development of urban “villages” defined by mixed-use compact, pedestrian- and transit- oriented development. Regional Commercial (RC) The Regional Commercial land-use designation (RC) is located in large scale commercial areas for the sale of goods and services that meet the needs of the entire region. Business Park (BP) The Business Park land-use designation (BP) is located with adequate access to regional traffic routes and transit corridors. This designation provides for areas of light industrial and employment-intensive uses. Regional Commercial uses are also permitted in Business Parks. Open Space (OS) Land uses in the Open Space designation (OS) will include low-impact recreational facilities, public ownership, low-density residential, and agriculture. This designation is to provide for regional recreational open space (active and passive) along the Tuolumne River, Stanislaus River, and Dry Creek. Community and neighborhood parks and other smaller open space areas can be accommodated in any land use designation. Salida Community Plan (SCP) The Salida Community Plan designation (SCP) would apply to the Salida area should the Salida Comprehensive Planning District (CPD) be annexed to the City of Modesto at some future time. The City does not propose to change any land use policies or designations from those established by Stanislaus County (County), so the Salida Community Plan, as adopted by Stanislaus County in August 2007, would continue to regulate growth and development for this area, even upon annexation to the City. Additional land-use category information is located in Chapter III of UAGP. ---PAGE BREAK--- Chapter V. Environmental Analysis Modesto General Plan Update Final Master EIR V-20-4 Section 20. Land Use and Planning October 2008 c. Planning Areas The approximately 1,970-acre Redevelopment Area is land designated as Redevelopment Planning District. The plans that govern development in this area are the Amended Redevelopment Plan for the Modesto Redevelopment Project, adopted in November, 1991, and as subsequently amended, and the Modesto Redevelopment Master Plan, adopted by the Redevelopment Agency in October, 2007, and as subsequently amended. Redevelopment Area The approximately1,970 -acre Redevelopment Area covers the land within the boundaries of the Redevelopment Planning District (the “Project Area”) as adopted by the Modesto Redevelopment Agency in October 2007 Baseline Developed Area The Baseline Developed Area is generally defined as the lands that can be served by the City’s sanitary sewer system. The area served by the Modesto Municipal Sanitary District Number 1 is 25,953 acres; the area served by the “Will-Serve Agreement” is 888 acres, and the area served by the Ceres Agreement is 914 acres. The Baseline Developed Area, comprising approximately 21,200 acres, excluding the Redevelopment Area, contains lands that are mostly developed with urban uses, which are not expected to change substantially during the time horizon of this plan. Also included within the Baseline Developed Area are vacant lands which have a clearly defined future, such as the Beard Tract industrial area. Planned Urbanizing Area Future development within the approximately 19,500-acre Planned Urbanizing Area (PUA) will occur on land which is predominantly flat, vacant and/or developed with agricultural uses, and minimally if at all served with urban services and infrastructure, including roads. Approximately 12,700 acres of the PUA are located within the sphere of influence, excluding the RPD and Baseline Developed Area. The remaining areas of the PUA, approximately 6,800 acres, are located outside the Sphere of Influence. The PUA is expected to absorb substantial urban development in a comprehensively planned manner. For this reason, the land uses projected by the Land Use Diagram in Chapter III will be implemented through CPDs, as defined and explained in Chapter III. d. Adjacent Areas The City of Ceres is located directly south of Modesto. Its sphere of influence abuts the Modesto planning area. The City of Riverbank is located directly north of Modesto. Its sphere of influence also abuts the Modesto planning area. Ceres and Riverbank have adopted ---PAGE BREAK--- Chapter V. Environmental Analysis Modesto General Plan Update Final Master EIR V-20-5 Section 20. Land Use and Planning October 2008 their own general plans to guide development within the respective cities. Land use in the unincorporated areas surrounding Modesto, Ceres, and Riverbank is regulated by the County. Proposed Land Uses The UAGP does not propose changes to its existing land-use plan, and the Baseline Developed Area is not expected to change substantially. The following changes are proposed to the current land-use designations: Residential Clarify that single-family attached housing and multi-family housing are allowable uses with a maximum density to 7.5 dwelling units per net acre (du/net acre). Mixed-Use (MU) Clarify that single-family residential development is allowed; clarify that MU can be applied outside the Baseline Developed Area; require that 60% of the gross area within an MU district is to be for residential use. Commercial Clarify that this designation also allows business, medical, and professional offices other than large office campuses, neighborhood retail centers, convenience retail, and highway-oriented commerce (restaurants, gas stations, automotive repair and service) uses. Redevelopment Planning District (RPD) Clarify that vertical mixed-use development is allowed. Village Residential (VR) Clarify that this district is intended to accommodate a variety of residential product types, such as detached houses on small lots and multi-family and senior housing in addition to village-serving non-residential uses. Increase maximum residential density from 5.1 to 6.6 dwelling units per gross acre to recognize the increased density introduced by the 2004 Housing Element and up to 27 du/net acre for multi-family housing. Regional Commercial (RC) Clarify that this district is to be located where there are major transportation routes to allow easy access. Future growth would occur in accordance with existing City zoning designations, and with other City policies in existence as of the base year (2007) of the UAGP. ---PAGE BREAK--- Chapter V. Environmental Analysis Modesto General Plan Update Final Master EIR V-20-6 Section 20. Land Use and Planning October 2008 Because only a small portion of the Baseline Developed Area is considered vacant or available for development, the City will concentrate its future growth in the Redevelopment Planning Area and in the Planned Urbanizing Area. The Redevelopment Planning Area encompasses the City’s downtown core and will allow higher density, mixed-use development in order to create a balanced and vibrant downtown core and active neighborhood centers. The purpose of that Plan is to identify and prioritize land use and economic development goals, and present recommendations for improvements that will contribute to a visually appealing public realm, efficient automobile, bicycle, and pedestrian circulation, and adequate infrastructure to serve the planned redevelopment. The Planned Urbanizing Area forms the outer perimeter of the UAGP planning area. Future projects in the Planned Urbanizing Area will be guided by focused policies in the CPDs. Figure III-1, Adopted Land Use Diagram of the General Plan, identifies UAGP land-use designations in the urban area. 4. Existing Policies Applying to the Study Area Below is a comprehensive list and summary of major federal, state, and local (county and city) policies or summaries of policies in effect that apply to the study area. This list provides the full range of applicable policies with which a project within the study area would potentially need to comply, including policies beyond the jurisdiction of the City. This list of laws, regulations, and programs also serves to describe the circumstances under which the Master EIR analyzes this environmental topic. A discrete reference number, following the initials of the resource topic, is assigned to each policy or policy summary listed to facilitate its identification elsewhere in this Master EIR or, where appropriate, its incorporation as a mitigation measure into subsequent projects analyzed under this Master EIR Land Use and Planning policies are designated as LUP-X, where X is the discrete number). a. Federal Regulations There are no applicable federal policies or regulations related to land use and planning. b. State Policies The Planning, Zoning, and Development Law (Government Code Section 65100 et seq.) establishes the basic requirements for local general plan content. Each city and county is allowed to apply the requirements in a way “that accommodate[s] local conditions and circumstances.” Government Code Section 65302 provides that each general plan must include land use, housing, circulation, conservation, open space, noise, and safety elements. These elements may be adopted “in any format deemed appropriate or convenient by the legislative body, including the combining of elements.” (Government Code Section 65301) ---PAGE BREAK--- Chapter V. Environmental Analysis Modesto General Plan Update Final Master EIR V-20-7 Section 20. Land Use and Planning October 2008 The Cortese-Knox-Herztberg Local Government Reorganization Act of 2000 (Government Code Section 56300 et seq.) establishes the county Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCo) and empowers it to consider and approve city and special district annexation, dissolution, and formation. The Act requires the LAFCo to apply good planning principles to its decisions, including conservation of agricultural land, compact growth patterns, and efficient provision of government services. c. Stanislaus County Policies The County General Plan applies to the unincorporated lands surrounding Modesto, including lands within the City’s sphere of influence. Lands within the city limits are not governed by the County General Plan. The County General Plan has the following applicable policies (Stanislaus County 2006). Land Use Element LUP-1: Land will be designated and zoned for agricultural, residential, commercial, industrial, or historical uses when such designations are consistent with other adopted goals and policies of the general plan. (Policy 1) LUP-2: Land designated Agriculture shall be restricted to uses that are compatible with agricultural practices, including natural resources management, open space, outdoor recreation and enjoyment of scenic beauty. (Policy 2) LUP-10: Expansion of urban boundaries of unincorporated communities should be based on infilling and elimination of existing "islands" and should not permit leapfrog development or create new "islands." (Policy 13) LUP-12: Uses should not be permitted to intrude into or be located adjacent to areas that are identified as existing and/or potential sites for solid waste facilities if such uses would not be compatible. (Policy 15) LUP-13: Agriculture, as the primary industry of the County, shall be promoted and protected. (Policy 16) LUP-20: New development shall pay its fair share of the cost of cumulative impacts on circulation and transit systems. (Policy 23) LUP-21: Development, other than agricultural uses and churches, which requires discretionary approval and is within the sphere of influence of cities or in areas of specific designation created by agreement Sperry Avenue and East Las Palmas Corridors), shall not be approved unless first approved by the city within whose sphere of influence it lies or by the city for which areas of specific designation were agreed. Development requests within the spheres of influence or areas of specific designation of any incorporated city shall not be approved unless the development is consistent with agreements with the cities which are in effect at the time of project consideration. Such development must meet the applicable development standards of the affected city as well as any public facilities fee collection agreement in effect at the time of project consideration. (Comment: This policy refers to those development standards that are transferable, such as street improvement standards, landscaping, or setbacks. It does not always apply to standards that require connection to a sanitary sewer system, for example, as that is not always feasible.) (Policy 24) ---PAGE BREAK--- Chapter V. Environmental Analysis Modesto General Plan Update Final Master EIR V-20-8 Section 20. Land Use and Planning October 2008 LUP-22: Whenever an application is to be considered which includes property within the sphere of influence of a city or special district sewer, water, community services) or areas of specific designation created by agreement between County and City, the following procedures should be followed: 1. Development, other than agricultural uses and churches, which requires discretionary approval from incorporated cities shall be referred to that city for preliminary approval. The project shall not be approved by the County unless written communication is received from the city memorializing their approval. If approved by the city, the city should specify what conditions are necessary to ensure that development will comply with city development standards. Requested conditions for such things as sewer service in an area where none is available shall not be imposed. Approval from a city does not preclude the County decision-making body from exercising discretion, and it may either approve or deny the project. 2. Agricultural uses and churches which require discretionary approval should be referred to that city for comment. The County Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors shall consider the responses of the cities in the permit process. If the County finds that a project is inconsistent with the city's general plan designation, it shall not be approved. Agricultural use and churches shall not be considered inconsistent if the only inconsistency is with a statement that a development within the urban transition area or sphere of influence shall be discouraged (or similar sweeping statement). The city shall be asked to respond to the following questions: Is the proposed project inconsistent with the land use designation on the city's general plan? If so, please include a copy of the map (or that portion which includes the subject property) and the text describing uses permitted for the general plan designation. All findings of inconsistency must include supporting documentation. If the project is approved, specifically what type of conditions would be necessary to ensure the development will comply with city development standards such as street improvements, setbacks and landscaping? In the case of a proposed project within the sphere of influence of a sanitary sewer district, domestic water district or community services district, the proposal shall be forwarded to the district board for comment regarding the ability of the district to provide services. If the district serves an unincorporated town with a Municipal Advisory Council (MAC), the proposal shall also be referred to the MAC for comment. (Spheres of Influence Policy 1) Other land use regulations in Stanislaus County include the following: LUP-23: The Stanislaus County General Plan contains an Urban Transition designation to ensure that land remains in agricultural usage until urban development consistent with a city's (or unincorporated community's) general plan designation is approved. The Urban Transition designation is appropriate for undeveloped land located within the LAFCo-established sphere of influence of a city or town. LUP-25: The Stanislaus County Airport Land Use Commission Plan discourages locating new uses that concentrate large numbers of people or that involve the handling of hazardous materials under airport approaches within its planning area. It advises against development that would interfere with communications, visibility, and exceed height limitations. It encourages jurisdictions to make land use changes from incompatible uses to compatible uses, and to relocate existing non-conforming uses. ---PAGE BREAK--- Chapter V. Environmental Analysis Modesto General Plan Update Final Master EIR V-20-9 Section 20. Land Use and Planning October 2008 d. City of Modesto Regulations Baseline Developed Area The UAGP provides the following proposed policies related to land use and planning (City of Modesto 2007c). 1) Land Use Policies—Overall Land-Use Policies LUP-26: The Zoning Code (Title X of the Modesto Municipal Code) and the Zoning Map shall be used as the primary vehicle to guide future development in the Baseline Developed Area. A secondary vehicle is policies in existence in the Base Year (2007) of this General Plan. (Policy III-C.1[a]) LUP-27: Section 65803 of the Government Code indicates that in charter cities such as Modesto, zoning need not be consistent with the General Plan. Notwithstanding, development plans within the Baseline Developed Area may be found consistent with the General Plan if they are consistent with the Zoning Code and Map and the various policies of the General Plan. Zone changes may be approved anywhere in the General Plan Area, if the following findings are made: 1) The requested zone change is required by public convenience or necessity. 2) The requested change will result in an orderly planning use of land resources. 3) The requested zone change is in accordance with the community’s objectives as set forth in: the “Neighborhood Plan Prototype” policies presented in Section C- 2, below (for property within the Baseline Developed Area); or a Comprehensive Plan prepared in accordance with this Chapter (for property within the Planned Urbanizing Area); or the Redevelopment Plan (for property within the Redevelopment Area). 4) Adequate environmental mitigation has been provided through the implementation of appropriate mitigation measures established by the Master Environmental Impact Report and any supplements to the MEIR. Traffic and public facility issues are particularly relevant in this analysis. (Policy III-C.1[b]) LUP-28: Additional vehicles to guide future development, in both the Baseline Developed Area and the Planned Urbanizing Area, include: Neotraditional Planning Policies (C-3, below) and the Neighborhood Plan Prototype Policies (C-2, below). (Policy III-C.1[c]) LUP-29: Specific Plans, adopted pursuant to Section 65450 et seq. of the California Government Code, may be used to provide primary policy guidance to future development within their respective geographic areas. Accordingly, each specific plan shall include a text and a diagram or diagrams which specify all of the following in detail: The distribution, location, and extent of the uses of land, including open space, within the area covered by the plan. The proposed distribution, location, and extent and intensity of major components of public and private transportation, sewage, water, drainage, solid waste disposal, energy, and other essential facilities proposed to be located within the area covered by the plan and needed to support the land uses described in the plan. Standards and criteria by which development will proceed, and standards for the conservation, development, and utilization of natural resources, where applicable. A program of implementation measures including regulations, programs, public works projects, and financing measures necessary to carry out the preceding items and ---PAGE BREAK--- Chapter V. Environmental Analysis Modesto General Plan Update Final Master EIR V-20-10 Section 20. Land Use and Planning October 2008 Specific Plans may incorporate any of the Land Use Designations presented on the Land Use Diagram, and they may be used within any Growth Strategy Designation: Redevelopment Area, Baseline Developed Area, or Planned Urbanizing Area. Where the Neighborhood Plan Prototype is applied to a Comprehensive Planning District, it shall be implemented by a Specific Plan. Any such Specific Plan shall cover a minimum of approximately 480 acres of area or be based on a logical unit of infrastructure, such as an elementary school service area or park planning area. (Policy III-C.1[d]) LUP-30: Annexation of Noncontiguous Land (not shown on Land Use Diagram). Section 65300 of the California Government Code allows the General Plan to address policies to any land “outside its boundaries which in the [City’s] judgment bears relation to its planning.” In addition, Section 56742 a-b of the Government Code allows the City of Modesto upon approval of the Stanislaus Local Agency Formation Commission, to annex noncontiguous territory not exceeding 300 acres in area, which is located in the same county as that in which the city is situated, and which is owned by the city and is being used for municipal purposes at the time commission proceedings are initiated. The territory that is used by a city for reclamation, disposal, and storage of treated wastewater may be annexed to the city pursuant to this section without limitation as to the size of the territory being annexed. In the past, the city has relied upon Section 56742 a-b of the Government Code to annex certain properties noncontiguous to the city, for the purpose of establishing and expanding wastewater treatment facilities on Jennings Road, adjacent to the San Joaquin River. Annexation of all of the Wastewater Treatment Plant land is underway at the Jennings Road facilities. Because this site is approximately 7 miles from the city limits, it is not depicted graphically on the Land Use Diagram. Nevertheless, as long as Section 56742 a-b remains in effect, the city will continue to expand the treatment facilities, and annex the land to the city as appropriate and as needs dictate. The Sphere of Influence should reflect the ability of the city to take this action. The City will designate a riparian habitat preserve for the Jennings Road and Sutter Avenue wastewater facilities, where they adjoin the San Joaquin and Tuolumne Rivers respectively, to foster the best conjunctive management of wastewater facilities. The Jennings Road and Sutter Avenue wastewater sites have been incorporated into the Tuolumne River Regional Park (TRRP) Master Plan and the designation of riparian habitat preserves at these locations is consistent with provisions in the TRRP Master Plan. The designation of riparian preserves at these locations will help preserve open space and protect habitat for threatened and endangered species, including valley elderberry longhorn beetle and Swainson’s hawk. (Policy III-C.1[e]) LUP-31: Establish and maintain an orderly and compatible land use pattern. Evaluate land use compatibility, noise, traffic, and other environmental hazards when making land use decisions. (Policy III-C.1[h]) LUP-32: A Specific Plan, within the Comprehensive Planning District, shall follow the policies and procedures established in the City of Modesto’s adopted Specific Plan Procedures and Preparation Guide. (Policy III-C.1[i]) LUP-33: The New development projects should incorporate the following transit-related design features: Locate medium and high-density development near transit services. ---PAGE BREAK--- Chapter V. Environmental Analysis Modesto General Plan Update Final Master EIR V-20-11 Section 20. Land Use and Planning October 2008 Link residential areas to transit stops via continuous sidewalks or pedestrian paths. Where subdivision sound walls exist or are warranted, appropriate designs should be used to facilitate direct pedestrian access to transit stops. A through roadway should connect adjacent developments to permit transit circulation between developments. Commercial and industrial developments should have easy access to major arterials and transit stops. (Policy III-C.1[j]) 2) Land Use Policies—Neighborhood Plan Prototype Policies LUP-34: Neighborhoods should contain a variety of housing types, as allowed by the R-1, R- 2, R-3, and P-D Zones of the Modesto Zoning Code. The location and distribution of the different housing types within a neighborhood are presented in Figure III-2 (UAGP), “Neighborhood Plan Prototype”. (Policy III-C.2[a]) LUP-35: Neighborhoods should contain sufficient elementary schools necessary to serve the residential development within the neighborhood. Schools should be located on Collector streets within the neighborhood, preferably at or near the intersection of two Collector streets. (Policy III-C.2[b]) LUP-36: Neighborhood parks sufficient to serve the residential development within the neighborhood (see Section V-G for parks standards) should be located adjacent to school sites. (Policy III-C.2[c]) LUP-37: A 7–9 acre neighborhood shopping center, containing 60,000 to 100,000 square feet of gross leasable space, should be located in each neighborhood. The shopping center should be located at the intersection of two Arterial streets, as shown in Figure III-2 (UAGP). (Policy III-C.2[d]) LUP-38: A network of Collector streets should be developed within each neighborhood, as shown in Figure III-2 (UAGP). These Collector streets should utilize the following principles: Collector streets should provide direct linkages from the residences within a neighborhood to neighborhood facilities within the same neighborhood, such as schools, parks, shopping areas, churches, etc., and a connection to peripheral Arterial streets but not to peripheral expressways or freeways. Collector streets should be designed to intersect Arterial streets at 1/4 mile intervals. Collector streets should cross Arterial streets with four-way intersections to facilitate Arterial street traffic signalization but should not be continuous alignments through two or more neighborhoods, as their function is not to serve as through traffic arteries. Several “through” Collector streets are acknowledged based on their pre-existence as county service roads to agricultural areas. (Policy III-C.2[e]) LUP-39: Minor adjustments to the Neighborhood Plan Prototype can be made to accommodate existing development in an area. (Policy III-C.2[f]) LUP-40: If a neighborhood is bordered by an expressway on one or more sides, then the following modifications should be made in implementing the Neighborhood Plan Prototype: Zoning adjacent to the expressway should be R-1, rather than R-2 or R-3. ---PAGE BREAK--- Chapter V. Environmental Analysis Modesto General Plan Update Final Master EIR V-20-12 Section 20. Land Use and Planning October 2008 The neighborhood shopping center should not be located adjacent to the expressway. If the expressway is a Class A expressway, there shall be no Collector streets intersecting with the expressway. If the expressway is a Class B expressway, there may be no Collector street intersecting with the expressway, or just one Collector street intersection on the half mile, with right turn in, right turn out only (no median break). (Policy III- C.2[g]) 3) Land Use Element—Neotraditional Planning Policies LUP-41: Communities or neighborhoods should be compact so that housing, jobs, daily needs, and other activities are within easy walking distance of each other. Communities should include a mix of compatible land uses within close proximity. (Policy III- C.3[a]) LUP-42: As many activities as possible should be located within easy walking distance of transit stops. (Policy III-C.3[b]) LUP-43: Roadways should be designed to allow for safe and convenient pedestrian accessibility. (Policy III-C.3[c]) LUP-44: Communities or neighborhoods should contain a diversity of housing types to enable citizens from a wide range of economic levels and age groups to live within its boundaries. (Policy III-C.3[d]) LUP-45: The location and character of the community or neighborhood should be consistent with a larger transit network. (Policy III-C.3[f]) LUP-46: Each community or neighborhood should have a center focus that combines commercial, civic, cultural, and recreational uses. (Policy III-C.3[g]) LUP-47: Each community or neighborhood should contain an ample supply of specialized open space in the form of squares, greens and parks whose frequent use is encouraged through placement and design. Linkages should be provided between recreational facilities and surrounding neighborhoods. (Policy III-C.3[h]) LUP-48: Streets, pedestrian paths and bike paths should contribute to a system of fully connected and interesting routes to all destinations. Their design should encourage pedestrian and bicycle use by being small and spatially defined by buildings, trees and lighting; and by discouraging high speed traffic. Wherever possible, natural terrain, drainage, and vegetation should be preserved with superior examples contained within parks or greenbelts. (Policy III-C.3[i]) Planned Urbanizing Area The following Principal CPD Policies apply to all CPDs, regardless of whether they are located in the Baseline Developed Area or the Planned Urbanizing Area. 4) Land Use Element—Principal Comprehensive Planning District Policies LUP-49: Since each Comprehensive Planning District contains a number of properties, unified direction from affected property owners should be encouraged, particularly for privately-initiated applications. In the case of disparate or unknown development ---PAGE BREAK--- Chapter V. Environmental Analysis Modesto General Plan Update Final Master EIR V-20-13 Section 20. Land Use and Planning October 2008 intentions, the City may proactively seek consensus from affected property owners. (Policy III-D.1[a]) LUP-50: The Specific Plans within each Comprehensive Planning District should establish clear and comprehensive implementation tools and shall follow the policies and procedures as outlined in the City of Modesto’s adopted Specific Plan Procedures and Preparation Guide which identify all subsequent land use approvals required to be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. (Policy III-D.1[b]) LUP-51: Because of their size, shape, and proximity to existing areas developed under the Neighborhood Plan Prototype policy of the 1974 General Plan, the following Comprehensive Planning Districts do not need to comply with the above Principal Comprehensive Planning District Policies (D-1(a) and Pelandale/Snyder CPD Coffee/Claratina CPD North Beyer CPD In the above instances, the “Neighborhood Plan Prototype” Policies and the City’s Zoning and Subdivision Ordinances provide sufficient guidance for future development of these CPD’s. Notwithstanding, all Comprehensive Planning Districts need to comply with the following Principal Policies in addition to the above Principal Comprehensive Planning District Policies (D-1(a) and (Policy III-D.1[c]) LUP-52: The City may adopt guidelines for development projects as directed by City Council. These guidelines shall serve as minimum expectations. (Policy III-D.1[d]) LUP-53: Each Specific Plan shall be accompanied by a long-range financing strategy that provides reasonable estimates of the costs of on- and off-site infrastructure to support the proposed development pattern. The strategy should generally address public facility funding, including schools, for any development project that serves to implement the subject Specific Plan. If new public facilities are required that will also serve the broader community, the Specific Plan should include options for broad-based funding mechanisms. (Policy III-D.1[e]) LUP-54: Specific Plans, as defined in Chapter VIII, shall be used for the implementation of the Comprehensive Planning Districts presented in Figure III-1. Specific Plans, as defined in Section 65450 et seq. of the California Government Code, are particularly suited for this purpose. (Policy III-D.1[f]) LUP-55: More than one Specific Plan may be processed within a given CPD), as long as the remaining area within the CPD can still comply with the General Plan policies presented in this chapter. Conversely, a Specific Plan can be used to implement more than one Comprehensive Planning District, when those districts are adjoining. A CPD may consist of more than one Specific Plan provided that the Specific Plans are consistent, compatible, and complement one another; particularly related to, but not limited to land use and circulation plans, and the Specific Plans’ financing sections are correlated to provide for adequate infrastructure throughout the Comprehensive Planning District. If Specific Plans are adopted at different times within a Comprehensive Planning District, the first Specific Plan shall include an infrastructure plan addressing the entire District. (Policy III-D.1[g]) LUP-56: All policy requirements presented in the individual Comprehensive Planning District narratives (Exhibits III-2 through III-23), shall be applied wherever indicated in each individual District’s narrative. (Policy III-D.1[j]) ---PAGE BREAK--- Chapter V. Environmental Analysis Modesto General Plan Update Final Master EIR V-20-14 Section 20. Land Use and Planning October 2008 LUP-57: The Specific Plan for each Comprehensive Planning District shall address the policies for the relevant Growth Strategy Designation (Baseline Developed Area or Planned Urbanizing Area) presented in Chapters II, III, IV, V, VI, and VII and storm water collection, retention, and discharge. The developer must pay these costs. Building permits (residential construction) and/or certificates of occupancy (commercial construction) will not be issued until storm water facilities are installed and approved. (Policy III-D.1[k]) LUP-58: Each Specific Plan or Planning District shall address the need to provide sanitary sewer service, using the Sanitary Sewer Diagram presented in Chapter V. (Policy III-D.1[l]) LUP-59: The exact boundaries of each Comprehensive Planning District may be shifted somewhat as Specific Plans are processed. However, any proposed boundary shifts shall address all public facility and public service requirements of the Planned Urbanizing Area, as specified in Chapter V. (Policy III-D.1[m]) LUP-60: The orderly development of Comprehensive Planning Districts, particularly the planning, installation, and financing of infrastructure, requires that Specific Plans be of sufficient size. “Sufficient size” means a minimum of one-third of the total area of the following Comprehensive Planning Districts: Beckwith/Dakota, College West, Highway 132, and Kiernan/McHenry. A Specific Plan may encompass a smaller area if the City finds that it will constitute a significant portion of a distinct and cohesive neighborhood and will otherwise correlate with planning, installation, and financing of infrastructure for the Comprehensive Planning District. “Sufficient size” means a minimum of 480 acres in the following Comprehensive Planning Districts: Hetch Hetchy, Johansen, Kiernan/Carver North, Paradise/Carpenter, Roselle/Claribel, or Whitmore Carpenter. A Specific Plan may encompass a smaller area if the City finds that it will constitute a significant portion of a distinct and cohesive neighborhood and will otherwise correlate with planning, installation, and financing of infrastructure for the Comprehensive Planning District. No size standard is established for the Dry Creek, Stanislaus River, and Tuolumne River CPDs. No size standard is necessary in those Comprehensive Planning Districts where a comprehensive Specific Plan or Plans have been adopted. Similarly, no size standard is established for the Salida Comprehensive Planning District area. (Policy III-D.1[n]) The following Urban Growth Review policies apply to land use and planning impacts (City of Modesto 2003c). LUP-61: The UAGP provides for a periodic review of the City’s Urban Area Growth Policy. The primary purpose of the review is to assure that there is an adequate inventory of vacant and agricultural land served with urban infrastructure to accommodate anticipated economic development during the next five years. If there is not sufficient inventory, there is a deficit in needed land and additional land should be added to the Current Inventory. The last urban growth review was accepted by the City Council in July 2003. The following voter advisory acts apply to land use decisions in Modesto. LUP-62: Modesto voters enacted Measure A, the “Citizens’ Advisory Growth Management Act,” in 1979, to require the City Council to hold a citizens advisory vote before extending sewer trunk lines to areas outside of the current sewer service area. ---PAGE BREAK--- Chapter V. Environmental Analysis Modesto General Plan Update Final Master EIR V-20-15 Section 20. Land Use and Planning October 2008 LUP-63: Measure M, the “Modesto Citizens’ Advisory Growth Management Act of 1995,” was approved in 1997. The purpose of Measure M is to extend the advisory votes required by Measure A to all sewer improvements. Other policies related to land use and planning include the following. LUP-64: The City of Modesto applies “Smart City” principles to planning. (Goal V.A) LUP-65: Mix land uses within neighborhoods. (Strategy V.A.1) LUP-66: Promote compact building design. (Strategy V.A.2) LUP-67: Create housing opportunities and choices for a range of household types, family sizes and incomes. (Strategy V.A.3) LUP-68: Create walkable communities. (Strategy V.A.4) LUP-69: Foster distinctive, attractive communities with a strong sense of place. (Strategy V.A.5) LUP-70: Preserve open space, farmland, natural beauty, historic buildings, and critical environmental areas. (Strategy V.A.6) LUP-71: Reinvest in and strengthen existing communities and achieve more balanced regional development. (Strategy V.A.7) LUP-72: Make development decisions predictable, fair, and cost effective. (Strategy V.A.8) LUP-73: Manage development to achieve an orderly development pattern and a balanced economy. Agricultural preservation and achieving a jobs-housing balance are priorities. (Goal V.B) LUP-74: Achieve an equitable jobs-housing balance and avoid fiscal strains of leapfrog development. (Strategy V.B.1) LUP-75: Expand city limits to include urbanized unincorporated areas that are substantially surrounded by city. (Strategy V.B.2) LUP-76: Maintain a strong central business district as an identifiable center for all of Stanislaus County. (Strategy IX.A) LUP-77: Preserve and revitalize downtown. (Strategy IX-B) LUP-78: Promote high density housing in the downtown core. (Strategy IX.C) The City’ Municipal Code also contains regulations pertaining to land use and planning (City of Modesto 2007d). LUP 79: Titles 9, 10, 11, and 12 (Building Regulations; Planning and Zoning; Public Utilities; and Parks, Recreation and Neighborhoods, respectively) of the City Municipal Code contain the City’s planning, zoning, subdivision, and building regulations. e. Other Governing Bodies Stanislaus County Local Agency Formation Commission State law established the Stanislaus County LAFCo to administer the local government reorganization process. This includes incorporation of new cities, formation of special ---PAGE BREAK--- Chapter V. Environmental Analysis Modesto General Plan Update Final Master EIR V-20-16 Section 20. Land Use and Planning October 2008 districts, annexations to cities and special districts, and establishment of spheres of influence for all cities and special districts. The LAFCo is responsible for the orderly provision of services and the conservation of agricultural and open-space lands. It is composed of elected officials from Stanislaus County and its cities, as well as members-at-large. The LAFCo decides whether land is to be annexed to the City of Modesto and which agency county, city, or special district) will provide services to newly annexed areas. City of Ceres The City of Ceres is located directly south of Modesto. Its sphere of influence abuts the Modesto planning area. Ceres has adopted its own general plan that guides development within the city. Land use in the unincorporated areas surrounding Ceres is regulated by the County. City of Riverbank The City of Riverbank is located directly north of Modesto. Its sphere of influence abuts the Modesto planning area. Riverbank has adopted its own general plan that guides development within the city. Land use in the unincorporated areas surrounding Riverbank is regulated by the County. Stanislaus Council of Governments Regional Transportation Plan The Stanislaus Council of Governments (StanCOG is the region’s transportation planning agency and prepares the Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) (Government Code Section 65080, et seq.). Along with the Regional Transportation Improvement Program, the RTP is the basis for state and federal funding of transportation improvements. The RTP describes the proposed, priority transportation system, including roads, mass transit, and pedestrian and bicycle facilities for the county. The RTP also describes the region’s transportation objectives and policies. It contains an action element describing the programs that will implement the plan, as well as a financial element describing the cost of plan implementation. Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan Pursuant to Public Utilities Code sections 21670–21679.5, Airport Land Use Commissions (ALUCs) have the authority to regulate land use decisions in the vicinity of airports in order to "protect public health, safety, and welfare by ensuring the orderly expansion of airports and the adoption of land use measures that minimize the public's exposure to the extent that these areas are not already devoted to incompatible uses." The commission's chief business is to prepare and enforce a land use plan for the area ---PAGE BREAK--- Chapter V. Environmental Analysis Modesto General Plan Update Final Master EIR V-20-17 Section 20. Land Use and Planning October 2008 surrounding each general aviation airport in the county. After adopting an airport land- use compatibility plan, the ALUC is to review the land use plans and zoning ordinances of cities and other local agencies (such as school districts) that affect the area within the airport planning boundary established by the ALUC. Section 21676 provides that local agencies whose general plan includes areas covered by an ALUC plan must submit a copy of its general plan and specific plans to the commission. Before amending a general plan or specific plan or adopting a zoning ordinance that overlaps with the ALUC's plan boundaries, the local agency must first refer the proposed action to the ALUC. The local agency may only adopt a general plan or specific plan or zoning ordinance that conflicts with the ALUC plan upon a 2/3rds majority vote of its legislative body. In 2003, the legislature limited the ability of local agencies to overrule the ALUC (Assembly Bill [AB] 332). A local agency that proposes to overrule the ALUC must first provide the ALUC and the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) Division of Aeronautics, with the proposed decision at least 45 days in advance. Any comments by the ALUC or Division of Aeronautics must be included in the final record of the local agency's final decision to overrule the ALUC. The Stanislaus County ALUC has adopted an airport land-use compatibility plan for the Modesto City-County Airport with the plan’s boundaries being the outer boundaries of the Modesto City-County Airport Approach and Clear Zone Plan (Stanislaus County Airport Land Use Commission 2004). This is an oval area generally encompassing the central, eastern, and southeastern portions of the Modesto planning area and the City of Ceres. Natural Habitat Planning and Open Space Conservation Programs Although there are no relevant habitat conservation plans (HCPs) or natural community conservation plans in the City of Modesto, there are three riparian corridors within the planning area (Dry Creek, Stanislaus River, Tuolumne River) that are designated as CPDs under the UAGP. Development within these areas is subject to a Comprehensive Plan and a focused EIR prepared for that plan per Policies III-D.1[e] and of the UAGP. The Tuolumne River CPD includes a significant amount of public land owned by a joint-powers authority (JPA) made up of Modesto, Ceres, and Stanislaus County. The JPA has completed and the City has certified a Master EIR for the TRRP Master Plan. Policies That Avoid Impacts The following City policies are in effect or proposed as part of this update and have been determined to reduce, avoid, or mitigate environmental impacts within the existing city limits and within the Planned Urbanizing Area. County policies are included because they reduce or avoid cumulative impacts. The policy reference numbers are listed, and the full text of these policies is found in Section A-4, Existing Policies Applying to the Study Area. ---PAGE BREAK--- Chapter V. Environmental Analysis Modesto General Plan Update Final Master EIR V-20-18 Section 20. Land Use and Planning October 2008 Stanislaus County Policies: The territory outside the city limits is under Stanislaus County jurisdiction. The Stanislaus County General Plan has the following applicable policies, identified in Section A-4 above: LUP-1 through LUP-25. City of Modesto Policies The UAGP provides the following policies identified in Section A-4 related to land use and planning: 1. Baseline Developed Area: LUP-26 through LUP-48 2. Planned Urbanizing Area: LUP-49 through LUP-79 B. CONSIDERATION AND DISCUSSION OF SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS The following information is provided in accordance with Section 15126.2 of the State CEQA Guidelines. 1. Thresholds of Significance Suggested by the California Environmental Quality Act CEQA directs agencies to analyze effects on the environment, including land use and planning, using Appendix G of the State CEQA Guidelines. Appendix G of the State CEQA Guidelines is a sample checklist for assessing potential impacts on land use and planning. It offers the following broad suggestions for impact assessment: Would the project: a. Physically divide an established community? b. Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? c. Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? 2. Thresholds of Significance Suggested by Other Analytical Methods No applicable thresholds of significance by other analytical methods are available. 3. Thresholds of Significance Adopted by the City of Modesto The City will use the thresholds set out in the State CEQA Guidelines. ---PAGE BREAK--- Chapter V. Environmental Analysis Modesto General Plan Update Final Master EIR V-20-19 Section 20. Land Use and Planning October 2008 4. Significant Direct Impacts a. Baseline Developed Area and Redevelopment Area The policies of the UAGP would not result in physical division of an established community, a conflict with applicable plans or policies, or land use/operational conflicts between existing and proposed uses. Therefore, the impacts of development on land use and planning in these areas will be less than significant. b. Planned Urbanizing Area UAGP Figure II-1, Adopted Land Use Diagram, does not identify any proposed land use designations that would divide an established community, and the UAGP includes several policies that serve to build community, including promoting the variety of land uses needed for walkable communities. The UAGP is also consistent with applicable land use policies. As identified above under Section A-4, Existing Policies Applying to the Study Area, LUP-27 would ensure that zoning changes are consistent with the intent of the General Plan; LUP-29, 32, 50, 56, 57, and 58 would ensure that the Specific Plans implement the vision of the UAGP within the relevant CPDs, including addressing relevant Growth Strategy Designations; and LUP-30 would ensure that the land use designations at the Jennings River and Sutter Avenue wastewater sites are consistent with those identified in the TRRP Master Plan. LUP-61 promotes the periodic review of the Urban Area Growth Policy by the City Council. One of the primary purposes of land use planning is to minimize the impacts that various land uses have on adjacent areas. A number of land uses, including industrial and commercial, can significantly impact sensitive land uses, such as residential neighborhoods, schools, and office uses. A number of UAGP policies serve to reduce potential land-use compatibility impacts: LUP-31 promotes an orderly pattern of development; LUP-33 promotes the creation of Transit Villages which would place transit-oriented development with compatible uses to ensure the highest use of public transit; and the Neighborhood Planning Prototype Policies in LUP-34 through LUP-40 would ensure compatible uses within residential neighborhoods. LUP-62 and 63 remind that Measures A and M require voter advisory approval of development outside the current service boundary (the vote is advisory to the City Council). Although the UAGP foresees the expansion of the City’s sphere of influence and the future annexation of currently unincorporated lands, LAFCo would be the responsible decision- making authority in determining whether these lands would be appropriate to annex into the City boundaries and how public services are to be provided efficiently. The UAGP distributes land uses to minimize land use impacts and contains specific goals and policies to mitigate existing or potential conflicts. The UAGP strives to preserve, revitalize, and ensure compatibility throughout the City by promoting mixed-use developments and transit-oriented development in strategic locations, redevelopment of blighted areas and the downtown core, and preservation of historic neighborhoods. Additional guidance ensures quality development and integration with surrounding areas. Therefore, the impacts of development on the Planned Urbanizing Area related to the land use and planning are considered less than significant. ---PAGE BREAK--- Chapter V. Environmental Analysis Modesto General Plan Update Final Master EIR V-20-20 Section 20. Land Use and Planning October 2008 There is no habitat conservation plan or natural communities conservation plan in effect in Stanislaus County, so this consideration does not apply. 5. Significant Cumulative Impacts CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines require the disclosure of the significant cumulative environmental effects, whether the project will make a cumulatively considerable contribution to any such effects, and, if so, mitigation measures intended to reduce the project’s contribution (Section 15130 of the State CEQA Guidelines). A cumulative effect is one that results from past, present, and probable future projects. A project that has a less-than-significant direct effect on the environment may nonetheless make a considerable contribution to a cumulative effect. A cumulative impact analysis first identifies whether there exists a cumulatively significant effect in the given resource area. If so, it determines whether the project will make a considerable contribution to that effect. Where a cumulative impact is severe, even a small contribution may be considerable. Where a project is required to implement or fund its fair share of a mitigation measure designed to alleviate the cumulative impact, its contribution will be rendered less than considerable. (Section 15130(a) of the State CEQA Guidelines) No cumulative impacts are identified for land use and planning because measures are in place to reduce cumulative impacts under the UAGP. Accordingly, the project would not contribute to a cumulative impact and therefore, the cumulative impact is less than significant. The project’s contribution to the cumulative impact on agriculture is analyzed in Master EIR Section V-4. 6. Impacts for Which there Is Insufficient Information to Support a Full Analysis There is no such impact for land use and planning. C. MITIGATION MEASURES ADOPTED TO MINIMIZE SIGNIFICANT EFFECTS The following information is provided in accordance with Section 15126.4 of the State CEQA Guidelines. 1. Measures That Mitigate Direct Impacts The adopted and proposed policies of the UAGP (Proposed UAGP update policies LUP-27 through LUP-63), listed in Section A-4, Existing Policies Applying to the Study Area, would eliminate direct impacts by promoting mixed-use developments and transit-oriented development in strategic locations, and requiring the comprehensive planning of new development areas. 2. Measures That Mitigate Cumulative Impacts The adopted and proposed policies of the UAGP (Proposed UAGP update policies LUP-27 through LUP-63), listed in Section A-4, Existing Policies Applying to the Study Area, and applicable to ---PAGE BREAK--- Chapter V. Environmental Analysis Modesto General Plan Update Final Master EIR V-20-21 Section 20. Land Use and Planning October 2008 direct impacts, would also mitigate the cumulative impact on land use and planning by minimizing any divisions of communities and land use conflicts on lands annexed to the City in the future. 3. Alternatives to the Proposed Project. The following information is provided in accordance with Section 15126.6 of the State CEQA Guidelines. The project does not result in significant impacts to land use and planning. No alternative designs that would lessen effects are necessary. D. MONITORING THESE MITIGATION MEASURES The following information is provided in accordance with Public Resources Code (PRC) Section 21081.6. The mitigation measures identified in the Master EIR have been incorporated into the UAGP and are implemented by that plan. City staff provides the City Council with an annual report of General Plan implementation. Therefore, no separate mitigation monitoring plan is required in the UAGP Master EIR. E. EVALUATING SUBSEQUENT PROJECTS The following information will be used to determine whether subsequent projects conform to the Master EIR, as outlined in PRC Section 21157.1(c). Anticipated future projects, as presented in Chapter II, are within the scope of analysis for the effects on land use and planning as long as the following circumstances have not changed. 1. The lead agency for subsequent projects shall be the City of Modesto or any responsible agency identified in the Master EIR. 2. The following City policies found in Section A-4, Existing Policies Applying to the Study Area, continue to be in force to reduce, avoid, or mitigate impacts: LUP-26 through LUP-79. 3. No additional significant effect on land use and planning is identified within the planning area, and no new mitigation measures are required. F. KEEPING THE MASTER ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT CURRENT FOR THIS TOPIC As authorized by PRC Section 21166, the analysis contained in Section B, Consideration and Discussion of Significant Environmental Impacts, is current as long as the following circumstances have not occurred. 1. The planning area population increases more rapidly than projected by the UAGP, indicating that the planning area will be insufficient to accommodate expected growth in 2025. ---PAGE BREAK--- Chapter V. Environmental Analysis Modesto General Plan Update Final Master EIR V-20-22 Section 20. Land Use and Planning October 2008 2. The planning area is expanded beyond the May 2008 (estimated date of certification for General Plan/Master EIR Update) boundaries. 3. Substantial changes have occurred with respect to the circumstances under which the UAGP is being undertaken that would require major revisions in the Master EIR by indicating that there would be an additional significant effect on the environment and new or additional mitigation measures or alternatives may be required. ---PAGE BREAK--- Chapter V. Environmental Analysis Modesto General Plan Update Final Master EIR V-21-1 Section 21. Climate Change October 2008 Section 21 Climate Change This section describes how development and other activities associated with the City of Modesto Urban Area General Plan (UAGP) would contribute to global climate change. Mitigation measures are provided herein to reduce impacts of future development. Some of the policies and mitigation measures identified for traffic, air quality, and energy in Sections V-1, V-2, and V-18, respectively, will also help mitigate climate change impacts by reducing consumption of fossil fuels. However, traffic measures that increase road capacity tend to induce new vehicle trips, resulting in increased vehicle miles traveled (VMT) and increased greenhouse gas emissions. The trend toward increased VMT associated with future development within the UAGP is substantial, in excess of the rate of population growth. (California Energy Commission 2007) A. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING The following information is provided in accordance with Section 15125 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines. This environmental setting is the baseline for determining whether an impact of the UAGP is significant. 1. Study Area for Direct Impacts The project does not have any direct impacts as defined in CEQA on global climate change. As defined in Section 15358 of the State CEQA Guidelines, direct impacts “are caused by the project and occur at the same time and place.” The cause of global climate change is generally accepted to be the increased production of greenhouse gases resulting from human activities worldwide. As a result, there is no discrete study area for direct impacts. 2. Study Area for Cumulative Impacts This analysis is based on the plan or projection approach to examining cumulative effects, as provided under Section 15130(b)(1)(B) of the State CEQA Guidelines. The study area for cumulative impacts on climate change is the whole earth. Because of the broad study area involved with global climate change, there is no plan that fully describes the impact. At the same time, the scope of the affected area and contributing factors makes a list approach infeasible. As a result, this section will rely on studies that describe the issue broadly. The UAGP authorizes development that will contribute to global climate change by virtue of the production of greenhouse gases. While the effects of local greenhouse gas production are not noticeable at the local level, local development and human activity nonetheless contribute to global greenhouse gas emissions. In particular, the projected rate of growth of VMT will increase the City’s contribution to global climate change as the City develops. ---PAGE BREAK--- Chapter V. Environmental Analysis Modesto General Plan Update Final Master EIR V-21-2 Section 21. Climate Change October 2008 3. Existing Physical Conditions in the Study Area a. Overview Air quality conditions in Modesto and the San Joaquin Valley Air Basin are discussed in Section V-2, Air Quality. b. Greenhouse Gases Activities such as fossil fuel combustion, deforestation, and other changes in land use result in the accumulation of greenhouse gases (GHGs) such as carbon dioxide (CO2) in our atmosphere. An increase in GHG emissions results in an increase in the earth’s average surface temperature, which is commonly referred to as global warming. Global warming is expected, in turn, to affect weather patterns, average sea level, ocean acidification, chemical reaction rates, precipitation rates, etc., in a manner commonly referred to as climate change. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has been established by the World Meteorological Organization and United Nations Environment Programme to assess scientific, technical, and socioeconomic information relevant to the understanding of climate change, its potential impacts, and options for adaptation and mitigation. The IPCC’s best estimates are that the average global temperature rise between 2000 and 2100 could range from 0.6°C (with no increase in GHG emissions above year 2000 levels) to 4.0°C (with substantial increase in GHG emissions) (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change 2007). Large increases in global temperatures will have massive deleterious impacts on the natural and human environments. According to the Federal Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), a GHG is any gas that absorbs infrared radiation in the atmosphere. This absorption traps heat within the atmosphere, creating a “greenhouse” effect that is slowly raising global temperatures. GHGs include water vapor, CO2, methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), halogenated chlorofluorocarbons ozone (O3), perfluorinated carbons (PFCs), and hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs). Naturally occurring GHGs include water vapor, CO2, CH4, N2O, and O3. Many human activities add to the levels of most of these naturally occurring gases. CO2 is released to the atmosphere when solid waste, fossil fuels (oil, natural gas, and coal), and wood and wood products are burned. N2O is emitted during agricultural and industrial activities, as well as during combustion of solid waste and fossil fuels. CO2 and N2O are the two GHGs released in greatest quantities from mobile sources burning gasoline and diesel fuel. The California Energy Commission’s Inventory of California Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990 to 2004 estimates that California is the second largest emitter of GHG emissions in the United States (only Texas emits more GHG). The Commission estimates that in 1990, California’s gross GHG emissions amounted to between 425 and 452 million metric tons of CO2 equivalent. The California Energy Commission (CEC) estimates that in 2004, California’s gross GHG emissions were 492 million metric tons of CO2 equivalent. The transportation sector produced approximately 40.7 percent of California’s GHG emissions in 2004. Electric power production accounted for approximately 22.2 percent of emissions (including estimated emissions from out-of-state coal-fired power plants), the industrial ---PAGE BREAK--- Chapter V. Environmental Analysis Modesto General Plan Update Final Master EIR V-21-3 Section 21. Climate Change October 2008 sector contributed 20.5 percent of the total, agriculture and forestry contributed 8.3 percent, and other sectors contributed 8.3 percent (California Energy Commission 2006). Sinks of CO2 (which absorb, rather than produce, CO2), include uptake by vegetation and dissolution into the ocean. GHG production greatly exceeds the absorption capacity of natural sinks. As a result, concentrations of GHG in the atmosphere are on the increase. (California Energy Commission 2006) Estimates of GHG emissions do not include additional "lifecycle" emissions related to transportation, such as the extraction and refining of fuel and the manufacture of vehicles, which are also significant sources of domestic and international GHG emissions (Environmental Protection Agency 2007). Since the industrial revolution, concentrations of GHGs in the earth’s atmosphere have been gradually increasing. Recently recorded increases in the earth’s average temperature are the result of increases in concentrations of GHG. Climate change is a global problem, and GHGs are global pollutants, unlike criteria air pollutants (such as ozone precursors) and toxic air contaminants (TACs), which are pollutants of regional and local concern. Worldwide, California is estimated to be the 12th to 16th largest emitter of CO2 (California Energy Commission 2006) and is responsible for approximately 2 percent of the world’s CO2 emissions (California Energy Commission 2006). These changes in California’s climate and ecosystems are occurring at a time when California’s population is expected to increase from 34 million to 59 million by 2040 (California Energy Commission 2006). As such, the number of people potentially affected by climate change, as well as the amount of anthropogenic GHG emissions expected under a “business as usual” scenario, is expected to significantly increase. Similar changes as those noted above for California also would occur in other parts of the world, with regional variations in resources affected and vulnerability to adverse effects. At a local level, emissions of CO2 under 2005 conditions were calculated for the UAGP planning area using the EMFAC2007 modeling program based on traffic data provided by Fehr & Peers for this master environmental impact report (Master EIR). Appendix C describes the methodology and assumptions used to model CO2 emissions. The results of the EMFAC2007 modeling indicate that, as of 2005, vehicular traffic within the Modesto planning area emitted approximately 1,207,624.4 metric tons (1,331,176.9 U.S. tons) of CO2 on an annual basis. This is based on an estimated 6,835,210 VMT per day for 2005. As a point of reference, in 1990 the City of Modesto’s estimated level of CO2 emissions from mobile sources was approximately 724,495 metric tons (798,620 U.S. tons). The 1990 population was used in conjunction with county-level EMFAC2007 model defaults to estimate vehicles, trips, VMT, and emissions for Modesto as a proportion of Stanislaus County. In 1990, the population within the corporate limits of Modesto represented approximately 44 percent of the County’s total population; by 2006, Modesto’s share of the countywide population had declined to approximately 40 percent. ---PAGE BREAK--- Chapter V. Environmental Analysis Modesto General Plan Update Final Master EIR V-21-4 Section 21. Climate Change October 2008 4. Existing Policies Applying to the Study Area Reducing GHG emissions will rely on reducing the levels of generation by vehicles, reducing consumption of energy generated by GHG emitting power plants, changes in industrial practices, and other actions. Following is a comprehensive list of major federal, state and local (county and City) policies in effect that apply to the study area. This list provides the full range of applicable policies that a project within the study area would potentially need to comply with, including policies beyond the jurisdiction of the City of Modesto. This list of laws, regulations, and programs also serves to describe the circumstances under which the environmental topic was analyzed. As a global issue, climate change is being addressed internationally, as well. Numerous other countries, particularly the United Kingdom and the members of the European Union, have enacted policies and regulations intended to reduce global GHG emissions. These address industrial practices, land use patterns, energy conservation, alternative energy sources, and transport. Those policies and regulations are too numerous to repeat here. With regard to reduction targets, each of the countries that are signatories to the 2005 Kyoto Protocol have accepted the goal of reducing their GHG emissions by an individual amount to reach an overall reduction of 5 percent below 1990 levels by 2008 and 2012. The United States is not a signatory. A discrete reference number, following the initials of the resource topic, is assigned to each policy or policy summary listed to facilitate its identification elsewhere in this Master EIR or, where appropriate, its incorporation as a mitigation measure into subsequent projects analyzed under this Master EIR Climate Change policies are designated as CL-X, where X is the discrete number). a. Federal Regulations There are no federal regulations aimed at GHG, per se. In April 2007, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled 5–4 in the case of Massachusetts v. EPA that the federal EPA has the authority under the Clean Air Act (CAA) to regulate GHG emissions from new motor vehicles. However, as of this writing, the EPA has not enacted any such regulations. b. State Regulations California has been a national leader in enacting legislation and regulations intended to reduce GHG emissions. Since 2002, the state has been enacting legislation and regulations that are intended to reduce contributions to GHG. Assembly Bill 1493 Assembly Bill (AB) 1493 (Chapter 200, Statutes of 2002) directed the California Air Resources Board (ARB) to adopt regulations that achieve feasible and cost-effective GHG emissions reductions from motor vehicles. The ARB did so in 2004 and applied to the federal EPA for a waiver under the federal CAA to authorize these regulations to be implemented. The waiver request was denied by the EPA in December 2007. In January 2007, the State Attorney General filed a lawsuit against the EPA, challenging its denial of the requested waiver. The outcome of the state’s suit is pending. ---PAGE BREAK--- Chapter V. Environmental Analysis Modesto General Plan Update Final Master EIR V-21-5 Section 21. Climate Change October 2008 Assembly Bill 32 AB 32, the Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006, requires the State of California to reduce its carbon emissions by approximately 25 percent by 2020. The legislative intent of AB 32 states that global warming poses a serious threat to the environment of California, requiring immediate action. More specifically, AB 32 assigns ARB responsibility for identifying the baseline emissions in 1990, and establishing regulations that will monitor and reduce GHG emissions so that California can reduce its emissions to 1990 levels by 2020. AB 32 assigns the following tasks to ARB: „ By January 1, 2008, establish a statewide GHG emissions cap for 2020, based on 1990 emissions. In early December 2007, ARB released a 2020 target of 427 million metric tons (by way of comparison, the state was estimated to emit approximately 500 million metric tons in 2007). „ Adopt mandatory reporting rules for significant sources of greenhouse gases by January 1, 2008. „ Adopt a plan by January 1, 2009, indicating how emission reductions will be achieved from significant GHG sources via regulations, market mechanisms, and other actions. „ Adopt regulations by January 1, 2011, to achieve the maximum technologically feasible and cost-effective reductions in GHGs, including provisions for using both market mechanisms and alternative compliance mechanisms. „ Convene an Environmental Justice Advisory Committee and an Economic and Technology Advancement Advisory Committee to advise ARB. „ Ensure public notice and opportunity for comment for all ARB actions. „ Prior to imposing any mandates or authorizing market mechanisms, requires ARB to evaluate several factors, including but not limited to: impacts on California’s economy, the environment, and public health; equity between regulated entities; electricity reliability, conformance with other environmental laws, and to ensure that the rules do not disproportionately impact low-income communities. „ Adopt a list of discrete, early action measures by July 1, 2007, which can be implemented before January 1, 2010, and adopt such measures. ARB has reached this milestone. Executive Order S-3-05 This Executive Order, signed by Governor Schwarzenegger in June 2005, includes the following provisions: „ The following greenhouse gas emission reduction targets are hereby established for California: by 2010, reduce GHG emissions to 2000 levels; by 2020, reduce GHG emissions to 1990 levels; by 2050, reduce GHG emissions to 80 percent below 1990 levels; „ The Secretary of the California Environmental Protection Agency ("Secretary") shall coordinate oversight of the efforts made to meet the targets with the Secretary of the Business, Transportation and Housing Agency; Secretary of the Department of Food and ---PAGE BREAK--- Chapter V. Environmental Analysis Modesto General Plan Update Final Master EIR V-21-6 Section 21. Climate Change October 2008 Agriculture; Secretary of the Resources Agency; Chairperson of the ARB; Chairperson of the CEC; and the President of the Public Utilities Commission; „ The Secretary shall report to the Governor and the State Legislature by January 2006 and biennially thereafter on progress made toward meeting the greenhouse gas emission targets established herein; and „ The Secretary shall also report to the Governor and the State Legislature by January 2006 and biennially thereafter on the impacts to California of global warming, including impacts to water supply, public health, agriculture, the coastline, and forestry, and shall prepare and report on mitigation and adaptation plans to combat these impacts. Executive Orders are directives to state agencies from the Governor of California. They do not govern local agency actions, nor do they affect the State Legislature. While S-3-05 is an indicator of state policy as interpreted by the Governor, it does not reflect the view of the Legislature. It is, however, one of the factors being considered by state agencies such as the ARB, the CEC, and the Building Standards Commission in formulating their GHG reduction strategies. Energy conservation standards for new residential and non-residential buildings were adopted by California Energy Resources Conservation and Development Commission (CERCDC) in June 1977 and most recently revised in 2005. Title 24, Part 6 of the California Code of Regulations (CCR) (California’s Energy Efficiency Standards for Residential and Nonresidential Buildings) was established in 24 CCR Part 6 in 1978, in response to a legislative mandate to reduce California’s energy consumption. Title 24 requires the design of building shells and building components to conserve energy. The standards are updated periodically to allow for consideration and possible incorporation of new energy efficiency technologies and methods. The 2006 Appliance Efficiency Regulations, (Title 20, CCR Sections 1601 through 1608) dated December 2006, were adopted by the CEC on October 11, 2006, and approved by the California Office of Administrative Law on December 14, 2006. The regulations include standards for both federally regulated appliances and non-federally regulated appliances. While these regulations are now often seen as “business as usual,” they do exceed the standards imposed by any other state and reduce GHG emissions by reducing energy demand. In mid-February 2008, the California Building Standards Commission begins the process of adopting the California Green Building Standards Code (proposed Part 11, Title 24) as part of the California Building Standards Code (Title 24, California Code of Regulations). This Green Building Code is intended to encourage reduction of GHG emissions in recognition of AB 32 and Executive Order S-3-05. As proposed in December 2007, Part 11 would establish voluntary standards including planning and design for sustainable site development, energy efficiency (in excess of the California Energy Code requirements), water conservation, material conservation, and internal air contaminants. The effectiveness of this prospective code will depend upon its adoption and implementation by local agencies. (California Building Standards Commission 2007.) California Energy Commission The CEC prepares California’s GHG inventory, is developing transportation fuel policy, and manages climate change technical research programs. It also coordinates a number of energy ---PAGE BREAK--- Chapter V. Environmental Analysis Modesto General Plan Update Final Master EIR V-21-7 Section 21. Climate Change October 2008 efficiency programs, including the emerging renewables program that offers rebates on small wind and fuel-cell electrical generation systems. CL-1: Reduce statewide GHG emissions to 1990 levels by 2020. Additionally, pursuant to S- 3-05, state agencies are to reduce GHG emissions to 2000 levels by 2010, reduce GHG emissions to 1990 levels by 2020, and reduce GHG emissions to 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050. c. San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District Programs The San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (SJVAPCD) has not adopted programs addressing global climate change. Eventually, as AB 32 is implemented and guidance is provided by ARB, the SJVAPCD is expected to adopt regulations to reduce GHG emissions. Separately, the California Air Pollution Control Officers Association has issued a white paper suggesting some approaches for air districts. This is not been adopted as an official policy by any districts. (California Air Pollution Control Officers Association 2008) Also, the South Coast Air Quality Management District, which regulates the Los Angeles basin, announced in 2008 that it is drafting CEQA thresholds for the South Coast basin. Both of these initiatives may serve as starting points for air districts to establish policies for the examination of GHG in CEQA documents. d. Stanislaus County Policies The territory outside the Modesto city limits is under Stanislaus County jurisdiction. Stanislaus County has no direct GHG emissions reduction policies or goals. However, the following goal will reduce emissions, to some extent, through energy conservation. CL-2: Conserve resources through promotion of waste reduction, reuse, recycling, composting, ride-share programs, and alternative energy sources such as mini- hydroelectric plants, gas and oil exploration, and transformation facilities such as waste-to-energy plants. (Conservation/Open Space Element Goal 11) e. City of Modesto Policies The UAGP provides the following policies that relate to reducing GHG production by promoting energy conservation and the use of non-emitting energy sources. The California Environmental Quality Act identifies energy conservation as a goal in community development. Under the CEQA Guidelines, a project may have a significant environmental impact if it will “use fuel, water, or energy in a wasteful manner.” The following policies employed by the City provide sufficient mitigation for those impacts. CL-3: Removal of street trees shall be strenuously discouraged unless they are badly diseased and have become a threat to public safety. If a tree must be removed, it should be replaced no later than the end of the next planting season with a large-canopy species. (UAGP Policy VII-H.2[c]) [This will be implemented through review of individual development projects.] ---PAGE BREAK--- Chapter V. Environmental Analysis Modesto General Plan Update Final Master EIR V-21-8 Section 21. Climate Change October 2008 CL-4: The City of Modesto shall require shade trees, where feasible and appropriate, in landscape plans for all new development proposals. Mature trees have lower water needs. The City shall develop shade-tree specifications for different land uses (residential, commercial, parking lots, etc.) including appropriate types of trees (size, deciduous or evergreen, absence or lower branches, etc), locations distance from structures), density within a subdivision or parking lot), and orientation (trees on the west side of a building generally provide the most benefit) for use in landscape plans. (UAGP Policy VII-I.1[a]) [This will be implemented through review of individual development projects.] CL-5: The City shall require the planting of large-canopy species in new development areas in such a way that they grow to full size without damaging streets and sidewalks (including, but not limited to, deep watering until roots are well established, proper fertilizers, root barriers, and structured soils). (UAGP Policy VII-I.1[b]) CL-6: The goal of the street tree maintenance program is to maintain trees in the best possible health by ensuring that newly planted trees are cared for in such a way as to prevent or minimize sidewalk and street damage (including, but not limited to, deep watering until roots are well established, proper fertilizers, root barriers, and structured soils), pruning to remove mistletoe as often as necessary, pruning to prevent the tree from leaning, and using measures to control disease. (UAGP Policy VII-I.1[d]) CL-7: The City of Modesto shall encourage the Modesto and Turlock Irrigation Districts to establish and promote a program whereby existing residential and commercial building owners are provided incentives to increase the number of shade trees in developed parts of the City. The City shall also provide information on appropriate types of trees and their locations to maximize the energy savings from the program. (UAGP Policy VII-I.1[e]) [This will be implemented through interagency cooperation with MID and TID.] CL-8: The City of Modesto shall coordinate with the Modesto and Turlock Irrigation Districts (for electricity) and Pacific Gas & Electric Company (for natural gas) on all new, large- scale, development proposals in the City. (UAGP Policy VII-I[f]) [This will be implemented through interagency cooperation with MID and TID.] CL-9: The City of Modesto shall encourage the use of solar energy systems for residential, agricultural, parks, public buildings, and business purposes as provided in Government Code Section 65892.13. (General Plan Policy VII-I[g].) [This will be implemented through review of individual development projects.] CL-10: Lots in new subdivisions should be oriented in such a way to maximize solar energy. (UAGP Policy VII-I[h]) [This will be implemented through review of individual development projects.] CL-11: The City of Modesto shall approve applications for solar energy systems in accordance with State Assembly Bill 2473 (2004). (UAGP Policy VII-I[i]) [This will be implemented through review of individual development projects.] CL-12: To reduce heat gain from pavement, consider reducing street rights-of-way and pavement widths to pre-World War II widths (typically 22 to 34 feet curb-to-curb for local streets, 30 to 35 feet curb-to-curb for collector streets) and consider working with StanCOG to shift transportation money away from automobile transportation and toward non-automobile transportation; to realign CMAQ (Congestion Mitigation Air Quality Improvement Program) dollars and other similar flexible funds to non- automobile projects and clean-fuel vehicle projects; to promote increases in funding for transit, bicycle, and pedestrian projects; to promote the establishment of a regional bicycle coordinator; and to require accountability for local expenditures on bicycle and pedestrian facilities. The City shall reinstate the use of parkway strips, which allow ---PAGE BREAK--- Chapter V. Environmental Analysis Modesto General Plan Update Final Master EIR V-21-9 Section 21. Climate Change October 2008 shading of streets by street trees. (UAGP Policy VII-I[j]) [This will be implemented through review of individual development projects.] CL-13: The City shall consider instituting a development pattern that facilitates non- automobile transportation. Features of such a pattern may include redirecting growth into existing city limits in specified areas, reducing road widths, increasing sidewalk widths, and adding Class II bicycle facilities to city streets. (UAGP Policy VII-I[k]) [This will be implemented through review of individual development projects.] CL-14: The City shall consider renegotiating employee union contracts to eliminate parking subsidies for public employees, encourage carpools through preferential parking and a graduated parking fee, institute parking payouts, institute on-street metered parking that is consistent with current philosophies and technologies. (UAGP Policy VII-I[l]) [This will be implemented through review of individual development projects.] CL-15: The City shall purchase clean-fuel/alternative fuel fleet vehicles. (UAGP Policy VII- I[m]) [This will be implemented through review of individual development projects.] CL-16: All commercial development projects shall include bicycles racks and changing rooms to facilitate trips by bicycle and on foot by both employees and customers. (UAGP Policy VII-I[n]) [This will be implemented through review of individual development projects.] CL-17: The City shall attempt to facilitate development of “brownfields,” which is property on which development is complicated by the presence or potential presence of a hazardous substance, pollutant, or contaminant. (UAGP Policy VII-I[o]) [This will be implemented through review of individual development projects.] The following policies are intended to encourage the use of energy conservation features and low-emission equipment for all new residential and commercial development: CL-18: The City of Modesto shall work with the local energy providers and developers on voluntary incentive based programs to encourage the use of energy efficient designs and equipment. (UAGP Policy VII-I.1[p]) [This will be undertaken as part of the General Plan implementation program.] CL-19: The City of Modesto shall cooperate with the local building industry, utilities and the SJVAPCD to promote enhanced energy conservation standards for new construction. (General Plan Policy VII-I[q]) [This will be implemented through zoning and subdivision approvals, as well individually through the SJVAPCD’s Indirect Source Review rule.] CL-20: The City of Modesto shall encourage new residential, commercial, and industrial development to reduce air quality impacts from area sources and from energy consumption. (General Plan Policy VII-I[r]) [This will be implemented through review of individual development projects.] CL-21: The City shall consider requiring new public buildings to achieve at least the minimum LEEDTM “Certified” rating. LEEDTM certification must be applied for through the United States Green Building Council (www.usgbc.org), which administers the program and reviews and evaluates working drawings. Information about required and optional design elements can be found at the U.S. Green Building Council’s website. (General Plan Policy VII-I[s]) [This will be implemented through review of individual development projects.] CL-22: The City shall work with applicants and developers to encourage green building methods and practices and achieve LEEDTM standards for all new development. The City shall develop a program to promote green building methods. (General Plan Policy ---PAGE BREAK--- Chapter V. Environmental Analysis Modesto General Plan Update Final Master EIR V-21-10 Section 21. Climate Change October 2008 VII-I[t]) [This will be implemented through review of individual development projects.] CL-23: Renovation of buildings shall achieve as many LEEDTM pre-requisites and credits as feasible. (General Plan Policy VII-I[u]) [This will be implemented through review of individual development projects.] CL-24: The City shall work with residents, businesses, and other members of the community, including architects, builders and contractors, to encourage private development within the City to use green building methods and practices and to achieve standards set by LEEDTM for commercial and residential buildings. (General Plan Policy VII-I[v]) [This will be implemented through review of individual development projects.] CL-25: New development shall comply with Green Building Standards adopted by the California Building Standards Commission incorporated in the building codes in effect at the time of building permit application. The City shall consider adopting additional measures that achieve a greater reduction in energy and water use reduction than required by state law, which may include, but not be limited to: Cool roofs; efficiency insulation; high efficiency plumbing fixtures; tankless water heaters; high efficiency space cooling and heating systems; and, high efficiency lighting. (General Plan Policy VII-I[w]) [This will be implemented through review of individual development projects.] CL-26: The City shall encourage compliance with the new California Green Building Code Guidelines, which are expected to be adopted in 2009. (General Plan Policy VII-I[x]) [This will be implemented through review of individual development projects.] 5. Policies Which Avoid Impacts A number of policies are being implemented internationally attempting to reduce the contributions of individual countries to global climate change. Policies are still under development at the state level. Other than energy efficiency initiatives, the federal government has been slow to promote policies to reduce GHG emissions. The following City policies are in effect and have been determined to reduce, avoid, or mitigate environmental impacts within the existing city limits and within the Planned Urbanizing Areas as they annex and develop. The policy reference numbers are listed, the full text of these policies is found in Section 4 above, Existing Policies Applying to the Study Area. a. City of Modesto Policies The City’s UAGP provides the following policies: CL-3 through CL-26. B. CONSIDERATION AND DISCUSSION OF SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS The following information is provided in accordance with Section 15126.2 of the State CEQA Guidelines. ---PAGE BREAK--- Chapter V. Environmental Analysis Modesto General Plan Update Final Master EIR V-21-11 Section 21. Climate Change October 2008 1. Thresholds of Significance Suggested by CEQA CEQA currently has no thresholds for GHG emissions. Senate Bill (SB) 97 of 2007 requires the Office of Planning and Research and the California Resources Agency to adopt guidelines for mitigating GHG emissions. These are expected to be available on January 1, 2010. 2. Thresholds of Significance Suggested by Other Analytical Methods AB 32 contains legislative intent language regarding the importance of addressing climate change, with emphasis on the enactment of future state regulations that will reduce GHG emissions to 1990 levels. It does not offer guidance regarding the threshold of significance for any project. However, as a practical matter, local agencies should consider whether their policies will inhibit achievement of the 1990 objective. 3. Thresholds of Significance Approved by the City of Modesto Climate change is a global impact, fed by a myriad of individual decisions worldwide. In and of themselves, individual projects likely do not have a significant effect on global climate change. However, taken together, these individual, less-than-significant effects combine to create a significant cumulative global effect. The City has approved the following thresholds of significance to analyze the effects of the project on the production of GHGs. a. Would the general plan result in a noticeable change in global climate change? b. Would the general plan make a considerable contribution to cumulative global climate change? c. Would implementation of the general plan interfere with the implementation of AB 32’s objectives reducing GHG emissions to 1990 levels by 2020)? 4. Significant Direct Impacts a. Baseline Developed Area and Redevelopment Area The Baseline Developed Area and Redevelopment Area are already largely developed. New development within the Redevelopment Area will comply with Title 24 standards as well as City UAGP policies. Increased VMT will result from commuting in individual automobiles; however, this area is the most walkable and bikeable, area in Modesto, and also has the best transit service in the City. Impacts on global climate change by development in these areas changes in levels of use above the current baseline) would not in themselves be substantial enough to cause global climate change. The impact will be less than significant. ---PAGE BREAK--- Chapter V. Environmental Analysis Modesto General Plan Update Final Master EIR V-21-12 Section 21. Climate Change October 2008 b. Planned Urbanizing Area The Planned Urbanizing Area is larger than the City’s Baseline Developed Area and Redevelopment Area, and its development will result in a substantial increase in energy use and VMT due to the separate-use, low-intensity development that exists and is planned in that area. As discussed in Section V-1, Traffic and Circulation, continued development of Modesto in the Comprehensive Planning Districts (CPDs) will result in substantial new traffic congestion. Current development patterns in these areas do not support bicycling, walking, or other alternative transportation modes such that VMT will be reduced. Accordingly, future development is expected to continue the trend toward increased vehicle miles traveled for all trip types. The following figures (Figures V-21-1- through V-21-3) show the increase in per capita VMT by trip type. The different trip types are: „ Home-Work (H-W) „ Home-Shopping (H-S) „ Home-Other (H-O) „ Work-Other (W-O) „ Other-Other (O-O) Figure V-21-1a. Average Trip Length, Home-to-Work Trips 7.0 7.5 8.0 8.5 9.0 9.5 10.0 1990 2000 2010 2020 2030 Miles Year Mean Trip Length Trend Line ---PAGE BREAK--- Chapter V. Environmental Analysis Modesto General Plan Update Final Master EIR V-21-13 Section 21. Climate Change October 2008 Figure V-21-1b. Average Trip Length, Home-to-Shopping Trips 7.0 7.5 8.0 8.5 9.0 9.5 10.0 1990 2000 2010 2020 2030 Miles Year Mean Trip Length Trend Line Figure V-21-1c. Average Trip Length, Home-to-Other Trips 7.0 7.5 8.0 8.5 9.0 9.5 10.0 1990 2000 2010 2020 2030 Miles Year Mean Trip Length Trend Line ---PAGE BREAK--- Chapter V. Environmental Analysis Modesto General Plan Update Final Master EIR V-21-14 Section 21. Climate Change October 2008 Figure V-21-1d. Average Trip Length, Work-to-Other Trips 7.0 7.5 8.0 8.5 9.0 9.5 10.0 1990 2000 2010 2020 2030 Miles Year Mean Trip Length Trend Line Figure V-21-1e. Average Trip Length, Other-to-Other Trips 7.0 7.5 8.0 8.5 9.0 9.5 10.0 1990 2000 2010 2020 2030 Miles Year Mean Trip Length Trend Line ---PAGE BREAK--- Chapter V. Environmental Analysis Modesto General Plan Update Final Master EIR V-21-15 Section 21. Climate Change October 2008 Figure V-21-2. City of Modesto Number of Trips Figure V-21-1 shows the average trip by per trip type for 1990, 2000, 2010, 2020, and 2030. Trip length data were obtained from the Stanislaus Council of Governments (StanCOG). StanCOG was unable to provide trip length data for 1990, so a regression analysis was performed for the known data points to estimate 1990 data. Figure V-21-2 shows the number of trips per trip type for 1990, 2005, and 2025. Modesto's development pattern, combined with regional settlement patterns have and will continue to result in increasing trip for every trip type. The greatest rate of increase has been in home-to- work and home-to-shopping trips. Increased commute distances regionally are the result of commuters relocating to the San Joaquin Valley for lower-cost housing than is available near their Bay Area jobs. Longer home-to-shopping trips are the result of increasing aggregation of retail into larger buildings and shopping centers that are more centralized, as opposed to the older pattern of dispersed retail locations. In 2025, based on the EMFAC2007 modeling program and traffic data provided by Fehr & Peers, development under the UAGP will generate approximately 2,303,850.8 metric tons (2,539,560.5 U.S. tons) of CO2 from vehicular traffic (Figure V-21-3). Compared with the estimated 2005 emissions of 1,207,624.4 metric tons of CO2 discussed above, this is an increase in GHG emissions of approximately 1,096,226.4 metric tons (1,208,369 U.S. tons) per year. There is no evidence that an increase of approximately 1,096,226.4 metric tons per year alone will cause global climate change. ---PAGE BREAK--- Chapter V. Environmental Analysis Modesto General Plan Update Final Master EIR V-21-16 Section 21. Climate Change October 2008 Figure V-21-3. City of Modesto CO2 Emissions in Metric Tons The increase in GHG emissions resulting from the eventual development of the CPDs within the Planned Urbanizing Area would not be sufficient to cause global warming, taken by itself. As a result, the direct impact of development to 2025 under the UAGP is less than significant. However, it will make a significant contribution to the cumulative problem, as discussed below. 5. Significant Cumulative Impacts CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines require the disclosure of the significant cumulative environmental effects, whether the project will make a cumulatively considerable contribution to any such effects, and, if so, mitigation measures intended to reduce the project’s contribution (Section 15130 of the State CEQA Guidelines). A cumulative effect is one that results from past, present, and probable future projects. A project that has a less-than-significant direct effect on the environment may nonetheless make a considerable contribution to a cumulative effect. The decision in Communities for a Better Environment, et al v. California Resources Agency (2002) 103 Cal.App.4th 98 put the approach to evaluating a project’s contribution to a cumulative impact “In the end, the greater the existing environmental problems are, the lower the threshold should be for treating a project's contribution to cumulative impacts as significant.” AB 32 states, in part, that “Global warming poses a serious threat to the economic well-being, public health, natural resources, and the environment of California.” Because global warming is the result of GHG emissions, and GHGs are emitted by innumerable sources worldwide, global climate change is clearly a significant cumulative impact. The CEC states that increases in GHG emissions are linked to increased VMT. The Commission reports that VMT increased by nearly 3 percent annually in California between the years 1975 and 2004, while population grew at a rate of approximately 2 percent during that same period. (California Energy Commission 2007). This increase in VMT, in excess of the rate of population growth, is one indicator of the severity of the cumulative impact. ---PAGE BREAK--- Chapter V. Environmental Analysis Modesto General Plan Update Final Master EIR V-21-17 Section 21. Climate Change October 2008 In addition to the impact of GHG on the environment resulting from future development in Modesto, the impact of global climate change on Modesto must be disclosed. Recognizing that climate change is an issue of global importance, climate change could impact the natural and human environment in California in the following ways, among others: „ rising sea levels along the California coastline, particularly in San Francisco and the San Joaquin Delta due to ocean expansion may increase the risk of inundation; „ extreme-heat conditions, such as heat waves and very high temperatures, which could last longer and become more frequent would increase the potential for ozone production, increase summer energy demand, stress water supplies, and increase health risks; „ an increase in heat-related human deaths, infectious diseases and a higher risk of respiratory problems caused by deteriorating air quality; „ reduced snow pack and stream flow in the Sierra Nevada mountains, affecting winter recreation and water supplies; „ potential increase in the severity of winter storms, affecting peak stream flows and flooding that may increase the risk of flooding; „ changes in growing season conditions that could affect California agriculture, causing variations in crop quality and yield; and „ changes in distribution of plant and wildlife species due to changes in temperature, competition from colonizing species, changes in hydrologic cycles, changes in sea levels, and other climate- related effects. All of these, with the exception of rising sea level, could potentially affect Modesto. Clearly, global climate change is a serious environmental problem. Increased energy use and VMT from future development under the amended UAGP will contribute GHG emissions that add to the existing problem. As part of the traffic analysis prepared for this Master EIR, VMT in the planning area is estimated to reach 12,447,000 by 2025. This represents an 82 percent increase over the estimated 2005 VMT. Therefore, future development under the UAGP will make a cumulatively considerable contribution to global climate change. The City has identified a number of mitigation measures and general plan policies that will reduce the levels of GHG emissions that might otherwise result from the projected level of growth; however, these will not mitigate the UAGP’s contribution below a level of significance. Because the state has not adopted its full slate of regulations intended to reduce GHG emissions to 1990 levels, there is no guidepost by which to measure whether local general plans would interfere with the ability to meet that objective. However, the level of GHG emissions reduction needed (73 million metric tons or 15 percent below the 2007 emissions level) in the face of an anticipated 17 percent increase in California’s population by 2020 establishes a formidable target. The extent of reductions required will necessitate utilizing local land use regulations to vehicle GHG emissions by improving energy conservation and reducing VMT through sensitive urban design and planning. (California Department of Finance 2007a, California Department of Finance 2007b, California Energy Commission 2007. ) ---PAGE BREAK--- Chapter V. Environmental Analysis Modesto General Plan Update Final Master EIR V-21-18 Section 21. Climate Change October 2008 6. Impacts for Which There Is Insufficient Information to Support a Full Analysis There is insufficient information on the means to avoid or moderate global climate change for full analysis. For example, future state regulations that will be enacted to reduce GHG emissions to 1990 levels are unknown, so the City cannot know at this time what additional local measures may be necessary in order to assist in meeting that objective. C. MEASURES ADOPTED TO MINIMIZE SIGNIFICANT EFFECTS The following information is provided in accordance with Section 15126.4 of the State CEQA Guidelines. 1. Measures Which Mitigate Direct Impacts Because of the global nature of climate change, the planned development of Modesto under the UAGP will not, by itself, result in a significant direct impact on global climate. In other words, future development under the UAGP will not cause climate change. As a result, no mitigation is required. However, the UAGP would result in emissions that contribute to the cumulative climate change impact, as described below. 2. Measures Which Mitigate Cumulative Impacts The policies of the Modesto UAGP, listed above as CL-3 through CL-26, would reduce future development’s production of GHG by, among other things, the use of shade trees to reduce the need for air conditioning and the heat island effect of pavement; somewhat reduced residential and business emissions as a result of the most current energy-efficient building standards; voluntary incentive-based programs for energy providers and developers; the use of solar energy systems rather than fossil fuel derived energy for residential, agricultural, parks, public buildings, and business purposes; the use of passive solar design to reduce the need for winter heating and summer cooling; and the use of small wind energy systems which produce electricity without relying on fossil fuel power plants. 3. Alternatives to the Proposed Project. The following information is provided in accordance with Section 15126.6 of the State CEQA Guidelines. Both Alternative 1 (No Project) and Alternative 2 (No Changes to Street Designations) would contribute GHG emissions and make a significant cumulative contribution to global climate change. Alternative 1 would constitute “business as usual,” with future growth to 2025 similar to that proposed under the project. The level of development would be similar to both Alternative 2 and the proposed project (amended UAGP). Alternative 2 would include the same policies, as well as the mitigation measures included with the proposed project, minus certain road changes. Because the road changes proposed as part of the project are likely to increase VMT by reducing ---PAGE BREAK--- Chapter V. Environmental Analysis Modesto General Plan Update Final Master EIR V-21-19 Section 21. Climate Change October 2008 congestion and inducing additional travel, Alternative 2 would be expected to have a smaller impact than the proposed project because it would not include those road changes. D. MONITORING THESE MITIGATION MEASURES The following information is provided in accordance with Public Resources Code (PRC) Section 21081.6. The measures identified above have been incorporated into the UAGP and will be implemented by that plan. Therefore, no mitigation measures are required in the Master EIR. Monitoring will occur through staff reports on general plan implementation. E. EVALUATING SUBSEQUENT PROJECTS The following information will be used to determine whether subsequent projects conform to the Master EIR, as outlined in PRC Section 21157.1(c). Anticipated future projects, as presented in Chapter II, are within the scope of analysis for the effects on climate change as long as the following circumstances have not changed: The lead agency for subsequent projects shall be the City of Modesto or any responsible agency identified in the Master EIR. 1. The following City policies continue to be in force to reduce, avoid or mitigate impacts: CL-3 through CL-27. 2. The analysis of this Master EIR assumed that the preceding City policies, which reduce, avoid or mitigate environmental effects, would continue to be in effect and therefore would be applied to subsequent projects where appropriate. The policy reference numbers are listed, the full text of these policies is found in Section 4 above, Existing Policies Applying to the Study Area. 3. No additional significant effect on climate change is identified within the planning area. F. KEEPING THE MASTER ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT CURRENT FOR THIS TOPIC As authorized by PRC Section 21166, the analysis contained in this section is current as long as the following circumstances have not occurred. 1. The planning area population increases more rapidly than projected by the UAGP, indicating that the planning area will be insufficient to accommodate expected growth in 2025. 2. The planning area is expanded beyond its boundaries on the date of certification of this Master EIR. 3. No new information, as defined in State CEQA Guidelines Section 15162(a)(3), becomes available pertaining to GHG that would require major revisions in the Master EIR by indicating that there would be an additional significant effect on the environment and that new or additional mitigation measures or alternatives may be required. ---PAGE BREAK--- Modesto General Plan Update Final Master EIR VI-1 Chapter VI. Growth-Inducing Impacts October 2008 Chapter VI Growth-Inducing Impacts A. PURPOSE Public Resources Code (PRC) Section 21100 requires an environmental impact report (EIR) to include a detailed statement of the growth-inducing impacts of the project. Section 15126.2(d) of the State CEQA (California Environmental Quality Act) Guidelines requires this statement to include a discussion of the ways in which the proposed project could foster economic or population growth or the construction of additional housing in the surrounding environment. This statement is also to address actions that, either individually or cumulatively, would remove obstacles to population growth and otherwise encourage activities that could significantly affect the environment. B. MODESTO URBAN AREA GENERAL PLAN California Planning Law requires each city to adopt a comprehensive, long-term general plan for its physical development (Government Code Section 65300). Pursuant to Government Code Section 65302, the City of Modesto Urban Area General Plan (UAGP) is a statement of development policies that will guide the City of Modesto’s (City’s) land use decision-making to 2025. As is usually the case in a long-term land use plan, future development under the UAGP will result in significant growth beyond existing levels. For example, the City’s population was 188,856 in 2000 according to the U.S. Census of that year and had grown to 209,174 as of January 1, 2007 (State of California, Department of Finance 2007a). The current incorporated area of the City is approximately 23,454 acres; the UAGP anticipates an urban area of 42,700 acres. The ultimate population projected to occur within the UAGP boundary is 428,300, which represents the reasonable estimated population, given existing conditions. This level is not, however, expected to be reached during the UAGP’s time horizon. Rather, it would be reached at some undetermined time after 2025/2030. The UAGP presents a vision of future development for the community and a planning horizon through 2025, with a level of development and rate of growth less than the 2025 population projection of approximately 440,000 residents made by the Association of Bay Area Governments (Association of Bay Area Governments 2003). The difference is the result of the City’s more conservative approach of estimating population on the basis of infrastructure capacity, rather than simply by estimating build-out by UAGP land-use designations. By definition, a general plan is intended to accommodate future growth in a controlled manner. This accommodation is reflected in the general plan contents mandated under Government Code Section 65302. Of the seven mandatory elements, three directly relate to growth: the Land-Use Element establishes the pattern of future land uses; the Circulation Element plans the future road system, correlated to land uses; and the Housing Element identifies the means by which the City will meet its fair share of projected regional housing needs (and, by implication, population growth) for all income groups. The UAGP is by definition growth-inducing to the extent that it plans for and accommodates projected population growth and economic development. Specific growth-inducing activities include the following. ---PAGE BREAK--- Chapter VI. Growth-Inducing Impacts Modesto General Plan Update Final Master EIR VI-2 Chapter VI. Growth-Inducing Impacts October 2008 1. Designation of Land for Future Residential, Commercial, and Industrial Development This designation simplifies the process of obtaining approvals to develop land for urban uses. Development within the Planned Urbanizing Area will require future approvals of Community Plans (and related specific plans) before development may occur. With the exceptions of the Dry Creek, Tuolumne River, and Stanislaus River Comprehensive Planning Districts (which are intended for open space uses), the UAGP sets the tenor for future urban expansion into the Planned Urbanizing Area. The UAGP also provides for infill development in the Baseline Developed and Redevelopment Areas. In general, infill development is considered less growth-inducing than is the extension of urban infrastructure to previously unserved areas. The UAGP will provide for infill of currently vacant areas of the Baseline Developed Area, as well as intensification of development within the Redevelopment Area. Infill may marginally reduce the growth-inducing impact of the UAGP, but the fact remains that most new development within the City is projected to occur in the Planned Urbanizing Area. 2. Improvements to and Extensions of the City’s Wastewater Treatment System Along with adoption of the Wastewater Master Plan and Measure M, the UAGP establishes City policies encouraging the eventual expansion of the wastewater treatment plants and extension of sewer mains to serve the Planned Urbanizing Area. This expansion will enable development of this area at urban densities. 3. Extension of Police and Fire Services to Annexed Lands The UAGP policies provide for the maintenance of police and fire service at current levels as the City expands. This maintained level will enable development of the Planned Urbanizing Area at urban densities. 4. Extension of Water Service to Lands within the Urban Area The UAGP policies provide for the eventual extension of water service to the Planned Urbanizing Area. This extension will enable development of the Planned Urbanizing Area at urban densities. 5. Road Improvements The UAGP identifies future expressways, arterials, and collector roads that will serve the Planned Urbanizing Area. This circulation system will form the framework within which future local streets will be built. The road system will provide vehicle access necessary to develop the area at urban densities. ---PAGE BREAK--- Chapter VI. Growth-Inducing Impacts Modesto General Plan Update Final Master EIR VI-3 Chapter VI. Growth-Inducing Impacts October 2008 6. Multiplier Effect The UAGP will also induce indirect growth through a multiplier effect. A multiplier effect describes the web of impacts resulting from the economic relationships between the City and the surrounding region. Increased housing and job opportunities in Modesto may have a multiplier effect on other communities in the region, whereby the City provides housing that may support employment centers outside Modesto and provides jobs for those who live outside Modesto. This multiplier effect can manifest itself in growth as well as in associated traffic. The extent to which the multiplier effect induces housing and job growth beyond Modesto’s planning area, where that growth may be located, and the intensity of that growth, cannot be quantified at this time. C. GROWTH-INDUCING IMPACT MITIGATION A general plan is by definition growth-inducing. In Modesto, this effect is moderated to some extent by the Community Growth Strategy, Community Development, and Community Services and Facilities policies of the UAGP (Sections II.C, III.D, V.C, and V.D). Development within each of these districts will be timed to coincide with the availability of sewer service and will be required to comply with the individual comprehensive plans that will be adopted for each district. In addition, development within these areas will be required to support the cost of new infrastructure. As a result, future growth consistent with the UAGP will occur in a measured way, at urban densities, with sufficient infrastructure to serve that growth. While not halting growth, this strategy ensures that growth does not occur in a manner that is wasteful of resources (including agricultural land) or that stretches infrastructure beyond comfortable levels. The following UAGP policies reduce the impacts of growth: II.C.1 Urban Area Growth Policy Review A review of the growth trends in the Modesto Urban Area should be held on a periodic basis. This periodic review should provide for the selection of potential urban areas to be served with urban infrastructure during the ensuing five years. This review should be focused on the information presented in Section 2, 3, and 4, below, and on the following policies: II.C.1[a] In general, maintenance of a five-year supply of available developable land served with urban infrastructure is desirable. II.C.1[b] Urban development should be kept as contiguous as possible in order to avoid premature urbanization of valuable farmland, foster resident convenience, and provide for economy in City services. II.C.1[c] Residential growth and development within the Modesto Urban Area General Plan shall take place only following annexation to the City. II.C.1[d] Urban growth should be directed, as long as economically feasible, to areas currently served with City services. II.C.1[e] The Master EIR should be updated when necessary (see Section 3, below). Additional mitigating policies in the UAGP include the following: III.D.1[e] Each Specific Plan shall be accompanied by a long-range financing strategy which provides reasonable estimates of the costs of on- and off-site infrastructure to support the proposed development pattern. The strategy should generally address public ---PAGE BREAK--- Chapter VI. Growth-Inducing Impacts Modesto General Plan Update Final Master EIR VI-4 Chapter VI. Growth-Inducing Impacts October 2008 facility funding, including schools, for any development project which serves to implement the subject Specific Plan. If new public facilities are required which will also serve the broader community, the Specific Plan should include options for broad- based funding mechanisms. III.D.1[k] The Specific Plan for each Comprehensive Planning District shall address the policies for the relevant Growth Strategy Designation (Baseline Developed Area or Planned Urbanizing Area) presented in Chapters II, III, IV, V, VI, and VII and storm water collection, retention, and discharge. The developer must pay these costs. Building permits (residential construction and/or certificates of occupancy (commercial construction) will not be issued until storm water facilities are installed and approved. III.D.1[l] Each Specific Plan or Planning District shall address the need to provide sanitary sewer service, using the Sanitary Sewer Diagram presented in Chapter V. V.C.4[b] The City of Modesto shall coordinate land development projects with the expansion of water treatment and supply facilities. V.D.4[b] The City of Modesto will require each new development project to be served with public sanitary sewers. Utilities located in private streets shall be part of the public sewerage system and shall be connected to a sewer lateral. V.D.4[c] The City of Modesto will coordinate land development proposals with the expansion of wastewater facilities. This approach ensures that development within the Planned Urbanizing Area will occur as demand arises and services are available, and that future roads and utility extensions will be sized appropriately to serve planned development. This will not eliminate the growth-inducing impacts of the UAGP, but will moderate the rate at which those impacts occur. ---PAGE BREAK--- Modesto General Plan Update Final Master EIR VII-1 Chapter VII. Irreversible Impacts October 2008 Chapter VII Irreversible Impacts A. PURPOSE Public Resources Code (PRC) Section 21100(b) requires the master environmental impact report (Master EIR) to identify any significant effects of the project that would be irreversible if the project were implemented. These are essentially the same as the significant impacts that cannot be mitigated. Section 15126.2(c) of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines offers examples of what may constitute irreversible environmental changes. These include the use of nonrenewable resources and irretrievable commitments of resources. B. IRREVERSIBLE IMPACTS By statute, the City of Modesto Urban Area General Plan (UAGP) is to comprise “a comprehensive, long-term general plan for the physical development of the county or city, and of any land outside its boundaries which in the planning agency’s judgment bears relation to its planning.” (Government Code Section 65300) The UAGP would enable Modesto to grow over time from its January 1, 2007, population of 209,174 residents to an ultimate population within the Modesto planning area of 428,300 at some time after 2025, beyond the horizon of this plan. The development of homes, businesses, and industry as provided under the UAGP would commit or consume nonrenewable resources—such as fossil fuels to serve transportation and manufacturing needs, agricultural soil, water supply, clean air, and wildlife habitat—and would increase solid waste. Fossil fuels are used in autos, trucks, and trains. Petroleum also is used in plastics, paving, dyes, fabric, and other building materials of the built environment. Natural gas is used for heating, for fuel, and for generating electricity. The potential consumption of energy resources by development permitted in the project area under the UAGP can be mitigated at least partially by conservation measures required by the City of Modesto (City), as well as by energy production encouraged by alternate sources, such as wind, solar, and cogeneration facilities. Despite conservation, increases in population, vehicle miles traveled, and economic activity would lead to increases in the amount of fossil fuels and energy that are consumed. The Modesto area contains very high quality agricultural soils. Urban development would overlay these soils, and, although they would not actually be destroyed, they no longer would be available for agricultural use. Under the assumption that radical changes in lifestyle or economic conditions would not occur to halt this conversion, this loss would be irreversible. As a result of increased population, the project would contribute to a cumulative loss of natural water resources in the San Joaquin Valley and contribute to the need to identify additional water resources. This impact would be at least partially mitigated through conservation measures required by the City, including the use of reclaimed water, water conserving devices, and drought-tolerant landscaping. ---PAGE BREAK--- Chapter VII. Irreversible Impacts Modesto General Plan Update Final Master EIR VII-2 Chapter VII. Irreversible Impacts October 2008 Air quality in the project area and the San Joaquin Valley would be degraded as a result of the growth identified in the UAGP, in concert with growth throughout the valley. The amount of pollutant emissions and particulate levels would increase in Modesto chiefly through motor vehicle–generated emissions and grading activities, but pollutants carried in from elsewhere by prevailing winds would continue to contribute to air pollution problems. In the long term, these impacts are to be mitigated by state and federal Clean Air Act standards and air pollution control district regulations, as well as policies in the UAGP. However, cleaner air is decades away at best, considering the current level of pollution and status of attainment plans. Increased population and employment would result in an increase in solid waste. Although solid waste is not generally considered a nonrenewable resource, it is at least partly made up of the byproducts of nonrenewable resources, such as steel, aluminum, and plastics. California law mandates the reduction of solid waste volumes through source reduction and recycling. Modesto is meeting the state-mandated goal of reducing its solid waste stream to landfills by 50 percent from 1989 levels. To the extent that some solid waste was not recycled, nonrenewable resources would be lost. ---PAGE BREAK--- Modesto General Plan Update Final Master EIR VIII-1 Chapter VIII. Alternatives Analysis October 2008 Chapter VIII Alternatives Analysis A. PURPOSE Public Resources Code (PRC) Section 21100(b) requires that the master environmental impact report (Master EIR) discuss a reasonable range of feasible alternatives to the proposed project, which meet most or all of its objectives. Alternatives must be capable of avoiding or substantially lessening one or more of the significant effects of the project. Section 15126.6 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines further provides that an EIR must evaluate the comparative merits of the alternatives. Alternatives need not be examined at the same level of detail as the project. The City of Modesto (City) is responsible for selecting a reasonable range of feasible alternatives to the project. The Master EIR must describe the rationale for selecting the range of alternatives to be discussed and identify any other alternatives that were considered by the City but were rejected as infeasible (State CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6[c]). This Master EIR examines the potential environmental impacts arising from the proposed maintenance update to the City of Modesto Urban Area General Plan (UAGP). The project, the UAGP update, is largely limited to incorporating existing City policies, addressing new state laws, and revising selected road designations, as well as adding some administrative policies. No change is being made to the land use map of the UAGP. In keeping with the Modesto City Council’s intention to undertake a comprehensive update of the UAGP in the future, policy changes at this time are primarily administrative in nature, rather than substantive. The range of alternatives must include the “No-Project Alternative.” The purpose of analyzing this alternative is to allow decision-makers to compare the impacts of approving the proposed project with the impacts of not approving it. (State CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6[e].) B. SELECTED ALTERNATIVES 1. Alternative 1: No-Project Alternative The No-Project Alternative is the continuation of the 1995 UAGP, as amended, into the future. Thus, the impacts of the proposed UAGP amendment would be compared with the impacts that would occur with buildout of Modesto as envisioned in the existing 1995 UAGP. The No-Project Alternative would not include any of the new policies being added to the UAGP with the current update. The impacts of the 1995 UAGP are described in the 2003 Master EIR prepared for that plan, as modified by the Master EIR for the Wastewater Master Plan and the focused EIRs for the Fairview Village (1995), Empire North Unit 1 (1997), and Kiernan Business Park (1997) Specific Plans. Significant Impacts of Alternative 1 The significant impacts of the No-Project Alternative are summarized below. ---PAGE BREAK--- Chapter VIII. Alternatives Analysis Modesto General Plan Update Final Master EIR VIII-2 Chapter VIII. Alternatives Analysis October 2008 Traffic: According to the traffic analysis in the 2003 Master EIR, growth would cause the service levels on 38 to 40 segments of the City’s arterial traffic network to operate at worse than level of service (LOS) D. This is a significant, unavoidable impact. The congestion analysis prepared for the 2003 Master EIR is not directly comparable to the analysis prepared for the updated Master EIR. Specifically, the StanCOG traffic analysis model has been revised from the traffic model used to evaluate the 2003 Master EIR. Nonetheless, the impact of the future growth projected under the No-Project Alternative is expected to be significant and unavoidable. Degradation of Air Quality: Growth under the No-Project Alternative would result in the generation of ozone precursors and dust during construction and a net increase in emissions of ambient carbon monoxide (CO), ozone precursors, and particulate matter 10 microns or less in diameter (PM10) from area and mobile sources. Day-to-day activities in the larger city envisioned in the 1995 UAGP would result in substantial increases in criteria emissions. These impacts are significant and unavoidable. Generation of Noise: Growth, including new commercial and residential development and planned road expansions under the No-Project Alternative, would cause increased noise levels in the vicinity of construction sites along the existing and proposed road network, localized impacts from new stationary noise sources, and the introduction of land uses into a high-noise environment. Projected growth under the 1995 UAGP would result in increased noise in portions of Modesto. This would be particularly noticeable as the Planned Urbanizing Area develops. These impacts are significant and unavoidable. Loss of Productive Agricultural Lands: Growth under the No-Project Alternative would result in the conversion of agricultural land within the sphere of influence to urban uses. Major portions of the Planned Urbanizing Area identified in the 1995 UAGP would convert from farm and grazing lands to urban development within the CPDs. This is a significant, unavoidable impact. Increased Demand for Long-Term Water Supplies: Additional distribution and storage facilities would be needed to meet anticipated demand under the No-Project Alternative. Planned development would not exceed the potable water supply. However, as discussed in the 2003 Master EIR, Modesto’s demands would contribute to the demand resulting from regional development. This regional demand is expected to exceed the supply within the underlying aquifer. A significant, unavoidable cumulative impact would result. Increased Demand for Sanitary Sewer Services: Development within the CPDs under the No-Project Alternative would exceed currently available capacity. Necessary additional sewage treatment plant capacity, sewer lines, pump stations, and treatment capacity would be provided pursuant to the Wastewater Collection System (WWCS) master plan, so direct impacts would be less than significant. However, as described in the 2003 Master EIR, construction activities and facility operations related to the WWCS itself would result in indirect impacts on traffic and circulation and on air quality that would be significant and unavoidable. Loss of Sensitive Wildlife and Plant Habitat: Growth under the No-Project Alternative, particularly in the Planned Urbanizing Area, would contribute to the significant and unavoidable cumulative loss of habitat that is occurring within the region. Although the 1995 UAGP contains provisions for protecting lands along Dry Creek and the Tuolumne River ---PAGE BREAK--- Chapter VIII. Alternatives Analysis Modesto General Plan Update Final Master EIR VIII-3 Chapter VIII. Alternatives Analysis October 2008 through restrictions under the respective Comprehensive Planning Districts (CPDs), habitat land nonetheless would be converted to urban uses outside those CPDs and Alternative 1 would have somewhat more severe impacts than described above because it does not include updated protective policies proposed as a part of the proposed project. Disturbance of Archaeological or Historical Sites: Prehistoric resources may be uncovered during excavation for construction. Construction activities resulting from the growth envisioned under the No-Project Alternative may adversely affect historical structures and resources. These may include historical structures removed as a result of road widening or new construction, as well as unknown archaeological resources that may be discovered during development. These impacts would be significant. Increased Demand for Storm Drainage: Future development under the No-Project Alternative would add impervious surfaces that create additional runoff requiring new and expanded storm drainage systems. These impacts largely would be avoided by current UAGP policies in the Planned Urbanizing Area; thus, the impact of the No-Project Alternative would be less than significant there. However, increased runoff within the Baseline Developed Area resulting from additional development may increase the volume of drainage that is channeled to rock wells. This could result in a significant impact on stormwater drainage facilities in the Baseline Developed Area. Flooding, and Water Quality: Under the No-Project Alternative, future development within the flood zone largely would be avoided. Increased runoff and siltation resulting from new construction, as well as urban runoff pollution, would be controlled by existing City regulations and the required best management practices (BMPs). Conversion of agricultural lands to urban development may affect groundwater recharge adversely absent a cooperative effort between the City and the irrigation districts. These impacts largely would be avoided by 1995 UAGP policies and the regional groundwater management efforts going on outside the general plan process. Therefore, the impacts would be less than significant. Increased Demand for Fire Services: The No-Project Alternative envisions growth by annexation under the 1995 UAGP into areas within the City’s sphere of influence that currently are served by independent fire districts. De-annexation of portions of these districts in order to annex the territory to the City may lead to financial insolvency of the districts. In that case, fire protection in areas outside Modesto would be lost, and the risk of fire would be increased greatly. This is a significant and unavoidable impact under the No-Project Alternative. Generation of Solid Waste: Future development under the No-Project Alternative would generate substantial amounts of solid waste that would require additional landfill capacity. Adequate future capacity is reasonably foreseeable based on Stanislaus County (County) projections. The impact of the No-Project Alternative would be less than significant. Energy: Future development within the Planned Urbanizing Area pursuant to the No-Project Alternative would draw a substantial amount of energy, despite the provisions of the Title 24 California Code of Regulations energy standards. In addition, this development would contribute to increased demand statewide. These are significant and unavoidable impacts. ---PAGE BREAK--- Chapter VIII. Alternatives Analysis Modesto General Plan Update Final Master EIR VIII-4 Chapter VIII. Alternatives Analysis October 2008 Effects on Visual Resources: Future development in the Planned Urbanizing Area would introduce new sources of light and glare where lands that are currently in agricultural use are converted to urban use. This is a significant and unavoidable impact. Climate Change: Future development pursuant to the No-Project Alternative would result in a significant contribution to the greenhouse gas emissions that result in the cumulative impact of global climate change. The existing 1995 UAGP has a number of energy conservation policies in Section VII-I.1 that would make a marginal reduction in greenhouse gas emissions. However, these do not eliminate the contribution. 2. Alternative 2: No Changes to Street Designations The proposed UAGP update includes revisions to the currently planned configurations of six streets, as described below. Under Alternative 2, the City would not revise the designations of these streets, and they eventually would be constructed as currently planned. The text below describes the revisions to street configurations proposed by the UAGP update. „ Dale Road—Change from a minor arterial to a principal arterial in the entire Modesto planning area and a change from four lanes, with the possibility of bike lanes, to six lanes with no bike lanes. „ Bangs Avenue—Change from a minor collector to a major collector with a bike path from Dale Road to Tully Road and a change from two travel lanes to four travel lanes with bike lanes. „ Claratina Expressway—Revision of the alignment and change from a four-lane expressway to a six-lane principal arterial east of Oakdale Road to Roselle Avenue, which allows for four travel lanes and Class I bicycle facilities. „ Carpenter Road—Change from a six-lane expressway to a principal arterial with bike lanes, from State Route (SR) 132 to Whitmore Avenue, and a change from six lanes without bike lanes to six lanes with bike lanes. „ Claus Road—Moving the alignment of Claus Road from Floyd Avenue to Claratina Avenue west of the Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railroad tracks. „ Sylvan Avenue—Change from principal arterial to minor arterial with Class II bicycle facilities from Oakdale Road to Roselle Avenue. Under Alternative 2, none of the above revisions would occur, and streets would retain the following designations: „ Dale Road—minor arterial; „ Bangs Avenue—minor collector; „ Claratina Expressway—alignment unchanged, four-lane expressway; „ Carpenter Road—six-lane expressway; „ Claus Road—alignment unchanged; and „ Sylvan Avenue—principal arterial. ---PAGE BREAK--- Chapter VIII. Alternatives Analysis Modesto General Plan Update Final Master EIR VIII-5 Chapter VIII. Alternatives Analysis October 2008 Neither Alternative 2 nor the proposed UAGP update proposes substantive changes in the current plan of land use patterns, so traffic generation would be similar in both these scenarios. Alternative 2 would be expected to result in lower vehicle miles traveled (VMT) than the proposed UAGP update because increases in roadway capacity tend to induce travel. Drivers tend to select the least congested routes to their destinations. As a result, new capacity tends to be re-filled over time as drivers change their prior routes to take advantage of the perceived lower congestion. (Ewing et al. 2007.) Therefore, an increase in roadway capacity would be expected to increase VMT somewhat, all things being equal. Alternative 2 includes the same mitigating policies as identified for the proposed UAGP update. Significant Impacts of Alternative 2 Alternative 2 would meet the objective of providing adequate circulation for future development. It would cost less to construct than the proposed UAGP update’s road network and would result in a lesser level of change to adjoining properties than the proposed UAGP update. Unlike the proposed UAGP update, Alternative 2 would not alter the designation of Carpenter Road to a principal arterial with bike lanes, thus avoiding the need to purchase adjoining frontage to create new access. Otherwise, the Alternative 2 impacts are similar to those of the proposed UAGP update. The following discussion presents impacts that would differ from those of the proposed project. Traffic: Alternative 2 would have the same circulation improvements and therefore traffic levels similar to, if not the same as, those described for Alternative 1. Degradation of Air Quality: Alternative 2 incorporates a number of policies intended to reduce air emissions and reduce energy use that results in air emissions. These are the policies contained in Sections VII-H.2 (air quality) and VII-I.1 of the proposed UAGP update. Nonetheless, increased traffic and VMT associated with growth would result in significant and unavoidable air quality impacts under Alternative 2. Generation of Noise: Growth under Alternative 2 would cause increased noise levels in the vicinity of construction sites along the existing and proposed road network, localized impacts from new stationary noise sources, and the introduction of land uses into a high-noise environment. Alternative 2 would include the same mitigating policies found in the proposed UAGP update in Sections VII-G.3 and VII-G.4. However, it nonetheless would result in a significant, unavoidable noise impact. Loss of Productive Agricultural Lands: Growth under Alternative 2 would result in the conversion of agricultural land to urban uses. This is a significant, unavoidable impact. Increased Demand for Sanitary Sewer Services: Future development under Alternative 2 would exceed currently available capacity. Additional sewage treatment plant capacity, sewer lines, pump stations, and treatment capacity would be needed. Upon construction of this future infrastructure, the direct effects of Alternative 2 would be less than significant. Indirect impacts on traffic and circulation and on air quality would result from the construction and operations of future sewage treatment facilities. These indirect impacts of Alternative 2 are significant and unavoidable. ---PAGE BREAK--- Chapter VIII. Alternatives Analysis Modesto General Plan Update Final Master EIR VIII-6 Chapter VIII. Alternatives Analysis October 2008 Loss of Sensitive Wildlife and Plant Habitat: Growth under Alternative 2, particularly in the Planned Urbanizing Area, would contribute to the significant and unavoidable cumulative loss of habitat that is occurring within the region. Policies enacted under Alternative 2 would avoid direct significant effects on habitat. Disturbance of Archaeological or Historical Sites: Prehistoric resources may be uncovered during excavation for construction. Construction activities may affect historical structures and resources adversely. Based on the proposed policies, Alternative 2 would avoid significant effects, except where a historically significant building may be demolished. This particular circumstance would be a significant, unavoidable impact. Increased Demand for Storm Drainage: Future development would add impervious surfaces that create additional runoff requiring new and expanded storm drainage systems. The policies of Alternative 2 would avoid a significant effect in the Planned Urbanizing Area. This is a significant, unavoidable impact in the Baseline Developed Area where drainage capacity is limited. Flooding, and Water Quality: Future development under Alternative 2, subject to its policies, would avoid flood zones. Increased runoff and siltation could occur as a result of new construction, as could urban runoff pollution, but would be controlled by City policies, regulations, and required BMPs. Conversion of agricultural lands under Alternative 2 may affect groundwater recharge by increasing impermeable surfaces. These impacts would be largely avoided by UAGP policies under Alternative 2 and groundwater management activities being undertaken by the City and other affected agencies in the area. Increased runoff within the Baseline Developed Area is a significant, unavoidable impact where drainage would be channeled to rock wells. Increased Demand for Fire Services: Alternative 2 would result in the annexation and development of areas within the City’s sphere of influence that currently are served by independent fire districts. De-annexation of portions of these districts in order to annex the territory to the City may lead to financial insolvency of the districts. In that case, fire protection in areas outside the City would be lost, and the risk of fire would be increased greatly. Policies included in Alternative 2 would reduce this to a less-than-significant impact. Generation of Solid Waste: Future development under Alternative 2 would generate substantial amounts of solid waste that would require additional landfill capacity. Adequate future capacity is reasonably foreseeable based on County projections. This is a less-than- significant impact. Energy: Future development within the Planned Urbanizing Area pursuant to Alternative 2 would draw a substantial amount of energy, despite proposed policies E-6 through E-45. In addition, this development would contribute to increased energy demand statewide. These are significant and unavoidable impacts. Effects on Visual Resources: Future development in the Planned Urbanizing Area would introduce new sources of light and glare where lands that are currently in agricultural use are converted to urban use. Alternative 2 includes policy VR-3, which would reduce this impact to some extent. However, this remains a significant and unavoidable impact. ---PAGE BREAK--- Chapter VIII. Alternatives Analysis Modesto General Plan Update Final Master EIR VIII-7 Chapter VIII. Alternatives Analysis October 2008 Climate Change: Future development under Alternative 2 would result in a significant contribution to the cumulative impact of global climate change. The proposed energy conservation policies in Section VII-I and climate change policies in Section VII-H.2 would help reduce greenhouse gas emissions in comparison to the No-Project Alternative. However, these do not eliminate the contribution, and the impact is significant and unavoidable. C. COMPARISON BETWEEN THE PROJECT AND THE ALTERNATIVES As required per State CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(e), the impacts of the alternatives are compared with the impacts of the proposed UAGP update. Table VIII-1 identifies the common impacts and their level of significance under each of the alternatives. “SU” means significant and unavoidable; “LTS” means less than significant. The table summarizes the impacts of the proposed UAGP update and the two alternatives and does not differentiate between direct and cumulative impacts. Where the impact of either the project or one of the alternatives is less than that of the other two (even if the impact is otherwise significant and unavoidable), that impact is shown in bold. This enables the reader to see the levels of impacts by project and alternative, as well as their relative impact in comparison to one another. Table VIII-1. Impact Comparison between the Project and Alternatives Impact Topic Proposed UAGP Update Alternative 1—No-Project Alternative Alternative 2—No Changes to Street Designations Traffic and circulation Significant and unavoidable Significant and unavoidable Significant and unavoidable Alternative 2 (would have greater transportation impacts along those roads than the proposed project would. However, it would have less of an impact than Alternative 1 because it would include other new traffic and transportation policies that are expected to increase transit ridership, improve flow through the use of roundabouts, encourage bicycle use and walking, and provide other benefits over current policies. Degradation of air quality Significant and unavoidable Significant and unavoidable Significant and unavoidable Lower VMT and new air quality policies would result in lesser air quality impacts Generation of noise Significant and unavoidable Significant and unavoidable Significant and unavoidable New policies and narrower arterials would result in lesser traffic noise impacts Effects on agricultural lands Significant and unavoidable Significant and unavoidable Significant and unavoidable ---PAGE BREAK--- Chapter VIII. Alternatives Analysis Modesto General Plan Update Final Master EIR VIII-8 Chapter VIII. Alternatives Analysis October 2008 Impact Topic Proposed UAGP Update Alternative 1—No-Project Alternative Alternative 2—No Changes to Street Designations Increased demand for long-term water supplies Significant and unavoidable Significant and unavoidable Significant and unavoidable Increased demand for sanitary sewer services Less than significant Less than significant Less than significant Loss of sensitive wildlife and plant habitat Significant and unavoidable Significant and unavoidable Alternative 1 would have somewhat more severe impacts than described above because it does not include updated protective policies proposed as a part of the proposed project. Significant and unavoidable Disturbance of archeological/historical sites Significant and unavoidable Significant and unavoidable Significant and unavoidable New policies would protect more resources, and narrower arterials would have less potential to adversely affect historic structures Increased demand for storm drainage Significant and unavoidable Significant and unavoidable Alternative 1 would have greater impacts on drainage than the proposed project in that it would not contain the protective policies proposed with the UAGP amendment. Significant and unavoidable Flooding and water quality Less than significant Less than significant Less than significant Increased demand for parks and open space Less than significant Less than significant Less than significant Increased demand for schools Less than significant Less than significant Less than significant Increased demand for police services Less than significant Less than significant Less than significant Increased demand for fire services Less than significant Significant and unavoidable Less than significant Generation of solid waste Less than significant Less than significant Less than significant Generation of hazardous materials Less than significant Less than significant Less than significant Geology, soils, and mineral resources Less than significant Less than significant Less than significant ---PAGE BREAK--- Chapter VIII. Alternatives Analysis Modesto General Plan Update Final Master EIR VIII-9 Chapter VIII. Alternatives Analysis October 2008 Impact Topic Proposed UAGP Update Alternative 1—No-Project Alternative Alternative 2—No Changes to Street Designations Energy Significant and unavoidable Significant and unavoidable Significant and unavoidable Effects on visual resources Significant and unavoidable Significant and unavoidable Significant and unavoidable Land use and planning Less than significant Less than significant Less than significant Climate change Significant and unavoidable Significant and unavoidable Significant and unavoidable Because the road changes proposed as part of the project are likely to increase VMT by reducing congestion and inducing additional travel, Alternative 2 would be expected to have a smaller impact than the proposed project because it would not include those road changes. D. ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED AND REJECTED 1. Changes in Land Use As an alternative, the City considered revising the land use pattern established in the UAGP. This would conflict with the key objective of making only the revisions necessary to update the UAGP relative to local and state plans and regulations that have been adopted since 1995. A comprehensive update of the UAGP will be undertaken in the future. 2. Greenhouse Gas Reduction Program The proposed project has been undertaken at this time in large part because of the need to update the Master EIR so that it can continue to be used citywide. The City has taken this opportunity to update references to state laws, incorporate adopted policies, and add some administrative policies to the UAGP. As such, the proposed project is not much more significant than an update to the Master EIR, which must be undertaken periodically. Attempting to create major new policies affecting the emission of greenhouse gases is appropriate for a comprehensive update to the UAGP, which the City is not undertaking at this time. Consequently, preparing major new policies of this nature conflicts with the objective of making only the technical and administrative revisions necessary to extend the life of the UAGP. Because the City is expected to undertake a comprehensive UAGP update in the next few years, it would be more appropriate to consider more extensive changes to the UAGP relative to state goals for greenhouse gas emissions reduction as part of that update. Furthermore, as discussed in the climate change section of this Master EIR, by the time the comprehensive UAGP update is under way, it is anticipated that there will be more guidance on this issue from the state. ---PAGE BREAK--- Chapter VIII. Alternatives Analysis Modesto General Plan Update Final Master EIR VIII-10 Chapter VIII. Alternatives Analysis October 2008 E. ENVIRONMENTALLY SUPERIOR ALTERNATIVE State CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(e) requires the “environmentally superior” alternative to be identified in the Master EIR. Where the No-Project Alternative is environmentally superior, the environmentally superior alternative is to be identified from among the other alternatives. On this basis, Alternative 2 is the environmentally superior alternative. Its policies enable it to avoid significant effects related to fire protection and prehistoric resources and to have a lesser effect on climate change than would the No-Project Alternative. ---PAGE BREAK--- Modesto General Plan Update Final Master EIR IX-1 Chapter IX. Comments on Draft Master EIR and Responses to Comments. October 2008 Chapter IX Comments on Draft Master EIR and Responses to Comments As described in Chapter 1, the draft MEIR was circulated for review and comment by the public and other interested parties, by agencies that commented on the initial study and notice of preparation of the MEIR, and by surrounding jurisdictions. Comment letters on the draft MEIR were received from individuals and agencies. The letters received are listed in Table IX-1, and copies of the letters, with all individual comments indicated, are provided in this chapter. As stated in State CEQA Guidelines Sections 15088(a) and 15088(b), comments that raise environmental issues must be provided with responses. This chapter contains the City’s responses to comments received on the draft MEIR. Reasoned, factual responses have been provided for all comments received, focusing specifically on the environmental issues raised. In general, the responses provide explanation or amplification of information contained in the draft MEIR. Comments that are outside the scope of CEQA review will be forwarded to the decision-makers for consideration as part of the project approval process. These comments are answered with a general response. A master response concerning fire protection is also provided to address a number of comments covering the same or similar issues. The comment letters and comments within each letter are numbered consecutively. For example, Letter 1 is the first letter, and Comment 1-1 is the first comment in Letter 1. ---PAGE BREAK--- Chapter IX. Comments on Draft Master EIR and Responses to Comments Modesto General Plan Update Final Master EIR IX-2 Chapter IX. Comments on Draft Master EIR and Responses to Comments. October 2008 Table IX-1. Comments Received on Draft Master EIR Letter Date Received Commenter Address 1 April 10, 2008 David Warner, San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District 4800 Enterprise Way Modesto, CA 95356-8718 2 April 11, 2008 Kathleen A. Dadey, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 1325 J Street Sacramento, CA 95814-2922 3 April 26, 2008 Daniel Kevin, California Public Utilities Commission 505 Van Ness Avenue San Francisco, CA 94102-3298 4 April 26, 2008 Stephen Mayotte, Stanislaus Consolidated Fire Protection District 3324 Topeka Street Riverbank, CA 95367 5 April 28, 2008 Tom Dumas, California Department of Transportation 1976 East Charter Way Stockton, CA 95205 6 May 6, 2008 Ed Padilla 2437 Manor Oak Drive Modesto, CA 95355 7 May 7, 2008 Celia Aceves, Modesto Irrigation District 1231 Eleventh Street P.O. Box 4060 Modesto, CA 95355 8 May 8, 2008 Marjorie Blom, Stanislaus Local Agency Formation Commission 1010 Tenth Street, 3rd Floor Modesto, CA 95354 9 May 9, 2008 Arie W. Vander Pol, Turlock Irrigation District 333 East Canal Drive P.O. Box 949 Turlock, CA 95381-0949 10 May 9, 2008 Dale Skiles, Salida Fire Protection District P.O. Box 1335 Salida, CA 95368 11 May 9, 2008 Joshua Mann, Stanislaus County Airport Land Use Commission 1010 Tenth Street, Suite 3400 Modesto, CA 95354 12 May 9, 2008 Raul Mendez, Stanislaus County Environmental Review Committee 1010 Tenth Street, Suite 6800 Modesto, CA 95354 13 May 9, 2008 William D. Ross, Law Offices of William D. Ross on Behalf of Salida Fire Protection District and Stanislaus Consolidated Fire Protection District 520 South Grand Avenue, Suite 300 Los Angeles, CA 90071-2610 ---PAGE BREAK--- Chapter IX. Comments on Draft Master EIR and Responses to Comments Modesto General Plan Update Final Master EIR IX-3 Chapter IX. Comments on Draft Master EIR and Responses to Comments. October 2008 A. MASTER RESPONSE 1—FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICTS The Stanislaus Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCo) adopted the municipal services review (MSR) of the City in September 2004 as part of the City’s request to amend its sphere of influence. The MSR is a Stanislaus LAFCo document that demonstrates the City’s ability to adequately provide municipal services to its adopted or proposed sphere of influence, including fire, police, sewer, water, and other services. The sphere of influence and MSR should be reviewed at least every five years to ensure each agency’s continued ability to provide municipal services within its boundaries and sphere of influence. The City is proposing no changes to its sphere of influence and no annexations as part of this project. As a result, the City sees no need to amend its MSR. It is the policy of the City to plan and develop large areas (community planning districts or a portion) within the Planned Urbanizing Area using specific plans (Government Code Section 65450 et seq.). The City’s policy for the establishment of specific plans includes the preparation of an infrastructure master plan and a finance master plan, which present more specific information about infrastructure and service needs, needed funding, and the financing mechanism. Each specific plan will be subject to environmental review before it may be adopted, which will allow a project-specific analysis to be prepared using the most current information available. The draft MEIR and related environmental documents provide substantial environmental review for subsequent projects. However, the draft MEIR does not provide the final word on the subject. Rather, the draft MEIR is intended as the base analysis from which to tier other environmental documents. This means that whenever the City contemplates a project that is subject to environmental review, staff reviews the draft MEIR to determine whether the proposed project is within the scope of the draft MEIR (Government Code Section 21157 et seq., State CEQA Guidelines Section 15177) and, if so, whether any mitigation measures in the draft MEIR should be applied to the proposed project. If staff determines that potential impacts of the proposed project have not been disclosed adequately or that circumstances surrounding the analysis in the draft MEIR have changed, additional environmental documentation must be prepared. Recently, the boards of directors of both the Stanislaus Consolidated Fire Protection District (FPD) and the Salida FPD have formally asked the City to consider providing contract emergency and administrative services to the areas currently served by these districts. The City has agreed to participate with the districts in evaluating the possibility of providing those services. Should any of these discussions result in tentative agreement among the parties to have the City provide emergency and administrative services to these districts, representatives of the City and the districts will meet with Stanislaus LAFCo staff to determine what steps are necessary to effect any changes in the City’s fire protection service area. To ensure that issues related to fire services are considered, the UAGP will include Policies V.K.2(m) and VI.D.1(c)(5). The wording of these policies will not be revised because it may not be appropriate or necessary in every circumstance for the City to negotiate financial arrangements for fire protection services with fire protection districts from whose territory detachments are contemplated. The environmental impacts of each reorganization will be evaluated individually by the City as each proposal occurs, and, if a fiscal impact might reasonably result in a physical impact, the City will consider such a physical impact as part of the environmental review. In situations where the City can provide the best fire protection service, it is appropriate that the City receive revenue collected for the service it provides. In situations where another ---PAGE BREAK--- Chapter IX. Comments on Draft Master EIR and Responses to Comments Modesto General Plan Update Final Master EIR IX-4 Chapter IX. Comments on Draft Master EIR and Responses to Comments. October 2008 district can provide the best fire protection service, other courses of action, such as negotiation for fire protection service or revenue, will be considered by the City. ---PAGE BREAK--- Chapter IX. Comments on Draft Master EIR and Responses to Comments Modesto General Plan Update Final Master EIR IX-5 Chapter IX. Comments on Draft Master EIR and Responses to Comments. October 2008 ---PAGE BREAK--- Chapter IX. Comments on Draft Master EIR and Responses to Comments Modesto General Plan Update Final Master EIR IX-6 Chapter IX. Comments on Draft Master EIR and Responses to Comments. October 2008 B. RESPONSES TO COMMENT LETTER 1—DAVID WARNER, SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT 1. Response to Comment 1-1 The San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District concurs with the findings in Chapter V, Section 2, Degradation of Air Quality, of the draft MEIR and expects that this project may have a significant impact on air quality. No further response is necessary. ---PAGE BREAK--- Chapter IX. Comments on Draft Master EIR and Responses to Comments Modesto General Plan Update Final Master EIR IX-7 Chapter IX. Comments on Draft Master EIR and Responses to Comments. October 2008 ---PAGE BREAK--- Chapter IX. Comments on Draft Master EIR and Responses to Comments Modesto General Plan Update Final Master EIR IX-8 Chapter IX. Comments on Draft Master EIR and Responses to Comments. October 2008 ---PAGE BREAK--- Chapter IX. Comments on Draft Master EIR and Responses to Comments Modesto General Plan Update Final Master EIR IX-9 Chapter IX. Comments on Draft Master EIR and Responses to Comments. October 2008 C. RESPONSES TO COMMENT LETTER 2—KATHLEEN A. DADEY, U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS 1. Response to Comment 2-1 The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) is concerned that certain projects mentioned in the draft MEIR may fall under its jurisdiction. The Corps notes that, to ascertain whether waters of the United States exist on any project site, wetland delineations should be prepared and the range of alternatives for these projects should include alternatives that avoid impacts on wetlands and waters of the United States. The Corps further states that, in the event avoidance is not feasible, mitigation plans should be developed to compensate for the unavoidable losses resulting from project implementation. These issues are dealt with in the draft MEIR, and mitigation measures regarding potential effects on wetlands and jurisdictional waters can be found in Chapter V, Section 7, Loss of Sensitive Wildlife and Plant Habitat, of the draft MEIR. In addition, the project objectives (draft MEIR, pages III-7 and III-8) indicate that the City does not intend to substantially change the City’s land use diagram or increase the development potential within the UAGP boundary. Alternatives must “feasibly attain most of the basic objectives of the project.” Alternatives that have the potential to avoid impacts on wetlands and waters of the United States would not meet the project objectives and therefore were not considered. However, Mitigation Measure SWPH-4 (draft MEIR, pages V-7-17 and V-7-18) requires the City to obtain a discharge permit if a project will affect any wetlands or waters of the United States and to prepare an alternatives analysis before the issuance of any discharge permits. ---PAGE BREAK--- Chapter IX. Comments on Draft Master EIR and Responses to Comments Modesto General Plan Update Final Master EIR IX-10 Chapter IX. Comments on Draft Master EIR and Responses to Comments. October 2008 ---PAGE BREAK--- Chapter IX. Comments on Draft Master EIR and Responses to Comments Modesto General Plan Update Final Master EIR IX-11 Chapter IX. Comments on Draft Master EIR and Responses to Comments. October 2008 ---PAGE BREAK--- Chapter IX. Comments on Draft Master EIR and Responses to Comments Modesto General Plan Update Final Master EIR IX-12 Chapter IX. Comments on Draft Master EIR and Responses to Comments. October 2008 D. RESPONSES TO COMMENT LETTER 3—DANIEL KEVIN, CALIFORNIA PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION 1. Response to Comment 3-1 The commenter recommends that new developments near rail corridors be planned with the safety of the corridors in mind. Accordingly, the commenter further recommends that new development near rail corridors include the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) early in the permitting process to allow CPUC staff to advise on measures that would protect the safety of motorists, residents, railroad personnel, and rail passengers. Page II-13 of the draft MEIR is revised as shown below to include the CPUC on the list of responsible agencies (see Chapter II, Section D of the draft MEIR). This will ensure that the City consults with the CPUC on projects that are subject to CEQA review. a. Responsible Agencies Pursuant to PRC Section 21157.1(a), a responsible agency may become the lead agency for a subsequent project under the Master EIR. The following are considered responsible agencies for the purposes of this Master EIR (typical permits or actions that qualify the following as responsible agencies are listed in parentheses): 1. the County LAFCo (sphere of influence amendment and annexation); 2. the County (airport land use plan, IWMP, rezoning, County General Plan, or community plan amendment); 3. the California Department of Fish and Game (streambed alteration agreement and incidental “take” permit); 4. the California Department of Public Health (water supply permits); 5. the California Department of Transportation (road widenings, highway encroachment permits, and airport expansion); 6. the State Lands Commission (lease of public trust lands); 7. the State Water Resources Control Board (biosolids permits); 8. the state Department of Water Resources, Reclamation Board (floodplain and levee encroachment permits); and 9. the Regional Water Quality Control Board (waste discharge requirements, National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permits, and Clean Water Act certifications).; and 10. the California Public Utilities Commission (construction or alteration of a railroad crossing). ---PAGE BREAK--- Chapter IX. Comments on Draft Master EIR and Responses to Comments Modesto General Plan Update Final Master EIR IX-13 Chapter IX. Comments on Draft Master EIR and Responses to Comments. October 2008 2. Response to Comment 3-2 The commenter mentions that construction or alteration of a railroad crossing requires approval by the CPUC, but its role is not shown on page II-13 of the draft MEIR, which presents responsible agencies and qualifying permits and actions. As noted in Response to Comment 3-1, the CPUC has been added to the list of responsible agencies. ---PAGE BREAK--- Chapter IX. Comments on Draft Master EIR and Responses to Comments Modesto General Plan Update Final Master EIR IX-14 Chapter IX. Comments on Draft Master EIR and Responses to Comments. October 2008 ---PAGE BREAK--- Chapter IX. Comments on Draft Master EIR and Responses to Comments Modesto General Plan Update Final Master EIR IX-15 Chapter IX. Comments on Draft Master EIR and Responses to Comments. October 2008 ---PAGE BREAK--- Chapter IX. Comments on Draft Master EIR and Responses to Comments Modesto General Plan Update Final Master EIR IX-16 Chapter IX. Comments on Draft Master EIR and Responses to Comments. October 2008 E. RESPONSES TO COMMENT LETTER 4—STEPHEN MAYOTTE, STANISLAUS CONSOLIDATED FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT 1. Response to Comment 4-1 The commenter suggests that all references stating “[t]he City of Modesto may negotiate with affect fire protection districts when an annexation to the City is contemplated” should be changed to “[t]he City of Modesto shall negotiate” (emphasis added). The referenced policy/mitigation measure has not been changed. In addition, please see Master Response 1, related to fire services. ---PAGE BREAK--- Chapter IX. Comments on Draft Master EIR and Responses to Comments Modesto General Plan Update Final Master EIR IX-17 Chapter IX. Comments on Draft Master EIR and Responses to Comments. October 2008 ---PAGE BREAK--- Chapter IX. Comments on Draft Master EIR and Responses to Comments Modesto General Plan Update Final Master EIR IX-18 Chapter IX. Comments on Draft Master EIR and Responses to Comments. October 2008 ---PAGE BREAK--- Chapter IX. Comments on Draft Master EIR and Responses to Comments Modesto General Plan Update Final Master EIR IX-19 Chapter IX. Comments on Draft Master EIR and Responses to Comments. October 2008 F. RESPONSES TO COMMENT LETTER 5—TOM DUMAS, CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 1. Response to Comment 5-1 The commenter, the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), notes that projects within the Modesto UAGP amendment area will cause a significant impact on State Routes (SRs) 99, 132, 219, and 108, and a detailed traffic analysis for each development may be required. It is the City’s standard practice to complete a traffic analysis for new developments. Policy TC- 42 on page V-1-23 states: For new development with the potential to generate 100 or more peak hour vehicle trips (greater than the number of trips expected to occur with development consistent with the UAGP and the MEIR) the City may require a qualified traffic engineer prepare a traffic study to identify potential transportation impacts and specify improvement measures needed to ensure an acceptable LOS on affected streets. 2. Response to Comment 5-2 Caltrans remarks that any work within state right-of-way will require an encroachment permit. On page II-13 of the draft MEIR, Caltrans has been identified as the agency responsible for issuing highway encroachment permits. It is the City’s practice to obtain encroachment permits for all work within state rights-of-way. 3. Response to Comment 5-3 As part of the process under Senate Bill (SB) 18 of 2004, the City contacted the Native American Heritage Commission for information on the Native American tribes that would have cultural concerns within the project area. Using the list provided by the commission, the City has contacted those tribes pursuant to Government Code Sections 65351, 65352, and 65352.3 to offer the opportunity for consultation during the general plan process and to inform them of any proceedings. The City will consider any recommendations that it receives from the tribes within the requirements of SB 18. ---PAGE BREAK--- Chapter IX. Comments on Draft Master EIR and Responses to Comments Modesto General Plan Update Final Master EIR IX-20 Chapter IX. Comments on Draft Master EIR and Responses to Comments. October 2008 ---PAGE BREAK--- Chapter IX. Comments on Draft Master EIR and Responses to Comments Modesto General Plan Update Final Master EIR IX-21 Chapter IX. Comments on Draft Master EIR and Responses to Comments. October 2008 ---PAGE BREAK--- Chapter IX. Comments on Draft Master EIR and Responses to Comments Modesto General Plan Update Final Master EIR IX-22 Chapter IX. Comments on Draft Master EIR and Responses to Comments. October 2008 ---PAGE BREAK--- Chapter IX. Comments on Draft Master EIR and Responses to Comments Modesto General Plan Update Final Master EIR IX-23 Chapter IX. Comments on Draft Master EIR and Responses to Comments. October 2008 ---PAGE BREAK--- Chapter IX. Comments on Draft Master EIR and Responses to Comments Modesto General Plan Update Final Master EIR IX-24 Chapter IX. Comments on Draft Master EIR and Responses to Comments. October 2008 G. RESPONSES TO COMMENT LETTER 6—ED PADILLA 1. Response to Comment 6-1 Mr. Padilla offers a number of recommendations for changes to the UAGP. The City appreciates his interest in the UAGP and his thoughtful comments. Although none of his comments relates to the draft MEIR, we have nonetheless provided a response to his questions and recommendations in this document. The City is undertaking a “maintenance” amendment to the UAGP that will bring the UAGP into conformance with the City’s adopted policies and reflect state and local land use regulations that have been adopted since the 2003 update to the UAGP. By direction of the City Council, this amendment is not intended to make comprehensive changes. The draft UAGP largely follows the layout of the existing, adopted UAGP. The City intends to begin a comprehensive amendment of the UAGP in the near future that will include reorganizing the UAGP for ease of use and comprehension. The comprehensive update will begin after adoption of the maintenance update. Because the comprehensive update is expected to include extensive public involvement, the City expects that it may take 2 years or more to complete. Mr. Padilla asks why lists of figures and tables were placed at the beginning of the UAGP. This is a standard location for listing these materials. It follows the table of contents and provides a convenient place for this reference. Similarly, the table of contents lists the Comprehensive Planning Districts (CPDs) so that a reader may find them more easily than going page by page through Chapter III. California planning law requires each city to “adopt a comprehensive, long-term general plan for [its] physical development” that includes seven elements: land use, housing, circulation, conservation, open space, safety, and noise (Government Code Section 65300). Pursuant to Government Code Section 65301(a), a general plan “may be adopted in any format deemed appropriate or convenient by the legislative body, including the combining of elements.” The City has chosen to combine the elements of its general plan in order to avoid repetitive discussions, group policies by topic area, and reflect the City’s own preferences for organization. Combining elements also enables the City to maintain the required “internal consistency” among the policies of the UAGP by avoiding duplicative policies that may otherwise be out of conformity with one another. Mr. Padilla cites PLATO (“planning law analysis and test organizer”), published by the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research in the late 1970s, for his contention that the UAGP should be organized strictly as the elements are enumerated in California planning law. Although PLATO offers general advice on general plan contents, it is outdated and is based on a past edition of the state’s general plan guidelines. The current edition of the General Plan Guidelines (published in October 2003) devotes all of its Chapter 5, Format and Element Integration, to a discussion of the benefits of preparing a general plan that is organized by topic, rather than solely by element. As stated there, “[o]rganizing the general plan by issue area, such as community development, environmental resources management, and hazards, rather than by the individual mandatory elements, is another effective approach.” The City’s approach is consistent with the provisions of both California planning law and the state General Plan Guidelines. ---PAGE BREAK--- Chapter IX. Comments on Draft Master EIR and Responses to Comments Modesto General Plan Update Final Master EIR IX-25 Chapter IX. Comments on Draft Master EIR and Responses to Comments. October 2008 Mr. Padilla asks why the UAGP does not include pictures. There are at least two reasons for the lack of pictures. First, this is a maintenance update and is not intended to substantially change the existing UAGP in approach and format. The existing UAGP does not include pictures. Second, the primary purpose of the UAGP is to provide “a statement of development policies and [it] shall include a diagram or diagrams and text setting forth objectives, principles, standards, and plan proposals,” as required by Government Code Section 65302. This does not require the use of pictures. Mr. Padilla offers a number of recommendations for reorganizing the format of the UAGP, including having discrete land use and circulation chapters, combining the noise and safety elements, adding pictures to the text, and making it easier to read. The City does not disagree in principle with Mr. Padilla’s overall conclusion that the UAGP could be better organized so that it is easier to read and its policies presented more clearly. However, this current amendment to the UAGP is not intended to make those kinds of substantive changes to the UAGP. The City will consider Mr. Padilla’s recommendations when it undertakes its comprehensive update of the UAGP in the near future. ---PAGE BREAK--- Chapter IX. Comments on Draft Master EIR and Responses to Comments Modesto General Plan Update Final Master EIR IX-26 Chapter IX. Comments on Draft Master EIR and Responses to Comments. October 2008 ---PAGE BREAK--- Chapter IX. Comments on Draft Master EIR and Responses to Comments Modesto General Plan Update Final Master EIR IX-27 Chapter IX. Comments on Draft Master EIR and Responses to Comments. October 2008 ---PAGE BREAK--- Chapter IX. Comments on Draft Master EIR and Responses to Comments Modesto General Plan Update Final Master EIR IX-28 Chapter IX. Comments on Draft Master EIR and Responses to Comments. October 2008 H. RESPONSES TO COMMENT LETTER 7—CELIA ACEVES, MODESTO IRRIGATION DISTRICT 1. Response to Comment 7-1 The Modesto Irrigation District (MID) notes that Table 2-3 of the draft MEIR (pages V-2-14 and V-2-15) includes a statement that the City will endeavor to build Class I bicycle trails along MID canals. MID comments that it controls any and all uses of its canal and transmission corridor rights-of-way. Because these corridors must remain open and unencumbered to allow for maintenance and expansion of facilities, MID does not support placing bicycle trails there. MID recommends that any new trails be located outside these corridors. As noted, Table 2-3 uses the wording “to the extent possible.” MID’s canals and the City and County of San Francisco’s Hetch Hetchy San Joaquin pipelines are the property of those agencies, respectively. As such, the City has no inherent right to construct anything on or over those rights-of-way. In recognition of that fact, it is the City’s policy to work with MID and other property owners when it seeks to utilize facilities to which the City holds no rights. The City and MID have reached agreement in the past on the construction of Class I bicycle facilities. For example, a portion of the Virginia Avenue Corridor trail lies on MID property. The City has worked closely with MID to secure permission to use and make safe for use the right-of-way of MID Lateral #4 for the continuation of the Virginia Avenue Corridor trail. The City looks forward to continuing its positive working relationship with MID on other, similar projects. MID has been added to the list of responsible agencies on page II-13 of the draft MEIR. 2. Response to Comment 7-2 MID clarifies that it does not control the water that may enter its canals as a result of storm drainage. It notes that the City controls this drainage. The last sentence of the second paragraph on page V-9-3 of the draft MEIR has been revised to reflect this clarification of responsibilities: There is a finite existing capacity for MID canals to convey storm drainage because the canal systems were designed primarily to convey irrigation water. Consequently, canal capacities for flow conveyance are larger near the eastern edge of the county, where the irrigation water originates and is reduced near the western edge where the terminal agricultural water users are located. Therefore, the suitability of the canal systems for stormwater conveyance contrasts with the needs of urban area stormwater systems that generate more flow in the direction as more and more stormwater discharges are contributed to the channels. During the winter rainfall season, capacity in some parts of the MID canal system can be limited for acceptance of storm drainage (Ketscher pers. comm., Gilton pers. comm.). The City generally regulates its discharges to the MID facilities by controlling the pumping systems at detention/retention-pond discharge locations. MID is generally able to control The City of Modesto controls the amount of urban storm drainage entering the channels through the operations of pumping stations that discharge flow from the surrounding landscape into the channels. MID staff will request curtailment of pumping by the City before the canals reach their capacity. MID now requires high water level monitoring and shut-off sensors to be installed in City stormwater discharge pumping stations that discharge to MID canals to help avoid exceeding the capacity of canals. ---PAGE BREAK--- Chapter IX. Comments on Draft Master EIR and Responses to Comments Modesto General Plan Update Final Master EIR IX-29 Chapter IX. Comments on Draft Master EIR and Responses to Comments. October 2008 3. Response to Comment 7-3 MID notes that it requires high water level monitoring and shut-off sensors to be installed in City stormwater discharge pumping stations that discharge into MID canals. The second paragraph in Section A(3)(b) in Chapter V, Section 9 (page V-9-3) has been revised to clarify this requirement. Please see Response to Comment 7-2. 4. Response to Comment 7-4 MID notes that its Electrical Engineering Department will address improvement plans when individual development proposals are submitted in the future. The City will advise MID of future development proposals when they are submitted and solicit MID’s advice on the related improvement plans. ---PAGE BREAK--- Chapter IX. Comments on Draft Master EIR and Responses to Comments Modesto General Plan Update Final Master EIR IX-30 Chapter IX. Comments on Draft Master EIR and Responses to Comments. October 2008 ---PAGE BREAK--- Chapter IX. Comments on Draft Master EIR and Responses to Comments Modesto General Plan Update Final Master EIR IX-31 Chapter IX. Comments on Draft Master EIR and Responses to Comments. October 2008 ---PAGE BREAK--- Chapter IX. Comments on Draft Master EIR and Responses to Comments Modesto General Plan Update Final Master EIR IX-32 Chapter IX. Comments on Draft Master EIR and Responses to Comments. October 2008 ---PAGE BREAK--- Chapter IX. Comments on Draft Master EIR and Responses to Comments Modesto General Plan Update Final Master EIR IX-33 Chapter IX. Comments on Draft Master EIR and Responses to Comments. October 2008 ---PAGE BREAK--- Chapter IX. Comments on Draft Master EIR and Responses to Comments Modesto General Plan Update Final Master EIR IX-34 Chapter IX. Comments on Draft Master EIR and Responses to Comments. October 2008 ---PAGE BREAK--- Chapter IX. Comments on Draft Master EIR and Responses to Comments Modesto General Plan Update Final Master EIR IX-35 Chapter IX. Comments on Draft Master EIR and Responses to Comments. October 2008 ---PAGE BREAK--- Chapter IX. Comments on Draft Master EIR and Responses to Comments Modesto General Plan Update Final Master EIR IX-36 Chapter IX. Comments on Draft Master EIR and Responses to Comments. October 2008 ---PAGE BREAK--- Chapter IX. Comments on Draft Master EIR and Responses to Comments Modesto General Plan Update Final Master EIR IX-37 Chapter IX. Comments on Draft Master EIR and Responses to Comments. October 2008 I. RESPONSES TO COMMENT LETTER 8—MARJORIE BLOM, STANISLAUS LOCAL AGENCY FORMATION COMMISSION 1. Response to Comment 8-1 The commenter notes that the Government Code section describing factors to be considered by Local Agency Formation Commissions during annexation proceedings has been amended. The discussion on page VIII-3 of the UAGP and at the bottom of page II-7 of the MEIR is revised to reflect these changes, as follows: Any information or comments from the landowner or owners, voters, or and residents of the affected territory. Any information relating to existing land use designations. The extent to which the proposal will promote environmental justice. As used in this subdivision, “environmental justice” means the fair treatment of people of all races, cultures, and incomes with respect to the location of public facilities and the provision of public services. 2. Response to Comment 8-2 The commenter notes that both the Ceres and Hughson spheres of influence have expanded since 1995, and therefore Figures II-1 (Growth Strategy Diagram) and III-1 (Adopted Land Use Diagram) of the MEIR are incorrect. The commenter is correct; the spheres of influence of both Ceres and Hughson appear to have changed. However, Figure II-1 shows the various planning and administrative boundaries only for the City of Modesto. Planning and administrative boundaries for Ceres, Hughson, Riverbank, and Stanislaus County are not shown. 3. Response to Comment 8-3 The commenter notes that a statement in the MEIR does not appear to match the proposed UAGP amendment. Page VIII-2 of the UAGP includes the following statement: “[i]nfrastructure in County ‘islands’ should be improved to City standards before annexation is complete.” This policy will ensure fair treatment for all annexations of any size, land use, and development potential. 4. Response to Comment 8-4 The commenter notes that various figures in the UAGP and MEIR incorrectly identify Terminal Avenue as “N Santa Fe Avenue.” Figures V-1-1, V-1-3a, V-1-3b, V-1-4a, V-1-4b, and V-3-1 have been revised to reflect this change. The revised figures are provided in Chapter 2. ---PAGE BREAK--- Chapter IX. Comments on Draft Master EIR and Responses to Comments Modesto General Plan Update Final Master EIR IX-38 Chapter IX. Comments on Draft Master EIR and Responses to Comments. October 2008 5. Response to Comment 8-5 The commenter remarks that the Mancini Park area, south of the Tuolumne River and included in the Tuolumne River CPD, is shown incorrectly as located outside the general plan boundaries in various figures in the MEIR. In addition, the commenter mentions that in some MEIR figures, the area incorrectly appears to be within the Ceres sphere of influence. The Modesto sphere of influence and general plan boundaries in the vicinity of Mancini Park are shown correctly. Mancini Park is within the Modesto city limits. The Modesto sphere of influence is outside the existing general plan boundary at this location. The City Council has elected to make minimal revisions to the UAGP maps during this maintenance amendment to the plan. The UAGP boundary will be changed for consistency with the sphere of influence during the next comprehensive UAGP update. 6. Response to Comment 8-6 The Stanislaus LAFCo provides a point of clarification concerning water service areas mentioned in the UAGP. This information is hereby incorporated into the MEIR. 7. Response to Comment 8-7 The Stanislaus LAFCo offers clarification on the incorrect use of the term “annexation” in the UAGP. This correction will be integrated into the UAGP on pages VIII-1 and VIII-2. 8. Response to Comment 8-8 The commenter notes that the Stanislaus LAFCo is an independent agency, separate from the Stanislaus County (County) government. It is recognized that the Stanislaus LAFCo is an independent agency and separate from the County government. Where the Stanislaus LAFCo is referenced in the document as the “Stanislaus County (County) Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCo),” this is done for clarification purposes. 9. Response to Comment 8-9 The commenter requests that the City clarify its statements regarding the status of the Salida Community Plan relative to the UAGP. Since the 2003 update of the UAGP, the Stanislaus County Board of Supervisors has adopted a new Salida Community Plan. The Salida Community Plan was presented to the Board of Supervisors as a ballot initiative. Under California law, the Board of Supervisors must either place the initiative on the ballot (to be voted on by the County electorate) or adopt it without changes. The Board of Supervisors chose to adopt the “Salida Now Initiative” as the community plan, but did not prepare a CEQA analysis or water supply analysis. The City is making only minor revisions to its UAGP, as necessary to reflect new statutes and regulations. In order to keep to this objective, the City Council has stated that it is not making ---PAGE BREAK--- Chapter IX. Comments on Draft Master EIR and Responses to Comments Modesto General Plan Update Final Master EIR IX-39 Chapter IX. Comments on Draft Master EIR and Responses to Comments. October 2008 any substantive changes to the UAGP’s land use policies. As a result, the policies relating to the Salida Community Plan will remain as shown in the 2003 UAGP. The City has no intention to annex or otherwise influence land within the Salida area. The City will consider its policies toward Salida when it undertakes the comprehensive update of the UAGP. 10. Response to Comment 8-10 The commenter presents information on MSRs as they are used as a tool for establishing an appropriate sphere of influence for agencies that provide the indentified services within a designated area police, fire, sewer, water and storm drainage services). This information is hereby incorporated into the MEIR. 11. Response to Comment 8-11 The commenter, representing the Stanislaus LAFCo, points out that the Stanislaus LAFCo is a responsible agency and asks that the City remove references to Stanislaus LAFCo policies from the MEIR. The MEIR references Stanislaus LAFCo statutes and policies, as well as the statutes and policies of agencies such as the State of California and Stanislaus County, in order to illustrate the considerations that will affect reorganization decisions, such as annexations. By explaining the regulatory setting, the MEIR is also describing the extent to which the adopted policies will reduce the potential for impacts from projects that will be subject to Stanislaus LAFCo review. As a responsible agency, the Stanislaus LAFCo has discretionary approval power over annexations or reorganizations that may occur as a result of the proposed project (California Code of Regulations 15381). Although its discretion is limited, the Stanislaus LAFCo nonetheless may impose various requirements on a project that mitigate its potential impacts. Section D of Chapter I, Executive Summary, of the draft MEIR explains that the City is examining the potential impacts of development under the UAGP in light of the mitigating effects of existing and proposed policies. Where pertinent, policies that direct the City or other agencies to act in a manner that protects the environment are used. This information will be retained in the MEIR. 12. Response to Comment 8-12 The commenter notes that one of the main charges of a LAFCo is to protect agricultural lands. The Williamson Act provides that, under specific circumstances, a city may select to not succeed to existing Williamson Act contracts held by the county when that city annexes the land. As part of the annexation process, the LAFCo will need to know, for any land that is being annexed, whether the city is exercising its option to let the Williamson Act contract lapse. In accordance with the requirements of the Cortese-Knox-Hertzberg Local Government Reorganization Act of 2000 (Government Code Section 56000, et seq.) and the Land Conservation Act of 1965 (Government Code Section 51200, et seq.), prior to approving an annexation that includes land under an active Williamson Act contract, the LAFCo will determine whether the city is succeeding to that contract (Government Code Section 51243.5). Upon request, the California Department of Conservation will assist the LAFCo in determining the ---PAGE BREAK--- Chapter IX. Comments on Draft Master EIR and Responses to Comments Modesto General Plan Update Final Master EIR IX-40 Chapter IX. Comments on Draft Master EIR and Responses to Comments. October 2008 disposition of the Williamson Act contract and will advise the LAFCo if the department believes contract termination would adversely affect agricultural viability. The LAFCo must find that there is substantial evidence presented by the city that the termination meets the provisions of the Williamson Act. This process is required by state law and will be followed by both the City of Modesto and Stanislaus LAFCo during the consideration of any such annexation proposals. 13. Response to Comment 8-13 Please see Response to Comment 12-8, which addresses this question and identifies corrections to the text of the MEIR. 14. Response to Comment 8-14 Please see Response to Comment 8-11, which addresses this issue. 15. Response to Comment 8-15 The commenter states that the unincorporated communities of Grayson and Westley are identified incorrectly as cities. The text of the first full paragraph on page V-5-5 (Section has been changed to reflect this clarification: The cities of Oakdale, Riverbank, Grayson, Westley, Hughson, and Waterford, along with the unincorporated communities of Grayson and Westley did not engage in the process or express interest in the project; however, these cities these communities are located in the vicinity of Modesto and may have interest in the future. Hilmar expressly stated they did not have interest in the project. The City currently uses approximately 29,000 af/y of reclaimed wastewater on 2,600 acres of pasture irrigation, and there is an existing demand of approximately 2,000 af/y for area golf courses and parks. The use of reclaimed water is expected to increase in the future to at least 45,000 af/y by 2030. 16. Response to Comment 8-16 The commenter suggests changes to UAGP Policy WS-4, as Government Code Section 56430 regarding MSRs has been amended as of January 1, 2008. The text of the MEIR in the last paragraph on page V-5-7 (Section is revised as shown below to conform to these recent changes: When determining spheres of influence for cities and special districts, LAFCo must conduct a service review of the municipal services provided in an area, as determined by the LAFCo. The municipal services review (MSR) is a comprehensive review of all the agencies that provide the service within the identified area. Typical municipal services include police, fire, sewer, water, and storm drainage services. When conducting the MSR, the LAFCo must prepare a written statement of its determinations with respect to the factors identified in Government Code Section 56430. These factors require consideration of infrastructure needs, projected demand from future ---PAGE BREAK--- Chapter IX. Comments on Draft Master EIR and Responses to Comments Modesto General Plan Update Final Master EIR IX-41 Chapter IX. Comments on Draft Master EIR and Responses to Comments. October 2008 growth, financing constraints and opportunities, and options for the administration of services. several factors, such as growth and population projections; present and planned capacity of public facilities and adequacy of public services, including infrastructure needs and deficiencies; financial ability of agencies to provide services; status of, and opportunities for, share facilities; and accountability for community service needs, including governmental structure and operational efficiencies. 17. Response to Comment 8-17 Please see Response to Comment 8-11, which addresses this issue. 18. Response to Comment 8-18 Please see Response to Comment 8-11, which addresses this issue. 19. Response to Comment 8-19 The commenter proposes changes to UAGP Policy SS-3 as Government Code Section 56430 regarding MSRs has been amended as of January 1, 2008. The following text change in the first full paragraph on page V-6-4 (Section is made to conform with these recent changes: When determining spheres of influence for cities and special districts, the LAFCo must conduct a service review of the municipal services provided in an area, as determined by the LAFCo. The municipal services review (MSR) is a comprehensive review of all the agencies that provide the service within the identified area. Typical municipal services include police, fire, sewer, water, and storm drainage services. When conducting the MSR, the LAFCo must prepare a written statement of its determinations with respect to the factors identified in Government Code Section 56430. These factors require the consideration of infrastructure needs, projected demand from future growth, financing constraints and opportunities, and options for the administration of services. several factors, such as growth and population projections; present and planned capacity of public facilities and adequacy of public services, including infrastructure needs and deficiencies; financial ability of agencies to provide services; status of, and opportunities for, share facilities; and accountability for community service needs, including governmental structure and operational efficiencies. 20. Response to Comment 8-20 Please see Response to Comment 8-11, which addresses this issue. 21. Response to Comment 8-21 The commenter points out that on page V-14-3 (top of page) in the first two paragraphs, the reference in parentheses is unclear. The text in these citations is changed as follows to provide clarification: ---PAGE BREAK--- Chapter IX. Comments on Draft Master EIR and Responses to Comments Modesto General Plan Update Final Master EIR IX-42 Chapter IX. Comments on Draft Master EIR and Responses to Comments. October 2008 The rural level of service is characterized as a fire company equipped to handle basic structural fires and related emergencies that will arrive within 15 minutes of travel time, accompanied by other vehicles and capable of sustaining a 500-gallon-per-minute fire flow for one hour. The suburban level of service is characterized as a fire company equipped to handle all “risk emergencies” that will arrive within five to six minutes of travel time and capable of sustaining a flow for a 2,000-square-foot occupancy for one hour. An urban level of service is characterized as a fire company equipped to handle all risk emergencies that will arrive within five minutes of travel time 90 percent of the time, and capable of sustaining adequate fire flow for the designated risk level in the area. These are broad characterizations of levels of service and do not necessarily reflect the district’s effectiveness or efficiency in dealing with a given emergency. (Stanislaus Local Agency Formation Commission Countywide Fire Services Municipal Service Review 2007.) The Stanislaus Regional 9-1-1 Joint Powers Authority, which includes the various fire protection districts, distributes 911 emergency calls to the respective fire protection district with jurisdiction over the site of the emergency. There are mutual aid agreements among the districts to provide for cross-jurisdictional assistance should a fire district need assistance responding to an emergency. (Stanislaus Local Agency Formation Commission Countywide Fire Services Municipal Service Review 2007.) 22. Response to Comment 8-22 The commenter requests a text change on page V-14-3 (Section to correct terminology. The text is changed as follows: The Cortese-Knox-Hertzberg Local Government Reorganization Act (Government Code Section 56000, et seq.) empowers each county Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCo) to consider incorporation of new cities, annexation of lands to existing cities and special districts, and other changes to city and district boundaries. In order to carry out its responsibilities for planning orderly development and coordination of local government agencies, the LAFCo develops a sphere of influence of each local government agency within the county, with respect to present and probable need for fire services in the area. LAFCo policies discourage “sprawl” a pattern of development characterized by LAFCo by the inefficient delivery of important urban services, such as fire protection). By discouraging sprawl, the LAFCo promotes a more efficient system of local government agencies. When determining spheres of influence for cities and special districts, the LAFCo must conduct a service review of the municipal services provided in an area, as determined by the LAFCo. The municipal services review Municipal Service Review (MSR) is a comprehensive review of all the agencies that provide the service within the identified area. Typical municipal services include police, fire, sewer, water, and storm drainage services. When conducting the MSR, the LAFCo must prepare a written statement of its determinations with respect to the factors identified in Government Code Section 56430. These factors require consideration of infrastructure needs, projected demand from future growth, financing constraints and opportunities, and options for the administration of services. 23. Response to Comment 8-23 The commenter notes that page V-14-4 (Section of the draft MEIR appears to be incorrect in stating that the Stanislaus County General Plan (County General Plan) does not contain policies on fire safety. The County General Plan does contain fire safety policies that apply to lands under its jurisdiction. However, the intent of the MEIR is to say that the County ---PAGE BREAK--- Chapter IX. Comments on Draft Master EIR and Responses to Comments Modesto General Plan Update Final Master EIR IX-43 Chapter IX. Comments on Draft Master EIR and Responses to Comments. October 2008 General Plan does not have fire safety policies that relate to development within the corporate limits of the City of Modesto. 24. Response to Comment 8-24 Please see Master Response 1. 25. Response to Comment 8-25 Please see Response to Comment 8-11, which addresses this issue. 26. Response to Comment 8-26 The commenter notes that the statement on page V-14-7 (Section of the draft MEIR is unclear regarding the requirement for a plan for services when annexations are proposed. The Stanislaus LAFCo clarifies its policies regarding annexation proposals presented by petition of landowners and those presented by City Council resolution. As this statement is written, it is unclear. It is intended to say that the Stanislaus LAFCo will not approve annexations that would result in necessary services being eliminated. The second full paragraph on page V-14-4 of the MEIR is revised to read as follows: The Stanislaus LAFCo considers the provision of adequate fire service in connection with approval of annexations and the establishment of spheres of influence. Adopted LAFCo policies include the requirement that require that when a local agency submits a resolution of application for a change in organization or a reorganization, a plan for service must be prepared and submitted to the LAFCo by the local agency proposing the being affected by the proposed annexation. The A Plan for Services must include information that the range and level of services currently available within the existing boundaries will be at least maintained in the proposed annexation area. Annexations that reduce the existing levels of service will not be approved by the LAFCo. 27. Response to Comment 8-27 The commenter suggests a revision to the discussion of direct impacts in the Planned Urbanizing Area relative to erosion in funding for the Salida and Stanislaus Consolidated FPDs. The City declines to make this change. The commenter implies that the City would be in some way liable for increased risk of fire damage should agreements between the City and the affected FPD result in some increase in fire hazard. In any case, CEQA does not create any liability for damages in future fires—see Cerna v. City of Oakland, et al. (April 11, 2008) Cal.App.4th (school district not liable for traffic fatality at intersection analyzed in school EIR). Please see Master Response 1. ---PAGE BREAK--- Chapter IX. Comments on Draft Master EIR and Responses to Comments Modesto General Plan Update Final Master EIR IX-44 Chapter IX. Comments on Draft Master EIR and Responses to Comments. October 2008 28. Response to Comment 8-28 Please see Response to Comment 8-11, which addresses this issue. 29. Response to Comment 8-29 The commenter describes Stanislaus LAFCo policy requiring that existing fire protection service levels of the City be maintained in any territory being annexed to the City. The commenter also describes the information that the Stanislaus LAFCo will request of the City as part of an annexation proposal, including an estimate of the amount of property tax loss to the affected FPDs and their anticipated service cost savings. This MEIR has been prepared for the City’s maintenance update of its UAGP. No specific annexation proposals are being made at this time. The project- and site-specific details related to acceptance by the Stanislaus LAFCo of an annexation proposal will be addressed at such time as specific annexation proposals are made by the City. In addition, the City will undertake a project- and site-specific CEQA review of any proposed annexations at such time as they are proposed. Without a specific annexation proposal, the City cannot reasonably analyze the potential impacts on any affected rural FPD and the measures that will be needed for the City to maintain its Class 2 Insurance Service Office (ISO) rating and to avoid reduction in services. As discussed in the Modesto Fire Department’s Strategic Plan: Fiscal Year 2008 through 2012 (Modesto Fire Department 2008), the City intends to maintain its existing Class 2 ISO rating across any future annexations. The City’s ultimate goal is to achieve a Class 1 ISO rating. ISO ratings range from Class 1 (exemplary public protection) to Class 10 (failure to meet ISO standards). ---PAGE BREAK--- Chapter IX. Comments on Draft Master EIR and Responses to Comments Modesto General Plan Update Final Master EIR IX-45 Chapter IX. Comments on Draft Master EIR and Responses to Comments. October 2008 ---PAGE BREAK--- Chapter IX. Comments on Draft Master EIR and Responses to Comments Modesto General Plan Update Final Master EIR IX-46 Chapter IX. Comments on Draft Master EIR and Responses to Comments. October 2008 ---PAGE BREAK--- Chapter IX. Comments on Draft Master EIR and Responses to Comments Modesto General Plan Update Final Master EIR IX-47 Chapter IX. Comments on Draft Master EIR and Responses to Comments. October 2008 J. RESPONSES TO COMMENT LETTER 9—ARIE W. VANDER POL, TURLOCK IRRIGATION DISTRICT 1. Response to Comment 9-1 The commenter states that the Turlock Irrigation District (TID) has no comment on irrigation or electric facilities concerning this project. No further response is necessary. ---PAGE BREAK--- Chapter IX. Comments on Draft Master EIR and Responses to Comments Modesto General Plan Update Final Master EIR IX-48 Chapter IX. Comments on Draft Master EIR and Responses to Comments. October 2008 ---PAGE BREAK--- Chapter IX. Comments on Draft Master EIR and Responses to Comments Modesto General Plan Update Final Master EIR IX-49 Chapter IX. Comments on Draft Master EIR and Responses to Comments. October 2008 ---PAGE BREAK--- Chapter IX. Comments on Draft Master EIR and Responses to Comments Modesto General Plan Update Final Master EIR IX-50 Chapter IX. Comments on Draft Master EIR and Responses to Comments. October 2008 ---PAGE BREAK--- Chapter IX. Comments on Draft Master EIR and Responses to Comments Modesto General Plan Update Final Master EIR IX-51 Chapter IX. Comments on Draft Master EIR and Responses to Comments. October 2008 ---PAGE BREAK--- Chapter IX. Comments on Draft Master EIR and Responses to Comments Modesto General Plan Update Final Master EIR IX-52 Chapter IX. Comments on Draft Master EIR and Responses to Comments. October 2008 ---PAGE BREAK--- Chapter IX. Comments on Draft Master EIR and Responses to Comments Modesto General Plan Update Final Master EIR IX-53 Chapter IX. Comments on Draft Master EIR and Responses to Comments. October 2008 ---PAGE BREAK--- Chapter IX. Comments on Draft Master EIR and Responses to Comments Modesto General Plan Update Final Master EIR IX-54 Chapter IX. Comments on Draft Master EIR and Responses to Comments. October 2008 ---PAGE BREAK--- Chapter IX. Comments on Draft Master EIR and Responses to Comments Modesto General Plan Update Final Master EIR IX-55 Chapter IX. Comments on Draft Master EIR and Responses to Comments. October 2008 K. RESPONSES TO COMMENT LETTER 10—DALE SKILES, SALIDA FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT 1. Response to Comment 10-1 The City recognizes that auto and mutual aid suppression services are important to maintaining fire safety. However, the action being contemplated by the City is adoption of amendments necessary to update the UAGP, not a plan for future fire service. The suggested “response-time analysis” is not a required component of a general plan (as provided in Government Code Section 65302), and the City chooses to plan for future fire service at the Specific Plan level, rather than in its General Plan. 2. Response to Comment 10-2 The commenter is incorrect in stating that the UAGP’s circulation network is limited to the lands within the Modesto city limits. The circulation network described in the UAGP actually includes the entire area within City’s planning area boundary. This includes unincorporated lands adjoining the City. Accordingly, the traffic analysis prepared for the draft MEIR and found in Chapter V, Section 1 of that document examines the UAGP’s direct and cumulative impacts on roads within the planning area, as well impacts on regional facilities. The congestion analysis in the MEIR already provides the analysis that the commenter is requesting. 3. Response to Comment 10-3 Please see Master Response 1 related to fire services. The proposed policy has been revised as suggested by the commenter. With regard to the level of cooperation from the City, see Response to Comment 13-2. 4. Response to Comment 10-4 The commenter asserts that the UAGP will result in adverse fiscal impacts on the Salida FPD, leading to its insolvency and a loss of fire protection as a result. The Salida FPD requests that agreements to ensure existing levels of service be in place prior to any annexation and detachment of land from the district. The action now being contemplated by the City is adoption of amendments necessary to update the UAGP. This is not a plan for future fire service, it is not intended to be a detailed agreement over future annexation, and there are no substantive changes to the UAGP land use or circulation elements, as compared to the 2003 UAGP. The MEIR acknowledges that there are issues relative to the continued viability of the Salida FPD. However, there are existing safeguards in place to avoid the adverse impact that the district fears. As discussed in Response to Comment 8-26, Stanislaus LAFCo policies require that when a local agency submits a resolution of application for a change of organization or reorganization, ---PAGE BREAK--- Chapter IX. Comments on Draft Master EIR and Responses to Comments Modesto General Plan Update Final Master EIR IX-56 Chapter IX. Comments on Draft Master EIR and Responses to Comments. October 2008 a plan for services must also be submitted that shows how existing levels of service will be maintained. State law under Revenue and Taxation Code Section 99 requires the City to negotiate a revenue agreement with the district prior to the LAFCo’s approval of an annexation. The LAFCo is empowered to deny an annexation that would jeopardize services (Government Code Sections 56375[a] and 56668). In addition, the City is currently discussing with the Salida FPD and the Stanislaus Consolidated FPD solutions to this problem. Given the state of these discussions, including specific UAGP language beyond that provided in Policies V.K.2(m) and VI.D.1(c)(5) would be premature. 5. Response to Comment 10-5 The commenter requests that the MEIR discuss growth-inducing impacts beyond the City’s planning area. The County regulates unincorporated lands. Current County policy is to encourage new development to locate within cities and to minimize the conversion of agricultural land (see Comment 12-7 in the letter from the Stanislaus County Environmental Review Committee). The availability of land within the County for future urbanization is not under the City’s control and would be contrary to current County policies; therefore, it is not a reasonably foreseeable result of buildout of the UAGP. Furthermore, except for water and sewer services, which extend beyond the City’s boundaries to portions of Turlock, Ceres, and discrete unincorporated communities, the City does not and would not provide urban improvements outside of its city limits. Longstanding City policy has been to require an advisory vote prior to extending sewer service to areas projected for growth in its General Plan. No provisions are made to extend sewer service beyond the UAGP’s planning boundaries. For these reasons, the potential for the UAGP to induce growth on lands outside the City’s planning area is limited. The impacts on fire services to which the commenter refers are most appropriately addressed in the cumulative impact section of the MEIR and will be addressed specifically in Specific Plan EIRs at such time as those documents are prepared. 6. Response to Comment 10-6 Please see Master Response 1 related to fire services. The City recognizes the need for auto and mutual aid suppression services in order to maintain fire safety. See Response to Comment 10-4 regarding safeguards to avoid a reduction in fire protection. 7. Response to Comment 10-7 The commenter states that the Salida FPD’s position is that agreements between cities and affected special districts must be in place prior to approval of annexations and detachments from those districts. The City does not disagree with this statement. As stated earlier, the City is meeting with the affected fire districts to work out a mutually agreeable approach to annexation. Further, the Stanislaus LAFCo requires such agreements before it can approve an annexation or detachment. ---PAGE BREAK--- Chapter IX. Comments on Draft Master EIR and Responses to Comments Modesto General Plan Update Final Master EIR IX-57 Chapter IX. Comments on Draft Master EIR and Responses to Comments. October 2008 8. Response to Comment 10-8 The commenter requests that the cumulative impact analysis be expanded. Please see Response to Comment 10-4 regarding the effects of the UAGP on fire services. Safeguards exist that will avoid the loss of services outside the City limits. Therefore, future annexations would not result in adverse effects on fire services. 9. Response to Comment 10-9 The commenter states that the UAGP must include a policy requiring the City to negotiate a revenue agreement with the Salida FPD. Negotiating an agreement is required by state law under Revenue and Taxation Code Section 99 prior to the LAFCo’s approval of an annexation, as referred to in the MEIR. The UAGP will reflect this requirement in two of its policies. See Master Response 1 regarding UAGP Policies V.K.2(m) and VI.D.1(c)(5). 10. Response to Comment 10-10 The commenter states that the MEIR must provide a solution for the future fire services that might be affected by future annexations. Proposed UAGP Policies V.K.2(m) and VI.D.1(c)(5) allow the City to negotiate agreements with the affected districts prior to annexation. The City is currently discussing potential solutions with the affected fire districts. In combination with existing safeguards in the form of Stanislaus LAFCo policy and state law, the results of the ongoing discussions will provide the solution, as discussed in Response to Comment 10-4. 11. Response to Comment 10-11 The commenter states that it is imperative to establish a policy to avoid adverse fiscal impacts on the fire districts that would lead to a reduction of fire protection services. Please see Response to Comment 10-10. 12. Response to Comment 10-12 The commenter asserts that the significant impact on fire service identified for the No-Project Alternative is not unavoidable, as the MEIR states. The No-Project Alternative is built upon the assumption that none of the policies proposed to be added to the UAGP will be added. The analysis takes the conservative view that without Policies V.K.2(m) and VI.D.1(c)(5), the safeguards under Stanislaus LAFCo policy and statute would be insufficient to avoid all fiscal losses. ---PAGE BREAK--- Chapter IX. Comments on Draft Master EIR and Responses to Comments Modesto General Plan Update Final Master EIR IX-58 Chapter IX. Comments on Draft Master EIR and Responses to Comments. October 2008 13. Response to Comment 10-13 The commenter asserts that both the UAGP and the MEIR are deficient in analyzing the impacts on the Salida FPD that would be caused by future annexations by the City. Please see Master Response 1, Response to Comment 10-4, and Response to Comment 10-10. The UAGP contains policies intended to avoid fiscal impacts on the fire districts. The MEIR discusses the potential impacts, mitigating policies contained in the UAGP, and existing safeguards in Stanislaus LAFCo policy and statute. ---PAGE BREAK--- Chapter IX. Comments on Draft Master EIR and Responses to Comments Modesto General Plan Update Final Master EIR IX-59 Chapter IX. Comments on Draft Master EIR and Responses to Comments. October 2008 ---PAGE BREAK--- Chapter IX. Comments on Draft Master EIR and Responses to Comments Modesto General Plan Update Final Master EIR IX-60 Chapter IX. Comments on Draft Master EIR and Responses to Comments. October 2008 ---PAGE BREAK--- Chapter IX. Comments on Draft Master EIR and Responses to Comments Modesto General Plan Update Final Master EIR IX-61 Chapter IX. Comments on Draft Master EIR and Responses to Comments. October 2008 L. RESPONSES TO COMMENT LETTER 11—JOSHUA MANN, STANISLAUS COUNTY AIRPORT LAND USE COMMISSION 1. Response to Comment 11-1 The Stanislaus County Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) notes that the UAGP falls within the boundaries of the planning area for the Modesto City-County Airport, as set forth in the Stanislaus County Airport Land Use Commission Plan. Although its comments are aimed at the proposed UAGP amendment, we have provided a response in this document. The ALUC remarks that there are a number of land uses in this area where noise and safety conflicts with the airport exist. The ALUC suggests that the City should develop and include as part of the UAGP “Airport Safety Zones” for the northern half of the airport. Further, it recommends that the City include restrictions on building heights within the airport planning boundary. The City is undertaking a “maintenance” amendment to the UAGP that will bring the UAGP into conformance with the City’s adopted policies and reflect state and local land use regulations that have been adopted since the 2003 update to the UAGP. By direction of the City Council, and as stated in the project objectives on page III-7 of the draft MEIR, this amendment is not intended to make comprehensive changes to the UAGP or its policies. In particular, no changes in current land use designations are being proposed. The draft UAGP largely reflects the land use pattern of the existing, adopted UAGP. The City intends to begin a comprehensive amendment of the UAGP after it adopts this maintenance update. The comprehensive amendment will examine such issues as the format of the UAGP and its contents. Consideration of new land use designations in the area north of the airport and limitations on building heights will be among the land use policies discussed in the process of comprehensively updating the UAGP. The Modesto City-County Airport is currently preparing an update of its 14 CFR [Code of Federal Regulations] Part 150 Noise Compatibility Study Update (Part 150 Study), which will include some land use recommendations and updated Airport Safety Zones. This effort is independent of the UAGP amendment, which, as noted in the project description for the draft MEIR for the UAGP update, does not include either substantial land use or transportation changes. Nonetheless, the airport noise information provided by the Part 150 Study has been included in the noise impact analysis for this MEIR. At this time, airport staff and the Part 150 Study consultant anticipate proposing a future general plan amendment to include policies that the City Council may choose to adopt. The ALUC may wish to ensure its comments on this issue are addressed adequately in the Part 150 Study. ---PAGE BREAK--- Chapter IX. Comments on Draft Master EIR and Responses to Comments Modesto General Plan Update Final Master EIR IX-62 Chapter IX. Comments on Draft Master EIR and Responses to Comments. October 2008 ---PAGE BREAK--- Chapter IX. Comments on Draft Master EIR and Responses to Comments Modesto General Plan Update Final Master EIR IX-63 Chapter IX. Comments on Draft Master EIR and Responses to Comments. October 2008 ---PAGE BREAK--- Chapter IX. Comments on Draft Master EIR and Responses to Comments Modesto General Plan Update Final Master EIR IX-64 Chapter IX. Comments on Draft Master EIR and Responses to Comments. October 2008 ---PAGE BREAK--- Chapter IX. Comments on Draft Master EIR and Responses to Comments Modesto General Plan Update Final Master EIR IX-65 Chapter IX. Comments on Draft Master EIR and Responses to Comments. October 2008 ---PAGE BREAK--- Chapter IX. Comments on Draft Master EIR and Responses to Comments Modesto General Plan Update Final Master EIR IX-66 Chapter IX. Comments on Draft Master EIR and Responses to Comments. October 2008 ---PAGE BREAK--- Chapter IX. Comments on Draft Master EIR and Responses to Comments Modesto General Plan Update Final Master EIR IX-67 Chapter IX. Comments on Draft Master EIR and Responses to Comments. October 2008 ---PAGE BREAK--- Chapter IX. Comments on Draft Master EIR and Responses to Comments Modesto General Plan Update Final Master EIR IX-68 Chapter IX. Comments on Draft Master EIR and Responses to Comments. October 2008 ---PAGE BREAK--- Chapter IX. Comments on Draft Master EIR and Responses to Comments Modesto General Plan Update Final Master EIR IX-69 Chapter IX. Comments on Draft Master EIR and Responses to Comments. October 2008 M. RESPONSES TO COMMENT LETTER 12—RAUL MENDEZ, STANISLAUS COUNTY ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE 1. Response to Comment 12-1 Please see Master Response 1 related to fire services. 2. Response to Comment 12-2 As noted in Master Response 1, a specific environmental review is conducted for each area the City considers annexing. The financial effect on the affected FPD of each detachment from an FPD varies, depending upon the financial resources of the FPD and the size of the annexation area. Not all detachments/annexations will result in a secondary physical impact within the FPD as a result of the primary fiscal impact on the FPD. CEQA is focused on physical impacts only. 3. Response to Comment 12-3 Please see Response to Comment 8-9, which addresses this question. 4. Response to Comment 12-4 The commenter notes that the discussion of the Salida CPD does not discuss water service within the CPD boundaries. The commenter is correct that the Salida Sanitary Sewer District provides only sewer service within a portion of the Salida CPD. The discussion in the UAGP is not intended to be a comprehensive assessment of all urban services, but simply a recognition of existing services provided by jurisdictions other than the City. Furthermore, water service will be the responsibility of the developers of the County’s Salida Community Plan. As the agency with land use authority over the Salida Community Plan, the County will be responsible for implementing the provisions of that plan, including the provision that states “[a]n adequate water supply must be secured and demonstrated for development in accordance with applicable law.” An evaluation of the water supply is required by state law prior to the land use decision. The water supply evaluation was therefore required prior to the Board of Supervisors’ decision on the Salida Community Plan in 2007. The City does not intend to annex Salida and therefore would not have responsibility for land use decisions or for providing water. With adoption of the Salida Community Plan by the County, there may be no need for the City to include the Salida CPD in the UAGP at all. However, that important land use policy decision is being reserved for consideration during the comprehensive update of the UAGP. ---PAGE BREAK--- Chapter IX. Comments on Draft Master EIR and Responses to Comments Modesto General Plan Update Final Master EIR IX-70 Chapter IX. Comments on Draft Master EIR and Responses to Comments. October 2008 5. Response to Comment 12-5 The commenter notes that the County’s Salida Community Plan proposes a new expressway connecting SR 99 to Dale Road, beginning at the Hammett Road interchange. They request that the new expressway shown in the Salida Community Plan should be reflected in the UAGP and MEIR. The land use and transportation portions of the new Salida Community Plan were inadequately described to allow their inclusion in the Stanislaus Council of Governments (StanCOG) model or in the UAGP, and funding has not been identified that would make the proposed expressway a realistic project. The proposed new expressway is conceptually identified in the Salida Community Plan component of the County General Plan and is proposed for inclusion in the California Transportation Commission’s State Transportation Improvement Plan (STIP). It is the western part of a 7.7-mile-long expressway connecting SR 99 to SR 120 (North County Corridor Project). StanCOG’s Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) and Regional Transportation Improvement Plan (Stanislaus Council of Governments 2008a, 2008b) identify the North County Corridor Project as a six-lane limited-access expressway and have programmed $6.2 million for fiscal year 2008/2009 toward the cost of preliminary engineering and preparing environmental documents. The March 2008 Preliminary Design Report to Request Programming for Project Approval and Environmental Document Phase in the 2008 STIP for the North County Corridor Project (Stanislaus Council of Governments 2008c) estimates the current cost of the full alignment to be $1.2 billion to $1.4 billion. There is no current source of funding to pay for the project. Presumably, the County will establish assessments and/or impact fees within the Salida Community Plan area for a portion of the costs. However, the viability of the project largely hinges on the availability of substantial money from the County’s transportation sales tax measure, which is expected to be on the November 2008 ballot. If passed, the 20-year, 0.5% sales tax increment would raise approximately $700 million. Approximately 49% of the sales tax proceeds ($343 million) would be split among three new east-west traffic corridors (including about $117 million for the North County Corridor). This funding would be used to leverage state and federal funds sufficient to cover the rest of the costs of the proposed expressways. Inclusion of the expressway in the STIP would allow the County to compete for state and federal funding. The North County Corridor Transportation Expressway Authority (a joint powers authority) has been created to coordinate funding for the project. Members include the County and the Cities of Modesto, Oakdale, and Riverbank. Caltrans and StanCOG are also represented as non-voting members. If the proposed transportation tax fails, on the other hand, there would be no local match against which to leverage state or federal funding, and construction of the North County Corridor would be unlikely to occur. Although this expressway is identified on the Salida Community Plan, its high cost would make it unlikely to be built. The proposed expressway is not currently included in the StanCOG regional traffic model. However, the Preliminary Design Report to Request Programming for Project Approval and Environmental Document Phase in the 2008 STIP for the North County Corridor Project includes estimates of traffic on nearby roads in 2030, should the expressway be built. The findings of the Preliminary Design Report are reproduced below for informational purposes: ---PAGE BREAK--- Chapter IX. Comments on Draft Master EIR and Responses to Comments Modesto General Plan Update Final Master EIR IX-71 Chapter IX. Comments on Draft Master EIR and Responses to Comments. October 2008 a. Traffic Forecasts The traffic analysis prepared for this project evaluates future (2030) operations on the North County Corridor and its effect on the parallel roadways by analyzing their operations both with and without the corridor improvements. The regional implications of the corridor improvements are evaluated by examining the measures of effectiveness (MOEs) of vehicle miles of travel (VMT), vehicle hours of travel (VHT), and vehicle hours of delay (VHD) both with and without the project. The StanCOG 2004 RTP travel demand model was the primary tool used in this traffic evaluation. To ensure that an eight-lane facility is fully warranted and to avoid overstating the benefits of the project, this study assumed the project was a four-lane Class B expressway, with the portion between Tully Road and Albers Road as a six-lane Class B expressway. These assumptions are consistent with the traffic analysis assumptions used for the County General Plan except for the project. The project was included as an eight- lane Class A expressway in the County General Plan traffic analysis. The project is anticipated to carry between 14,000 and 76,000 ADT, depending on location. Traffic volumes on SR 108 through the City of Riverbank are not anticipated to drop with the project; however, traffic volumes on SR 108 through the City of Oakdale are anticipated to drop between 2% and 26%, depending on location. With the project, traffic volumes on Kiernan Avenue and Pelandale Avenue between SR 99 and Tully Road are anticipated to drop by about 55% and respectively. The project is anticipated to operate at Level of Service (LOS) D, E, or F between SR 99 and Claus Road and LOS B or better between Claus Road and SR 108. Traffic shifts caused by the project are not anticipated to degrade the LOS at any roadways. Traffic diverting from nearby roadways to the project will improve the LOS on those roadways. Locations that would improve with the project are listed below: „ Kiernan Avenue between SR 99 and Tully Road: LOS D to LOS B „ Pelandale Avenue between SR 99 and Tully Road: LOS D to LOS C „ SR 108 east of Yosemite Avenue: LOS C to LOS B „ Yosemite Avenue south of SR 108: LOS F to LOS E Regional MOEs were calculated to determine the impacts of the project from a regional perspective. Table IX-2 below summarizes the daily area-wide VMT, VHT, and VHD with and without the project. The following is a brief description of VMT, VHT, and VHD: „ VMT is a measure of the total vehicle miles traveled by all vehicles „ VHT is a measure of the total hours traveled by all vehicles „ VHD is the amount of total delay incurred as a result of congestion ---PAGE BREAK--- Chapter IX. Comments on Draft Master EIR and Responses to Comments Modesto General Plan Update Final Master EIR IX-72 Chapter IX. Comments on Draft Master EIR and Responses to Comments. October 2008 Table IX-2. Year 2030 Project vs. No Project Comparison for the Project Area Measure Project No Project Difference Difference) Daily VMT 4,143,690 4,156,400 -12,710 Daily VHT 108,318 115,495 -7,177 Daily VHD 16,731 23,114 -6,383 Source: Fehr & Peers 2008 (as cited in StanCOG 2008c). As shown in Table IX-2, the project would result in a small reduction of VMT and VHT and a substantial reduction (more than 25%) in VHD when compared to the no-project scenario. The SR 99/Hammett Road traffic study identified the potential need for grade separation (interchanges) along Hammett Road at Pirrone Road, Stoddard Road, and Dale Road. For traffic modeling purposes, the study assumed Hammett Road would be a 10-lane Class A expressway (five lanes in each direction) from SR 99 to Kiernan Avenue. However, based on the projected AM and PM peak hour traffic volumes, Hammett Road could be designed as an eight-lane Class A expressway and provide acceptable LOS C conditions. Table IX-3 summarizes the LOS results on Hammett Road based on the highest projected volume in the AM and PM peak hours. Table IX-3. Year 2035 LOS Results on Hammett Road Assuming Eight-Lane Class A Expressway Peak Hour Direction Volume Capacity V/C LOS AM Westbound 4,112 6,000 0.69 C PM Eastbound 4,253 6,000 0.71 C/D Sources: 2035 Traffic Forecasts Results for State Route 99/Hammett Expressway Project Study Report (January 10, 2008) and Fehr & Peers 2008 (as cited in StanCOG 2008c). It is important to note that the traffic projections from the SR 99/Hammett Road traffic study indicate the need for higher capacity on the North County Corridor (between SR 99 and Kiernan Avenue) than the traffic projections from the 2004 StanCOG RTP model. One main reason for the difference is that the 2004 StanCOG RTP model traffic projections are for 2030, while the SR 99/Hammett Road traffic study projections are for 2035. Another reason is that the SR 99/Hammett Road traffic study projections include traffic from the recently proposed Salida Community Plan, which was not available when the 2004 StanCOG RTP model was developed. As stated earlier, the objective of the maintenance amendments to the UAGP is to include revisions necessary to reflect changes in local, regional, and state regulations and programs. As stated in the project objectives on page III-7 of the draft MEIR, the City ---PAGE BREAK--- Chapter IX. Comments on Draft Master EIR and Responses to Comments Modesto General Plan Update Final Master EIR IX-73 Chapter IX. Comments on Draft Master EIR and Responses to Comments. October 2008 does not intend to make substantial amendments to its land use diagram or to its Circulation Element. Therefore, it will consider the proposed expressway in the comprehensive update to be undertaken in the near future. At that time, the results of the November 2008 transportation sales tax vote will be known. 6. Response to Comment 12-6 The commenter notes that the County’s Salida Community Plan proposes a new north-south expressway along Hammett Road and requests that the new expressway shown on the Salida Community Plan be reflected in the MEIR traffic analysis. The proposed new expressway is part of the County General Plan. While the North County Corridor has been studied at a preliminary level, the same is not true of the north-south expressway along the Hammett Road alignment. This expressway is not being proposed for inclusion in the STIP and therefore would be funded solely from local sources, which have not been identified. This expressway is not included in the adopted StanCOG RTP or the StanCOG traffic model. The Hammett Road expressway is located along the western boundary of the Salida Community Plan and would primarily provide access to Salida from the SR 99/Hammett Road interchange. It would not be expected to carry traffic to or from Modesto, and it would not be expected to influence Modesto traffic patterns in any substantial way. There is no timetable for construction of the expressway, and no cost estimate or financing plan has been put into place. Accordingly, there is no reasonable need to include it in the MEIR’s traffic analysis. As stated earlier, the objective of the maintenance amendments to the UAGP is to include revisions necessary to reflect changes in local, regional, and state regulations and programs. The City does not intend to make substantial amendments to its land use diagram. Therefore, it will consider the proposed expressway in the comprehensive update to be undertaken in the near future if circumstances warrant. 7. Response to Comment 12-7 The UAGP contains a policy regarding buffers protecting agricultural lands. Policy VII-D(4) reads as follows: 4. Agriculture Policies—Planned Urbanizing Area The following policies apply to new development proposed in the Planned Urbanizing Area: a. The City will not annex agricultural land unless urban development consistent with the General Plan has been approved by the City. b. The City shall support the continuation of agricultural uses on lands designated for urban uses until urban development is imminent. c. The City shall encourage the County to retain agricultural uses on lands surrounding the General Plan area and on lands within the General Plan area pending their annexation to the City or development by mutual agreement with the County. ---PAGE BREAK--- Chapter IX. Comments on Draft Master EIR and Responses to Comments Modesto General Plan Update Final Master EIR IX-74 Chapter IX. Comments on Draft Master EIR and Responses to Comments. October 2008 d. Where necessary to promote planned City growth, the City shall encourage development of those agricultural lands that are already compromised by adjacent urban development or contain property required for the extension of infrastructure or other public facilities, before considering urban development on agricultural lands that are not subject to such urban pressures. e. For any subsequent project that is adjacent to an existing agricultural use, the project proponent may incorporate measures to reduce the potential for conflicts with the agricultural use. Potential measures to be implemented may include the following: Include a buffer zone of sufficient width between proposed residences and the agricultural use. Restrict the intensity of residential uses adjacent to agricultural lands. Inform residents about the possible exposure to agricultural chemicals. At its meeting on June 24, 2008, the City Council approved a work program to develop policies to mitigate the loss of agricultural lands. The preliminary schedule shows City Council consideration of proposed policies in late 2008 or early 2009. 8. Response to Comment 12-8 The commenter notes that the County Agriculture Element was amended in December 2007 and is not reflected in the policies described on pages V-4-6 and V-4-7 of the draft MEIR. The commenter is correct. The policies in the MEIR reflect those in effect prior to the December 2007 amendment because the amendment is being litigated. Until the litigation is complete, only the previously adopted policies are in effect. However, the intent of the County Agriculture Element has not changed substantially, and many of the policies listed in the MEIR have been carried over into the new element. In order that the MEIR will reflect the current County policies relative to agricultural protection and the minimization of conflicts between agricultural uses and other land uses, Section A(4)(d)(2) of Chapter V, Section 4 of the MEIR is revised to read as follows: AL-4: The County shall continue to implement its Right-to-Farm Ordinance. (County General Plan, Agricultural Element, Policy 1.910, Implementation Measure 1) AL-5: The County shall protect agricultural operations from conflicts with non-agricultural uses by requiring buffers between proposed non-agricultural uses and adjacent agricultural operations. (County General Plan, Agricultural Element, Policy 1.1011) AL-6: Setbacks from agricultural areas shall be established to minimize adverse impacts of adjacent uses on agriculture. The County shall require buffers and setbacks for all discretionary projects introducing or expanding non-agricultural uses in or adjacent to an agricultural area consistent with the guidelines presented in Appendix of the Agricultural Element. (County General Plan, Agricultural Element, Policy 1.10, Implementation Measure 112) AL-7: To reduce development pressures on agricultural lands, higher density development and infilling shall be encouraged in urban and built-up areas of the County. (County General Plan, Agricultural Element, Policy 2.43) ---PAGE BREAK--- Chapter IX. Comments on Draft Master EIR and Responses to Comments Modesto General Plan Update Final Master EIR IX-75 Chapter IX. Comments on Draft Master EIR and Responses to Comments. October 2008 AL-8: To the greatest extent possible, development shall be directed away from the County’s most productive agricultural areas. (County General Plan, Agricultural Element, Policy 2.54) AL-9: The County shall encourage regional coordination of planning and development activities for the entire Central Valley. New areas for urban development (as opposed to expansion of existing areas) shall be limited to less productive agricultural areas. (County General Plan, Agricultural Element, Policy 1.22 2.5) AL-10: Agricultural lands restricted to agricultural use shall not be assessed to pay for infrastructure needed to accommodate urban development. (County General Plan, Agricultural Element, General Plan Agricultural Element, Policy 2.6) AL-11: Proposed amendments to the General Plan Diagram that would allow the conversion of agricultural land to non-agricultural uses shall be approved only if they are consistent with the County’s conversion criteria. (County General Plan, Agricultural Element, Policy 2.7) AL-12: The County recognizes the desire right of cities and unincorporated communities cities to grow and prosper and shall not oppose reasonable requests consistent with city and county agreements to expand, spheres of influence of cities or community services districts and sanitary districts serving unincorporated communities to accommodate providing the resultant growth minimizes impacts to adjacent agricultural land. (County General Plan, Agricultural Element, Policy 2.118) AL-13: In recognition that unincorporated land within sphere of influence of cities or community services districts and sanitary districts serving unincorporated communities ultimately will be urbanized, the County shall cooperate with cities and unincorporated communities in managing development in sphere of influence urban transition areas. (County General Plan, Agricultural Element, Policy 2.139) AL-14: The County shall discourage the expansion of spheres of influence of cities or community services districts and sanitary districts serving unincorporated communities into its most productive agricultural areas In order to mitigate the conversion of agricultural land resulting from a discretionary project requiring a General Plan or Community Plan amendment from “Agriculture” to a residential land use designation, the County shall require the replacement of agricultural land at a 1:1 ratio with agricultural land of equal quality located in Stanislaus County. The County shall work cooperatively with the nine cities within the County and to [sic.] encourage them to adopt agricultural conservation policies or ordinances which are consistent with County policies or ordinances in order to undertake an integrated, comprehensive Countywide approach to farmland conservation. It is the ultimate goal of the County to have all nine cities participate in or adopt an agricultural mitigation ordinance that is the same as or substantially similar. (County General Plan, Agricultural Element, Policy Policies 2.15 and 2.1711) 9. Response to Comment 12-9 The commenter summarizes the County’s policies for the protection of farmland. In particular, the County encourages cities to adopt consistent agricultural protection policies and ordinances, including provisions for a 1:1 replacement ratio when agricultural mitigation is necessary. As noted in Response to Comment 12-8, Section A(4)(d)(2) of Chapter V, Section 4 of the MEIR is revised to include the policies of the County Agriculture Element that was adopted in December 2007. However, the decision about whether the City should adopt consistent policies ---PAGE BREAK--- Chapter IX. Comments on Draft Master EIR and Responses to Comments Modesto General Plan Update Final Master EIR IX-76 Chapter IX. Comments on Draft Master EIR and Responses to Comments. October 2008 is beyond the scope of this UAGP maintenance update. The agricultural protection policies adopted by the County, particularly Policies 2.15 and 2.17, represent a considerable change from the City’s current policies and practice. As noted in Response to Comment 12-7, the City Council recently approved a work program to develop agricultural mitigation policies. 10. Response to Comment 12-10 The commenter notes that according to the City/County agreement, City development standards may only be applied by the County to discretionary projects located within the City’s sphere of influence. However, the agreement between the City and the County, executed on March 13, 1990, does not limit compliance with City standards to discretionary projects, and County policies enumerated in the County General Plan do not limit compliance with City standards to discretionary projects. To wit, paragraph A of the agreement states: COUNTY agrees to take whatever action is necessary to insure that development permitted by COUNTY within CITY’S Sphere of Influence will be limited to agricultural uses, churches, and such other uses that may be mutually agreed upon by the parties hereto. Furthermore, paragraph 205 of the agreement states: COUNTY shall adopt a Resolution concurrently with its approval of this Agreement, declaring its intention to immediately begin procedures to amend its General Plan and elements thereof and adopt Zoning amendments consistent therewith which will result in the limitation of development [as described in paragraph A and delineating those areas exempted from the Agreement 11. Response to Comment 12-11 The commenter notes that the information set forth on page V-3-4 (Section A[4] of Chapter V, Section 3) has outdated information concerning the Proctor and Gamble facility and its surrounding orchards. The following changes were made to the text on page V-3-4 to correct these errors: Another potential sound source is industrial plant facilities. Sound measurements were taken at the former Proctor and Gamble facility (now the G-3 facility) and E & J Gallo Winery in 1992 by Recon Environmental Corp. and presented in the 1995 Final Master Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the UAGP. The results from these sound measurements are presented in Table 3-1. The E & J Gallo Winery operates 24 hours per day, seven days per week. Noises associated with the winery are produced by trucking/traffic operations, outdoor generators and other mechanical equipment, and bulk handling (e.g. forklifts) equipment (Byrd pers. comm.). In 1992, the noise levels measured at the Proctor & Gamble facility were largely determined by facility truck traffic entering and exiting the facility along a driveway that was adjacent to an orchard. This orchard has since been removed. The noise levels measured at the E & J Gallo Winery were largely determined by vehicle traffic on Santa Rosa Avenue. ---PAGE BREAK--- Chapter IX. Comments on Draft Master EIR and Responses to Comments Modesto General Plan Update Final Master EIR IX-77 Chapter IX. Comments on Draft Master EIR and Responses to Comments. October 2008 12. Response to Comment 12-12 The commenter notes that the MEIR incorrectly references the date of approval of the County Noise Element and recommends that the citations to the Stanislaus County General Plan contained in Chapter IX of the MEIR be reviewed for accuracy. The MEIR incorrectly references the date of approval of the Noise Element. However, it correctly reflects the Noise Element provisions. The first paragraph and Table 3-4 in Section A(5)(c) of Chapter V, Section 3 are amended to read as follows: The Stanislaus County General Plan Noise Element goals, policies, and implementation measures limit the unincorporated community’s exposure to excessive noise, and the Noise Element was comprehensively revised in 20042006 in conjunction with the update of the County Circulation Element. The County has adopted a modified version of the OPR compatibility criteria (Table 3- Table 3-4. County of Stanislaus Noise Element Standards Maximum Allowable Noise Exposure from Stationary Noise Sources1 Daytime dB (7:00 a.m.–10:00 p.m.) Nighttime dB (10:00 p.m.–7:00 a.m.) Hourly Leq 55 45 Maximum Level 75 65 1 As determined at the property line of the receiving land use. When determining the effectiveness of noise mitigation measures, the standards may be applied on the receptor side of noise barriers or other property line noise mitigation measures. Source: Stanislaus County 20042006. The reference to the County General Plan Noise Element in MEIR Chapter IX is corrected to read as follows: Stanislaus County General Plan Noise Element. 2004. 2006. Available: . 13. Response to Comment 12-13 It is unclear whether the commenter is referring to a long-range planning effort for which an alignment has not yet been selected or to an interim roadway widening. StanCOG’s traffic model, which was utilized in the preparation of the noise analysis, reflects all of the alignments that have been approved to date. When a decision has been made, StanCOG will revise the alignment in the model; until such time as a decision is made, any alignment other than that shown is speculative. ---PAGE BREAK--- Chapter IX. Comments on Draft Master EIR and Responses to Comments Modesto General Plan Update Final Master EIR IX-78 Chapter IX. Comments on Draft Master EIR and Responses to Comments. October 2008 14. Response to Comment 12-14 Upper management staff at the City and the County have formed a team that meets regularly to discuss and prioritize annexations of County island areas. Analysis of infrastructure financing and documentation of infrastructure financing programs are the primary areas of focus for team discussions. The team’s main purpose is to ensure that annexations of isolated pockets within islands and annexations of entire islands will not occur without a comprehensive plan for infrastructure financing. On a project-by-project basis, the City and County negotiate and enter into Public Improvement Agreements in order to establish responsibility and timing for the full range of specific infrastructure improvements. The fully executed agreement is a necessary prerequisite to consideration of island/pocket annexation by the Stanislaus LAFCo. 15. Response to Comment 12-15 The County suggests that the City adopt County General Plan policies as mitigation measures. The MEIR identifies County policies as part of the regulatory background, and these policies cover areas outside of the City limits. As presented in the MEIR, policies of the UAGP address impacts of the UAGP. The City can generally implement mitigation measures and policies only within the City limits. The mitigation measures in the MEIR, including referenced County policies, are intended to be applied to Specific Plans and individual development projects, as they may apply to these projects. Mitigation measures are drawn from the MEIR and applied to subsequent environmental documents, as described on pages III-7 and III-9. ---PAGE BREAK--- Chapter IX. Comments on Draft Master EIR and Responses to Comments Modesto General Plan Update Final Master EIR IX-79 Chapter IX. Comments on Draft Master EIR and Responses to Comments. October 2008 ---PAGE BREAK--- Chapter IX. Comments on Draft Master EIR and Responses to Comments Modesto General Plan Update Final Master EIR IX-80 Chapter IX. Comments on Draft Master EIR and Responses to Comments. October 2008 ---PAGE BREAK--- Chapter IX. Comments on Draft Master EIR and Responses to Comments Modesto General Plan Update Final Master EIR IX-81 Chapter IX. Comments on Draft Master EIR and Responses to Comments. October 2008 ---PAGE BREAK--- Chapter IX. Comments on Draft Master EIR and Responses to Comments Modesto General Plan Update Final Master EIR IX-82 Chapter IX. Comments on Draft Master EIR and Responses to Comments. October 2008 ---PAGE BREAK--- Chapter IX. Comments on Draft Master EIR and Responses to Comments Modesto General Plan Update Final Master EIR IX-83 Chapter IX. Comments on Draft Master EIR and Responses to Comments. October 2008 ---PAGE BREAK--- Chapter IX. Comments on Draft Master EIR and Responses to Comments Modesto General Plan Update Final Master EIR IX-84 Chapter IX. Comments on Draft Master EIR and Responses to Comments. October 2008 ---PAGE BREAK--- Chapter IX. Comments on Draft Master EIR and Responses to Comments Modesto General Plan Update Final Master EIR IX-85 Chapter IX. Comments on Draft Master EIR and Responses to Comments. October 2008 ---PAGE BREAK--- Chapter IX. Comments on Draft Master EIR and Responses to Comments Modesto General Plan Update Final Master EIR IX-86 Chapter IX. Comments on Draft Master EIR and Responses to Comments. October 2008 ---PAGE BREAK--- Chapter IX. Comments on Draft Master EIR and Responses to Comments Modesto General Plan Update Final Master EIR IX-87 Chapter IX. Comments on Draft Master EIR and Responses to Comments. October 2008 ---PAGE BREAK--- Chapter IX. Comments on Draft Master EIR and Responses to Comments Modesto General Plan Update Final Master EIR IX-88 Chapter IX. Comments on Draft Master EIR and Responses to Comments. October 2008 ---PAGE BREAK--- Chapter IX. Comments on Draft Master EIR and Responses to Comments Modesto General Plan Update Final Master EIR IX-89 Chapter IX. Comments on Draft Master EIR and Responses to Comments. October 2008 N. RESPONSES TO COMMENT LETTER 13—WILLIAM D. ROSS, LAW OFFICES OF WILLIAM D. ROSS ON BEHALF OF SALIDA FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT AND STANISLAUS CONSOLIDATED FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT 1. Response to Comment 13-1 The commenter states that his comments are made on behalf of two fire districts: the Salida FPD and the Stanislaus Consolidated FPD. 2. Response to Comment 13-2 The commenter briefly characterizes the general plan maintenance update for which this MEIR is prepared. Footnote 1 within this comment alleges that the issues being raised in Comment Letter 13 “have been raised continually with the City without substantive response” (emphasis in original). The City respectfully disagrees. Each time these issues have been raised in the CEQA process—for example, during update of the MEIR in 2003 and for the Pelandale-McHenry Specific Plan—the final EIR included or will include a written response to the comment. The City has been in discussions with the FPDs looking for mutually acceptable solutions to these issues. The boards of directors of both the Stanislaus Consolidated FPD and the Salida FPD have formally asked the City to consider providing contract emergency and administrative services to the areas currently served by these districts. The City has agreed to participate with the districts in evaluating the possibility of providing those services. 3. Response to Comment 13-3 The commenter asserts that the MEIR is inadequate and lists five points. Each of these points is made later in this letter in greater detail. See Responses 13-5 through 13-11 for specific responses. 4. Response to Comment 13-4 The commenter notes that the environmental document is an MEIR. No response is necessary. 5. Response to Comment 13-5 The commenter contends that the MEIR’s analysis fails to consider the economic capability of the City to provide services in the current fiscal environment. The commenter cites the state’s budget deficit and conjectures that it will “change the method and manner in which municipal revenues may be imposed and collected.” ---PAGE BREAK--- Chapter IX. Comments on Draft Master EIR and Responses to Comments Modesto General Plan Update Final Master EIR IX-90 Chapter IX. Comments on Draft Master EIR and Responses to Comments. October 2008 There is no evidence presented that, in solving the state’s chronic budget deficit, the governor and state legislature will change how municipalities impose and collect their revenues. The foundations of the state’s financing scheme are largely the result of the initiative process (Proposition 13 limiting property taxes, Proposition 218 restricting the use of assessments and special taxes, Proposition 98 guaranteeing school financing, and others) and cannot be changed by either the governor or legislature. Regarding the City’s maintenance of its “economic capabilities or revenue sources,” the draft MEIR assumes that these will continue to be sufficient to provide services within the City because there is no evidence that the City will not be able to finance those services in the future. Certainly, the State of California has a chronic budget imbalance that is structural in nature, but whether that will prevent the City from providing local services is pure conjecture. Proposed UAGP Policy V.A.1(a) will: [e]nsure that services and infrastructure capacities are adequate to meet the needs of the community. This will include requiring that new development projects provide necessary services and infrastructure to meet concurrently or before development occurs.” In addition, by requiring financing along with new growth, proposed UAGP Policy II.B.2 would avoid a situation where the City would be unable to serve its residents. It reads as follows: The City’s overall Community Development Strategy is that new growth and development should, to the extent provided by law, provide public infrastructure and should generate public revenue so that the City’s overall fiscal base is maintained and enhanced. In evaluating development proposals, the City should consider the long-range impact on the City’s fiscal balance. a. In order to achieve desirable levels of community facilities, it will be necessary to address existing deficiencies. The long-term financing strategy should provide for broad-based funding approaches to meet broad-based community needs. b. Typically, there is a long lead time to plan, finance, and construct infrastructure to serve new areas. Long-range infrastructure planning should identify cost estimates and accompanying rate structures, and buy-in fees, and staging and coordination issues which can be included in any long-term financing strategy. c. Development proposals within the Baseline Development Area do not require the same attention to fiscal impact analysis as in the Planned Urbanizing Area because projects will tend to be smaller, in-fill types, which will be served by existing infrastructure. Nonetheless, community-wide financing strategies should apply to Baseline Development as well. d. Community growth should be managed so that the quality of life is enhanced without imposing significant fiscal burdens on the existing community. The City shall ensure the timely provision of infrastructure. e. Require new development to support the infrastructure and public services necessary to serve that development. General fund and other broad-based outlays should be limited to those situations where the infrastructure will provide Citywide benefits or will otherwise offer a tangible benefit beyond the area of the new development. f. Substantial areas proposed for new development will be required to plan for appropriate infrastructure and its funding consistent with the City’s Specific Plan Guidelines. Infrastructure shall be in place before or concurrently with development. Similarly, infrastructure-financing mechanisms shall be required to be in place prior ---PAGE BREAK--- Chapter IX. Comments on Draft Master EIR and Responses to Comments Modesto General Plan Update Final Master EIR IX-91 Chapter IX. Comments on Draft Master EIR and Responses to Comments. October 2008 to development within approved specific plans. The City will take a comprehensive approach to financing, using a blend of special taxes, benefit assessments, bonds, and other methods to ensure that infrastructure installation occurs in a timely manner. g. New development shall be phased according to the capacity of public facilities and services to serve new development. h. The City shall require a fiscal impact analysis to identify operation and maintenance costs for discretionary development proposals of potential fiscal significance. i. The City shall develop, collect, and update standard processing/administration fees for staff time to process will-serve letters, water supply assessments/verifications, and/or other future water-related, unfunded state-mandated studies/assessments. The commenter also states that the project description “does not accurately reflect that a component of the Project is a series of annexation by the City” and therefore fails to address impacts on unincorporated remainder parcels. The project does not include any specific annexation proposal. As a General Plan update, the project is amending the policies that guide the City’s future growth, in accordance with California planning law. The MEIR properly addresses the potential effects of future annexations at a general level congruent with the level of detail currently available. This is not deferring either analysis or mitigation. For example, the MEIR’s discussion and determination of the significance of potential impacts on the FPDs from annexations discloses the general effects of future annexations. UAGP Policies V.K.2(m) and VI.D.1(c)(5) are being proposed as a means of avoiding or reducing those impacts through changes to the UAGP. When specific annexation proposals come forward in the future, there will be site- and project- specific information available that will be considered in the additional CEQA analyses that will be required at that time. The general conclusions and impact reduction measures in the MEIR will be used as the basis for that later analysis, as authorized pursuant to Public Resources Code (PRC) Sections 21157.1 and 21157.5, with the analysis focusing on any new, project-specific impacts. 6. Response to Comment 13-6 The commenter suggests that the MEIR evaluate another alternative, consisting of the following assumptions for future actions: „ Development would continue within the project area. „ Development would be subject to constraints and regulations as may be applicable under County jurisdiction, including the Salida Community Plan for areas within the Salida FPD and the County General Plan for areas in the Stanislaus Consolidated FPD. „ Municipal services within the project area would be provided by the County or other public agencies, including the FPDs. ---PAGE BREAK--- Chapter IX. Comments on Draft Master EIR and Responses to Comments Modesto General Plan Update Final Master EIR IX-92 Chapter IX. Comments on Draft Master EIR and Responses to Comments. October 2008 „ Annexations to the City would not include detachment from either of the FPDs and would involve “some type of integration of government services” for fire and emergency medical services. CEQA provides that an EIR must examine a reasonable range of project alternatives. These alternatives must meet most or all of the project’s objectives, be potentially feasible, and reduce one or more of the project’s significant impacts. The No-Project Alternative differs from the proposed alternative in that, under the No-Project Alternative, the current UAGP would remain in effect. The current UAGP embodies the City’s vision of planned, gradual expansion through the adoption of community plans and specific plans within discrete CPDs located within the Planned Urbanizing Area. The alternative proposed by the commenter would meet the project objectives described in Chapter III of the MEIR, with the following key exceptions: „ amending the UAGP to reflect Modesto policy changes that have occurred since 2003, „ amending the UAGP without resulting in any substantial changes to the City’s land use diagram or increases in development potential, and „ providing a “maintenance update” of the UAGP that will provide an adequate document pending a comprehensive UAGP overhaul in the future. These objectives reflect the Modesto City Council’s directive that this amendment to the UAGP is to be for “maintenance” only, with a comprehensive amendment to follow that would consider broader revisions to policy. Revising the UAGP to reflect the Salida Community Plan adopted by the Stanislaus County Board of Supervisors in August 2007 would require a substantial change to the land use diagram and intensification of development potential. Furthermore, the adopted Salida Community Plan is poorly defined and because the County decided not to prepare a CEQA document for this discretionary action, and there is no project description in which to discover the County’s assumptions of the development potential in the Salida Community Plan. The UAGP currently identifies the Salida area as a CPD, based on the County’s 2000 Community Plan for the area, which was defined by a project description. The CPD designation would need to be removed or significantly redefined. Similarly, revising the current UAGP to reflect County General Plan designations for the portions of the Planned Urbanizing Area located within the Stanislaus Consolidated FPD would require eliminating the CPDs along the northern edge of the City (including Kiernan/Carver, Kiernan/McHenry, Hetch Hetchy, and Roselle/Claribel, among others), as well as the Johansen and Empire North CPDs along the City’s east side. These changes would not reflect any Modesto policy changes since 2003. Salida is under County land use jurisdiction, the City has no plans to annex the Salida area, and, with the County’s adoption of a new Community Plan, the City may eventually choose to delete Salida from its Planned Urbanizing Area. However, a decision of this scope is outside of the limited objective of the City’s maintenance update. Therefore, the suggested alternative will not be analyzed. ---PAGE BREAK--- Chapter IX. Comments on Draft Master EIR and Responses to Comments Modesto General Plan Update Final Master EIR IX-93 Chapter IX. Comments on Draft Master EIR and Responses to Comments. October 2008 7. Response to Comment 13-7 The commenter states that the environmental setting is inadequate because it does not include the portions of the FPDs that would remain should the City annex all parts of the Planned Urbanizing Area. In addition, the commenter states that the environmental setting disregards the 2007 Salida Community Plan. The environmental setting is not inadequate. The proposed project area does not include those portions of the FPDs that are outside the Planned Urbanizing Area because they are not proposed for City annexation or development under City policies. To the extent that actions of the City in implementing the UAGP will affect those adjoining portions of the districts, the impacts have been analyzed and disclosed in Section B(4)(b) of Chapter V, Section 14 of the MEIR. Subsequent environmental documents will address any project-specific impacts or impacts at a greater level of detail as necessary. 8. Response to Comment 13-8 The commenter also notes that the environmental setting does not describe the County’s 2007 Salida Community Plan and opines that there cannot be an adequate analysis of the environmental baseline without it. Pursuant to the State CEQA Guidelines, the environment setting is the baseline for impact analysis (Section 15125). The environmental setting consists of “the physical environmental conditions in the vicinity of the project” (Section 15125[a]). The analysis in the MEIR relies upon the existing land uses in the Salida area for its environmental setting. This is consistent with the requirements of State CEQA Guidelines Section 15125. Nonetheless, the MEIR should mention that the County General Plan includes the Salida Community Plan. Therefore, Section IV[C][1], page IV-2 of the draft MEIR, is amended to include a brief description of the Salida Community Plan. a. General Plan The Stanislaus County General Plan (County General Plan) applies to the unincorporated lands surrounding Modesto, including lands within the City of Modesto’s (City’s) sphere of influence. It guides Stanislaus County’s (the County’s) land use and development decisions. The Salida Community Plan, adopted by the Stanislaus County Board of Supervisors in August 2007 in response to a proposed ballot initiative, establishes land use policies for the Salida area northwest of the Modesto City limits on both sides of SR 99. The Salida Community Plan covers nearly 3.400 acres, including the existing community of Salida, and provides for future mixed residential, commercial, business park, and planned industrial land uses. Existing land uses consist of residential subdivisions, with commercial development located along SR 99. Pending the availability of financing to build the necessary infrastructure to support these uses, the Salida Community Plan proposes substantial business park and planned industrial development north of the City limits. This is similar in nature to the type of development identified in the City’s Salida Community Planning District. ---PAGE BREAK--- Chapter IX. Comments on Draft Master EIR and Responses to Comments Modesto General Plan Update Final Master EIR IX-94 Chapter IX. Comments on Draft Master EIR and Responses to Comments. October 2008 9. Response to Comment 13-9 The commenter states that the MEIR is inadequate with respect to its analysis of project impacts. The commenter makes specific statements in this respect in Comment 13-10. Please see Response to Comment 13-10. 10. Response to Comment 13-10 The commenter states that the MEIR “fails to adequately address water supply for the project and the [draft MEIR] is completely inadequate with respect to analysis of the public service impacts which will occur as a result of proposed development outside the City limits in the areas for which the Districts currently provide fire services.” This alleged inadequacy includes the requirements of a Water Supply Assessment (WSA). Pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Section 15155, a WSA is required for specific projects under CEQA identified as “water demand projects.” A General Plan is not included in the definition of a “water demand project” in Section 15155. Therefore, a WSA is not required for this environmental document, although the City of Modesto prepares WSAs for individual Specific Plans, which ensures the assessment is current and that the Infrastructure Finance Plan is as financially accurate as possible. It is the responsibility of Stanislaus County to identify a water supply for the areas under its jurisdiction, including the Salida Community Plan. Although the MEIR is not required to undertake a WSA, it is expected to examine the potential impacts of the UAGP on water supplies. Specifically, it must follow the principles set out in the California Supreme Court’s decision in Vineyard Area Citizens for Responsible Growth v. City of Rancho Cordova (2007) 40 Cal.4th 412. These principles are as follows: 1. CEQA is not satisfied by an EIR that ignores or assumes a solution to water supply without sufficient facts. 2. Analysis for a large project to be built out over a number of years cannot be limited to the water supply for the initial stage. 3. Future water supplies relied upon in the analysis must have a likelihood of actually proving available and the EIR must include a reasoned analysis of their likelihood. 4. Where the analysis leaves some uncertainty regarding the availability of future water sources, the EIR must discuss possible replacement sources or alternatives to the use of the anticipated water and the environmental consequences of those contingencies. The Modesto/Modesto Irrigation District Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP) referenced in the MEIR recognizes that current water supplies will fall substantially short of future demands, even with conservation and more conjunctive use. Accordingly, the MEIR concludes that the City will not have sufficient water supplies in the future and identifies this as a significant and unavoidable impact. The MEIR’s water supply analysis is based upon the UWMP adopted in 2007. It shares the UWMP’s 2030 planning horizon. This is not an “initial stage” of a project, but is in fact beyond the 2025 planning horizon of the UAGP itself. ---PAGE BREAK--- Chapter IX. Comments on Draft Master EIR and Responses to Comments Modesto General Plan Update Final Master EIR IX-95 Chapter IX. Comments on Draft Master EIR and Responses to Comments. October 2008 The UWMP identifies TID’s Surface Water Supply Project and the Modesto Regional Water Treatment Plant Phase Three expansion as alternative sources of future supplies to meet the city’s future treated water demand. TID’s project has been through the CEQA process and is in the design phase. Given the demand for treated water in the City and its neighboring communities, as well as the availability of raw water from TID’s rights to the Tuolumne River, construction of this plant is quite likely if agreement can be reached over the funding for the plant. The Phase Three expansion is in the discussion stage. If Modesto participates in TID’s Surface Water Supply Project, the likelihood that Phase Three of the will be built diminishes. Both of these potential sources of treated water are discussed below, along with the potential environmental impacts that may arise from their construction and operation. TID’s Surface Water Supply Project consists of a water treatment plant and pipelines with the capacity to treat and deliver 42.5 million gallons per day of surface water to the communities of Ceres, South Modesto, Hughson, Keyes, and Turlock. The water would be removed from the Tuolumne River at TID’s existing diversion east of Greer Road. Should the City and TID enter into agreement over purchase and distribution of a portion of this new supply of treated water, approximately 11.5 million gallons per day potentially would be provided to south Modesto. As described in Appendix B of the May 2007 Modesto/MID Urban Water Master Plan, the supplies provided by the Surface Water Supply Project (in conjunction with completion of the Phase Two expansion of the would enable the City to meet its treated water needs to 2030. At present, the City is coordinating with TID on the predesign of the facility. The system is expected to be in service sometime after 2011. The final EIR prepared for the TID Surface Water Supply Project in December 2006 identifies the following significant environmental impacts that would result from construction and operation of the system. All but two of the impacts would be reduced to a less-than-significant level by mitigation identified in the EIR. Impacts from terminal facilities in each of the communities being served are listed below: „ Impacts to land use and agricultural resources from terminal facilities in each of the communities to be served would be less than significant with mitigation. „ The impacts of construction and operation of the terminal facilities on stormwater quality would be less than significant with mitigation. „ The impacts of construction and operation of the terminal facilities on terrestrial biological resources would be less than significant with mitigation. „ The potential impacts of construction and operation of the terminal facilities on archeological resources and on buried human remains, if any, would be less than significant with mitigation. „ Construction of the terminal facilities would result in a less-than-significant, temporary impact on traffic volumes with implementation of the mitigation in the EIR. „ The air quality impacts of construction and operation of the terminal facilities would be reduced to a less-than-significant level with implementation of the mitigation in the EIR. ---PAGE BREAK--- Chapter IX. Comments on Draft Master EIR and Responses to Comments Modesto General Plan Update Final Master EIR IX-96 Chapter IX. Comments on Draft Master EIR and Responses to Comments. October 2008 „ Noise levels from the construction and operation of terminal facilities in close proximity to sensitive noise receptors would be reduced to a less-than-significant level by the mitigation identified in the EIR. „ The impacts of construction and operation of the terminal facilities on wastewater facilities would be reduced to a less-than-significant level with implementation of the mitigation in the EIR. „ The solid waste impacts generated by construction and operation of the terminal facilities would be reduced to a less-than-significant level with implementation of the mitigation in the EIR. „ Construction and operation of the terminal facilities would result in a less-than-significant, temporary impact on electricity demand with implementation of the mitigation in the EIR. „ Construction and operation of the terminal facilities would result in a less-than-significant, temporary impact on demand for natural gas with implementation of the mitigation in the EIR. Impacts from the water treatment plant and/or related pipeline facilities are listed below: „ Conversion of farmland to urban use as a result of the project would make a cumulatively considerable contribution to the loss of farmland in Stanislaus County (significant and unavoidable impact). „ The water treatment plant would alter the existing drainage pattern of its site, but this would be a less-than-significant impact with mitigation. „ The project’s impact on burrowing owl habitat would be less than significant with mitigation. „ The project’s potential impact on archeological resources and on buried human remains, if any, would be less than significant with mitigation. „ The project’s increase in light and glare in the area would be less than significant with mitigation. „ Construction of the project would result in a less-than-significant, temporary impact on traffic volumes with implementation of the mitigation in the EIR. „ The air quality impacts of project construction would be reduced to a less-than-significant level with implementation of the mitigation in the EIR. „ Construction activities would make a cumulatively considerable contribution to emissions of particulate matter less than or equal to 10 microns in diameter (PM10), particulate matter less than or equal to 2.5 microns in diameter (PM2.5), and ozone (significant and unavoidable impact). „ Construction noise for the water treatment plant would be reduced to a less-than-significant level by the mitigation identified in the EIR. „ Noise levels from the construction of pipelines and related facilities in close proximity to sensitive noise receptors would be reduced to a less-than-significant level by the mitigation identified in the EIR. „ Noise levels from long-term operation of the water treatment plant would be reduced to a less-than-significant level by the mitigation identified in the EIR. ---PAGE BREAK--- Chapter IX. Comments on Draft Master EIR and Responses to Comments Modesto General Plan Update Final Master EIR IX-97 Chapter IX. Comments on Draft Master EIR and Responses to Comments. October 2008 The City and MID recently approved the Phase Two expansion of the Work on the expansion is proceeding. The City and MID are currently discussing the possibility of further purchases of raw water by the City from MID and additional expansion of the If this option is pursued, the Phase Three expansion would be expected to treat an additional 10 million gallons per day for the City. By itself, the Phase Three expansion would not provide quite enough treated water to meet projected demand in 2030. If the TID Surface Water Supply Project and the Phase Three expansion are both undertaken, the City would have sufficient treated water to meet projected demand to 2033. The prospective Phase Three expansion has not been designed. However, it would most likely be built on the site of the existing and its construction and operation would have environmental impacts similar to those identified for Phase Two, assuming that Phase Three would incorporate environmental commitments similar to those made a part of the Phase Two project. The final subsequent EIR prepared for the Phase Two expansion in June 2005 identified the following environmental impacts: „ Impacts on views resulting from construction and operations of some of the transmission pipelines and tanks associated with Phase Two would be significant and unavoidable. „ The project would result in a long-term significant and unavoidable impact on farmland through future conversion to urban uses. The mitigation identified in the subsequent EIR would not be sufficient to reduce this below a level of significance. „ Construction of the expansion and related facilities would have a significant and unavoidable impact on air quality. „ Intermittent operation of standby generators would exceed emissions thresholds and have a significant and unavoidable air quality impact. „ Vehicle emissions resulting from the urban development expected to be enabled by the additional water supply would be significant and unavoidable. „ Water quality impacts resulting from increased storm drainage at related facilities would be less than significant with the mitigation identified in the subsequent EIR. „ The would result in a significant and unavoidable growth-inducing impact on the City of Modesto. The expansion would provide treated water, enabling the future growth of the city. „ Impacts on previously undiscovered archaeological resources and human remains resulting from construction of the facilities would be less than significant with the mitigation identified in the subsequent EIR. „ Construction of some of the project’s related storage tanks and pipelines would result in potentially significant effects on valley elderberry longhorn beetles as a result of removal of elderberry shrubs, but the impact would be less than significant as a result of the mitigation identified in the subsequent EIR. „ Development of the tank sites would result in the loss of foraging habitat for Swainson’s hawk, white-tailed kite, and other special-status or migratory birds and raptors. This impact would be less-than-significant as a result of the mitigation identified in the subsequent EIR. ---PAGE BREAK--- Chapter IX. Comments on Draft Master EIR and Responses to Comments Modesto General Plan Update Final Master EIR IX-98 Chapter IX. Comments on Draft Master EIR and Responses to Comments. October 2008 „ The storage tanks and pipelines associated with the would result in potential disturbance of nesting Swainson’s hawks. This impact would be less than significant as a result of the mitigation identified in the subsequent EIR. „ The storage tanks associated with the would result in loss of nesting and foraging habitat for the western burrowing owl. This impact would be less than significant as a result of the mitigation identified in the subsequent EIR. „ The storage tanks and pipelines associated with the would result in traffic congestion while under construction. This impact would be less than significant as a result of the mitigation identified in the subsequent EIR. 11. Response to Comment 13-11 The commenter reiterates his belief that the MEIR is inadequate in its analysis of the fiscal impacts on the FPDs and their ability to continue to provide fire protection. In particular, the commenter is concerned that the analysis does not address the remaining portion of the unincorporated area in its study area and the impact of “sequential annexations” of lands currently within the districts. The commenter also notes that the subprime mortgage crisis’ impact on property tax revenues (properties in default fail to pay their property taxes) and the unresolved state budget have not been considered in the MEIR. Please see Response to Comment 13-5 regarding the City’s economic ability to provide services, 13-7 regarding the breadth of the study area, 10-10 regarding policies to avoid adverse fiscal impacts on the fire districts, and 10-13 regarding the impacts of annexations on the fire districts. Please also see Master Response 1. With regard to the subprime mortgage crisis, this is a result of national policies that are outside the City’s ability to control or mitigate. It is not the result of any City action, either directly or indirectly. Certainly, the loss of property tax revenues that occurs as a result of foreclosures and the inability of the buyer to pay their mortgage is a concern for the City. Also of concern is the slowing of the construction industry. These economic downturns reduce revenues from property taxes, special assessments, and impact fees that pay for services and infrastructure. However, this crisis is cyclical rather than unique. Recessions in the 1970s, 1980s, and 1990s all had similar effects on municipal revenues. The City anticipates that it will weather this crisis as it has those of the past and continue to provide services to its residents. 12. Response to Comment 13-12 In this comment, the commenter summarizes his previous comments. Please refer to Responses to Comments 13-1 to 13-11 for responses. ---PAGE BREAK--- Modesto General Plan Update Final Master EIR X-1 Chapter X. Citations October 2008 Chapter X Citations A. PRINTED MATERIALS 50States.com. 2007. Modesto Junior College. Accessed: May 17, 2007. Available: . Alta Planning and Design. 2006. Modesto Non-Motorized Transportation Master Plan. September. Prepared for the City of Modesto, Parks, Recreation and Neighborhoods Department. Berkeley, CA. Anderson, L. M. H. Anders, and D. A. Ostenaa. 1982. Late Quaternary Faulting and Seismic Hazard Potential, Eastern Diablo Range, California. Pages 197–206 in E. W. Hart, S. E. and S. S. Schulz (eds.), Proceedings, Conference on Earthquake Hazards in the Eastern San Francisco Bay Area. (Special Publication 62.) Sacramento, CA: California Division of Mines and Geology. Association of Bay Area Governments, San Joaquin Council of Governments, Stanislaus Council of Governments. 2003. Demographics and Employment Forecasts: Population, Residential, and Job Growth in the IRP Region of Alameda, Contra Costa, San Joaquin, Santa Clara, and Stanislaus Counties. Oakland, CA. June 2003. Bartow, J. A. 1991. The Cenozoic Evolution of the San Joaquin Valley, California. U.S. Geological Professional Paper 1501. Bean, W. and J. J. Rawls. 1983. California: An Interpretive History. McGraw-Hill Book Company, San Francisco, CA. Beedy, E. C. 1989. Draft habitat suitability index model, Tricolored blackbird (Agelaius tricolor). Prepared by Jones & Stokes Associates for U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, Sacramento, CA. Black and Veatch, Provost and Prichard Engineering Group, and Kenneth Schmidt & Associates. 1995. Development of a Groundwater Management Plan Phase 1, Technical Memorandum. Prepared for the Stanislaus & Tuolumne Rivers’ Groundwater Basin Association. Brown, L. and P. B. Moyle. 1993. Native fishes of the San Joaquin Valley drainage: status of a remnant fauna. Proceedings of a conference of Endangered and Sensitive Species of the San Joaquin Valley. California Air Pollution Control Officers Association. 2008. CEQA & Climate Change. Sacramento, CA. January 2008. California Building Standards Commission. 2007. Proposed Green Building Standards. Available: Accessed: December 27, 2007. California Department of Conservation, Division of Mines and Geology. 1993. Mineral Land Classification of Stanislaus County. Special Report 173. ---PAGE BREAK--- Chapter X. Citations Modesto General Plan Update Final Master EIR X-2 Chapter X. Citations October 2008 1999. Mines and Mineral Producers Active in California (1997–1998). Special Publication 103. California Department of Conservation. 2004. Table 3, Part III: Land Use Conversion from 2000 to 2002. Sacramento, CA. Available: . Accessed: May 3, 2007. 2006. Stanislaus County Williamson Act Lands 2006: Lands Enrolled in Williamson Act and Farmland Security Zone Contracts as of 01-01-2006. Sacramento, CA. California Department of Education. 2000. Guide to School Site Analysis and Development. (2000 Edition.) Available: . Accessed: August 1, 2007. California Department of Finance. 2006a. E-1 Population Estimates for Cities, Counties and the State with Annual Percent Change—January 1, 2005 and 2006. May. Sacramento, CA. 2006b. County Population Estimates and Components of Change by County, July 1, 2000– 2006. December. Sacramento, CA. 2007a. E-1 Report: E-1 Population Estimates for Cities, Counties and the State with Annual Percent Change—January 1, 2006 and 2007. May. Sacramento, CA. 2007b. P-3 Report: Population Projections for California and Its Counties 2000-2050, by Age, Gender and Race/Ethnicity. Sacramento, CA. July. 2007c. E-5 Population and Housing Estimates for Cities, Counties and the State, 2001-2007, with 2000 Benchmark. May. Democratic Research Unit. Sacramento, CA. Available: . Accessed: August 1, 2007. 2007d. E-4 Population Estimates for Cities, Counties and State, 2001-2007 with 2000 DRU Benchmark. Available: . 2007e. P3 Population Projections by Race/Ethnicity for California and Its Counties 2000-2050, with 2000 Benchmark. Available: . Accessed: July 24, 2007. 2007f. Table E-1: Population Estimates for Cities, Counties and the State with Annual Percent Change—January 1, 2006 and 2007. Available: . Accessed: July 30, 2007. California Department of Fish and Game. 1994. Staff Report Regarding Mitigation for Impacts to Swainson’s Hawk (Buteo swainsoni) in the Central Valley of California. November 1. Sacramento, CA. 1995. Staff Report on burrowing Owl Mitigation. September 25. Sacramento, CA. ---PAGE BREAK--- Chapter X. Citations Modesto General Plan Update Final Master EIR X-3 Chapter X. Citations October 2008 2005. California Wildlife habitat Relationships version 8.1 personal computer program. California Interagency Wildlife Task Group. Sacramento, CA. 2006. Special Animals List. Available: . California Department of Food and Agriculture. 2006. California Agricultural Resource Directory 2006 (2005 Crop Year Production Information). Sacramento, CA. Available: . Accessed: April 25, 2007. California Department of General Services, Office of Public School Construction. 2003. Project Tracking System: School Facility Program: Search by County. Available: . Accessed: August 1, 2007. California Department of Transportation. 2007. Officially Designated State Scenic Highways. Available: Accessed: May 14, 2007. California Department of Water Resources. 1997. Final Report of the Flood Emergency Action Team. Available: . Sacramento, CA. 2005. California Water Plan Update, Bulletin 160. Available: . 2007a. California Land & Water Use: Annual Land & Water Use Data, Crop Water Use. Sacramento, CA. Available: . Accessed: May 3, 2007. 2007b . Groundwater level data. Available: . Accessed: June 15, 2007. California Energy Commission. 1993. Energy Aware Planning Guide. Available: . Accessed: July 24, 2007. 2000. California Natural Gas Analysis and Issues. Available: . Accessed: July 24, 2007. 2003. Liquefied Natural Gas in California: History, Risks, and Siting. Available: . Accessed: July 24, 2007. 2005a. U.S. Per Capita Electricity Use By State in 2005. Available: . Accessed: July 30, 2007. 2005b. U.S. Per Capita Natural Gas Use By State in 2005. Available: . Accessed: July 30, 2007. 2005c. California Energy Demand 2006–2016 Staff Energy Demand Forecast: Revised September 2005. Available: . Accessed: July 30, 2007. ---PAGE BREAK--- Chapter X. Citations Modesto General Plan Update Final Master EIR X-4 Chapter X. Citations October 2008 2005d. Integrated Energy Policy Report. Available: . Accessed: July 24, 2007. 2006. Inventory of California Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990 to 2004. Sacramento, CA. December 2006. 2007. The Role of Land Use in Meeting California’s Energy and Climate Change Goals. Final Staff Report. CEC-600-2007-008-SR. Sacramento, CA. August 2007. California Geological Survey. 2007. Seismic Hazards Mapping Program. Available: . Accessed: June 2007. California Integrated Waste Management Board. 2004a. Jurisdiction Disposal and Alternative Daily Cover (ADC) Tons by Facility for the City of Modesto. Updated Daily. Available: Accessed: July 20, 2007. 2004b. Jurisdiction Disposal and Alternative Daily Cover (ADC) Tons by Facility for Stanislaus County Regional Solid Waste Planning Agency. Updated daily. Available: Accessed: July 20, 2007. 2006a. Board Approved/Accepted Diversion Rate Report for Modesto—2004 Reporting Year. Last revised: January 23, 2007. Available: Accessed: June 14, 2007. 2006b. Board Approved/Accepted Diversion Rate Report for Stanislaus County Regional Solid Waste Planning Agency—2004 Reporting Year. Last revised: January 23, 2007. Available: Accessed: July 20, 2007. 2007a. Jurisdiction Planning Profile Overview and Jurisdiction Disposal for the City of Modesto. Last revised: May 7, 2007. Available: . Accessed: June 11, 2007. 2007b. Active Landfills Profile for Forward Landfill, Inc. Last revised: May 7, 2007. Available: . Accessed: July 9, 2007. 2007c. Active Landfills Profile for Bonzi Sanitary Landfill. Last revised: May 7, 2007. Available: . Accessed: July 23, 2007. California Native Plant Society. 2007. Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants (Online Edition). Available: . Accessed: August 1, 2007. California Natural Diversity Database. 2007. RareFind 3, (September 2006 Version). Sacramento, CA: California Department of Fish and Game. Search of Manteca, Avenal, Escalon, Oakdale, Ripon, Salida, Riverbank, Waterford, Westley, Brush Lake, Ceres, and Denair 7.5-minute quadrangles. ---PAGE BREAK--- Chapter X. Citations Modesto General Plan Update Final Master EIR X-5 Chapter X. Citations October 2008 California Public Utilities Commission. 2001. California Natural Gas Infrastructure Outlook 2002– 2006. Available: . Accessed: July 24, 2007. Carollo Engineers. 2007a. Wastewater Master Plan Phase 2 Update, Master Plan Report. Prepared for the City of Modesto, Modesto, CA. March 2007. 2007b. Wastewater Collection System Master Plan. Prepared for the City of Modesto, Modesto, CA. March 2007. Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board. 2007. The Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan) for the Sacramento River Basin and the San Joaquin River Basin. Fourth Edition. Revised February 2007, with approved amendments. Available: Accessed: May 7, 2007. City of Modesto. 1997. Draft Turlock Groundwater Basin Groundwater Management Plan. Modesto, CA. 2000a. City of Modesto Water Division Consumer Confidence Report. Modesto, CA. 2000b. City of Modesto Stormwater Management Program, Guidance Manual for New Development, Stormwater Quality Control Measures (draft no. Operations and Maintenance Department. June. Modesto, CA. 2001a. City of Modesto Stormwater Management Program: Guidance Manual for New Development Stormwater Quality Control Measures. January. Modesto, CA. 2001b. City of Modesto Strategic Plan: Economic Development Action Plan. Available: . Accessed: August 9, 2007. 2003a. City of Modesto Urban Area General Plan. Adopted August 15, 1995, by Modesto City Council Resolution No. 94-409l. Amended March 4, 2003, by Resolution No. 2003-122. 2003b. Final Master Environmental Impact Report for the Urban Area General Plan and Related Amendments to the Urban Area General Plan. Prepared by Jones & Stokes. February. Modesto, CA. 2003c. Urban growth policy review update. Available: . Accessed: August 2, 2007. 2007a. City of Modesto Economic Development: Largest Employers. Available: . Accessed: January 3, 2008. 2007b. Modesto City–County Airport webpage. Available: . Accessed: December 16, 2007. 2007c. City of Modesto Urban Area General Plan. Modesto, CA. 2007d. City of Modesto Municipal Code. Available: . Accessed: August 9, 2007. ---PAGE BREAK--- Chapter X. Citations Modesto General Plan Update Final Master EIR X-6 Chapter X. Citations October 2008 City of Modesto Fire Department. 2005. Annual Report 2005. Available: . Accessed: April 27, 2007. Modesto, CA. 2007. Frequently Asked Questions. Available: . Accessed: April 27, 2007. Modesto, CA. City of Modesto and Modesto Irrigation District. 2007a. Joint Urban Water Management Plan 2005 Update. March. Available: . Accessed: May 3, 2007. 2007b. Joint Urban Water Management Plan 2005 Update Final Report. May. Modesto, CA. 2008a. Draft Master Environmental Impact Report for the Urban Area General Plan Update. State Clearinghouse #[PHONE REDACTED]. Modesto, CA. 2008b. Urban Area General Plan. Public Review Draft. March. Modesto, CA. City of Modesto, Public Works Department. 2007. Water Meter Installation Plan. Available: . Accessed: August 7, 2007. Coffman Associates. 2007. Modesto City-County Airport Part 150 Study (draft). Available: . Covanta Stanislaus, Inc. 2007. The Stanislaus Resource Recovery Facility. Available: . Accessed July 20, 2007. Department of Toxic Substances Control. 2007. EnviroStor database: hazardous waste and substances site list. Available: . Accessed: May 28, 2007. EDAW and SCS Engineers. 2001. Draft Environmental Impact Report for the Fink Road Landfill Expansion Project. November 7. Sacramento, CA. Edwards, Stephen W. 1991. Observations on the prehistory and ecology of grazing in California. Fremontia 20(1):3-11. Environmental Sciences Associates. 1996. Potential Wetlands and Vernal Pool Special-Status Species at the Site of the Proposed Modesto Amtrak Station Report. Sacramento, CA. Ewing, K. Bartholomew, S. Winkelman, J. Walters, and D. Chen. 2007. Growing Cooler: The Evidence on Urban Development and Climate Change. Urban Land Institute. Washington, D.C. Federal Emergency Management Agency. 2001a. Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs). Community- Panel Number 060387 0005D. Available: . Last updated: May 7, 2001. Accessed: April 26, 2007. 2001b. Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs). Community-Panel Number 060387 0015D. Available: . Updated: May 7, 2001. Accessed: April 26, 2007. ---PAGE BREAK--- Chapter X. Citations Modesto General Plan Update Final Master EIR X-7 Chapter X. Citations October 2008 2001c. Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs). Community-Panel Number 060387 0020D. Available: . Updated: May 7, 2001. Accessed: April 26, 2007. Fredrickson, D. A. 1973. Early Cultures of the North Coast Ranges, California. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation. Department of Anthropology, University of California, Davis. Galvez, Miguel. 2006. Memorandum: Final Memo on Projected General Plan Buildout Population of the SOI. May 4. Modesto, CA: City of Modesto Senior Planner. Governor’s Office of Planning and Research. 2003. General Plan Guidelines. Sacramento, California. October 2003. Grinnell, and A. H. Miller. 1986. The Distribution of the Birds of California. Pacific Coast Avifauna No. 27, publ. 1944, reprinted by Artemisia Press, Lee Vining, CA. Hart, E. and W. A. Bryant. 1997. Fault-Rupture Hazard Zones in California—Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act with Index to Earthquake Fault Zones Maps. (Special Publication 42.) Sacramento, CA: California Division of Mines and Geology. Hart-Ransom Union School District. 2005. Hart-Ransom Academic Charter School: 2004-2005 School Accountability Report Card. Available: . Accessed: August 1, 2007. 2006. Hart-Ransom Elementary School: School Accountability Report Card: Data from the 2005-2006 School Year Published During 2006-2007. Accessed: August 1, 2007. Available: . Haug, E. B. A. Milsap, and M. S. Marnell. 1993. The Birds of North America, No. 61 Poole and F. Gill, eds.). The Academy of Natural Sciences, Philadelphia, and The American Ornithologists' Union, Washington, D.C. Holland, V.L., and D.J. Keil. 1989. California vegetation. California Polytechnic State University. San Luis Obispo, CA. ICF Consulting. 2005. Long Term Crude Oil Supply and Prices. Prepared for the California Energy Commission. Fairfax, VA. Available: . Accessed July 24, 2007. International Conference of Building Officials. 1997. Uniform Building Code. Whittier, CA. J.K., Inc. 2007. Economic Profile: San Joaquin Valley Region. Prepared for the California Regional Economies Project. Available: . Accessed: January 3, 2008. Jameson, E. Jr. and H. J. Peeters. 1988. California Mammals. University of California Press, Berkeley, CA. Jennings, M. and M. P. Hayes. 1994. Amphibian and Reptile Species of Special Concern in California. Final report. Rancho Cordova, CA: California Department of Fish and Game, Inland ---PAGE BREAK--- Chapter X. Citations Modesto General Plan Update Final Master EIR X-8 Chapter X. Citations October 2008 Fisheries Division. Kohler, Susan. 2005. California Non-Fuel Minerals 2005. Available: . Accessed: July 27, 2007. 2006. California Non-Fuel Minerals 2006. Available: . Accessed: July 27, 2007. MacWhirter, R. and K. L. Bildstein. 1996. Northern Harrier, Circus cyaneus. In A. Poole and F. Gill (eds.) The Birds of North America, No. 210. The Academy of Natural Sciences, Philadelphia, and The American Ornithologists’ Union, Washington, D.C. Mayer, K. and W. F. Laudenslayer, Jr. 1988. A Guide to Wildlife Habitats of California. California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection, Sacramento, CA. Modesto City Schools. 2006. Modesto City Schools Bond Project Updates. Available: . Accessed: August 1, 2007. Modesto Fire Department. 2008. Strategic Plan: Fiscal Year 2008 through 2012. Available: . Accessed: July 11, 2008. Moratto, M. J. 2004. California Archaeology. New York: Academic Press, Inc., 1984. Salinas, CA: Coyote Press. Moyle, P. J. E. Williams, and E. D. Wikramanayake. 1989. Fish species of special concern of California. Prepared for the California Department of Fish and Game, Sacramento, CA. Nagano, C. 1992. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Proposal to Determine Endangered Status for Four Fairy Shrimp and the Vernal Pool Tadpole Shrimp in California. Federal Register, Volume 57, No. 90, Friday, May 8, 1992, Proposed Rules. Natural Resources Conservation Service. 2007. Official Soil Series Descriptions (OSD) with series extent mapping capabilities. Soil Survey Staff. Available: . Accessed: January 3, 2008. Norris, R. and R. W. Webb. 1990. Geology of California (2nd edition). New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons. Page, R. W. 1986. Geology of the Fresh Groundwater Basin of the Central Valley, California, with Texture Maps and Sections. U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 1401. U.S. Government Printing Office. Washington, D.C. Pierson, E.D. 1988. The status of Townsend’s Big-eared Bat (Plecotus townsendii) in California. California Department of Fish and Game. Sacramento, CA. Remsen, J. Jr. 1978. Bird Species of Special Concern in California: An Annotated List of Declining or Vulnerable Bird Species. (Wildlife Management Branch Administrative Report No. 78-1.) Sacramento, CA: California Department of Fish and Game, Nongame Wildlife Investigations. Robinson, A.Y. 1990. Sustainable Agriculture: A Brighter Outlook for Fish and Wildlife. Izaak Walton League of America. Arlington, VA. ---PAGE BREAK--- Chapter X. Citations Modesto General Plan Update Final Master EIR X-9 Chapter X. Citations October 2008 Rosenfield, R. and J. Bieledeldt. 1993. Cooper’s Hawk (Accipiter cooperii). In A. Poole and F. Gill (eds.), The Birds of North America, No. 75. Academy of Natural Sciences, Philadelphia, and American Ornithologists’ Union, Washington, D.C. San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District. 2002. Amended 2002 and 2005 Rate of Progress Plan for San Joaquin Valley Ozone. December. Fresno, CA. Available: . Accessed: July 24, 2007. 2005. Air Quality Guidelines for General Plans. June. Fresno, CA. Sanborn Map Company. 1885–1911. Modesto. On file at the Los Angeles Country Library, Los Angeles County Library, Los Angeles, CA. Stanislaus Council of Governments. 2007. 2007 Regional Transportation Plan. Modesto, CA. 2008a. 2008 Regional Transportation Improvement Program: Fiscal Years 2008/2009 through 2012/2013. Modesto, CA. Available: . Accessed: July 11, 2008. 2008b. 2008 Regional Transportation Improvement Program: Fiscal Years 2008/2009 through 2012/2013. Modesto, CA. 2008c. Preliminary Design Report to Request Programming for Project Approval and Environmental Document Phase in the 2008 STIP. April. Modesto, CA. Available: . Accessed: July 14, 2008. Stanislaus County. 1987. Stanislaus County General Plan Support Documentation. Chapter V: Safety. Adopted: June. California. 2006. General Plan Noise Element. Available: 2005. Stanislaus County General Plan Update. Technical Reference Document for Noise Analysis. November 25, 2005. Available: . 2006. Stanislaus County General Plan. Amended: April 18, 2006. Modesto, CA. 2007. Environmental Resources Department site. Available: . Accessed: September 6, 2007, by Terry Rivasplata. Stanislaus County Airport Land Use Commission. 2004. Airport Land Use Commission Plan. Amended: May 20, 2004. Available: . Stanislaus Local Agency Formation Commission. 2007. Countywide Fire Services Municipal Service Review Final Report. Prepared by Emergency Services Consulting, Inc. Wilsonville, Oregon. ---PAGE BREAK--- Chapter X. Citations Modesto General Plan Update Final Master EIR X-10 Chapter X. Citations October 2008 Stanley, J. B. Mori, and D. L. Suddjian. 1991. The importance of riparian vegetation for wildlife in California: a literature The Habitat Restoration Group. Felton, CA. Prepared for the National Park Service Rivers and Trails Conservation Assistance Program. Stebbins, R. C. 1985. Western Reptiles and Amphibians. Easton Press, Norwalk, Connecticut. 2003. A Field Guide to Western Reptiles and Amphibians. Third edition. Houghton Mifflin, New York. Steinhart, P. 1990. California’s Wild Heritage: Threatened and Endangered Animals in the Golden State. California Department of Fish and Game. Stendell, R. and P. Myers. 1973. White-tailed kite predation of a fluctuating vole population. Condor, No. 75. Turnstone Consulting. 2006. City of Modesto Wastewater Master Plan Update Draft EIR. Prepared for the City of Modesto. December. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 1999. Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins, California—Flood Control Assessment. Sacramento District, Sacramento, CA. U.S. Census Bureau. 2002. Census 2000 Summary File 3. Washington, D.C. U.S. Department of Agriculture. 1964. Soil Survey of the Eastern Stanislaus Area, California. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2006. Proposed 2006 CWA California Section 303(d) List of Water Quality Limited Segments. Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board. Approved by on October 25, 2006. Available: . Accessed: May 7, 2007. 2007a. NPDES Permits and Stormwater. Featured Story: Stormwater Runoff. Available: . Accessed: January 3, 2008. 2007b. Modesto Groundwater Contamination. Available: . Accessed: July 31, 2007. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2005. 50 CFR Part 17. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants: Designation of Critical Habitat for Four Vernal Pool Crustaceans and Eleven Vernal Pool Plants; Final Rule 7117 to 7316. U.S. Geological Survey. 1999. The Mineral Industry of California. In Minerals Yearbook, Volume II, Area Reports: Domestic. GPO Stock #024-004-02506-9. Available: . Accessed: July 27, 2007. 2000. The Mineral Industry of California. In Minerals Yearbook, Volume II, Area Reports: Domestic. GPO Stock #024-004-02518-2. Available: . Accessed: July 27, 2007. 2001. The Mineral Industry of California. In Minerals Yearbook, Volume II, Area Reports: Domestic. GPO Stock #024-004-02528-0. Available: . Accessed: July 27, 2007. ---PAGE BREAK--- Chapter X. Citations Modesto General Plan Update Final Master EIR X-11 Chapter X. Citations October 2008 2002. The Mineral Industry of California. In Minerals Yearbook, Volume II, Area Reports: Domestic. GPO Stock #024-004-02536-1. Available: . Accessed: July 27, 2007. 2003. The Mineral Industry of California. In Minerals Yearbook, Volume II, Area Reports: Domestic. GPO Stock #024-004-02543-3. Available: . Accessed: July 27, 2007. 2004. The Mineral Industry of California. In Minerals Yearbook, Volume II, Area Reports: Domestic. GPO Stock #024-004-02555-7. Available: . Accessed: July 27, 2007. 2007. The Severity of an Earthquake. Available: . Accessed: June 15, 2007. Wallace, W. J. 1978. Northern Valley Yokuts. In R. F. Heizer, vol. ed., Handbook of North American Indians, Vol. 8: California:462–470. Washington, D.C.: Smithsonian Institution. Warner, J. S. and R. L. Rudd. 1975. Hunting by the White-tailed Kite. Condor 77: 226–230. Whitaker, J. Jr. 1980. The Audubon Society Field Guide to North American Mammals. Alfred A. Knopf, New York, NY. Williams, D. F. 1986. Mammalian Species of Special Concern in California. (Wildlife Management Division Administrative Report 86-1.) Sacramento, CA: California Department of Fish and Game, Wildlife Management Division. Wood, H. and F. Neumann. 1931. Modified Mercalli Intensity Scale of 1931. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America 21:277–283. Yosef, R. 1996. Loggerhead shrike (Lanius ludovicianus). Poole A. and F. Gill, eds. The Birds of North America, No.231. The Academy of Natural Sciences, Philadelphia, and The American Ornithologists. Union, Washington, D.C. Zeiner, D. W. F. Laudenslayer, Jr., and K. E. Mayer (eds.). 1988. California’s Wildlife, Amphibians and Reptiles, Vol. 1. California Department of Fish and Game, Sacramento, CA. 1990. California’s wildlife. Volume II. Birds. California Statewide Wildlife Habitat Relationships System, California Department of Fish and Game, Sacramento, CA. B. PERSONAL COMMUNICATIONS Allen, F. Landscape architect. City of Modesto Parks, Recreation and Neighborhoods Department, Modesto, CA. August 6, 2007—phone conversation. Ballard, Charyle. Administrative Assistant. Paradise Elementary School District, Modesto, CA. May 18, 2007—email to Jessica Hankins. Chavez, Yvonne. Maintenance and Operations Administrative Assistant. Stanislaus Union School District, Modesto, CA. May 17, 2007—telephone conversation with Jessica Hankins. ---PAGE BREAK--- Chapter X. Citations Modesto General Plan Update Final Master EIR X-12 Chapter X. Citations October 2008 Dodge, Tami. Senior Administrative Assistant. Modesto Police Department: Chief’s Office, Modesto, CA. August 6, 2007—phone conversation regarding police department office locations. Findlen-Costa, Polly. Business Services Manager. Modesto Police Department, Modesto, CA. July 24, 2007—telephone conservation regarding resident-to-officer ratios and response times. Gilton, Mike. Senior Civil Engineer. City of Modesto Engineering and Transportation Department. October 3, 2000—telephone conversation regarding drainage master plan. Grider, Ron. Fink Road Landfill, Sanitary Landfill Division. Stanislaus County. June 11, 2007—phone conversation with Sandy Devoto of Jones & Stokes, regarding remaining capacity and closure date. Houx, Nathan. Project coordinator. City of Modesto Parks, Recreation and Neighborhoods Department, Modesto, CA. May 11 and 25, and July 25, 2007—email correspondence. Jantz, W. Richard, Deputy Executive Officer and Arlene Stevens, Associate Management Consultant. Stanislaus County Environmental Review Committee. January 17, 2002—letter to Patrick Kelly of the City of Modesto. Ketscher, Bill. Civil Engineer/Manager. Modesto Irrigation District. September 27, 2000—telephone conversation regarding stormwater drainage. Kiger, Don. Assistant Superintendent, Business Services. Empire Union School District, Modesto, CA. May 21, 2007—telephone conversation with Jessica Hankins. Kumimoto, Bryan. Senior Resource Management Specialist, Stanislaus Regional Solid Waste Planning. July 20, 2007—phone conversation with Beth Eggerts of Jones & Stokes, regarding Stanislaus County diversion rates. McClellon, Robert. Environmental Health Department, County of San Joaquin. July 23, 2007—phone conversation with Beth Eggerts of Jones & Stokes, regarding remaining capacity of Forward Landfill, Inc. McGarry, Dana. Director, Planning and Research. Modesto City Schools, Modesto, CA. August 23, 2007—email to Jessica Hankins. Patenaude, Tim. Senior Hazardous Substances Engineer. Department of Toxic Substances Control, Sacramento, CA. February 14, 2007—letter to Michael Bowles, Gallo Glass, Modesto, CA; and September 7, 2007—email to Andrew Martin, Jones & Stokes. Perry, Ed. Stanislaus County Director and Farm Advisor. University of California Cooperative Extension, Stanislaus County, Modesto, CA. May 4, 2007—e-mail to Jessica Hankins. Reed, Jocelyn. Acting Solid Waste Program Manager, City Of Modesto Solid Waste. July 24, 2007— phone conversation with Beth Eggerts of Jones & Stokes, regarding solid waste generation for the City of Modesto. Rivera, John. City of Modesto Public Works Department, Modesto, CA. January 24, 2008—personal communication with Terry Rivasplata of Jones & Stokes. ---PAGE BREAK--- Chapter X. Citations Modesto General Plan Update Final Master EIR X-13 Chapter X. Citations October 2008 Rodriguez, Karin. Solid Waste Management Department, City of Modesto, Modesto, CA. June 8 and 11, 2007, and July 19, 2007—phone conversations and email exchange with Sandy Devoto and Beth Eggerts of Jones & Stokes, regarding update on solid waste generation for the City of Modesto. Silva, Lucy. Secretary, Business Services Department. Salida Union School District, Salida, CA. May 17, 2007—telephone conversation with Jessica Hankins. Speed, Paul. Director of Facilities and Construction. Sylvan Union School District, Modesto, CA. May 18, 2007—email to Jessica Hankins; August 22, 2007—telephone conversation with Jessica Hankins. Wall, Pamela. Assistant Superintendent of Business Services. Empire Union School District, Modesto, CA. August 22, 2007—telephone conversation with Jessica Hankins. Wasden, Roy. Modesto Police Department, Modesto, CA.. May 14, 2007—email exchange. Wilhelm, Karen. Business Manager. Covanta Stanislaus, Inc. July 20, 2007—phone conversation with Beth Eggerts of Jones & Stokes, regarding operation dates and new company name. Yekta, Gino. Integrated Waste Management Engineer, Forward Landfill, Inc. July 20, 2007—phone conversation with Beth Eggerts of Jones & Stokes, regarding remaining capacity and expansion plans for the landfill. ---PAGE BREAK--- Appendix A. Traffic Appendix ---PAGE BREAK--- Dowling Associates, Inc. Transportation Engineering • Planning • Research • Education TRANSPORTATION PLANNING PARTNERSHIP GROUP 2007 COUNTYWIDE MODEL PROJECT VERSION 1.0 USER GUIDE (DRAFT) Stanislaus County Association of Governments www.STANCOG.org June 25, 2007 ---PAGE BREAK--- Dowling Associates Inc. Transportation Engineering • Planning • Research • Education Modesto/Stanislaus County TPPG Page i Draft Model User Guide 2005 Travel Model Update June 25, 2007 Table of Contents 1. Introduction and 1.1 Model 1.2 Transportation Conformity Rule Modeling 1.3 Procedures to “Run the 2. Model Study Area and Zone 2.1 Internal Zones 2.2 External Zones 3. Using 3.1 Required Resources: 3.2 3.3 TPPG Model Files 3.4 Model Application 4. Modifying the Roadway Network 4.1 Road Network Elements 4.2 “Master” Roadway 4.3 Final Combined Loaded 4.4 Transit Network 5. Land Use / External Trip 5.1 Household Cross Classification Data 5.2 Modifying Land Use 5.3 Using Special 5.4 External 5.5 Creating New 6. Mode Choice Changes 6.1 Transit Factors 7. Special Assignments 7.1 Intersection Turn Volumes 7.2 Select Link Analysis 7.3 Select Zone 8. Adjustment of Results 8.1 Turn 9. Reporting the Results 9.1 Viewing and Plotting Model Data 9.2 Posting Volumes on Loaded 10. The Forecasting Process - Trip Generation 10.1 Trip 10.2 Trip Generation Rates (Person 10.3 Cordon or “Gateway” 10.4 Special Generators 11. The Forecasting Process - Trip 11.1 Description of Gravity ---PAGE BREAK--- Dowling Associates Inc. Transportation Engineering • Planning • Research • Education Modesto/Stanislaus County TPPG Page ii Draft Model User Guide 2005 Travel Model Update June 25, 2007 11.2 Zone-To-Zone Travel 11.3 Friction 11.4 Adjustment 12. The Forecasting Process - Trip 12.1 Traffic Assignment 12.2 13. The Forecasting Process - Feedback 13.1 TPPG Model Feedback 14. The Forecasting Process - Peaking Factors 14.1 Time-of-Day List of Figures Figure 1 - TPPG Travel Demand Model Process 6 Figure 2 - Sample Master Directory 9 Figure 3 TPPG Travel Demand Model TAZs and 12 Figure 4 - Example of Master Network Coding 19 Figure 5 - Job Script Code Lines to Build Future Year 21 Figure 6 - Creating Future Year Networks 22 Figure 7 - Viper Display of Link 23 Figure 8 - Turn Penalty Dialog Box 25 Figure 9 - Portion of the 2025 (General Plan Year) Land Use Database 33 Figure 10 - Sample Jobstream for Turning Volumes & Select Link 41 Figure 11 - Sample Jobstream for Select Zone 43 List of Tables Table 1 TAZ Numbering 11 Table 2 - TPPG Model Input 15 Table 3 - Capacities and Speed-Delay Curves by Roadway Type 24 Table 4 - TPPG Loaded Network Link 28 Table 5 2005 Countywide Cross Classified Summary 31 Table 6 2025 Future Year Land Use 31 Table 7 2005 and 2025 (General Plan Year) Employment Summary 32 Table 8 2025 Special 34 Table 9 - TPPG Vehicle Trips per Person 37 Table 10 - TPPG Transit Service Factors 38 ---PAGE BREAK--- Dowling Associates Inc. Transportation Engineering • Planning • Research • Education Modesto/Stanislaus County TPPG Page iii Draft Model User Guide 2005 Travel Model Update June 25, 2007 Table 11 Cross Classified Single Family Trip Generation Rates 53 Table 12 Cross Classified Multi-Family Trip Generation Rates 54 Table 13 Employment Trip Generation Rates 55 Table 14 Time of Day Factors 65 ---PAGE BREAK--- Dowling Associates Transportation Engineering • Planning • Research • Education Modesto/Stanislaus County TPPG Page 4 Draft Model User Guide 2005 Travel Model Update June 25, 2007 1. INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY The Transportation Planning Partnership Group (TPPG) Countywide travel forecasting model represents an multi-jurisdictional effort on the part of the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), the Stanislaus County Council of Governments (StanCOG or COG) and the City of Modesto to integrate the two longstanding models used in the County for planning purposes: the City of Modesto General Plan Model and the StanCOG air quality model. This integrated countywide model was developed by obtaining up to date land use roadway and planning data and incorporating it into a model with improvements and functional extensions to both the City and the COG models that it is based upon. 1.1 Model Software The TPPG model has been developed and is operable on the Cube/TP+ (Transportation Planning Plus) software platform. The model is fully compatible with the current version of Cube Software and is backwards compatible with TP+ 3.0. Cube/TP+ is a proprietary platform developed by Citilabs. Support for these packages and software upgrades are usually available on the Citilabs website at www.citilabs.com. It is recommended for users to have access to Microsoft Excel to manipulate land use and other input files. Microsoft Excel is available from the Microsoft Corporation. Support and upgrades are available from www.microsoft.com. Microsoft Excel should be installed with Visual Basic for Applications included in the install for full functionality. 1.1.1 Model Coverage and Traffic Analysis Zones (TAZs) The study area for the TPPG model covers all of Stanislaus County, including the incorporated areas. The county is broken up into approximately 2,500 traffic analysis zones (TAZs) including 50 gateways. The model has capacity for 3,200 zones through zone subdivision. 1.1.2 Socioeconomic Data / Land Use Inputs The travel demand model land use inputs (socioeconomic data) by TAZ include population related data (household data, broken down by household type and auto- ownership and population estimates), and employment related data (broken down into five employment categories: retail, service, government, education, and other). The starting point for the socioeconomic data by traffic analysis zone (TAZ) was the 2000 Census and the 2005 InfoUSA business survey (InfoUSA, 2006). Housing forecasts were adjusted to match countywide population controls from the California Department of Finance (DOF). Employment forecasts were adjusted to match countywide control totals provided by Woods and Poole, inc. and California Department of Finance projections. ---PAGE BREAK--- Dowling Associates Transportation Engineering • Planning • Research • Education Modesto/Stanislaus County TPPG Page 5 Draft Model User Guide 2005 Travel Model Update June 25, 2007 Future year land use for the Modesto General Plan area were based on the 2003 General Plan MEIR land use assumptions with adjustments to the Village Residential land use to match updated City population projections. Land Use assumptions for the rest of the county were based on the 2005 update of the StanCOG model which incorporates countywide land use projections apportioned among the various jurisdictions by StanCOG staff. 1.1.3 Roadway Network Characteristics The travel demand model roadway network includes over 10,000 nodes, and nearly 25,000 links. Links include: freeways, freeway ramps, highways (multi and two-lane), arterials, collectors, and rural roads. Important road network attributes include distances, uncongested speeds, and hourly capacities. The model utilizes a coordinate system used for most GIS applications. The model network can be viewed together with other geographic information such as street maps, TAZ maps and census information using a GIS package such as ArcView or Viper. This improves the model estimates of link distances since the roadway network is spatially correct. The TAZ maps for the model are provided in PDF format and as GIS files supplied with the default model. The travel demand model network link attribute assumptions were developed by analysis year based on StanCOG’s Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) and the Transportation Improvement Program (TIP), local agency Capital Improvement Programs (CIP) as well as local jurisdiction general plans and circulation elements and guidance. Separate transit networks have not been developed. 1.1.4 Forecasting Process Four sequential steps (actually sub-models) are involved in the travel demand forecasting process: • Trip Generation. This initial step translates household and employment data into person trip ends using trip generation rates established during model calibration. • Trip Distribution. The second general step estimates how many trips travel from one zone to any other zone. The distribution is based on the number of trip ends generated in each of the two zones, and on factors that relate the likelihood of travel between any two zones to the travel time between the two zones. • Mode Choice. This step estimates the proportions of the total person trips using single occupant vehicles and ridesharing modes for travel between each pair of zones. The TPPG model uses an adjustment procedure rather than a full mode choice analysis step. ---PAGE BREAK--- Dowling Associates Transportation Engineering • Planning • Research • Education Modesto/Stanislaus County TPPG Page 6 Draft Model User Guide 2005 Travel Model Update June 25, 2007 • Trip Assignment. In this final step, vehicle trips from one zone to another are assigned to specific travel routes between the zones. A flow chart of the TPPG model process is shown in Table 1. Figure 1 - TPPG Travel Demand Model Process TRIP GENERATION TRIP DISTRIBUTION MODE CHOICE TRIP ASSIGNMENT SHORTEST PATHS Person Trips by Zone LAND USE DATA Housing, Employment NETWORK DATA Distance , Speed , Type Trip Generation Rates Distribution Factors Uncongested Travel Times Zone - to - Zone Person Trips Auto Occupancy Factors Daily Zone-to-Zone Vehicle Trips AM 3 - Hour DAILY RESULTS Volumes Speeds VMT LOS PM 3 - Ho ur Daily INPUTS Compare AM Peak Travel Times Averaged Input Travel Times Congested Off -Peak Travel Times Average with Previous Iterations FACTORS Peak Factors If convergence is met, complete assignments If convergence is not met, repeat trip distribution Speed- Curves Congestion PEAK HOUR RESULTS Volumes Speeds VMT LOS Transit Factors ---PAGE BREAK--- Dowling Associates Transportation Engineering • Planning • Research • Education Modesto/Stanislaus County TPPG Page 7 Draft Model User Guide 2005 Travel Model Update June 25, 2007 1.1.5 Forecast Time Periods The travel demand model currently estimates travel demand and traffic volumes for daily traffic, AM 1-hour peak period and PM 1-hour peak. 1.1.6 Feedback Loops The TPPG travel model includes a feedback loop that uses the congested speeds estimated from traffic assignment to recalculate the trip distribution. The feedback loop repeats the process iteratively until the congested speeds and traffic volumes do not vary significantly between iterations. This ensures that the congested travel speeds used as input to the air quality analysis (outside the TPPG model) are consistent with the travel speeds used throughout the model process, as required by the Transportation Conformity Rule (40CFR Part 93). 1.1.7 Model Validation The TPPG model was revalidated to 2005 daily and peak hour counts The model estimates of 2005 daily volumes are within all of the FHWA percent difference targets by facility type. All model performance measure meet the FHWA criteria. Therefore, the model is considered acceptable based on FHWA guidelines. The model validation is presented in Appendix A. 1.1.8 Statewide Survey The TPPG model uses a variety of inputs based upon the California 2001 statewide transportation survey. The survey results were combined for Stanislaus County with Merced County to the south and San Joaquin County to the north in order to increase the sample size (to roughly 1,500 responses versus only 500 for Stansilaus County by itself). The survey results form the basis for the friction factors, trip generation rates and peaking factors. 1.2 Transportation Conformity Rule Modeling Requirements The TPPG model update and enhancements were designed to provide a network based travel model that meets the following Transportation Conformity Rule transportation modeling requirements for serious and above ozone and CO areas with an urbanized population over 200,0001: i) Network-based models must be validated against observed counts (peak and off-peak, if possible) for a base year that is not more than ten years prior to the date of the conformity determination. Model forecasts must be analyzed for 1 Transportation Conformity Rule Amendments: Flexibility and Streamlining, Federal Register: August 15, 1997, Volume 62, Number 158. ---PAGE BREAK--- Dowling Associates Transportation Engineering • Planning • Research • Education Modesto/Stanislaus County TPPG Page 8 Draft Model User Guide 2005 Travel Model Update June 25, 2007 reasonableness and compared to historical trends and other factors, and the results must be documented. ii) Land use, population, employment, and other network-based model assumptions must be documented and based on the best available information. iii) Scenarios of land development and use must be consistent with the future transportation system alternatives for which emissions are being estimated. The distribution of employment and residences for different transportation options must be reasonable. iv) A capacity-restrained traffic assignment methodology must be used, and emissions estimates must be based on a methodology which differentiates between peak and off-peak volumes and speeds, and which uses speeds based on final assigned volumes. v) Zone-to-zone travel impedances used to distribute trips between origin and destination pairs must be in reasonable agreement with the travel times that are estimated from final assigned traffic volumes. Where use of transit currently is anticipated to be a significant factor in satisfying transportation demand, these times should also be used for modeling mode splits. vi) Network-based models must be reasonably sensitive to changes in the time(s), cost(s), and other factors affecting travel choices. 1.3 Procedures to “Run the Model” Most of the travel demand model procedures have been programmed into the TPPG TP+ job script. Except for changing the selected year for the network build procedure; this job script should rarely have to be edited by the user. The user will usually be editing networks (to reflect the latest information about roadway facilities) and modifying land use assumptions (to reflect the latest information about development) and then simply applying the model. The general procedure to apply (or run) the model includes: 1. Document all alternative assumptions 2. Copy master directory 3. Modify “master” network, if necessary 4. Modify the land use / trip generation, if necessary 5. Modify the TP+ job script, if necessary (e.g. change forecast year) 6. “Run” the model alternative 7. Adjust turn or link volumes as necessary 8. View and print the results ---PAGE BREAK--- Dowling Associates Transportation Engineering • Planning • Research • Education Modesto/Stanislaus County TPPG Page 9 Draft Model User Guide 2005 Travel Model Update June 25, 2007 These steps are summarized here and discussed in more detail throughout this Users Guide. 1.3.1 Document all Alternative Changes All assumptions for the alternative to be run should be adequately documented so that, after some time has gone by, a user can still identify the land use and network input sources. Network modifications should be noted on maps or network plots. Land use changes should be printed out and clearly marked. Ideally, all assumptions would be filed together so that they are easily accessible in the future. 1.3.2 Copy Master Directory The generic TPPG model is stored in a master directory that includes the “Master” network, the land use / trip generation workbook, the TP+ job script, and all of the supporting files necessary to create a new model alternative. See Figure 2 for a sample master directory. In order to save the integrity of this data set, the user should make electronic copies of the input data files by copying the master directory to a new directory (i.e. folder). This can be done using Windows Explorer or other file management software. If a model alternative is desired that is based on an already completed model run, simply copy the input files associated with the previous model alternative to a new directory and follow the same steps outlined below. Figure 2 - Sample Master Directory ---PAGE BREAK--- Dowling Associates Transportation Engineering • Planning • Research • Education Modesto/Stanislaus County TPPG Page 10 Draft Model User Guide 2005 Travel Model Update June 25, 2007 1.3.3 Update Network Use Viper to edit the master roadway network if necessary. This could include changing the number of lanes, adding freeway interchanges, and/or adding new zones with centroid connectors. 1.3.4 Update Land Use / Trip Generation Use Excel to update the land use and trip generation workbook. Typical modifications would be: adding zones and redistributing land uses, adding project specific developments for traffic impact analyses, and creating interpolated land use scenarios for milestone-year models. 1.3.5 Update the TP+ Job script Use Viper to modify the TP+ job script, if necessary. Typical modifications include entry of the correct forecast year (very important for network “extraction” from the “Master” network). 1.3.6 Apply the Model Use TP+ to “run” the model alternative. The user launches the TP+ program and selects the appropriate job script for the "Input Job File", specifies the "Working Directory" and the "Project Prefix", and then clicks the "Start" button. 1.3.7 Adjust the Model Results Although the TPPG model has been validated on screenlines and for overall fit, it is likely that the model will NOT be accurate enough in every location to reliably calculate level of service directly from raw model output. Therefore, it is recommended that adjustments be applied to model results prior to traffic operations analysis. 1.3.8 View and Report Model Results There are a variety of ways to report the results of the TP+ traffic distribution and assignment, including Viper screen graphics, plots and printed reports. ---PAGE BREAK--- Dowling Associates Transportation Engineering • Planning • Research • Education Modesto/Stanislaus County TPPG Page 11 Draft Model User Guide 2005 Travel Model Update June 25, 2007 2. MODEL STUDY AREA AND ZONE SYSTEM The study area for the TPPG model covers all of Stanislays County, including the cities of Modesto, Turlock, Ceres, Oakdale, Riverbank, Patterson, Hughson, Waterford and Newman. The county is broken up into approximately 2,500 traffic analysis zones (TAZs) with unused zones set aside for a total of 3,200 possible zones including gateways. Figure 4 shows the travel demand model TAZs . The TAZ polygon shapefiles are maintained in ArcView and can be viewed in Viper these are provided with the default model. 2.1 Internal Zones Zone numbers 1 to 3200 are used for internal Stanislaus County zones. Not all zone numbers in this range have been used, allowing for future detailing or expansion of the model. The TAZs are generally smaller in size where land use density is higher, such as in the commercial are of Modesto, while larger zones are used for the more rural portions of the county. The TAZ allocations are summarized in below. Table 1 TAZ Numbering Ranges Zone Range Intended Coverage 1-50 Gateways 51-1200 Modesto and Vicinity (including Salida) 1201-1450 Ceres and Vicinity 1451-1600 Riverbank 1601-1800 Oakdale 1801-1900 Waterford 1901-2000 Hughson and Vicinity 2001-2300 Turlock Area 2301-2400 Patterson Area 2401-2500 Newman Area 2501-3200 Unincorporated Stanislaus County ---PAGE BREAK--- Dowling Associates Transportation Engineering • Planning • Research • Education Modesto/Stanislaus County TPPG Page 12 Draft Model User Guide 2005 Travel Model Update June 25, 2007 Figure 3 TPPG Travel Demand Model TAZs and Gateways 2.2 External Zones The TPPG model has 45 external cordons (gateways) for representing travel into, out of, and through the region. Appendix B lists the external zones, their locations and their assumptions. ---PAGE BREAK--- Dowling Associates Transportation Engineering • Planning • Research • Education Modesto/Stanislaus County TPPG Page 13 Draft Model User Guide 2005 Travel Model Update June 25, 2007 3. USING TP+ The purpose of this documentation is to provide a user with the general procedures to apply the TPPG model. Users should refer to the TP+ and Viper documentation provided by Citilabs for specific TP+ and Viper related questions. TP+ is a library of program modules that employs a control language that allows the user to write the script to provide instructions for performing all types of typical planning operations. At the heart of the TP+ system is the control language referred to as a scripting language. The script is stored in a file and then read when the system is executed. The individual modules are activated according to the instructions in the script. Each module is designed to perform certain operations, but only as specified by the user. A typical application could involve a very complicated set of instructions, or could be as simple as computing and/or printing a number from a file. It is the user’s responsibility to design the process that is to be run. The binary files generated by TP+ are designed to reduce disk storage requirements and reduce the amount of time spent on input/output. They have a proprietary format that can not be used by other software, but the user can translate them to other formats. 3.1 Required Resources: TP+ requires a Windows 95/98/NT/2000/XP environment in which to function. The system utilizes RAM as needed; most applications will not require any special RAM considerations. The exact amount of RAM required can not be determined until an application actually runs and the combination of user options is diagnosed. It is fairly safe to state that if a computer can run Windows, it has enough RAM to run TP+. About 2 MB of disk space is required to store the system. Additional disk space is required for the various files. A typical application will require zonal data files, networks, and matrices. Zonal data files are not very large, and network sizes will depend upon the number of alternatives and variables that the user wishes to employ. The largest networks will be only a few MB. The largest storage requirements will be associated with matrices. A matrix will contain zones*zones cells of information. Each cell value can be from 0 to 9 bytes in size, but TP+ uses a proprietary data compression technique that helps to reduce the sizes. The user can control the matrix sizing. The minimum recommended hardware (for TP+ without Cube or Viper) is: ƒ Pentium class PC ƒ 512 MB of RAM ƒ 1 GB hard disk ƒ Generic Printer ƒ Any reasonable monitor ƒ Typical Windows printer drivers are required if TP+ is requested to do plotting ---PAGE BREAK--- Dowling Associates Transportation Engineering • Planning • Research • Education Modesto/Stanislaus County TPPG Page 14 Draft Model User Guide 2005 Travel Model Update June 25, 2007 TP+ is designed to run in a multitasking environment. In such an environment, there is a possibility that several simultaneous applications could try to access the same data files simultaneously. This could possibly cause problems if one application is trying to update a file while other applications are accessing it. Different operating systems may handle this conflict differently. TP+ currently does nothing specifically to deal with this. 3.2 Directories The TP+ and Viper software are typically installed in the C:\Program Files\Citilabs directory and subdirectories. These files do not need to be modified or accessed unless the user is updating the software from the web site or using a CD distributed by Citilabs. As discussed above, each model alternative should be run and stored in a separate subdirectory. This includes all associated input and output files. Geographic files that are common to all alternatives (such as the TIGER street map and the zone boundaries) may be stored in a single directory rather than copied to each alternative. 3.3 TPPG Model Files The different types of data or instructions used by the traffic model are stored in various computer files. The following file types are used in the TPPG Countywide model: • TP+ script files (ending with for control instructions • Land use and external trip files (ending with .DBF) • Road network files (ending with .NET) • Viper project settings files (ending with .PRJ) • Turn penalty files (ending with .PEN) • Matrix files trip tables) created by TP+ (ending with .MAT) • Report files created by TP+ (ending with .PRN) • Miscellaneous text output files (ending with .VAR, or .TXT) The following sections describe the input and output files. In this description, characters are used as placeholders for numbers For example, "20yy_LU.dbf" means any file name that begins with 20, followed by two other numbers, and ends with "_LU.dbf" (such as, 2025_LU.dbf) The input files for the full model run are listed in Table 2. ---PAGE BREAK--- Dowling Associates Transportation Engineering • Planning • Research • Education Modesto/Stanislaus County TPPG Page 15 Draft Model User Guide 2005 Travel Model Update June 25, 2007 Table 2 - TPPG Model Input Files File Name Description Created Using 20yy_Master.s Main TP+ script file for analysis year 20YY Viper TripRates.txt Cross classified HH and employee trip generation rates MS Excel MASTER.net Input master road network Viper 20yyPenalties.pen Turn penalties for year 20YY Viper ff_Stan.txt Friction factors MS Excel KF_HW_61.inp Home based work K-factors (set to 1.0 by default) MS Excel KF_NW_61.inp Non work K-factors (set to 1.0 by default) MS Excel CAyy_SUB_XX.inp Year 20yy Statewide Model Subarea external to external trips MS Excel CAyy_XXAM.inp Year 20yy AM peak hour external to external trips MS Excel CAyy_XXPM.inp Year 20yy AM peak hour external to external trips MS Excel cross classification seed file MS Excel TPPG20yy_LU.dbf Land Use data file MS Excel TPPG_20yy_SpecGen.dbf Year 20yy special generators file MS Excel Gate_20yy_Unbal.dbf Unbalanced IX trip generation MS Excel Note, all files created with MS Excel are editable with a text editor. 3.4 Model Application Model application "running the model") refers to the calculations that convert the data inputs into results. In TP+, the program reads a set of instructions in a script file that tell the computer to use selected TP+ programs and operate on selected data files. The data files must already be edited and placed in the current subdirectory. In some cases, the script must also be edited so that it contains the correct instructions and titles. 3.4.1 Script Files The standard script file, "20yy_Master.s has been arranged to make it easy to run a new alternative. The first part of the script lists the important input files. Use this as a checklist for preparing files. The analysis year can be changed by modifying one line of code. Lines beginning with a semicolon are comments that are ignored by the program and are added for clarity or documentation. The user can also add additional comment lines beginning with a semicolon 3.4.2 Scenario Name Each model alternative should have a unique scenario name (also known as "project prefix"). Similar to MINUTP (the software the MOGP model used previously), the scenario name is used to identify important input and output files. It is also recommended that the subdirectory name incorporate the scenario name. The TP+ software restricts the user to four characters. The default name is TPPG. ---PAGE BREAK--- Dowling Associates Transportation Engineering • Planning • Research • Education Modesto/Stanislaus County TPPG Page 16 Draft Model User Guide 2005 Travel Model Update June 25, 2007 3.4.3 Running TP+ Once all the input files have been updated and included in the model alternative directory, the user is ready to start TP+. If TP+ has been properly installed, there should be a TP+ icon on the desktop that can be used to launch TP+. Click on the TP+ icon and the TP+ control screen will appear. If there is no icon, TP+ can be started from the Start Menu like any other program in Windows. TP+ can also be started directly from within Viper. From the Viper menu, choose Run and then either File, Current File, Select Text, or Current Step, whichever is appropriate. If starting TP+ from Viper, be sure that any of the files that are to be used during the TP+ application are not left open in Viper while the TP+ application is executing. Once TP+ has been activated, the TPPLUS window will open and prompt the user for the following items: • The name of the script file that is to be run (if not shown the user can select the "Browse" button to select the correct script file in the correct subdirectory); • The working directory where the basic application data is stored (this should default to the directory where the job script file resides when a new job script file is selected); • A system prefix (make certain that the Project Prefix matches the scenario you have selected, such as "TPPG", and is a max of 4 characters - ALWAYS VERIFY THIS.); • The desired height and width of a printed page (usually the default isn’t modified); and • An ID that will be printed at the top of every printed page (descriptive text for your alternative). • Press "Start" When this data is completed, the Start Button is pressed, and TP+ begins execution. As it is executing, periodic messages will be written to the message box. The program window can be minimized or left open as TP+ is executing. The X button allows for pre-mature termination of the application. When the application is finished, the View Print File button can be pushed to view the printed results. 3.4.4 Errors If there is an error, the TP+ control screen will display a message such as "Return Code The only description of the error is contained in the .PRN file created by TP+. Select "View Print File." Press the function key to move to the first error message. ---PAGE BREAK--- Dowling Associates Transportation Engineering • Planning • Research • Education Modesto/Stanislaus County TPPG Page 17 Draft Model User Guide 2005 Travel Model Update June 25, 2007 4. MODIFYING THE ROADWAY NETWORK The TPPG regional travel model uses coded representations of the region’s existing and future roadway networks that can be edited for alternative year scenarios. 4.1 Road Network Elements The road network is a computerized representation of the major street and highway system within the study area. The more important streets (freeways, expressways, arterials, and collectors) are fully included in the network. The model does not explicitly include all local streets. Some minor collector streets, local streets and driveways are instead represented by simplified network links (“zone centroid connectors”) that represent local connections to the adjacent major roadway network. The coded road network is comprised of three basic types of data: nodes, links and turn penalties. 4.1.1 Nodes Nodes are established at each and every intersection between two or more links. Nodes are assigned numbers, with the first 3200 node numbers in the TPPG model representing traffic analysis zones (TAZ) as discussed above. The road network nodes are coded with geographical and coordinates to permit plotting and graphic displays. As part of the PROJECT, the roadway network was projected to State Plane 1983, California Zone 4 coordinates, with measurement in feet. Additionally, individual nodes were moved geographically to allow the model network to overlay in a consistent manner with other geographical information such as census maps. Node data includes the node number, the X and Y coordinates, a City code filed, and separate numbering for TAZ and Gateway nodes (the same number as the node number). 4.1.2 Links Links represent road segments, and are uniquely identified by the node numbers at each end of the segment (for example, a link may be identified as “1232-1234”). Information is coded for each road link. 4.2 “Master” Roadway Network Dowling Associates has developed a “Master” network to store the network related attributes for the 2005 base and Modesto General Plan version of the network including number of lanes, facility type. Capacity-increasing roadway network improvements are in the Master network with construction year (project completion) identifiers. All ---PAGE BREAK--- Dowling Associates Transportation Engineering • Planning • Research • Education Modesto/Stanislaus County TPPG Page 18 Draft Model User Guide 2005 Travel Model Update June 25, 2007 roadway networks used in the travel demand model are “built” from this Master network. The link attributes in the Master Network are similar to those in the The purpose of creating a Master network was to make the task of network maintenance more efficient. In the past, if a roadway network improvement was to be included in several alternatives, the same network editing had to be performed individually for each of the network years. With a Master network, the user need only input the improvement in one place with the appropriate year of construction and then all desired network years can be built and will be consistent. While the creation of a Master network will make the task of network maintenance more efficient, it will require the user to be very aware of how network coding is handled and to be diligent about displaying proper network data. Figure 4 shows an example of the Master network coding that illustrates the need for user diligence. This figure shows a base year location with at-grade intersections that will become a grade-separated interchange in the future. The base year and future links are shown in different widths and two of the nodes (3990 and 3992 in this hypothetical example) are shown exaggeratedly offset for clarity. The dashed links are included in both the base year network and in the future network. The light weight solid links are included in the base year network but are excluded from the future network. The heavy weight links are included in the future network but are excluded from the base year network. The display of these links in the master network can be confusing, because there are duplicate links for connecting the extremes of the interchange facility and the nodes are not normally offset as shown in Figure 4. One set of links is for the base year and one set is for the future year. When creating or editing such links care must be taken to add or change nodes and links so that the desired future network will be produced. The section titled Building the Future Year Roadway Network, below, describes how the link attributes are used to create the future network. ---PAGE BREAK--- Dowling Associates Transportation Engineering • Planning • Research • Education Modesto/Stanislaus County TPPG Page 19 Draft Model User Guide 2005 Travel Model Update June 25, 2007 Figure 4 - Example of Master Network Coding Base Year Links 2205-3990* 3990-3992* 3992-2408* 2559-3990 3990-2560 3705-3992 3992-3706 Future Year Links 2205-2408* 2559-2560 3705-3706 2559-2205 2205-2560 3705-2408 2408-3706 * = two-way link 4.2.1 Editing the Master Roadway Network If new or revised roadway facility projects are identified in the future that are not already included in the Master network, changes will need to be made to the Master network. Such changes might include adding links that are not already in the Master network, changing the number of lanes for links that are already present or deleting links that are already present. To add a link: First copy a link that is similar to the one you want to add. Next, click and hold the left mouse button down when the cursor is on the A-node location then drag the mouse cursor to the B-node location and release the mouse button. If the selected location is within the search tolerance to an existing node, the end point of the new link will snap to this node; otherwise, the program prompts the user to add a new node and requests the new node number. A list of unused nodes will be displayed in the new node dialog box and the new number can then be selected from the list of unused nodes or entered manually. Then, enter or change the various link attributes to properly represent the link you are adding. To widen a link: Click on the link to select it. The attributes for the link will be displayed in a dialog box. Change the LANES_IMP and IMP_MOGP attributes to properly represent the widening. If it is a two-way link, change the attributes for both travel directions (A-to- B and B-to-A). To delete a link: Click on the link to select it, then press the Delete key. ---PAGE BREAK--- Dowling Associates Transportation Engineering • Planning • Research • Education Modesto/Stanislaus County TPPG Page 20 Draft Model User Guide 2005 Travel Model Update June 25, 2007 4.2.2 Building the Future Year Roadway Network As discussed above, links for all base year and future year improvements are included in the Master network. Future year roadway networks are created by including future links or changing the number of lanes and the speed and capacity classes on appropriate links. In some cases, it will be necessary to exclude base year links if an at-grade intersection is being improved to a grade-separated crossing, the links that are attached to the node where the current at-grade condition exists must be excluded). This process of including, changing, and/or excluding links is accomplished dynamically as the model is run. The information stored in each link's attributes is used to determine whether the link will be included, or changed, or excluded. The attributes that control this process are IMP_YEAR (the year when the improvement is to become effective), LANES05 (the base year number of lanes for the link), and LANES_MOGP (the improved number of lanes for the link). IT IS IMPERATIVE THAT FOR EACH RUN THE ANALYSIS YEAR IN THE SCRIPT BE PROPERLY SET. The portion of script shown in Figure 5 uses these attributes to extract or build the correct roadway network for the defined alternative year. Figure 5 shows how these attributes are used to accomplish the three basic improvement actions (include, change, and exclude). If the analysis year in the script is later than the IMP_Year for the MOGP scenario, the number of lanes, speed and capacity class for the MOGP scenario will be included in the run. ---PAGE BREAK--- Dowling Associates Transportation Engineering • Planning • Research • Education Modesto/Stanislaus County TPPG Page 21 Draft Model User Guide 2005 Travel Model Update June 25, 2007 Figure 5 - Job Script Code Lines to Build Future Year Network ; ; ; USER MUST INPUT THE ; NetYear=2025 ; User MUST input study year for correct network ; = ; NETWORK DEVELOPMENT = RUN PGM=HWYNET . . . IF (@NetYear@Attribute=>Add. Three attributes should be added and named: [Analysis Year]Speed [Analysis Year]Lanes [Analysis Year]CAPC The analyst should typically set the values of these attributes to the MOGP values making using the menu commands LINK=>Compute, then modify the links with interim year differences manually. This process is recommended for very advanced users only and such changes should be reported back to the TPPG members. ---PAGE BREAK--- Dowling Associates Transportation Engineering • Planning • Research • Education Modesto/Stanislaus County TPPG Page 37 Draft Model User Guide 2005 Travel Model Update June 25, 2007 6. MODE CHOICE CHANGES Since the percent of transit trips is small in Stanislaus County, at this time the TPPG travel model does not include a separate mode choice analysis step. Transit trips currently account for less than one percent of all trips in Stanislaus County, and no major transit investments are planned which would significantly increase transit usage. The model does include factors for determining vehicle occupancy. These are shown in . Table 9 - TPPG Vehicle Trips per Person Trip Mode Split Factors Vehicles Trips per Person Trip Home Work 0.89860 Home School 0.35400 Home Shop 0.65930 Home Other 0.58980 Work Other 0.86060 Other-Other 0.60610 6.1 Transit Factors The TPPG model contains a simplified mode split model so transit and other trip reduction scenarios can be estimated with the model. Using a simplified method eliminates the need to create and maintain a transit network along with fare and other cost information. Basic mode split factors were developed from Caltrans’ trip survey data. Additional factoring is applied for traffic zones that are planned as urban villages or to account for a higher expected level of transit usage. The Caltrans survey contains information on all trips made as well as the mode used for the trips, so person trip to vehicle trip conversion factors by purpose can be developed from the data. The mode split process is divided into two parts: 1. The person trip tables by purpose are factored to vehicle trips using factors derived from the Caltrans’ trip survey data. These factors take into account rural and urban transit usage as well as vehicle occupancy. ---PAGE BREAK--- Dowling Associates Transportation Engineering • Planning • Research • Education Modesto/Stanislaus County TPPG Page 38 Draft Model User Guide 2005 Travel Model Update June 25, 2007 2. Transit assumptions are then applied to the resulting vehicle trip tables as further trip reductions. There are three transit scenarios, signifying the three levels of transit investments: low, medium, and high. No additional factoring will be done for the low transit scenario since a low level of transit usage is already assumed in step one, person to vehicle factoring. For the medium and high transit scenarios, additional reductions will be applied to the trip tables based on the level of local and regional transit service to each zone. contains the factors for transit usage. Since existing transit usage is quite low, it is not possible to develop transit factors from existing conditions. The factors used are based on transit models in similar size counties and what reasonable reduction can be expected from transit service improvements. Table 10 - TPPG Transit Service Factors Local Service Transit Service Factor None Minimal Low Medium High None 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Minimal 1.000 0.995 0.990 0.985 0.980 Low 1.000 0.990 0.985 0.980 0.975 Medium 1.000 0.985 0.980 0.975 0.970 High 1.000 0.980 0.975 0.970 0.965 Regional Service Transit Service Factor None Low Medium High None 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Low 1.000 0.990 0.985 0.980 Medium 1.000 0.985 0.960 0.950 High 1.000 0.980 0.950 0.940 ---PAGE BREAK--- Dowling Associates Transportation Engineering • Planning • Research • Education Modesto/Stanislaus County TPPG Page 39 Draft Model User Guide 2005 Travel Model Update June 25, 2007 The data file TRANSIT20yy.INP contains the coding for transit levels of service and city code each traffic zone. Transit service is divided into local and regional service, where local service is only available between traffic zones with the same city code, and regional service is only available between traffic zones with differing city codes. The service ratings are based on the traffic zones’ distance from transit lines as well as the headways of the accessible transit service. Local service has 5 levels: ƒ None ƒ Minimal ƒ Low ƒ Medium ƒ High Regional service has 4 levels: ƒ None ƒ Low ƒ Medium ƒ High Both the medium and high transit scenarios are contained in the TRANSIT20yy.INP file. The TP+ script file will utilize one of the scenarios based on the column specification in the ZDAT record. ---PAGE BREAK--- Dowling Associates Transportation Engineering • Planning • Research • Education Modesto/Stanislaus County TPPG Page 40 Draft Model User Guide 2005 Travel Model Update June 25, 2007 7. SPECIAL ASSIGNMENTS In an effort to meet the needs of the TPPG, several special assignment options are explained here, including the saving of selected intersection turn volumes, select link and select zone assignments. 7.1 Intersection Turn Volumes The TP+ command TURNS is used to request that the volumes at specific nodes are to be accumulated. If there is at least one TURNS statement, the module will accumulate turns for every assignment loading. At the end of each iteration (in the Phase=Adjust), a single total turn volume will be computed for each movement at the nodes where turns are requested. By default, the single volume is computed by adding all the individual turn volume sets together (T = TURN[1] + TURN + TURN If turn volumes are to be accumulated and reported, it is necessary to specify the selected nodes with an N= , , , etc statement, and also to have a FILEO TURNVOLO specified to define the file(s) to which the turn volumes will be written. N IIPI is a list of nodes at which turning volumes are to be accumulated. A sample job script to save turn volumes is shown in . This job script loads the morning 3-hour peak period traffic onto the network saving turns at the nodes specified by: TurnList=1521-1523,1525. A binary file (.BIN) and a database file (.DBF) are created with the turning volume output by: TURNVOLO=LDA3_SelLink.TRN, FORMAT=BIN TURNVOLO=LDA3_SelLink.DBF, FORMAT=DBF 7.2 Select Link Analysis also shows the commands to track the traffic using a selected link or set of links. The chosen links are specified by: SelLinkList='1519-1520*,1521-1565*' The volumes using the selected links are saved in the output file as a separate link attribute that is created by: PATH=TIME,PENI=1,VOL[1]=MI.1.1, MW[2]=MI.1.1, SELECTLINK=(L=@SelLinkList@), VOL[2]=mw[2] ---PAGE BREAK--- Dowling Associates Transportation Engineering • Planning • Research • Education Modesto/Stanislaus County TPPG Page 41 Draft Model User Guide 2005 Travel Model Update June 25, 2007 Figure 10 - Sample Jobstream for Turning Volumes & Select Link Analysis ; PM PEAK WITH SELECT LINK Analysis ; ; USER MUST INPUT THE ; NetYear=2025 ; User MUST input study year for correct network NumItersEQ=30 ; Equilibrium assignment iterations (30) SelLinkList='1519-1520*,1521-1565*' ; Must be in 'single quotes' TurnList=1521-1523,1525 ; ; Examples of Select Links ; ; SELECTLINK=(L=1519-1520) link 1519-1520 in A-B dir ; SELECTLINK=(L=1521-1565*) link 1519-1520 in A-B or B-A dir ; PM TRAFFIC ASSIGNMENT RUN PGM=HWYLOAD ; Load Network with Full Trip Table NETI=?_@[EMAIL REDACTED] MATI=?_PM1_OD.MAT NETO=?_@[EMAIL REDACTED] TURNVOLO=PM_SelZone.TRN, FORMAT=BIN TURNVOLO=PM_SelZone.DBF, FORMAT=DBF TURNS N=@TurnList@ CAPFAC= 0.1 ; EQui ON MAXITERS= @NumItersEQ@ TURNPENI=@[EMAIL REDACTED] ; Set turning penalties & prohibitors FUNCTION V=VOL[1] PHASE=LINKREAD LINKCLASS=LI.CAPCLASS CAPACITY=LI.CAPACITY T0=LI.TIME_FF ENDPHASE Phase=Iloop PAth=time,vol[1]=MI.1.1,Peni,VOL[1]=MI.1.1, MW[2]=MI.1.1, SELECTLINK=(L=@SelLinkList@), VOL[2]=mw[2] ; using SelLinkList endphase PHASE=ADJUST TC[02]=T0*(1 +0.15*(VC/0.75)^4)+ (0.15*(VC/0.95)^12); Highway/Unsig. Art. TC[04]=T0*(1 + 0.15*(VC/0.9)^6) ; Collector TC[05]=T0*(1 + 0.25*(VC/0.6)^4) ; Rural Collector TC[06]=T0*(1 + 0.1*(VC / 0.85)^4) ; Unsig. Collector TC[07]=min((T0*30.0),(T0*(1 + 0.15* (VC / Centroid Connector ENDPHASE endRun ---PAGE BREAK--- Dowling Associates Transportation Engineering • Planning • Research • Education Modesto/Stanislaus County TPPG Page 42 Draft Model User Guide 2005 Travel Model Update June 25, 2007 7.3 Select Zone Analysis shows the commands to track the traffic to and from selected zones, which is a technique that can be used to estimate project trip distribution for traffic impact studies. This jobstream actually tracks traffic to and from selected zones that uses selected links and keeps track of the turning movement volumes at selected nodes. The chosen nodes and links are specified as described in the previous section. The chosen zones are specified by: SelZoneList=185-187,191 The volumes to and from the selected zones that use the selected links are saved in the output file as a separate link attribute that is created by: PATH=TIME,PENI=1,VOL[1]=MI.1.1, MW[2]=MI.1.1, SELECTLINK=(A=@SelZoneList@ I B=@SelZoneList@), VOL[2]=mw[2] ---PAGE BREAK--- Dowling Associates Transportation Engineering • Planning • Research • Education Modesto/Stanislaus County TPPG Page 43 Draft Model User Guide 2005 Travel Model Update June 25, 2007 Figure 11 - Sample Jobstream for Select Zone Analysis ; PM PEAK WITH SELECT ZONE Analysis ; ; USER MUST INPUT THE ; NetYear=2025 ; User MUST input study year for correct network NumItersEQ=30 ; Equilibrium assignment iterations (30) SelZoneList=200-300 ; SELECTLINK=(A=@SelZoneList@ I B=@SelZoneList@) ; to OR from SelZoneList TurnList=1521-1523,1525 ; PM TRAFFIC ASSIGNMENT RUN PGM=HWYLOAD ; Load Network with Full Trip Table NETI=?_@[EMAIL REDACTED] MATI=?_PM1_OD.MAT NETO=?_@[EMAIL REDACTED] ; TURNVOLO=PM_SelZone.TRN, FORMAT=BIN TURNVOLO=PM_SelZone.DBF, FORMAT=DBF TURNS N=@TurnList@ ; CAPFAC= 0.1 ; EQui ON ; MAXITERS= @NumItersEQ@ TURNPENI=@[EMAIL REDACTED] ; Set turning penalties & prohibitors FUNCTION V=VOL[1] PHASE=LINKREAD LINKCLASS=LI.CAPCLASS CAPACITY=LI.CAPACITY T0=LI.TIME_FF ENDPHASE Phase=Iloop PAth=time,vol[1]=MI.1.1,Peni=1,VOL[1]=MI.1.1, MW[2]=MI.1.1, SELECTLINK=(A=@SelZoneList@ I B=@SelZoneList@), VOL[2]=mw[2] ; to or from SelZoneList endphase PHASE=ADJUST TC[02]=T0*(1 +0.15*(VC/0.75)^4)+ (0.15*(VC/0.95)^12); Highway/Unsig. Art. TC[04]=T0*(1 + 0.15*(VC/0.9)^6) ; Collector TC[05]=T0*(1 + 0.25*(VC/0.6)^4) ; Rural Collector TC[06]=T0*(1 + 0.1*(VC / 0.85)^4) ; Unsig. Collector TC[07]=min((T0*30.0),(T0*(1 + 0.15* (VC / Centroid Connector ENDPHASE endRun ---PAGE BREAK--- Dowling Associates Transportation Engineering • Planning • Research • Education Modesto/Stanislaus County TPPG Page 44 Draft Model User Guide 2005 Travel Model Update June 25, 2007 8. ADJUSTMENT OF RESULTS The traffic validation indicates that the TPPG model provides a good overall estimation of travel demand patterns in Stanislaus County. However, it is recommended that traffic forecasts on specific road segments use an adjustment process that accounts for validation errors. Where base year traffic counts are available, forecast traffic volumes are calculated based on the increment between the base year and future year model results: Adj. Forecast Volume = Base Year Count + (Model Forecast Volume - Base Year Model Volume) An incremental adjustment is generally recommended instead of an adjustment based on ratios. A ratio adjustment factor does not guarantee continuity of traffic volumes between adjacent road segments, and can result in very large adjustments on low- volume links. 8.1 Turn Movements The TPPG model has been validated to replicate overall existing traffic volumes in Stanislaus County. The model accurately represents overall traffic volumes on roads grouped by classification or across regional screenlines. In many locations, the model also accurately estimates traffic on specific road segments. It is likely that the model will not be accurate enough in every location to reliably calculate level of service directly from model output. However, a validated model will generate good estimates of changes in traffic volume in response to changes in land use or road network assumptions. Therefore, it is recommended that adjustments be applied to model results prior to traffic operations analysis. The primary reference for traffic model volume adjustments is National Cooperative Highway Research Program Report 255: Highway Traffic Data for Urbanized Area Project Planning and Design, 1982 (now out of print). Some of the simplified procedures described in 255 can be improved using current computer programs. 8.1.1 Link Volumes There are two common procedures for adjusting link volumes from a model: 1. Increments (adjust traffic counts by increment from base year model to future year model) 2. Growth Factors (adjust traffic counts by ratio of future year model to base year model) It is recommended that link volumes from the TPPG model be adjusted based on the increment method, for any link where traffic counts are available. Factors may be applied in locations where forecasts are needed and traffic counts are not available. ---PAGE BREAK--- Dowling Associates Transportation Engineering • Planning • Research • Education Modesto/Stanislaus County TPPG Page 45 Draft Model User Guide 2005 Travel Model Update June 25, 2007 Discussion of Factor Method The growth factor or ratio method calculates the ratio of future model forecast volumes to base year model volumes and applies the ratio to the base year traffic count. For example, a segment of a given street may have a 2005 traffic count of 24,000 daily vehicles. The validated 1998 base year model may estimate a 2005 volume of 19,500 (19% low) and a 2020 volume of 23,800 (lower than the 2005 count). The growth factor method would calculate an overall factor of 23,800/19,500 = 1.22. Applying the factor of 1.22 to the count of 24,000 would result in an adjusted forecast of 29,280. The factor method can generate very odd results when either the traffic count or base year model volume is very low. The factor method also does not guarantee continuity of flow from one link to the next. Therefore, the increment method is recommended. Procedure for Links with Traffic Counts The following procedure is recommended for adjustment of all forecast volumes on all road types, including freeways, local streets, and intersection approach and departure volumes. A spreadsheet is useful for organizing the adjustments. 1. Balance Counts. Balance existing traffic counts between adjacent road segments or adjacent intersections where appropriate. The exiting volume from one intersection should equal the entering traffic at the next intersection if there are no streets or driveways between the intersections. 2. Compile Base Year Model Volumes. Enter the appropriate daily, A.M. peak hour or P.M. peak hour traffic volumes from the version of the TPPG model that is closest to the traffic count year. If a version of the model is not available within two years of the traffic count year, it is recommended to interpolate between two model years to estimate the appropriate base year. For example, 2005 model volumes could be estimated for comparison with 2002 traffic counts by interpolating the increment between 2002 and 2005 model volumes. 3. Compile Future Year Model Volumes. Enter the appropriate daily, A.M. peak hour or P.M. peak hour traffic volumes from the version of the TPPG model that is closest to the future study year. 4. Calculate Increment from Base Year Model to Future Year Model. Subtract the base year model volume on each link from the future year model volume. 5. Check Negative Increments. In some cases, the model volumes will decrease between the base year and the future year. Decreases in traffic could be due to legitimate reasons, such as construction of a new facility that diverts traffic off of the road. There could also be legitimate but difficult-to-explain reasons, such as future traffic avoiding a road where the model is predicting significant future congestion. Or, decreases could be due to errors or discrepancies between the base year and future year land use assumptions. The analyst must determine whether to allow traffic to decrease consistent with the model assumptions, or to reset the negative increments to zero so that no future forecasts are lower than the base year traffic counts. ---PAGE BREAK--- Dowling Associates Transportation Engineering • Planning • Research • Education Modesto/Stanislaus County TPPG Page 46 Draft Model User Guide 2005 Travel Model Update June 25, 2007 6. Add Increment to Traffic Count. Add the growth increment to the base year traffic count to calculate the final adjusted forecast volume. Procedure for Links without Traffic Counts For road segments that exist in the base year but do not have traffic counts, a factor method is recommended for adjusting future model volume forecasts. 1. Adjust Links with Traffic Counts. Calculate adjusted forecast volumes for links with traffic counts following the above procedure in Section 2.2. 2. Select Representative Links. Select one or more similar nearby links with adjusted forecasts. For example, adjacent freeway links should be used for adjustments on freeways. Ramps that serve the same general movements (such as "northbound off- ramp from downtown") should be used to adjust ramp volumes. Parallel arterials should be used to adjust arterial segments. Calculate the adjustment factor on those nearby links as the adjusted traffic volume divided by the unadjusted future year model volume. 3. Apply Adjustment Factor. Apply the average adjustment growth factor to the unadjusted future year model volume on the link without traffic counts. For future roads that do not exist in the base year, it would generally be appropriate to use unadjusted model traffic volume forecasts. 8.1.2 Intersection Turn Volumes It is possible to create a travel model that estimates accurate link volumes on a majority of important road segments. However, it is very difficult to accurately estimate individual turn movements. This is primarily due to the aggregation of land uses into transportation analysis zones (TAZs), which means that the model cannot represent all of the individual paths that drivers use to reach individual parcels and driveways. Therefore an adjustment process is recommended. Procedure for Turn Movements The procedure for intersection turn volumes is a two-step process. First, the link volumes entering and exiting the intersection are adjusted as described above. Second, existing turn movement counts are factored to match the adjusted entering and exiting volumes. 1. Adjust Link Volumes. Adjust the peak hour link volumes in and out of each leg of the intersection (generally eight segments for a standard four-way intersection) using the incremental adjustment process described in Section 2.2. 2. Factor Turn Volumes. Factor the base year turn movement count at the intersection until the total volumes in and out of each leg closely match the adjusted link volumes. A common factoring algorithm is named after its creator, Furness. Computer applications of the Furness procedure are available ("Turns32" on the Dowling Associates website, www.dowlinginc.com, or the "LOS" program from TJKM Transportation Consultants, "Estimate Turns from ---PAGE BREAK--- Dowling Associates Transportation Engineering • Planning • Research • Education Modesto/Stanislaus County TPPG Page 47 Draft Model User Guide 2005 Travel Model Update June 25, 2007 In/Out Volume" option) or simplified versions can be programmed in spreadsheets. 3. Check Increments. Some of the factored turn movements may end up lower than the base year traffic counts, due to large increases on certain exiting movements that divert traffic away from other movements. The analyst must decide if the forecast turn movements can decrease from the base year traffic counts, or if the forecast turn movements should be reset to be no lower than the base year traffic counts. Procedure for Movements without Traffic Counts If a new road segment is added in the future, there will be no traffic counts available for adjustment. The following procedure is recommended 1. Model Traffic Assignment. Assign future peak hour traffic using the TP+ model and save turn movements at the selected intersections. 2. Intersection with Existing Road. If the new road will intersect an existing road, estimate base year traffic counts and adjusted forecast link volumes on as many movements as possible on the existing road at the new intersection based on traffic counts at adjacent locations. 3. Substitute Model Volumes for Count. Substitute model-estimated turn movement volumes as base year traffic counts for all turn movements to and from the new road. 4. Factor Turn Movements. Continue with the procedure described in Section 3.1. Shortcut Procedure The factoring procedure described in Section 3.1 will give the most representative results for intersection turn movement forecasts based on growth on individual legs. However, there may be times when the analyst may not have ready access to the adjustment software and needs a quick assessment of intersection conditions. The following procedure is recommended for "shortcut" analysis only: 1. Calculate Factors. Calculate the growth factors on each leg of the intersection as the adjusted future year model volume (or unadjusted future year model volumes if adjustments are not available) divided by the base year model volume (or base year traffic count if the base year model is not available). The factor can be calculated based on total two-way or directional one-way daily or peak hour model volumes. 2. Apply Factors. Apply the growth factor on each leg to the turn movement counts entering from that leg; OR Calculate the growth factor for each turn movement as the average of the two growth factors on the entering and exiting leg. 3. Check Results. ---PAGE BREAK--- Dowling Associates Transportation Engineering • Planning • Research • Education Modesto/Stanislaus County TPPG Page 48 Draft Model User Guide 2005 Travel Model Update June 25, 2007 9. REPORTING THE RESULTS There are a variety of ways to report the results of the TP+ traffic assignment, including screen graphics, plots and printed reports. 9.1 Viewing and Plotting Model Data 9.1.1 Network Project Files Network project files are used by Viper to store various settings from the network window, including: • The status and drawing order of the display layers • For each display layer - File name - Coordinate offset - Coordinate scale - Color specifications - Selection criteria • Saved views • Saved polygons • Page setup information • Highway network attribute calculation information • Left-hand drive display option The project file is an ASCII formatted file which looks like a Windows INI (Initialization) file. This file should not be modified directly. Citilabs recommends that this file only be modified by changing the settings in Viper. The default name for the project file is the same name as the highway network file with a PRJ file extension. Viper will automatically search for a project file when a highway network file is opened. If a project file with the same name is found, the program will utilize the settings found in the project file. If such a file is not found, then Viper will try to search for a file named DEFAULT.PRJ in the current (project) directory and then in the Viper program directory. If a DEFAULT.PRJ file is located, Viper will utilize the settings in this file. Viper “project files” (.PRJ) have been developed to allow TPPG to view and plot model link data included in each scenario’s loaded network. The project file can be opened with the Open File dialog and the saved settings restored in a new highway window. ---PAGE BREAK--- Dowling Associates Transportation Engineering • Planning • Research • Education Modesto/Stanislaus County TPPG Page 49 Draft Model User Guide 2005 Travel Model Update June 25, 2007 9.1.2 Opening Networks 1. Start Viper by either “double clicking” on its icon on your desktop OR by selecting Viper from the START bar under PROGRAMS. 2. In Viper, select File Open. 3. Use the “Look in:” pull down to select the correct directory 4. Type in “*.net” in the “File name” box as shown in the figure below. 5. Select the network you want to open. 6. You may be asked to set the scale for a network. Enter “OK” to use the project scale on the Highway Network Distance Scale dialog box as shown below. This scale (0.000189…) represents a foot-to-mile scale (1/5280). ---PAGE BREAK--- Dowling Associates Transportation Engineering • Planning • Research • Education Modesto/Stanislaus County TPPG Page 50 Draft Model User Guide 2005 Travel Model Update June 25, 2007 9.2 Posting Volumes on Loaded Networks 1. Once you have your loaded network open, select Post… All Links… to get the Posting Selection dialog box shown below. Select daily volumes and street names with colors as shown below. (Note: You could also post other variables like AM or PM values.) The color usually defaults to Link Color. Usually select Fix Color to black. 2. To change the font size, select the font icon from the command bar. 3. Select File… Printer Setup… to get your printer options. I usually select Portrait for the full TPPG model area and Landscape for zoomed in views. Note: These do not be save in the Viper project files and must be reset when reopening a network. 4. Select View… Resize to Plot Page… to set your view window so WYSIWYG (what you see is what you get…). 5. Select View… Restore… to zoom in to any of the predefined window areas. 6. Select File… Print… to print to your defined printer or plotter. ---PAGE BREAK--- Dowling Associates Transportation Engineering • Planning • Research • Education Modesto/Stanislaus County TPPG Page 51 Draft Model User Guide 2005 Travel Model Update June 25, 2007 10. THE FORECASTING PROCESS - TRIP GENERATION The trip generation step quantifies the total magnitude of travel (person trips) generated in each zone based upon land uses within the zone. 10.1 Trip Stratification Trips are stratified by five trip purposes. The trip ends generated within any area are further classified as either trip end productions or trip end attractions. The five trip purposes are estimated separately and then later combined prior to assignment to the networks. 10.1.1 Trip Purposes To derive more accurate projections of future travel behavior, the TPPG model stratifies trip ends by five trip purposes: 1. Home-Work trips are commute trips between residences and places of employment, including both trips from home to work and from work to home. 2. Home-School trips are between residences and educational institutions. 3. Home-Shop trips are trips between residences and places of retail employment. 4. Home-Other trips account for all other trips which begin or end at home, and include school trips, social trips and recreational trips. 5. Other-Work trips are trips between places of employment and places other than home, such as driving to a restaurant during a lunch break, driving a delivery truck away from the main office, or stopping at the gas station on the way home from work. 6. Other-Other trips account for all other “non home based” trips, such as trips between two other stores or long-distance truck trips. Splitting the trips into purposes allows for a better understanding of the relationship between jobs and housing, by separating commute trips. It also provides more control over the trip distribution, since different types of trips involve different trip For a peak period model, it is important to identify the differences in travel characteristics over the day. 10.1.2 Productions and Attractions Consistent with conventional modeling practice, each one-way trip is defined as having two trip ends in the trip generation process: • Trip Production. This is defined as the home end of any home-based trip, regardless of whether the trip is directed to or from home. If neither end of the trip is a home non-home based), it is defined as the origin end. ---PAGE BREAK--- Dowling Associates Transportation Engineering • Planning • Research • Education Modesto/Stanislaus County TPPG Page 52 Draft Model User Guide 2005 Travel Model Update June 25, 2007 • Trip Attraction. This is the non-home end place of work, school or shopping) of a home-based trip. If neither end of the trip is a home it is a non- home based trip), the trip attraction is defined as the destination end. In other words, trip productions are generally home related while trip attractions are generally related to place of work. For example, a typical commute from home to work in the morning and then back home in the evening represents two separate one-way trips, and there are two trip ends produced in the home zone and two trip ends attracted in the work zone. 10.2 Trip Generation Rates (Person Trips) Trip generation rates (person trips) for the TPPG peak period model were derived from the 2001 Caltrans Statewide Travel Survey (the most recent available at the time of this writing), supplemented by information from previously developed models and knowledge about the accuracy of travel surveys. Separate trip generation rates were derived for each land use cross classification and employment category and for each trip purpose. 10.2.1 Household Trip Productions A standard procedure for “cross-classification” trip generation would be to determine the average trip rate for each of the six household categories. With a small survey sample size, this procedure can result in zero or inconsistent rates for certain household categories. The TPPG model uses a “proportional smoothing” technique to determine the household rates. The proportional smoothing technique calculates the average ratio of rates for single family versus multiple family households, and the average ratios of rates for household size and auto ownership categories. The ratios are then combined to determine the rates for each of the six individual categories. These rates are substituted for zero values obtained from the survey. and show the cross-classified household trip generation rates for single family and multi family households respectively. 10.2.2 Work-Other Trip Productions The Caltrans Statewide Travel Survey can also provide some information on trips made by surveyed workers. For each surveyed person, the work trip characteristics can be correlated to their reported type of employment. These survey records were used to determine Work-Other productions for each of the five types of employment in the TPPG model. shows the trip generation rates for employment categories. ---PAGE BREAK--- Dowling Associates Transportation Engineering • Planning • Research • Education Modesto/Stanislaus County TPPG Page 53 Draft Model User Guide 2005 Travel Model Update June 25, 2007 Table 11 Cross Classified Single Family Trip Generation Rates Household Size Land Use Category 1 2 3 4 5 + 0 0.064 0.171 0.247 0.269 2.797 1 0.841 1.179 1.861 1.436 1.946 2 0.737 2.220 2.248 2.709 2.670 3 1.193 2.245 3.523 3.810 3.660 H-W 4+ 0.655 2.400 4.383 4.575 5.236 0 0.038 0.018 3.557 0.723 1.221 1 0.215 0.102 1.663 4.094 8.625 2 0.223 0.106 0.849 3.424 5.257 3 0.061 0.029 0.698 4.080 6.612 H-SC 4+ 0.198 0.094 0.833 3.014 4.539 0 0.407 0.283 0.296 0.372 0.380 1 1.238 1.404 2.369 0.415 4.381 2 1.108 1.943 2.182 2.452 1.489 3 1.649 1.573 1.333 2.254 2.255 H-S 4+ 2.182 1.426 2.008 2.503 3.524 0 0.750 0.128 0.207 0.308 0.451 1 1.244 2.206 7.017 11.055 10.826 2 2.048 2.988 4.705 6.883 11.736 3 2.863 2.712 3.983 5.779 8.228 H-O 4+ 0.443 3.634 3.655 5.979 6.944 0 0.005 0.002 0.002 0.002 0.002 1 0.633 0.337 1.190 0.105 0.595 2 1.314 1.554 1.127 1.221 1.364 3 1.209 0.964 0.915 1.436 0.935 Production O-O 4+ 0.819 0.766 1.605 0.852 1.962 0 0.081 0.014 0.022 0.033 0.049 1 0.135 0.240 0.763 1.202 1.177 2 0.223 0.325 0.511 0.748 1.276 3 0.311 0.295 0.433 0.628 0.894 W-O 4+ 0.048 0.395 0.397 0.650 0.755 0 0.005 0.002 0.002 0.002 0.002 1 0.633 0.337 1.190 0.105 0.595 2 1.314 1.554 1.127 1.221 1.364 3 1.209 0.964 0.915 1.436 0.935 Single Family Attraction O-O Auto Ownership 4+ 0.819 0.766 1.605 0.852 1.962 ---PAGE BREAK--- Dowling Associates Transportation Engineering • Planning • Research • Education Modesto/Stanislaus County TPPG Page 54 Draft Model User Guide 2005 Travel Model Update June 25, 2007 Table 12 Cross Classified Multi-Family Trip Generation Rates Household Size Land Use Category 1 2 3 4 5 + 0 0.740 1.976 1.076 0.372 0.561 1 0.621 1.756 1.222 1.646 2.266 2 1.500 1.886 1.875 1.783 2.788 3 2.321 2.321 2.733 2.511 1.660 H-W 4+ 1.312 3.330 2.621 3.001 4.526 0 0.004 2.233 1.134 0.971 2.333 1 0.018 0.576 0.956 3.466 10.494 2 0.021 0.123 1.702 3.710 5.926 3 0.009 0.304 0.090 2.873 5.755 H-SC 4+ 0.011 0.368 0.109 3.481 6.974 0 1.556 0.191 0.541 0.529 4.513 1 1.149 0.544 1.478 0.540 3.592 2 0.473 1.520 0.427 0.977 8.631 3 1.165 0.969 3.084 0.577 4.926 H-S 4+ 0.857 0.713 2.269 0.425 3.625 0 0.664 0.909 3.083 2.185 2.347 1 1.713 2.122 3.881 3.862 5.674 2 0.315 2.464 3.014 5.363 5.393 3 0.734 1.195 1.753 5.126 3.086 H-O 4+ 0.735 1.197 1.755 5.134 3.091 0 0.011 0.020 0.006 0.009 0.012 1 0.960 0.551 0.489 0.037 0.418 2 0.113 0.947 0.091 0.220 0.491 3 2.157 3.365 2.805 1.157 1.389 Production O-O 4+ 1.462 2.672 4.919 0.687 2.914 0 0.072 0.099 0.335 0.238 0.255 1 0.274 0.339 0.620 0.617 0.906 2 0.050 0.394 0.481 0.857 0.861 3 0.117 0.191 0.280 0.819 0.493 W-O 4+ 0.117 0.191 0.280 0.820 0.494 0 0.011 0.020 0.006 0.009 0.012 1 0.960 0.551 0.489 0.037 0.418 2 0.113 0.947 0.091 0.220 0.491 3 2.157 3.365 2.805 1.157 1.389 Multi Family Multi Family Attraction Production O-O H-W Auto Ownership Auto Ownership 0 0.740 1.976 1.076 0.372 0.561 ---PAGE BREAK--- Dowling Associates Transportation Engineering • Planning • Research • Education Modesto/Stanislaus County TPPG Page 55 Draft Model User Guide 2005 Travel Model Update June 25, 2007 Table 13 Employment Trip Generation Rates Trip Purpose Land-Use H-W H-SC H-S H-O W-O O-O Retail 1.73 4.89 Service 1.15 0.29 Educ 1.15 Govt 1.15 2.01 Other Productions 1.04 Retail 1.32 5.75 2.59 1.73 4.89 Service 1.32 3.45 1.15 0.29 Educ 1.32 20.70 1.15 Govt 1.32 1.90 1.15 2.01 Other Attractions 1.32 1.32 1.04 10.2.3 Trip Attractions Home-Work attractions can be derived from the travel survey. Each surveyed person was also asked about their type of employment. The average number of home-work commute trips for each type of employment can be calculated from these survey records. Home-Shop attractions were estimated by assuming that all Home-Shop trips are attracted to retail employees. This is simplification, since some trips that people classify as Home-Shop may be attracted to service or other employees (for example, a trip to the bank). Trip attractions for other purposes are difficult to derive directly from limited travel survey data. Work-Other trips and Other-Other trips are allocated based in order to fill out trip generation rates for employment types using ITE rates as a guide with the end in mind that these trips should be balanced and countywide totals by purpose should be reasonably well matched with survey results. The initial estimates of trip generation rates provided a close match with Stanislaus County totals reported in the Caltrans Statewide Travel Survey. However, tests of the model indicated that trips were underestimated, particularly along urban arterials and collectors. It is assumed that the most likely trips to be under-reported in the travel survey would be incidental trips, such as a trip from the grocery store to the laundry. These trips mostly fall into the Other-Other category. The Other-Other production and attraction rates for each employment type were estimated by comparing the trip generation to standard vehicle trip generation rates in the ITE Trip Generation Manual (Institute of Transportation Engineers, 7th Edition, ---PAGE BREAK--- Dowling Associates Transportation Engineering • Planning • Research • Education Modesto/Stanislaus County TPPG Page 56 Draft Model User Guide 2005 Travel Model Update June 25, 2007 2004). The model person trip generation rates were converted to vehicle trips using auto occupancies for each trip purpose. The vehicle trip rates were compared for each employment type. The Other-Other trip rates were increased so that the model trip generation rates would replicate the ITE vehicle trip generation rates. 10.3 Cordon or “Gateway” Trips There are two types of trips at the cordons or “gateways” of the TPPG model, through trips (external-external or X-X) and external trips (external-internal, internal-external or I-X/X-I). Through trips are trips that pass through the model area without stopping a trip from San Joaquin County to Merced). External trips have one end in Stanislaus County and one end outside Stanislaus County a trip from San Joaquin County). External trip assumptions are shown in Appendix A. The external vehicle trips for each trip purpose are multiplied by the appropriate average auto occupancy rate to convert them to person trips. Initial estimates of productions and attractions at each gateway are adjusted to provide an overall balance of gateway person-trip productions and attractions with internal person-trip productions and attractions. These “gateway” trips are then distributed to the model zones along with the internal model area trips. 10.3.1 Through Trips The largest numbers of through trips pass through the county on SR 99. Daily 2005 vehicle through trips were estimated for Stanislaus County based on actual counts at the gateways and the proportion of trips considered to be through trips in the Caltrans Statewide Model. Future through trips were factored from the 2025 scenario of the Statewide Model. Peak hour through trips were factored based on peaking factors and directional factors on freeway gateways and adjusted during calibration. 10.3.2 External Trips External trips to and from Stanislaus County were estimated from 2005 traffic counts at the cordon points. Through trips were subtracted from the traffic counts, leaving just the external vehicle trips that have only one end in Stanislaus County. External trips (I-X and X-I) at each of the gateways were split into the six trip purposes (home work, home-shop, home-other, other-work, other-other) based on Stanislaus County averages. 10.4 Special Generators Special generators are used to include trips from land uses that are not well represented by the standard trip rates. In the TPPG model, special generators are used primarily to define Home-Other trips attracted to recreational areas such as parks and golf courses. Typical vehicle trip generation values were estimated for each of these recreational areas based on previous studies. The vehicle trips are converted to person trips using ---PAGE BREAK--- Dowling Associates Transportation Engineering • Planning • Research • Education Modesto/Stanislaus County TPPG Page 57 Draft Model User Guide 2005 Travel Model Update June 25, 2007 average auto occupancy rates. The special generator trips are then added to the appropriate TAZs after trips are calculated using the standard household and employment trip generation rates. ( shows the special generators used in the model.) ---PAGE BREAK--- Dowling Associates Transportation Engineering • Planning • Research • Education Modesto/Stanislaus County TPPG Page 58 Draft Model User Guide 2005 Travel Model Update June 25, 2007 11. THE FORECASTING PROCESS - TRIP DISTRIBUTION The trip distribution process estimates how many trips travel from one zone to another. Consistent with many regional models across the country, the TPPG model uses a method known as the gravity model to estimate trips between zones based on the trip productions and attractions in each zone and on factors that relate the likelihood of travel between zones to the separation between the zones. 11.1 Description of Gravity Model The gravity model follows the concept of Isaac Newton’s Universal Law of Gravitation, which states that the attractive force between two bodies is proportional to the product of their masses and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between them. Similarly, zone-to-zone trip interchanges in the gravity model are directly proportional to the relative attraction or opportunity provided by each of the zones (productions and attractions) and inversely proportional to the spatial separation between zones. Expressed mathematically, the gravity model formula of trip distribution is: Aj F(t ij) K ij T ij =P I* Sum x=1,n [AxF(t ij) Kij] where: T ij = number of trips produced in zone i and attracted to zone j P i = total number of trips produced in zone i A j = attractions of zone j t ij = travel time in minutes between zone i and zone j F(t ij) = the friction factors between zone i and zone j K ij = zone-to-zone adjustment factor n = number of zones The inputs to the gravity model include the person trip productions and attractions for each zone (as defined earlier in the trip generation step), the zone-to-zone travel times, and friction factors that define the effects of travel time. The zone-to-zone distributions are calculated separately for each trip purpose. ---PAGE BREAK--- Dowling Associates Transportation Engineering • Planning • Research • Education Modesto/Stanislaus County TPPG Page 59 Draft Model User Guide 2005 Travel Model Update June 25, 2007 11.2 Zone-To-Zone Travel Times The travel time between each pair of zones is calculated by determining the shortest time path along the coded road network between the two zones, and accumulating the travel time along that path. The path building process produces a table (skim matrix) of travel times between each pair of zones in the study area. The resulting table of zone-to-zone travel times is then used as an input to the trip distribution analysis. For this estimation, road travel times are used since the large majority of person-travel is on the road system. Uncongested (free flow) travel times are used in the initial estimates of the trip distribution, but travel times which reflect congestion levels are used for the final trip distribution. 11.2.1 Intrazonal Travel Times Intrazonal travel times represent the average travel time for trips that stay within a particular zone. They are estimated based on 50 percent of the travel time to the nearest adjacent zone. 11.2.2 Terminal Times Terminal times are also added to represent the average time to access one’s vehicle at each end of a trip. The TPPG model assumes an average terminal time of one minute for most trips. 11.3 Friction Factors The effects of spatial separation in the gravity model are represented empirically by “friction factors” that express the effect that travel time exerts on the propensity for making a trip to a given zone. Typically the probability for making a particular trip declines as the travel time increases. For the TPPG model, five sets of friction factors are used, with each set corresponding to one of the five trip purposes. This accounts for the possibility that people may be willing to drive a long distance to go to work, but only short distances for most shopping or school trips. 11.4 Adjustment Factors Adjustment Factors factors”) can be used in gravity model trip distribution calculations where travel time does not fully explain the attractiveness or unattractiveness of certain trips. The adjustments are often used where bridges, other perceived travel barriers or special socioeconomic factors (such as housing prices or campus housing areas) may distort the distribution of trips between specific areas. K-Factors are not used by default in the TPPG model. The inclusion of K-factors may be suitable for specific model applications but this should only be undertaken by advanced users. ---PAGE BREAK--- Dowling Associates Transportation Engineering • Planning • Research • Education Modesto/Stanislaus County TPPG Page 60 Draft Model User Guide 2005 Travel Model Update June 25, 2007 12. THE FORECASTING PROCESS - TRIP ASSIGNMENT In this step, zone-to-zone trips from the trip distribution step are assigned to the network. The TPPG model does not currently assign transit trips to a transit network. 12.1 Traffic Assignment The TPPG model uses a process known as “equilibrium” assignment to assign vehicles. Vehicle trips are initially assigned to the road network using the all-or-nothing method, which assumes that all drivers will use the fastest route without regard to congestion caused by other vehicles. Travel times on the road network are recalculated based on the estimated level of congestion, and trips are reassigned to paths based on the congested speeds. The process is repeated for several iterations. After each iteration, some traffic is shifted to alternative routes with competitive travel times. The equilibrium assignment method is intended to ultimately assign traffic so that no driver can shift to an alternative route with a faster travel time. The overall road system is considered to be at equilibrium at this point. The TPPG model uses eight iterations for each final traffic assignment. 12.1.1 Traffic Assignment Time Periods The TPPG model assigns traffic for daily traffic and for the AM and PM peak hours. Peak hour traffic is derived from daily traffic and assigned after feedback (see sections 7 and 12.1.2 Congested Travel Speeds The relationship of speed to congestion on a particular roadway is based on a set of curves which are included in the traffic assignment model. The curves are based on the standard British Public Roads Curve: T = T(free Flow) * (1 + 0.15(VC/0.75)4) BPR Speed Curve For example, the curves may indicate that an arterial street with no congestion will operate at 35 miles per hour so that a segment of that street takes 60 seconds to traverse, while an arterial link with a traffic volume equal to 90 percent of the capacity of the link will operate at about 27 miles per hour and take 80 seconds to traverse. Adjustment to this basic curve are made during validation and calibration. Adjusted curves are employed for: ---PAGE BREAK--- Dowling Associates Transportation Engineering • Planning • Research • Education Modesto/Stanislaus County TPPG Page 61 Draft Model User Guide 2005 Travel Model Update June 25, 2007 Rural Highways /Unsig. Arterials = T0*(1 +0.15*(VC/0.75)^4)+ (0.15*(VC/0.95)^12) Collectors = T0*(1 + 0.15*(VC/0.9)^6) Rural Collector = T0*(1 + 0.25*(VC/0.6)^4) Unsignalized Collector =T0*(1 + 0.1*(VC / 0.85)^4) Centroid Connector =min((T0*30.0),(T0*(1 + 0.15* (VC / 0.25)^4))) Class B Expressway =T0*(1 +0.15*(VC/0.75)^4+ 0.05*(VC/0.98)^6) Class C Expressway =T0*(1 +0.15*(VC/0.75)^4+ 0.05*(VC/0.98)^6) Identical speed curves are used by the model for the daily and peak hour assignment processes. 12.2 Pricing The TPPG travel model does not explicitly consider travel cost considerations. Travel costs would include auto operating costs (fuel, insurance, repairs), parking costs, transit fares and tolls. These cost factors become most important when the travel model is considering the trade-offs between autos and other modes such as transit. If a mode choice analysis capability is added to the TPPG model, these cost parameters would be added at the appropriate analysis steps ---PAGE BREAK--- Dowling Associates Transportation Engineering • Planning • Research • Education Modesto/Stanislaus County TPPG Page 62 Draft Model User Guide 2005 Travel Model Update June 25, 2007 13. THE FORECASTING PROCESS - FEEDBACK MECHANISMS The TPPG travel model includes a feedback loop that uses congested travel times as an input to the trip distribution step. The feedback loop is intended to ensure that the congested travel impedances (times) used for final traffic assignment and as input to the air quality analysis are consistent with the travel impedances used throughout the model process. For the TPPG model, the feedback loop is considered to converge when the travel times that result from the congested travel speeds after traffic assignment compare closely with the travel times used as input to the trip distribution process. 13.1 TPPG Model Feedback Loop In an effort to meet all Transportation Conformity Rule modeling requirements as part of the model integration, a full feedback loop process was implemented that iterates until it reaches a set of convergence criteria. The convergence criteria are consistent with Transportation Conformity Rule Section 93.12 13.1.1 Congested Travel Times The initial trip distributions for all six trip purposes are calculated using uncongested (free-flow) travel times on the road network. After the initial trip distribution and assignment, the congested travel times calculated from the most recent daily traffic assignment are used as input to the trip distribution and the distribution is rerun. The feedback loop convergence criteria are based on convergence of the congested travel times. 13.1.2 Method of Successive Averages In order to speed up the convergence of the feedback loop, an interpolation method is used. The method of successive averages takes the latest set of congested travel times calculated from the latest traffic assignments, and calculates a weighted average with the latest set of travel times used as input to trip distribution. The weighting is based on the number of iterations. For example, after the fourth pass through the feedback loop, the weighted average would be calculated as one-quarter (0.25) times the latest set of congested travel times plus three-quarters (0.75) times the previous set of congested travel times. This process is repeated until the convergence criteria are met. The base year model currently converges in three loops. 13.1.3 Convergence Criteria A set of convergence criteria were developed specifically for this model to ensure that the congested travel speeds used as input to the air quality analysis are consistent with the travel speeds used throughout the model process, as required by the Transportation Conformity Rule. ---PAGE BREAK--- Dowling Associates Transportation Engineering • Planning • Research • Education Modesto/Stanislaus County TPPG Page 63 Draft Model User Guide 2005 Travel Model Update June 25, 2007 The congested travel speeds used as input to the air quality analysis come from the final traffic assignments. The congested travel speeds used throughout the model process are those used as input to the trip distribution step (and mode choice step if implemented). Therefore, the convergence criteria are applied by comparing the congested travel speeds from the latest traffic assignments with the congested travel speeds and times most recently used as input to trip distribution. The inputs to trip distribution are calculated as a weighted average using the method of successive averages as described above. The TPPG model feedback loop is considered to converge when: 1. Less than 5% of the origin-destination pairs have daily congested travel times that change by more than 5% between iterations; and 2. The weighted average change in daily link traffic volumes is less than 5% between iterations (the average percent change is weighted by the link volume). If the first two criteria do not result in convergence after five iterations through the feedback loop, it indicates that the network is very congested and the traffic assignments are oscillating between one set of routes and another. The following criteria are then used after seven feedback iterations: 1. The weighted average change in daily congested travel times between origin- destination pairs is less than 5% between iterations (average weighted by number of origin-destination trips); and 2. The weighted average change in daily congested travel times between origin- destination pairs is less than 5% between iterations (average weighted by vehicle-miles of travel); and 3. The weighted average change in daily link traffic volumes is less than 5% between iterations (the average percent change is weighted by the link volume). The second set of convergence criteria were found to close during tests even with very congested future travel demands. ---PAGE BREAK--- Dowling Associates Transportation Engineering • Planning • Research • Education Modesto/Stanislaus County TPPG Page 64 Draft Model User Guide 2005 Travel Model Update June 25, 2007 14. THE FORECASTING PROCESS - PEAKING FACTORS The TPPG peak period model has been set up to estimate travel demand during the AM and PM peak hour. Peak hour volumes are often required for capacity analysis and local traffic studies. 14.1 Time-of-Day Factors The AM peak hour period trips, the PM peak hour period trips and the off-peak 18- hour period trips are calculated by factoring the daily trips after trip distribution. The daily trips are factored separately for each trip purpose as shown below in . The time-of-day factors are based on information from the 2001 Caltrans travel survey (Appendix Many travel models use time-of-day factors which are based on the start times of each trip. The TPPG model uses factors which are based on the “midpoint” of each trip, looking at both the start and end times. This technique provides a more representative estimate of the number of trips in progress during each time period. During model validation, the factors were adjusted from the survey results. These peak hour factors should be reviewed and updated when new peak hour traffic count and survey information is available. ---PAGE BREAK--- Dowling Associates Transportation Engineering • Planning • Research • Education Modesto/Stanislaus County TPPG Page 65 Draft Model User Guide 2005 Travel Model Update June 25, 2007 Table 14 Time of Day Factors Percent of Daily Trips Trip Purpose Productions to Attractions Attractions to Productions Total AM PEAK Home-Work 10.26 0.532 10.79 Home-School 21.7 0.07 21.77 Home-Shop 0.72 0.12 0.84 Home-Other 5.52 1.38 6.90 Work-Other 1.25 9.125 10.38 Other-Other 2.88 1.62 4.50 PM PEAK Home-Work 0.94 13.22 14.16 Home-School 0.11 2.69 2.80 Home-Shop 2.74 6.76 9.51 Home-Other 3.02 4.82 7.84 Work-Other 11.50 0.63 12.13 Other-Other 4.12 1.76 5.88 ---PAGE BREAK--- Dowling Associates Transportation Engineering • Planning • Research • Education Modesto/Stanislaus County TPPG Page A-1 Draft Model User Guide 2005 Travel Model Update June 25, 2007 APPENDIX A – VALIDATION ---PAGE BREAK--- Dowling Associates Transportation Engineering • Planning • Research • Education Modesto/Stanislaus County TPPG Page A-2 Draft Model User Guide 2005 Travel Model Update June 25, 2007 Model Validation Model validation refers to comparing the model volumes to observed volumes. The following sections describe how traffic data was collected and organized by screenlines, the validation criteria to be met according to the scope of work, and finally the validation results. Traffic Data Traffic data for the year 2000 validation were obtained from a variety of sources, including traffic counts provided by the StanCOG, Stanislaus County, and the Cities of Ceres, Hughson, Modesto, Newman, Oakdale, Patterson, Riverbank, Turlock, and Waterford. Special acknowledgement is also due to a number of private consultants including KdAnderson and Associates, Omni Means Associates, Fehr and Peers and Associates, and TJKM and Associates for providing data in electronic format. Data was also obtained from sources published or maintained by the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans). Daily counts and peak hour counts were input directly into a database. Over 2,200 peak hour 580 daily traffic counts were entered. Duplicate counts were eliminated by replacing older counts with newer counts and estimates of daily traffic were developed based on peak hour traffic and the peaking factors obtained from the statewide travel survey. This resulted in 1,305 unique counts/count estimates for each of the AM, PM and daily traffic periods. The counts utilized were included to allow the comparison of model output and observed traffic volumes based on screenlines. Proposed Validation Criteria It is proposed that the TPPG consolidated transportation model traffic validation be based on several criteria, including the following: • Comparison to Vehicle Miles of Travel (VMT) from the Caltrans Highway Performance Monitoring System (HPMS) • Comparison of model counts to observed traffic counts. • The percentage of links falling within the FHWA validation curve. The FHWA suggested link-specific validation criteria is that 75% of freeway and principal arterials fall below the validation criteria and 100% of screenlines fall below the validation curve shown in Figure 1. • Use the Federal Highway Administration and Caltrans recommended error limits for total error by functional classification (type of road) as a regionwide validation : ---PAGE BREAK--- Dowling Associates Transportation Engineering • Planning • Research • Education Modesto/Stanislaus County TPPG Page A-3 Draft Model User Guide 2005 Travel Model Update June 25, 2007 o Freeways less than 7 percent error o Principal Arterials less than 10 percent error o Minor Arterials less than 15 percent error o Collectors less than 25 percent error HPMS Traffic Validation Results Vehicle Miles of Travel Vehicle Miles of Travel (VMT) is calculated as the number of vehicles on a road segment multiplied by the length of the segment, summed over all road segments in a certain geographic area. The Caltrans Highway Performance Monitoring System (HPMS) estimates daily vehicle miles of travel for each county in California based on a sample of traffic counts on various road types (2005 California Public Road Data, 2006). A comparison of model-estimated VMT with VMT from the HPMS can indicate if the model is generating the correct magnitude of travel, even if there are inaccuracies in the specific road segment traffic volumes. Vehicle miles of travel are calculated from the TPPG travel demand model by multiplying link volumes by link distances and comparing with the HPMS estimates. The FHWA model validation criterion is that the VMT calculated from the model should be within 5% of the HPMS estimate. The VMT from the final validation including intrazonal VMT is just under one percent lower than the VMT from HPMS. This indicates that the model is generating an appropriate amount of traffic within Stanislaus County. Table B1. Daily Validation by VMT 2005 HPMS 2005 Model Percent FHWA Standard Meets Criteria 11,301,000 11,448,572 -1.3% YES FHWA Criteria Total Volumes The traffic counts and the model volumes are compared by facility type and by the volume range in which they are classified (Table A-1). The comparison is made in terms of total model volume compared to total traffic counts. A measure of variation is also provided, the root mean square error (RMSE). ---PAGE BREAK--- Dowling Associates Transportation Engineering • Planning • Research • Education Modesto/Stanislaus County TPPG Page A-4 Draft Model User Guide 2005 Travel Model Update June 25, 2007 Table A1: Daily Count/ Model Volume Comparison by Facility Type Observed Model No. of Pct. Meets Facility Type CapClass Criteria Counts Volumes Links Diff. Delta2 Diff. MSE %RMSE Criteria Freeways 1 7% 884,000 901,036 18 17,036 470,821,408 1.9% 26,156,745 10% YES Principal Arteria 2 10% 1,241,862 1,357,250 168 115,388 851,505,534 9.3% 5,068,485 30% YES Arterials 3 15% 3,721,154 4,047,345 419 326,191 3,872,614,449 8.8% 9,242,517 34% YES Collectors 4 25% 1,349,257 1,369,502 567 20,245 912,461,190 1.5% 1,609,279 53% YES All 7,196,273 7,675,133 1,172 478,860 6,107,402,581 6.7% 5,215,544 37% Table B2: AM 1-Hour Count/ Model Volume Comparison by Facility Type Observed Model No. of Pct. Meets Facility Type CapClass Criteria Counts Volumes Links Diff. Delta2 Diff. MSE %RMSE Criteria Freeways 1 7% 66,088 61,726 18 (4,362) 15,772,052 -6.6% 876,225 25% YES Principal Arteria 2 10% 102,646 111,831 168 9,185 10,483,553 8.9% 62,402 41% YES Arterials 3 15% 306,096 315,450 419 9,354 35,866,564 3.1% 85,600 40% YES Collectors 4 25% 118,999 101,323 567 (17,676) 12,437,272 -14.9% 21,935 71% YES All 593,829 590,330 1,172 (3,499) 74,559,441 -0.6% 63,672 50% Table B3: PM 1-Hour Count/ Model Volume Comparison by Facility Type Observed Model No. of Pct. Meets Facility Type CapClass Criteria Counts Volumes Links Diff. Delta2 Diff. MSE %RMSE Criteria Freeways 1 7% 75,030 70,909 18 (4,121) 12,315,479 -5.5% 684,193 20% YES Principal Arteria 2 10% 117,189 127,812 168 10,623 34,602,027 9.1% 205,964 65% YES Arterials 3 15% 347,885 371,500 419 23,615 42,049,445 6.8% 100,357 38% YES Collectors 4 25% 127,074 121,512 567 (5,562) 9,513,712 -4.4% 16,779 58% YES All 667,178 691,733 1,172 24,555 98,480,663 3.7% 84,100 51% Table B4: Daily Count/ Model Volume Comparison by Volume Range Observed Model No. of Pct. From To Criteria Counts Volumes Links Diff. Delta2 Diff. MSE %RMSE Criteria 1 5,000 60% 2,552,764 2,883,783 1,215 331,019 2,616,694,469 13.0% 2,153,658 70% YES 5,000 10,000 55% 2,456,219 2,526,572 341 70,353 1,990,374,973 2.9% 5,836,877 34% YES 10,000 20,000 45% 2,660,368 2,700,118 202 39,750 1,921,993,818 1.5% 9,514,821 23% YES 20,000 30,000 40% 372,383 342,235 17 (30,148) 222,351,540 -8.1% 13,079,502 17% YES 30,000 40,000 37% 65,612 49,324 2 (16,288) 144,960,194 -24.8% 72,480,097 26% YES 40,000 50,000 34% 100,000 105,241 2 5,241 14,282,145 5.2% 7,141,073 5% YES 50,000 75,000 28% 807,000 830,600 14 23,600 457,972,890 2.9% 32,712,349 10% YES Sum 9,014,346 9,437,873 1,793 423,527 7,368,630,029 4.7% 4,111,959 40% Volume Range ---PAGE BREAK--- Dowling Associates Transportation Engineering • Planning • Research • Education Modesto/Stanislaus County TPPG Page A-5 Draft Model User Guide 2005 Travel Model Update June 25, 2007 Facility Type. The Federal Highway Administration2 and Caltrans3 recommend error limits for total error by functional classification (type of road): • Freeways less than 7 percent error • Principal Arterials less than 10 percent error • Minor Arterials less than 15 percent error • Collectors less than 25 percent error • Frontage Roads less than 25 percent error For the TPPG consolidated transportation model, the “Principal Arterial” criterion is applied to expressways and inter-urban highways, while the “Minor Arterial” criterion is applied to all local arterial streets. The 2005 traffic validation of the TPPG model meets the criteria for all facility types, for Daily, AM and PM peak hour volumes. Key steps in achieving validation included: • The development of new capacity class: rural collector with a capacity of 950 vehicles per hour per lane for one directional lane and 850 for 2 or more lanes, • The modification of speed curves based on multiple validation runs, • The adjustment of trip generation rates and review of land use inputs • Peak hour validation was further facilitated through the adjustment of peaking factors across trip purposes. Volume Range. Table B-1 lists the volume ranges which are recommended for the comparison of daily traffic counts to model volumes by volume range. The final model validation meets the FHWA criteria for all ten of the volume ranges. For those volume ranges, the total model volume is within 1 percent of observed volumes Root Mean Square Error. The root mean square error (RMSE) is a statistical estimator that is intended to represent the average percent error between an estimated value (such as a model volume) and an observed value (such as a traffic count). The RMSE is calculated as: n V C RMSE n i i i ∑ = − = 1 2) ( , where • n is the total number of links • Ci is the observed count for road i 2 Federal Highway Administration, Calibration and Adjustment of System Planning Models, 1990 3 California Department of Transportation, Travel Forecasting Guidelines, 1992 ---PAGE BREAK--- Dowling Associates Transportation Engineering • Planning • Research • Education Modesto/Stanislaus County TPPG Page A-6 Draft Model User Guide 2005 Travel Model Update June 25, 2007 • Vi is the model volume for road i • i represents a road link The RMSE provides a measure of accuracy based on the statistical standard deviation. The RMSE puts a greater emphasis on larger errors that may cancel each other out in the comparison of total model volumes and traffic counts. The overall target daily RMSE is 40 percent, which is met generally ranges. Generally on low volume roads RMSE will be relatively high as small differences in absolute volume represent large increases in RMSE on low volume roads. Similarly, peak hour RMSE is typically higher that daily RMSE. Screenlines Screenlines are imaginary lines, often along natural or man-made physical barriers rivers, railroad tracks) that ideally have a limited number of crossings. To the extent possible screenlines should “cut” the entire study area, intercepting all travel across them, thereby eliminating issues about individual route choice. Use of a system of screenlines allows systematic comparison of total model estimated versus observed travel in different parts of the model area. However, they do not ensure that traffic is being assigned to the correct routes across each screenline. The study area includes 20 screenlines (See Figure A1.) Screenline Validation A comparison of model volumes to 2005 traffic counts across screenlines for the daily period is presented based for 20 screenlines. The locations of these screenlines are shown on Figure B1. The 20 screenlines are presented in Table B3. Under both the two way and one way comparisons all of the are satisfactory. Screenlines are broken down by direction of travel. Northbound and Eastbound travel across screenlines are shown together on Figure B2. Southbound and Westbound are shown on Figure B3. Figure B4 shows the maximum tolerances under the FHWA criteria ---PAGE BREAK--- Dowling Associates Transportation Engineering • Planning • Research • Education Modesto/Stanislaus County TPPG Page A-7 Draft Model User Guide 2005 Travel Model Update June 25, 2007 Table 1. Screenline Comparisons Screenline Dir. Model Volume 2005 Count Percent Deviation Meets Criteria Dir. Model Volume 2005 Count Percent Deviation Meets Criteria 1. North of Stadiford Road N 96,746 75,613 27.9% YES S 97,833 82,009 19.3% YES 2. South of Kiernan Avenue N 100,656 109,233 7.9% YES S 101,868 108,934 6.5% YES 3. West of Dale Road E 43,023 47,348 9.1% YES W 38,145 40,413 5.6% YES 4. East of McHenry Avenue E 81,558 77,723 4.9% YES W 83,216 79,385 4.8% YES 5. East of Claus Road E 19,374 17,973 7.8% YES W 28,375 26,827 5.8% YES 6. Tuolumne River E 55,109 57,282 3.8% YES W 55,310 58,808 5.9% YES 7. East of Sisk Road E 76,328 80,259 4.9% YES S 65,787 73,221 10.2% NO 8. East of Oakdale Road E 65,997 65,638 0.5% YES W 64,925 67,378 3.6% YES 9. South of Pelandale Avenue N 111,979 113,413 1.3% YES S 111,765 112,103 0.3% YES 10. East of Albers Road/Geer Road E 33,072 43,811 24.5% YES W 32,921 43,092 23.6% YES 11. Toulumne Road N 30,573 33,845 9.7% YES S 33,458 33,470 0.0% YES 12. North of Briggsmore Avenue N 47,281 44,535 6.2% YES S 46,949 45,362 3.5% YES 13. West of Carpenter Road E 25,111 27,600 9.0% YES W 23,731 22,452 5.7% YES 14. South of Murphy Road N 2,850 4,047 29.6% YES S 2,149 4,188 48.7% YES 15. South of Sperry Road/Las Palmas Avenue N 18,935 20,196 6.2% YES S 25,373 25,091 1.1% YES 16. West of Coffee Road E 88,078 85,706 2.8% YES W 88,789 83,538 6.3% YES 17. South of Service Road N 87,057 82,216 5.9% YES S 85,623 82,904 3.3% YES 18. South of West Main Street N 8,780 6,846 28.3% YES S 8,781 6,837 28.4% YES 19. San Joaquin River E 28,697 22,052 30.1% YES W 28,717 22,200 29.4% YES 20. West of Faith Home E 9,896 8,620 14.8% YES S 9,831 8,438 16.5% YES ---PAGE BREAK--- Dowling Associates Transportation Engineering • Planning • Research • Education Modesto/Stanislaus County TPPG Page A-8 Draft Model User Guide 2005 Travel Model Update June 25, 2007 Figure 1. 2005 Screenline Locations 2 3 20 13 10 14 15 16 17 19 18 11 5 6 7 8 4 1 12 Freeway Major Road Screenline 1. North of Stadiford Road 2. South of Kiernan Avenue 3. West of Dale Road 4. East of McHenry Avenue 5. East of Claus Road 6. Tuolumne River 7. East of Sisk Road 8. East of Oakdale Road 9. South of Pelandale Avenue (NOT SHOWN) 10. East of Albers Road/Geer Road 11. Toulumne Road 12. North of Briggsmore Avenue 13. West of Carpenter Road 14. South of Murphy Road 15. South of Sperry Road/Las Palmas Avenue 16. West of Coffee Road 17. South of Service Road 18. South of West Main Street 19. San Joaquin River 20. West of Faith Home Screenlines ---PAGE BREAK--- Dowling Associates Transportation Engineering • Planning • Research • Education Modesto/Stanislaus County TPPG Page A-9 Draft Model User Guide 2005 Travel Model Update June 25, 2007 Figure B2. Northbound/Eastbound One-Way Screenline Deviation versus Validation Criteria 0.0% 10.0% 20.0% 30.0% 40.0% 50.0% 60.0% 70.0% - 50,000 100,000 150,000 200,000 250,000 Count Volume Percent Deviation ---PAGE BREAK--- Dowling Associates Transportation Engineering • Planning • Research • Education Modesto/Stanislaus County TPPG Page A-10 Draft Model User Guide 2005 Travel Model Update June 25, 2007 Figure B3. Westbound/Southbound One-Way Screenline Deviation versus Validation Criteria 0.0% 10.0% 20.0% 30.0% 40.0% 50.0% 60.0% 70.0% - 50,000 100,000 150,000 200,000 250,000 Count Volume Percent Deviation ---PAGE BREAK--- Dowling Associates Transportation Engineering • Planning • Research • Education Modesto/Stanislaus County TPPG Page A-11 Draft Model User Guide 2005 Travel Model Update June 25, 2007 Figure B4 Maximum Desirable Error for Links and Screenlines ---PAGE BREAK--- Dowling Associates Transportation Engineering • Planning • Research • Education Modesto/Stanislaus County TPPG Page B-1 Draft Model User Guide 2005 Travel Model Update June 25, 2007 Appendix B External and Through Trips ---PAGE BREAK--- Dowling Associates Transportation Engineering • Planning • Research • Education Modesto/Stanislaus County TPPG Page B-2 Draft Model User Guide 2005 Travel Model Update June 25, 2007 2005 2005 2005 2005 Annual 2005 Estimated Trip Purpose Percentages Zone Gateway Count Location Volume Volume % Thru Thru Growth I-X / X-I H-W H-SCH H-S H-O W-O O-O CV Total 1 I-5 San Joaquin County Line 39,000 39,000 86% 33,540 -0.5% 5,460 43% 1% 11% 21% 10% 14% 0% 100% 2 Blewett Road San Joaquin County Line 592 592 0% 0 3.1% 592 43% 1% 11% 21% 10% 14% 0% 100% 3 S.R. 132 San Joaquin County Line 19,800 19,800 6% 1,188 2.6% 18,612 43% 1% 11% 21% 10% 14% 0% 100% 4 Koster Road San Joaquin County Line 3,551 3,551 0% 0 3.1% 3,551 43% 1% 11% 21% 10% 14% 0% 100% 5 S.R. 33 San Joaquin County Line 1,700 1,700 0% 0 19.5% 1,700 43% 1% 11% 21% 10% 14% 0% 100% 6 River/McCracken Road San Joaquin County Line 2,249 2,249 0% 0 3.1% 2,249 43% 1% 11% 21% 10% 14% 0% 100% 7 S.R. 99 I-99 N 116,000 116,000 36% 41,180 1.4% 74,820 34% 1% 25% 15% 11% 14% 0% 100% 8 McHenry Avenue San Joaquin County Line 13,513 13,513 18% 2,432 2.8% 11,080 43% 1% 11% 21% 10% 14% 0% 100% 9 Santa Fe Avenue San Joaquin County Line 9,072 9,072 0% 0 2.4% 9,072 43% 1% 11% 21% 10% 14% 0% 100% 10 River Road San Joaquin County Line 2,726 2,726 32% 872 2.4% 1,854 43% 1% 11% 21% 10% 14% 0% 100% 11 Valley Home Road San Joaquin County Line 1,496 1,496 32% 479 2.4% 1,017 43% 1% 11% 21% 10% 14% 0% 100% 12 Dodds Road San Joaquin County Line 663 663 32% 212 2.4% 451 43% 1% 11% 21% 10% 14% 0% 100% 13 S.R. 108/120 Tuolumne County Line 22,700 22,700 79% 17,933 0.5% 4,767 26% 1% 14% 28% 14% 18% 0% 100% 14 Rock River Road Tuolumne County Line 474 474 0% 0 3.1% 474 26% 1% 14% 28% 14% 18% 0% 100% 15 La Grange Road N Tuolumne County Line 89 89 0% 0 48.8% 89 26% 1% 14% 28% 14% 18% 0% 100% 16 S.R. 132 Mariposa County Line 2,050 2,050 41% 841 3.4% 1,210 41% 1% 11% 22% 11% 14% 0% 100% 17 Fields Road Tuolumne County Line 3,906 3,906 0% 0 3.1% 3,906 26% 1% 14% 28% 14% 18% 0% 100% 18 La Grange Road S Merced County Line 1,370 1,370 0% 0 -1.5% 1,370 35% 1% 13% 24% 12% 16% 0% 100% 19 Los Cerritos Merced County Line 1,776 1,776 0% 0 3.1% 1,776 35% 1% 13% 24% 12% 16% 0% 100% 20 Keyes Road Merced County Line 518 518 0% 0 32.0% 518 35% 1% 13% 24% 12% 16% 0% 100% 21 Looney/Bledsoe Merced County Line 1,184 1,184 0% 0 3.1% 1,184 35% 1% 13% 24% 12% 16% 0% 100% 22 East Avenue Merced County Line 1,631 1,631 0% 0 3.0% 1,631 35% 1% 13% 24% 12% 16% 0% 100% 23 Oakdale Road Merced County Line 1,184 1,184 0% 0 3.1% 1,184 35% 1% 13% 24% 12% 16% 0% 100% 24 Santa Fe Drive Merced County Line 4,364 4,364 2% 87 17.8% 4,277 35% 1% 13% 24% 12% 16% 0% 100% 25 S.R. 99 I-99 S 75,000 75,000 56% 42,000 -0.5% 33,000 34% 1% 13% 25% 12% 16% 0% 100% 26 S.R. 165 Merced County Line 19,900 19,900 32% 6,368 2.3% 13,532 35% 1% 13% 24% 12% 16% 0% 100% 27 River Road Merced County Line 3,000 3,000 32% 960 9.0% 2,040 35% 1% 13% 24% 12% 16% 0% 100% 28 August/American/Mitchell/FaMerced County Line 3,000 3,000 32% 960 9.0% 2,040 35% 1% 13% 24% 12% 16% 0% 100% 29 Canal/Brazo Road Merced County Line 5,500 5,500 50% 2,750 9.0% 2,750 35% 1% 13% 24% 12% 16% 0% 100% 30 S.R. 33 Merced County Line 7,300 7,300 51% 3,723 4.4% 3,577 35% 1% 13% 24% 12% 16% 0% 100% 31 Upper Road Merced County Line 1,315 1,315 0% 0 3.0% 1,315 35% 1% 13% 24% 12% 16% 0% 100% 32 Draper Road Merced County Line 302 302 0% 0 3.0% 302 35% 1% 13% 24% 12% 16% 0% 100% 33 Eastin Road Merced County Line 338 338 0% 0 12.1% 338 35% 1% 13% 24% 12% 16% 0% 100% 34 I-5 Merced County Line 38,500 38,500 81% 31,185 -0.1% 7,315 35% 1% 13% 24% 12% 16% 0% 100% 35 Del Puerto Canyon Road West of I-5 144 144 0% 0 1.7% 144 26% 1% 14% 28% 14% 18% 0% 100% 36 FUTURE GATEWAY 0 0 0% 0 0.0% 0 36% 1% 12% 24% 12% 15% 0% 100% 37 FUTURE GATEWAY 0 0 0% 0 0.0% 0 36% 1% 12% 24% 12% 15% 0% 100% 38 FUTURE GATEWAY 0 0 0% 0 0.0% 0 36% 1% 12% 24% 12% 15% 0% 100% 39 FUTURE GATEWAY 0 0 0% 0 0.0% 0 36% 1% 12% 24% 12% 15% 0% 100% 40 S.R. 120 San Joaquin County Line 14,800 14,800 32% 4,736 3.8% 10,064 43% 1% 11% 21% 10% 14% 0% 100% 41 Route 4 San Joaquin County Line 4,800 4,800 93% 4,464 2.7% 336 43% 1% 11% 21% 10% 14% 0% 100% 42 Route 4 Calaveras County Line 5,400 5,400 92% 4,968 2.6% 432 34% 1% 13% 25% 12% 16% 0% 100% 43 Milton Road Calaveras County Line 1,322 1,322 0% 0 4.4% 1,322 34% 1% 13% 25% 12% 16% 0% 100% 44 Harder Road Merced County Line 343 343 0% 0 3.0% 343 35% 1% 13% 24% 12% 16% 0% 100% 45 Golf Road Merced County Line 3,019 3,019 0% 0 3.0% 3,019 35% 1% 13% 24% 12% 16% 0% 100% 46 Lone Tree San Joaquin County Line 2,553 2,553 32% 817 3.3% 1,736 43% 1% 11% 21% 10% 14% 0% 100% 47 Washington/Tenger/Elaine/HMerced County Line 1,700 1,700 0% 0 3.0% 1,700 35% 1% 13% 24% 12% 16% 0% 100% 48 Clausen/W Bradbury Merced County Line 2,476 2,476 0% 0 3.0% 2,476 35% 1% 13% 24% 12% 16% 0% 100% 49 Linwood/Roselawn/Vincent Merced County Line 1,200 1,200 0% 0 3.0% 1,200 35% 1% 13% 24% 12% 16% 0% 100% 50 FUTURE GATEWAY 0 0 0% 0 0.0% 0 36% 1% 12% 24% 12% 15% 0% 100% 443,518 443,518 201,695 5.0% 241,823 ---PAGE BREAK--- Dowling Associates Transportation Engineering • Planning • Research • Education . ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- Modesto General Plan Master EIR Update V-1-1 Chapter V. Environmental Analysis Administrative Draft Section 1. Traffic and Circulation Needs November 2007 Table A-1 Roadway Segments with 2005 PM Peak Hour Level of Service E or F (On Arterial Streets and Above) Roadway Segment From To LOS 1 7th Street Tuolumne Boulevard Crows Landing Road F 2 9th Street Woodland Avenue Needham Avenue E 3 9th Street Morton Boulevard River Road F 4 Bangs Avenue Dale Road McHenry Avenue E/F 5 Bodem Street Morris Avenue Scenic Drive F 6 Briggsmore Avenue SR 99 Carver Road F 7 Briggsmore Avenue Coffee Road Rose Avenue E 8 Briggsmore Avenue Oakdale Road Lakewood Avenue F 9 Broadway Avenue SR 99 Finney Road E/F 10 Carpenter Road SR 99 Blue Gum Avenue F 11 Carpenter Road Maze Boulevard Beverly Drive E/F 12 Carpenter Road Paradise Road Whitmore Avenue F 13 Carver Road Rumble Road Briggsmore Avenue E/F 14 Carver Road Orangeburg Avenue 9th Street E/F 15 Celeste Drive Vera Cruz Drive Rose Avenue F 16 Claribel Road McHenry Avenue Coffee Road E 17 Coffee Road Celeste Drive Brighton Avenue E/F 18 Coldwell Avenue 9th Street Kearney Avenue F 19 Conant Avenue Standiford Avenue Rumble Road F 20 Crows Landing Road 7th Street Butte Avenue E/F 21 Dale Road Venemen Avenue Standiford Avenue F 22 El Vista Avenue Scenic Drive Edgebrook Drive F 23 Finch Road Mitchell Road McClure Road E/F 24 Floyd Avenue Oakdale Road Lincoln Oak Drive 25 Kansas Avenue Carpenter Road SR 99 F 26 Kiernan Avenue SR 99 Stoddard Road E/F 27 La Loma Avenue Morton Boulevard Buena Vista Drive E 28 Maze Boulevard Martin Luther King Drive Washington Street E/F 29 McHenry Avenue Bangs Avenue Claratina Avenue F 30 McHenry Avenue Briggsmore Avenue Needham Avenue E/F 31 Merle Avenue Oakdale Road Walnut Tree Drive F 32 Mitchell Road Finch Road Hatch Road F 33 Morris Avenue Bodem Street Coffee Road E/F 34 Norwegian Avenue McHenry Avenue Coffee Road E 35 Oakdale Road Mable Avenue Syvlan Avenue E/F 36 Oakdale Road Lancey Drive Surrey Avenue E/F 37 Orangeburg Avenue Lakewood Drive Lillian Drive E 38 Orangeburg Avenue Coffee Road Sonoma Avenue F 39 Paradise Road Pine Tree Lane Martin Luther King Drive F 40 Pelandale Avenue Chapman Road Dale Road E 41 Pelandale Avenue Prescott Road Carver Road F 42 Pelandale Avenue / Claratina Avenue Tully Road Dragoo Park Drive E 43 Prescott Road Plaza Parkway Briggsmore Avenue F 44 Roselle Avenue Floyd Avenue Millbrooke Avenue E 45 Rumble Road Conant Avenue Prescott Road E 46 Rumble Road Napier Drive Sherwood Avenue E 47 Scenic Drive Downey Avenue Oakdale Road E/F 48 Scenic Drive Sonoma Avenue Lillian Drive E/F 49 Sisk Road Conant Avenue Briggsmore Avenue E 50 Sisk Road Pirrone Road Kiernan Avenue F 51 Standiford Avenue Sisk Road Conant Avenue E/F 52 Standiford Avenue Longbridge Drive Colonial Drive E 53 Standiford Avenue Sherwood Avenue McHenry Avenue E ---PAGE BREAK--- Modesto General Plan Master EIR Update V-1-2 Chapter V. Environmental Analysis Administrative Draft Section 1. Traffic and Circulation Needs November 2007 Table A-1 Roadway Segments with 2005 PM Peak Hour Level of Service E or F (On Arterial Streets and Above) Roadway Segment From To LOS 54 Sunrise Avenue Briggsmore Avenue Granger Avenue F 55 Sylvan Avenue Bridgeford Lane Claremont Avenue E 56 Sylvan Avenue Coffee Road Palmwood Drive E 57 Tully Road Claratina Avenue Snyder Avenue E 58 Vintage Drive Sisk Road Gagos Drive F 59 Whitmore Avenue Crows Landing Road Morgan Road F 60 Woodland Avenue Carpenter Road 9th Street E/F 61 Yosemite Boulevard Morton Boulevard Santa Cruz Avenue E/F 62 Yosemite Boulevard Capistrano Drive Mariposa Road E/F 63 Yosemite Boulevard Norseman Drive Root Road F 64 SR 99 Southbound Hammett Road Broadway Avenue E 65 SR 99 Southbound Beckwith Road Carpenter Road F 66 SR 99 Southbound Kansas Avenue H Street E 67 SR 99 Southbound H Street Crows Landing Road F 68 SR 99 Southbound Crows Landing Road 9th Street E Source: Transportation Planning Partnership Group (TPPG) Countywide Travel Demand Model, 2007. Table A-2 Roadway Segments with 2025 PM Peak Hour Level of Service E or F (On Arterial Streets and Above) Roadway Segment From To LOS 1 7th Street Tuolumne Boulevard Crows Landing Road F 2 9th Street SR 99 Needham Avenue E/F 3 Bangs Avenue Dale Road McHenry Avenue F 4 Beckwith Road Finney Road SR 99 E/F 5 Bodem Street Morris Avenue Scenic Drive F 6 Briggs Avenue Seybold Avenue Martin Luther King Drive E 7 Briggsmore Avenue SR 99 Carver Road F 8 Briggsmore Avenue College Avenue Sherwood Avenue E 9 Briggsmore Avenue Sunrise Avenue Lakewood Avenue E/F 10 Briggsmore Avenue Claus Road Held Drive E 11 Brighton Avenue Coffee Road Wylie Drive E/F 12 Brink Avenue Beckwith Road Morse Road F 13 Brink Avenue Shoemake Avenue Carpenter Road F 14 Buena Vista Drive La Loma Avenue Encina Avenue F 15 California Avenue Panama Drive Spencer Avenue E 16 Carpenter Road SR 99 Paradise Road F 17 Carpenter Road Robertson Road Whitmore Avenue F 18 Carver Road Kiernan 9th Street F 19 Celeste Drive Coffee Road Oakdale Road E/F 20 Chicago Avenue Harris Avenue Paradise Road F 21 Church Street Garst Road Yosemite Boulevard F 22 Claremont Avenue Dragoo Park Drive Rumble Road F 23 Claus Road Sylvan Avenue Yosemite Boulevard E/F 24 Coffee Road Claratina Avenue Mable Avenue E 25 Coffee Road Sylvan Avenue Morris Avenue E/F 26 Coldwell Avenue 9th Street Tully Road F 27 College Avenue Rumble Road Bowen Avenue F 28 College Avenue Stoddard Avenue Needham Avenue F 29 College Avenue Briggsmore Avenue Roseburg Avenue E/F 30 Conant Avenue Standiford Avenue Sisk Road F 31 Crows Landing Road 7th Street Butte Avenue E/F 32 Dakota Avenue Beckwith Road North Avenue E 33 Dale Road Ladd Road New Roadway north of E ---PAGE BREAK--- Modesto General Plan Master EIR Update V-1-3 Chapter V. Environmental Analysis Administrative Draft Section 1. Traffic and Circulation Needs November 2007 Table A-2 Roadway Segments with 2025 PM Peak Hour Level of Service E or F (On Arterial Streets and Above) Roadway Segment From To LOS Kiernan Avenue 34 Dale Road Pelandale Avenue Standiford Avenue E/F 35 Dallas Street Hatch Road Butte Avenue E 36 Edgebrook Drive El Vista Avenue Riverside Drive F 37 El Pasado Drive Riverside Drive Capistrano Drive E 38 El Vecino Avenue Orangeburg Avenue Fairmont Avenue E 39 El Vista Avenue Scenic Drive Encina Avenue E/F 40 Emerald Avenue Lone Palm Avenue California Avenue E/F 41 Encina Avenue Buena Vista Drive Conejo Avenue E/F 42 Ensenada Drive Vera Cruz Drive Rose Avenue F 43 Enslen Avenue Orangeburg Avenue Coldwell Avenue F 44 Evergreen Avenue Sisk Road Carver Road E 45 Fairmont Avenue Sunrise Avenue Coffee Road F 46 Finney Road / Broadway Avenue SR 99 Murphy Road E/F 47 Floyd Avenue McHenry Avenue Vera Cruz Avenue F 48 Floyd Avenue Keller Street Orchard Park Way E/F 49 Floyd Avenue Claus Road Held Drive F 50 Garner Road Finch Road Hatch Road F 51 Garst Road Claus Road Norseman Drive E 52 Granger Avenue Enslen Avenue Sherwood Avenue E 53 Granger Avenue Florida Avenue Sunrise Avenue F 54 Graphics Drive Woodland Avenue Kansas Avenue F 55 Grecian Avenue Dragoo Park Drive Drakeshire Drive F 56 Hahn Drive Venemen Avenue Standiford Avenue F 57 Hammett Road SR 99 Pirrone Road F 58 Hatch Road Dallas Street Crows Landing Road F 59 Held Drive Floyd Avenue Briggsmore Avenue F 60 Houser Lane Carpenter Road Seybold Avenue E 61 I Street Washington Street SR 99 F 62 Kansas Avenue Carpenter Road SR 99 F 63 Kearney Avenue Orangeburg Avenue Coldwell Avenue F 64 Kiernan Avenue SR 99 Stoddard Road F 65 Kiernan Avenue / Claribel Road Chapman Road Santa Fe Avenue E/F 66 La Force Drive Oakdale Road Hillglen Avenue E 67 La Loma Avenue Morton Boulevard Yosemite Boulevard E 68 Lancey Drive Rose Avenue Oakdale Road E/F 69 Locke Road Coffee Road Rose Avenue F 70 Lucern Avenue McHenry Avenue Brighton Avenue F 71 Mable Avenue Palmwood Drive Oakdale Road E 72 Manor Oak Drive Orchard Park Way Lincoln Oak Drive F 73 Martin Luther King Drive California Avenue Paradise Road F 74 Maze Boulevard Carpenter Road Washington Street E/F 75 McHenry Avenue Kiernan Avenue Needham Avenue E/F 76 Merle Avenue Oakdale Road Walnut Tree Drive F 77 Miller Avenue Covena Avenue El Vista Avenue F 78 Mitchell Road Yosemite Boulevard Tanaya Drive E 79 Mitchell Road Riverside Drive Hatch Road F 80 Monticello Lane Hatch Road Salazar Circle F 81 Morgan Road Hatch Road Nelson Way E 82 Morris Avenue McHenry Avenue Coffee Road F 83 North Avenue Dakota Avenue Morse Road E 84 Norwegian Avenue McHenry Avenue Coffee Road F 85 Oakdale Road Claratina Avenue Scenic Drive E/F 86 Orangeburg Avenue Briggsmore Avenue Carver Road F 87 Orangeburg Avenue Enslen Avenue Florida Avenue E ---PAGE BREAK--- Modesto General Plan Master EIR Update V-1-4 Chapter V. Environmental Analysis Administrative Draft Section 1. Traffic and Circulation Needs November 2007 Table A-2 Roadway Segments with 2025 PM Peak Hour Level of Service E or F (On Arterial Streets and Above) Roadway Segment From To LOS 88 Orangeburg Avenue McHenry Avenue Eastridge Drive F 89 Orangeburg Avenue Lakewood Drive Lillian Avenue F 90 Orangeburg Avenue Glenbrook Way Claus Road F 91 Oregon Drive Santa Rosa Avenue Santa Cruz Avenue E 92 Paradise Road / H Street Pine Tree Lane 3rd Street F 93 Pecos Avenue Crows Landing Road Boulder Avenue E 94 Pelandale Avenue Sisk Road Dale Road F 95 Pelandale Avenue / Claratina Avenue Prescott Road Santa Fe Avenue E/F 96 Peppermint Drive Oakdale Road McGuire Drive E 97 Pine Tree Lane Paradise Road Robertson Road E 98 Poust Road McDonald Avenue Chapparal Place F 99 Prescott Road Pelandale Avenue Cheyenne Way E/F 100 Prescott Road Mount Vernon Drive Briggsmore Avenue F 101 Riverside Drive Encina Avenue Miller Avenue F 102 Riverside Drive Yosemite Boulevard Mitchell Road F 103 Robertson Road Carpenter Road Pine Tree Lane F 104 Rose Avenue Floyd Avenue Scenic Drive E/F 105 Roselle Avenue / Lakewood Avenue Floyd Avenue Scenic Drive E/F 106 Rosemore Avenue Chapparal Place Kansas Avenue E/F 107 Rumble Road Sisk Road Hahn Drive E 108 Rumble Road Conant Avenue Tully Road E/F 109 Rumble Road Napier Drive Hashem Drive E/F 110 Salida Boulevard Pelandale Avenue Dakota Avenue F 111 Santa Rosa Avenue Yosemite Boulevard Oregon Drive F 112 Scenic Drive Downey Avenue Lakewood Avenue E/F 113 Seybold Avenue Houser Lane Briggs Avenue E 114 Sherwood Avenue Standiford Avenue Leveland Avenue E/F 115 Sherwood Avenue Granger Avenue Orangeburg Avenue F 116 Sisk Road Vintage Drive Briggsmore Avenue E/F 117 Sisk Road Pirrone Road Kiernan Avenue F 118 Snyder Avenue Dale Road Viader Drive E 119 Standiford Avenue SR 99 Prescott Road E/F 120 Standiford Avenue Shawnee Drive Carver Road E 121 Standiford Avenue Longbridge Drive Colonial Drive E 122 Standiford Avenue Sherwood Avenue McHenry Avenue E 123 Stoddard Avenue Tully Road Sycamore Avenue E/F 124 Stoddard Road Ladd Road Kiernan Avenue F 125 Sunrise Avenue Floyd Avenue Lucern Avenue E/F 126 Sycamore Avenue Orangeburg Avenue Needham Avenue E/F 127 Sylvan Avenue Bridgeford Lane Oakdale Road E/F 128 Sylvan Meadows Drive Coffee Road Forest Glenn Drive F 129 Tenaya Drive Conejo Avenue Mitchell Road F 130 Tokay Avenue McHenry Avenue Sunrise Avenue E 131 Tully Road Bangs Avenue Orangeburg Avenue E/F 132 Tuolumne Boulevard Colorado Avenue Roselawn Avenue E 133 Tuolumne Boulevard Neece Drive SR 99 E 134 Ustick Road Hatch Road Boise Avenue E 135 Veneman Avenue Dale Road Hahn Drive F 136 Vintage Drive Sisk Road Dale Road E/F 137 Washington Street Maze Boulevard I Street / Vine Street F 138 Woodland Avenue Poust Road 9th Street E/F 139 Woodrow Avenue Colonial Drive Sherwood Avenue E 140 Wylie Drive Brighton Avenue Oakdale Road F ---PAGE BREAK--- Modesto General Plan Master EIR Update V-1-5 Chapter V. Environmental Analysis Administrative Draft Section 1. Traffic and Circulation Needs November 2007 Table A-2 Roadway Segments with 2025 PM Peak Hour Level of Service E or F (On Arterial Streets and Above) Roadway Segment From To LOS 141 Yosemite Boulevard D Street El Vista Avenue E/F 142 Yosemite Boulevard Riverside Drive Santa Fe Avenue E/F 143 New Roadway north of Kiernan Avenue Dale Road Prescott Road E 144 New Roadway north of Kiernan Avenue Carver Road McHenry Avenue E 145 SR 99 Northbound Hammett Road Kiernan Avenue F 146 SR 99 Northbound Kiernan Avenue Pelandale Avenue E 147 SR 99 Northbound Beckwith Road Tuolumne Boulevard E 148 SR 99 Southbound Hammett Road Broadway Avenue E 149 SR 99 Southbound Standiford Avenue Crows Landing Road F 150 SR 99 Southbound Crows Landing Road Hatch Road E 151 SR 99 Southbound Hatch Road Whitmore Avenue F Source: Transportation Planning Partnership Group (TPPG) Countywide Travel Demand Model, 2007. ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- Appendix B. Air Quality Technical Information: Carbon Monoxide Modeling ---PAGE BREAK--- APPENDIX B. AIR QUALITY TECHNICAL INFORMATION Carbon Monoxide Modeling Dispersion Modeling Predicting the ambient air quality impacts of pollutant emissions requires an assessment of the transport, dispersion, chemical transformation, and removal processes that affect pollutant emissions after their release from a source. Gaussian dispersion models are frequently used for such analyses. The term "Gaussian dispersion" refers to a general type of mathematical equation used to describe the horizontal and vertical distribution of pollutants downwind from an emission source. Gaussian dispersion models treat pollutant emissions as being carried downwind in a defined plume, subject to horizontal and vertical mixing with the surrounding atmosphere. The plume spreads horizontally and vertically with a reduction in pollutant concentrations as it travels downwind. Mixing with the surrounding atmosphere is greatest at the edge of the plume, resulting in lower pollutant concentrations outward (horizontally and vertically) from the center of the plume. This decrease in concentration outward from the center of the plume is treated as following a Gaussian ("normal") statistical distribution. Horizontal and vertical mixing generally occur at different rates. Because turbulent motions in the atmosphere occur on a variety of spatial and time scales, vertical and horizontal mixing also vary with distance downwind from the emission source. The CALINE4 Model The ambient air quality effects of traffic emissions were evaluated using the CALINE4 dispersion model (Benson 1989). CALINE4 is a Gaussian dispersion model specifically designed to evaluate air quality impacts of roadway projects. Each roadway link analyzed in the model is treated as a sequence of short segments. Each segment of a roadway link is treated as a separate emission source producing a plume of pollutants which disperses downwind. Pollutant concentrations at any specific location are calculated using the total contribution from overlapping pollution plumes originating from the sequence of roadway segments. When winds are essentially parallel to a roadway link, pollution plumes from all roadway segments overlap. This produces high concentrations near the roadway (near the center of the overlapping pollution plumes), and low concentrations well away from the roadway (at the edges of the overlapping pollution plumes). When winds are at an angle to the roadway link, pollution plumes from distant roadway segments make essentially no contribution to the pollution concentration observed at a receptor location. Under such cross-wind situations, pollutant concentrations near the highway are lower than under parallel wind conditions (fewer overlapping plume contributions), while pollutant concentrations away from the highway may be greater than would occur with parallel winds (near the center of at least some pollution plumes). ---PAGE BREAK--- The CALINE4 model employs a "mixing cell" approach to estimating pollutant concentrations over the roadway itself. The size of the mixing cell over each roadway segment is based on the width of the traffic lanes of the highway (generally 12 feet per lane) plus an additional turbulence zone on either side (generally 10 feet on each side). Parking lanes and roadway shoulders are not counted as traffic lanes. The height of the mixing cell is calculated by the model. Pollutants emitted along a highway link are treated as being well mixed within the mixing cell volume due to mechanical turbulence from moving vehicles and convective mixing due to the temperature of vehicle exhaust gases. Pollutant concentrations downwind from the mixing cell are calculated using horizontal and vertical dispersion rates which are a function of various meteorological and ground surface conditions. Modeling Procedures Roadway and Traffic Conditions. Traffic volumes and operating conditions used in the modeling were obtained from the traffic analysis prepared for this project by Fehr and Peers. CO emissions were modeled for existing year (2005), and future year (2025) with project conditions. Free flow traffic speeds were adjusted to reflect congested speeds using methodology from the Highway Capacity Manual (Transportation Research Board 2000). CO modeling was conducted at Kansas Avenue – Carepenter Road to 10th Avenue, Bangs Avenue – Tully Road to McHenry Avenue, Kansas Avenue West of SR102 and Woodland – Carpenter Road to Kearney Avenue segments, as they represent roadways with the worst volume to capacity (V/C) ratios of any roadways analyzed in the project area. Vehicle Emission Rates. Vehicle emission rates were determined using the California Air Resources Board's EMFAC2002 (version 2.2) emission rate program. EMFAC2002 modeling procedures followed the guidelines recommended by Caltrans (California Department of Transportation 2003). The program assumed Amador County regional traffic data, operating during the winter months. A mean January temperature of 33 degrees Fahrenheit and humidity of 30% were assumed. Receptor Locations. CO concentrations were estimated for receptors placed 22 feet away from the centerline of each roadway, and located 2,000 feet from each other to represent a worst case scenario. Receptor heights were set at 5.9 feet. Meteorological Conditions. Meteorological inputs to the CALINE4 model were determined using methodology recommended in Air Quality Technical Analysis Notes (California Department of Transportation 1988). The meteorological conditions used in the modeling represent a calm winter period. Worst-case wind angles were modeled to determine a worst-case concentration for each receptor. The meteorological inputs include: 0.5 meters per second wind speed, ground-level temperature inversion (atmospheric stability class worse case wind direction, ambient temperature of 0.6 degrees centigrade, altitude equivalent to sea level, and a mixing height of 1,000 meters. ---PAGE BREAK--- Background Concentrations and Eight-Hour Values. To account for sources of CO not included in the modeling, a background concentration of 5.0 ppm was added to the modeled cumulative 1-hour values, while a background concentration of 3.2 ppm was added to the modeled cumulative 8-hour values. Background concentration data for 1- and 8-hour values were obtained from the EPA’s Air Data webpage (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 2006). Maximum 1- and 8-hour values for the years 2003-2005 were averaged to obtain a background concentration. Eight-hour modeled values were calculated from the 1-hour values using a persistence factor of 0.6. Background concentrations for future 2025 year was assumed to be the same as those for the current year. Actual 1- and 8-hour background concentrations in future years would likely be lower than those used in the CO modeling analysis because the trend in CO emissions and concentrations is decreasing because of continuing improvements in engine technology and the retirement of older, higher-emitting vehicles. References Benson, P. E. 1989. CALINE4---a dispersion model for predicting air pollution concentrations near roadways. California Department of Transportation. Sacramento, CA. California Department of Transportation. 1988. Air Quality Technical Analysis Notes. Sacramento, CA. California Department of Transportation. 2003. Draft Use of EMFAC 2002 to Replace CT- EMFAC: A Users Guide. February 27 Transportation Research Board. 2000. Highway Capacity Manual. Washington, D.C. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2006. Air Data. Last Revised: April 3, 2006. Available: . Accessed: June 11, 2006. ---PAGE BREAK--- Appendix C. Air Quality Technical Information: Criteria Pollutants Modeling ---PAGE BREAK--- APPENDIX C. AIR QUALITY TECHNICAL INFORMATION Criteria Pollutants Modeling Emissions of Criteria Pollutants The primary operational emissions associated with the proposed project are CO, PM10, and ozone precursors (ROG and NOX) emitted as vehicle exhaust. The effects of project specific emissions of criteria pollutants (CO, PM10 and ozone precursors) were evaluated through the modeling conducted using the ARB's EMFAC2007 (version 2.3) emission rate program and traffic data provided by the project traffic engineers. The EMFAC2003 (version 2.3) Model Emissions of criteria pollutants (CO, PM10 and ozone precursors) were evaluated using the ARB’s EMFAC2003 (version 2.3) emission rate program and vehicle activity data. The EMission FACtors (EMFAC) model calculates emission rates from all motor vehicles, such as passenger cars to heavy-duty trucks, operating on highways, freeways and local roads in California. It can estimate emission rates of 1965 and newer vehicles, and provides emission rates for gasoline, diesel or electricity powered vehicles. The EMFAC2007 emissions inventory estimates are made for over one hundred different technology groups and are reported for ten broad vehicle classes segregated by usage and weight. Emission inventories associated with the proposed project are estimated by applying emission rate data from EMFAC2007 model to vehicle activity data. EMFAC2007 can analyze up to 45 model years for each vehicle class within each calendar year; for 24 hourly periods; for each month of the year; and for each district, basin, county and subcounty in California. EMFAC2007 estimates emission factors and emission inventories for the following primary pollutants: • Hydrocarbons. Hydrocarbons can be expressed as TOG (total organic gases), ROG (reactive organic gases), THC (total hydrocarbon), or CH4 (methane). The THC class includes compounds with hydrogen and carbon atoms only; carbonyls and halogens are not included in the class. The TOG class includes all organic gases emitted into the atmosphere. The ROG class is same as EPA’s VOC (volatile organic compounds) definition and does not contain compounds exempt from regulation. • Carbon monoxide (CO). • Nitrogen oxides (NOx). • Carbon dioxide (CO2). • Particulate matter (PM). PM estimates are provided for total suspended particulate, particulate matter 10 microns or less in diameter (PM10), and particulate matter 2.5 microns or less in diameter (PM2.5). • Fuel consumption. Although this is not a pollutant, fuel consumption is calculated based on the emissions of CO, CO2 and THC using the carbon balance equation. ---PAGE BREAK--- • Oxides of sulfur (SOx). Emissions of oxides of sulfur are a function of the sulfur content of fuel. The model calculates these emissions by multiplying the fuel consumption by the weight fraction of sulfur in a gallon of fuel. • Lead (Pb). Lead emissions are also a function of the lead content in fuel. Hence, the model calculates lead by multiplying the fuel consumption by the number of grams of lead per gallon. Modeling Procedures Roadway and Traffic Conditions. Modeled traffic volumes and operating conditions were obtained from the traffic data prepared by the project traffic engineers, Fehr & Peers. Emissions of ozone precursors (ROG and NOX), CO, and PM10 for were modeled for two conditions: existing year (2005) and 2025. Traffic data used in the model included peak hour vehicle miles traveled (VMT) and average speed. The data used for emissions modeling is summarized in Table 1. Table 1. Traffic Inputs for EMFAC2007 Modeling Scenario Daily Performance Measure Average Speed VMT VHT Existing (2005) 6,835,210 173,647 39 miles per hour Future (2025) With General Plan and Planned Roadway Network 12,447,000 361,800 34 miles per hour Vehicle Emission Rates. Vehicle emission rates were determined using the ARB's EMFAC2007 (version 2.3) emission rate program. Free flow traffic speeds for selected roadway segments were adjusted to reflect congested speeds using methodology from the Highway Capacity Manual (Transportation Research Board 2000). The program assumed Stanislaus County regional traffic data, averaged for a range of roadway segments, operating during the winter months for CO and summer for ozone precursors and PM10, as CO concentrations are typically higher during the colder winter months, and ozone concentrations are typically higher during the warmer summer months. A mean Annual temperature of 67 degrees Fahrenheit, and humidity of 30% were assumed. References Transportation Research Board. 2000. Highway Capacity Manual. Washington, D.C. ---PAGE BREAK--- Appendix D. Modesto Wastewater Master Plan Update Draft Environmental Impact Report Executive Summary ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- Appendix E. Special-Status Species ---PAGE BREAK--- Table E-1. Special-Status Plant Species with the Potential to Occur in the City of Modesto General Plan Area Page 1 of 6 Common and Scientific Name Statusa: Federal/State/ CNPS Distribution Preferred Habitats Blooming Period Potential for Occurrence in the General Plan Areab Alkali milk-vetch Astragalus tener var. tener Merced, Solano, and Yolo Counties. Historically more widespread. Grassy flats and vernal pool margins, on alkali soils, below 200 feet. March–June Moderate Heartscale Atriplex cordulata Western Central Valley and valleys of adjacent foothills Alkali grassland, alkali meadow, and alkali scrub, below 660 feet May–October Moderate Crownscale Atriplex coronata var. coronata Southern Sacramento Valley, San Joaquin valley, eastern south coast inner range, Alameda, Contra Costa, Fresno, Kings, Kern, Glenn, Merced, Monterey, San Joaquin, San Luis Obispo, Solano, and Stanislaus Counties Chenopod scrub, valley and foothill grassland, vernal pools, on fine alkaline soils below 660’ April-October Moderate Brittlescale Atriplex depressa Western Central Valley and valleys of adjacent foothills on west side of Central Valley Alkali grassland, alkali meadow, alkali scrub, chenopod scrub, playas, and valley and foothill grasslands on alkaline or clay soils, below 660 feet May–October Moderate Lesser saltscale Atriplex minuscula Butte, Fresno, Madera, Merced, Tulare Alkali grassland, alkali meadow, alkali scrub, and saltbush scrub, between 50 and 650 feet May–October High Vernal pool (persistent- fruited) saltscale Atriplex persistens Central Valley, from Glenn to Tulare County Dry beds of vernal pools, on alkaline soils, 33-380' April-October Moderate Big tarplant Blepharizonia plumosa Alameda, Contra Costa, San Joaquin*, Stanislaus*, and Solano* counties Valley and foothill grassland July-October High Round-leaved filaree California [Erodium Sacramento Valley, northern San Joaquin Valley, central-western California, south coast, and northern Channel Islands (Santa Cruz Island). Open sites, dry grasslands, and shrublands below 4,000 feet. March–May Moderate ---PAGE BREAK--- Table E-1. Continued Page 2 of 6 Common and Scientific Name Statusa: Federal/State/ CNPS Distribution Preferred Habitats Blooming Period Potential for Occurrence in the General Plan Areab Sharsmith’s harebell (Mt. Hamilton harebell Campanula sharsmithiae Mt. Hamilton range Barren, rocky serpentinite areas in chaparral, 1,300-3,000' May-June None—no serpentine known in the area Succulent owl’s-clover Castilleja campestris ssp. succulenta T/E/1B.2 Fresno, Madera, Merced, Mariposa, San Joaquin, Stanislaus Vernal pools between 165 and 2,500 feet April-May Moderate California jewel-flower Caulanthus californicus E/E/1B.1 Historically common in western San Joaquin Valley and interior foothills, currently at scattered locations in Fresno, Kern, San Luis Obispo and Santa Barbara Counties Sandy or loamy soils in annual grassland, chenopod scrub, pinyon-juniper woodland February-May Moderate Lemmon’s jewel-flower Caulanthus coulteri var. lemmonii Western Central Valley and valleys of adjacent foothills on west side of Central Valley Pinyon and juniper woodland, and valley and foothill grassland, between 250 and 4,000 feet March–May Low Hoover’s spurge Chamaesyce hooveri T/–/1B.2 Central Valley from Butte County to Tulare County Below the high-water marks of large northern hardpan and volcanic vernal pools, below 800' July Moderate Mt. Hamilton thistle Cirsium foninale var. campylon Mt. Hamilton Range, eastern San Francisco Bay area: Alameda, Santa Clara, and Stanislaus Counties Freshwater seeps and streams on serpentinite outcrops, chaparral, cismontane woodland, valley and foothill grassland, 1000-2500’ April-October None—no serpentine known in the area Beaked clarkia Clarkia rostrata Central Sierra Nevada Foothills, San Joaquin Valley, Hell Hollow, and Merced River drainage: Merced, Mariposa, and Stanislaus Counties Annual grassland and blue oak- foothill pine woodland, on dry slopes, 200-1,500' April-May Moderate Small-flowered morning glory Convolvulus simulans San Joaquin Valley, central western and southwestern California, southern Channel Islands; Baja California Chaparral openings, coastal scrub, valley and foothill grassland, on clay soils in serpentinite seeps, 100-2,300' March-July None—no serpentine known in the area Mt. Hamilton coreopsis Coreopsis hamiltonii Eastern San Francisco Bay, Santa Clara and Stanislaus Counties Steep shale talus slopes of cismontane woodland March-May None—no talus slopes in the area ---PAGE BREAK--- Table E-1. Continued Page 3 of 6 Common and Scientific Name Statusa: Federal/State/ CNPS Distribution Preferred Habitats Blooming Period Potential for Occurrence in the General Plan Areab Hoover’s hooveri Northern and central San Joaquin Valley. Alameda, Contra Costa, Madera, Merced, San Joaquin, and Stanislaus Counties. Coarse, sandy soil in valley and foothill grassland between 30 and 500’. April–May Moderate Recurved larkspur Delphinium recurvatum Central Valley from Colusa* to Kern Counties Alkaline soils in valley and foothill grassland, saltbush scrub, cismontane woodland; below 2,500’ March-June Moderate Dwarf downingia Downingia pusilla Central Valley Vernal pools and valley and foothill grasslands March-May Moderate Delta button-celery Eryngium racemosum –/E/1B.1 San Joaquin River delta, floodplains, and adjacent Sierra Nevada foothills: Calaveras, Merced, San Joaquin*, and Stanislaus Counties Riparian scrub, seasonally inundated depressions along floodplains on clay soils, below 250' June-August High Spiny-sepaled button- celery Eryngium spinosepalum Fresno, Madera, Stanislaus, Tulare, Tuolumne Valley and foothill grasslands and vernal pools, between 330 and 830 feet April–May Moderate Diamond-petaled California poppy rhombipetala Interior foothills of south Coast Ranges from Contra Costa County to Stanislaus County. Carrizo Plain in San Luis Obispo County. Grassland, chenopod scrub, on clay soils, where grass cover is sparse enough to allow growth of low annuals. March–April Moderate Talus fritillary Fritillaria falcata South inner coast ranges. Alameda, Monterey, San Benito, Santa Clara, and Stanislaus Counties Chaparral, oak woodland, closed- cone coniferous forest, on serpentinite talus March-May None—no serpentine known in the area Legenere Legenere limosa Primarily located in the lower Sacramento Valley, also from north Coast Ranges, northern San Joaquin Valley, and Santa Cruz Mountains. Deep, seasonally wet habitats such as vernal pools, ditches, marsh edges, and river banks, below 500 feet. May–June Moderate Red-flowered lotus Lotus rubriflorus Inner north Coast Ranges and San Francisco Bay area, Colusa, Stanislaus, and Tehama Counties Cismontane woodland, valley and foothill grassland, on sterile red soils and volcanic mudflow deposits April-June Low ---PAGE BREAK--- Table E-1. Continued Page 4 of 6 Common and Scientific Name Statusa: Federal/State/ CNPS Distribution Preferred Habitats Blooming Period Potential for Occurrence in the General Plan Areab Showy madia Madia radiata Contra Costa, Fresno, Kings, Kern, Monterey, Santa Barbara, San Benito, San Joaquin, San Luis Obispo Cismontane woodland, valley and foothill grassland, between 80 and 3,000 feet March–May Moderate Merced monardella Monardella leucocephala Presumed extirpated, last seen in 1941, historically known from northern San Joaquin Valley Moist, sub-alkaline soils associated with low elevation grassland, in sandy depressions and riverbeds, 115-330' May-August Low San Joaquin Monolopia (Lembertia) congonii E/–/1B.2 Carrizo Plain and western San Joaquin valley from San Benito County to Kern County Saltbush scrub, grassland, on flats in alkaline or loamy soils March-May Moderate Little mousetail Myosurus minimus ssp. apus Central Valley, South Coast: Alameda, Butte, Contra Costa, Colusa, Kern, Riverside, San Bernardino, San Diego, Solano, and Stanislaus Counties Alkaline vernal pools and marshes March-June Moderate Colusa grass Neostapfia colusana T/E/1B.1 Merced, Solano, and Yolo counties Vernal pools on adobe soils May-August Moderate California adder’s tongue Ophioglossum californicum Northern and central Sierra Nevada foothills, central and southern coast, Amador, Butte, Merced, Monterey, Mariposa, Orange, San Bernardino*, San Diego, Stanislaus, and Tuolumne Counties, Baja California Vernal pools margins, moist areas in grassland and chaparral, 200- 1,000' December-May Moderate San Joaquin Valley orcutt grass Orcuttia inaequalis T/E/1B.1 Fresno, Madera, Merced, Stanislaus*, Tulare Counties Vernal pools from 100 to 2,500 feet April–September Moderate Hairy orcutt grass Orcuttia pilosa Butte, Glenn, Madera, Merced, Stanislaus, Tehama Counties Vernal pools from 150 to 650 feet May–September Low Mount Diablo phacelia Phacelia phacelioides South Coast Ranges from Contra Costa County to San Benito County Chaparral, oak woodland, adjacent to trails, on rock outcrops and talus slopes, 2,000- 3,000' April-May None—no suitable habitat known in the area ---PAGE BREAK--- Table E-1. Continued Page 5 of 6 Common and Scientific Name Statusa: Federal/State/ CNPS Distribution Preferred Habitats Blooming Period Potential for Occurrence in the General Plan Areab Hartweg’s golden sunburst Pseudobahia bahiifolia E/E/1B.1 Fresno, Madera, Merced, Stanislaus, Sutter, Yuba Counties Woodland, valley and foothill grassland on clay soils, between 50 and 500 feet March–April Moderate Delta woolly-marbles Psilocarphus brevissimus var. multiflorus Deltaic central valley and San Francisco bay area, Alameda, Napa, Santa Clara, San Joaquin, Solano, Stanislaus, and Yolo Counties Vernal pools, 30-1,650' May-June Moderate Greene’s tuctoria Tuctoria greenei E/R/1B.1 Butte, Fresno, Glenn, Madera, Merced, Shasta, San Joaquin, Stanislaus, Tehama, Tulare Vernal pools between 95 and 3,500 feet May–September Moderate Sources: 2006; CNPS 2006 Notes: * = Extirpated from this county. = California Natural Diversity Database. CNPS = California Native Plant Society. a Status explanations: Federal E = listed as endangered under the federal Endangered Species Act. T = listed as threatened under the federal Endangered Species Act. – = No status definition. State E = listed as endangered under the California Endangered Species Act. R = listed as rare under the California Native Plant Protection Act and California Endangered Species Act. – = No status definition. California Native Plant Society (CNPS) 1A = List 1A species: presumed extinct in California 1B = List 1B species: rare, threatened, or endangered in California and elsewhere 2 = List 2 species: rare, threatened, or endangered in California, but more common elsewhere 3 = List 3 species: plants about which we need more information—a review list 4 = List 4 species: plants of limited distribution—a watch list CNPS Code Extensions: .1 = seriously endangered in California (over 80% of occurrences threatened / high degree and immediacy of threat .2 = fairly endangered in California (20- 80% of occurrences threatened) .3 = not very endangered in California (<20% of occurrences threatened or not current threats known) ---PAGE BREAK--- Table E-1. Continued Page 6 of 6 Common and Scientific Name Statusa: Federal/State/ CNPS Distribution Preferred Habitats Blooming Period Potential for Occurrence in the General Plan Areab b Definitions of levels of occurrence likelihood: High: Known occurrence of plant within 5 miles of the project from Natural Diversity Data Base, California Native Plant Society Inventory, or other documents; and suitable habitat and microhabitat conditions present. Moderate: Known occurrence of plant in Stanislaus County, but more than 5 miles from the project, from Natural Diversity Data Base, California Native Plant Society Inventory, or other documents; or suitable habitat conditions present, but suitable microhabitat conditions unlikely to be present or of poor quality. Low: Plant not known to occur in the region from the Natural Diversity Data Base, California Native Plant Society Inventory, or other documents in the vicinity of the project, or plant is known only historically from the region; and habitat conditions of poor quality. None: Plant not known to occur in the region from the Natural Diversity Data Base, California Native Plant Society Inventory, or other documents in the vicinity of the project; and suitable habitat not present in any condition. ---PAGE BREAK--- Table E-2. Special-Status Wildlife Species with Potential to Occur in the City of Modesto General Plan Area Page 1 of 5 Common and Scientific Name Status Federal/State Geographic Distribution Habitat Requirements Potential Occurrence in Study Area Invertebrates Conservancy fairy shrimp Branchinecta conservatio Disjunct occurrences in Solano, Stanislaus, Merced, Tehama, Ventura, Butte, and Glenn Counties Large, deep vernal pools in annual grasslands None. Required large pools not known to occur within the General Plan Area. Known to occur in pools located on Mapes Ranch, west of the General Plan Area. Valley elderberry longhorn beetle Desmocerus californicus dimorphus Stream side habitats below 3,000 feet throughout the Central Valley Riparian and oak savanna habitats with elderberry shrubs; elderberries are the host plant Moderate. May occur in riparian habitat that supports elderberry shrubs. Vernal pool fairy shrimp Branchinecta Central Valley, central and south Coast Ranges from Tehama County to Santa Barbara County. Isolated populations also in Riverside County Common in vernal pools; also found in sandstone rock outcrop pools High. Known to occur within the General Plan Area. Vernal pool tadpole shrimp Lepidurus packardi Shasta County south to Merced County Vernal pools and ephemeral stock ponds High. Known to occur within the General Plan Area. Amphibians California red-legged frog Rana aurora draytoni T/SSC Found along the coast and coastal mountain ranges of California from Marin County to San Diego County and in the Sierra Nevada from Tehema County to Fresno County Permanent and semipermanent aquatic habitats, such as creeks and cold-water ponds, with emergent and submergent vegetation. May estivate in rodent burrows or cracks during dry periods. None. Extirpated from the Central Valley. California tiger salamander californiense T/SSC Central Valley, including Sierra Nevada foothills, up to approximately 1,000 feet, and coastal region from Butte County south to northeastern San Luis Obispo County. Small ponds, lakes, or vernal pools in grass- lands and oak woodlands for larvae; rodent burrows, rock crevices, or fallen logs for cover for adults and for summer dormancy Low. May have been extirpated from General Plan Area. May occur in grassland areas with vernal pools and seasonal wetlands. Foothill yellow-legged frog Rana boylii --/SSC Occurs in the Klamath, Cascade, north Coast, south Coast, Transverse, and Sierra Nevada Ranges up to approximately 6,000 feet Creeks or rivers in woodland, forest, mixed chaparral, and wet meadow habitats with rock and gravel substrate and low overhanging vegetation along the edge. Usually found near riffles with rocks and sunny banks nearby. None. No suitable habitat occurs within the General Plan Area. Western spadefoot Scaphiopus hammondii --/SSC Sierra Nevada foothills, Central Valley, Coast Ranges, coastal counties in southern California Shallow streams with riffles and seasonal wetlands, such as vernal pools in annual grasslands and oak woodlands. Low. May occur in grassland areas with vernal pools and seasonal wetlands. ---PAGE BREAK--- Table E-2. Continued Page 2 of 5 Common and Scientific Name Status Federal/State Geographic Distribution Habitat Requirements Potential Occurrence in Study Area Reptiles California horned lizard coronatum frontale --/SSC Sacramento Valley, including foothills, south to southern California; Coast Ranges south of Sonoma County; below 4,000 feet in northern California Grasslands, shrublands, woodlands, and open coniferous forest with sandy or loose soil; requires abundant ant colonies for foraging Low. Not known to occur within General Plan Area, though may occur in areas with suitable habitat Giant garter snake Thamnophis couchi gigas T/T Central Valley from the vicinity of Burrel in Fresno County north to near Chico in Butte County; has been extirpated from areas south of Fresno Sloughs, canals, low gradient streams and freshwater marsh habitats where there is a prey base of small fish and amphibians; also found in irrigation ditches and rice fields; requires grassy banks and emergent vegetation for basking and areas of high ground protected from flooding during winter Low. May have been extirpated from General Plan Area, though may occur in areas with suitable aquatic habitat. Silvery legless lizard Anniella pulchra pulchra --/SSC Along the Coast, Transverse, and Peninsular Ranges from Contra Costa County to San Diego County with spotty occurrences in the San Joaquin Valley Habitats with loose soil for burrowing or thick duff or leaf litter; often forages in leaf litter at plant bases; may be found on beaches, sandy washes, and in woodland, chaparral, and riparian areas Moderate. May occur in riparian habitats located in the General Plan Area. Western pond turtle Clemmys marmorata --/SSC Occurs along the central coast of California east to the Sierra Nevada and along the southern California coast inland to the Mojave and Sonora Deserts; range overlaps with that of the northwestern pond turtle throughout the Delta and in the Central Valley Woodlands, grasslands, and open forests; aquatic habitats, such as ponds, marshes, or streams, with rocky or muddy bottoms and vegetation for cover and food Moderate. May occur in areas with suitable aquatic habitat located within General Plan Area Birds American peregrine falcon Falco peregrinus anatum Permanent resident along the north and south Coast Ranges. May summer in the Cascade and Klamath Ranges and through the Sierra Nevada to Madera County. Winters in the Central Valley south through the Transverse and Peninsular Ranges and the plains east of the Cascade Range Nests and roosts on protected ledges of high cliffs, usually adjacent to lakes, rivers, or marshes that support large prey populations Low. Does not nest within the General Plan Area. May be an occasional winter visitor. Bald eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus Nests in Siskiyou, Modoc, Trinity, Shasta, Lassen, Plumas, Butte, Tehama, Lake, and Mendocino Counties and in the Lake Tahoe Basin. Reintroduced into central coast. Winter range includes the rest of California, except the southeastern deserts, very high altitudes in the Sierra Nevada, and east of the Sierra Nevada south of Mono County In western North America, nests and roosts in coniferous forests within 1 mile of a lake, reservoir, stream, or the ocean Low. Does not nest within the General Plan Area. May be an occasional winter visitor. ---PAGE BREAK--- Table E-2. Continued Page 3 of 5 Common and Scientific Name Status Federal/State Geographic Distribution Habitat Requirements Potential Occurrence in Study Area Cooper’s hawk Accipiter cooperii --/SSC Throughout California except high altitudes in the Sierra Nevada. Winters in the Central Valley, southeastern desert regions, and plains east of the Cascade Range Nests in a wide variety of habitat types, from riparian woodlands and digger pine- oak woodlands through mixed conifer forests High. May nest in riparian areas located within the General Plan Area Golden eagle Aquila --/SSC, FP Foothills and mountains throughout California. Uncommon nonbreeding visitor to lowlands such as the Central Valley Nest on cliffs and escarpments or in tall trees overlooking open country. Forages in annual grasslands, chaparral, and oak woodlands with plentiful medium and large-sized mammals Low. Does not nest within the General Plan Areas. May occasionally forage in grassland and pastures within the General Plan Area. Greater sandhill crane Grus canadensis tabida Breeds in Siskiyou, Modoc, Lassen, Plumas, and Sierra Counties. Winters in the Central Valley, southern Imperial County, Lake Havasu National Wildlife Refuge, and the Colorado River Indian Reserve Summers in open terrain near shallow lakes or freshwater marshes. Winters in plains and valleys near bodies of fresh water Low. Does not nest in the Central Valley. Only occurs during the winter within the General Plan Area. Loggerhead shrike Lanius ludovicianus --/SSC Resident and winter visitor in lowlands and foothills throughout California. Rare on coastal slope north of Mendocino County, occurring only in winter Prefers open habitats with scattered shrubs, trees, posts, fences, utility lines, or other perches High. May nest in areas throughout the General Plan Area. Northern harrier Circus cyaneus --/SSC Occurs throughout lowland California. Has been recorded in fall at high elevations Grasslands, meadows, marshes, and seasonal and agricultural wetlands Moderate. May nest in grasslands, pastures, and fresh marsh areas located within General Plan Area. Sharp-shinned hawk Accipiter striatus --/SSC Permanent resident in the Sierra Nevada, Cascade, Klamath, and north Coast Ranges at mid elevations and along the coast in Marin, San Francisco, San Mateo, Santa Cruz, and Monterey Counties. Winters over the rest of the state except at very high elevations Dense canopy ponderosa pine or mixed- conifer forest and riparian habitats Low. May nest in riparian areas located within the General Plan Area. Short-eared owl Asio flammeus --/SSC Permanent resident along the coast from Del Norte County to Monterey County although very rare in summer north of San Francisco Bay, in the Sierra Nevada north of Nevada County, in the plains east of the Cascades, and in Mono County; small, isolated populations Freshwater and salt marshes, lowland meadows, and irrigated alfalfa fields; needs dense tules or tall grass for nesting and daytime roosts Moderate. May nest in pastures and/or marshes located within General Plan Area. Suisun song sparrow Melospiza melodia maxillaris --/SSC Restricted to the extreme western edge of the Delta, between the cities of Vallejo and Pittsburg near Suisun Bay Brackish and tidal marshes supporting cattails, tules, various sedges, and pickleweed None. Though collected in the General Plan Area in the early 1900’s, these may have been vagrants. General Plan Area outside of known range. ---PAGE BREAK--- Table E-2. Continued Page 4 of 5 Common and Scientific Name Status Federal/State Geographic Distribution Habitat Requirements Potential Occurrence in Study Area Swainson’s hawk Buteo swainsoni Lower Sacramento and San Joaquin Valleys, the Klamath Basin, and Butte Valley. Highest nesting densities occur near Davis and Woodland, Yolo County Nests in oaks or cottonwoods in or near riparian habitats. Forages in grasslands, irrigated pastures, and grain fields High. Known to nest within General Plan Area Tricolored blackbird Agelaius tricolor --/SSC Permanent resident in the Central Valley from Butte County to Kern County. Breeds at scattered coastal locations from Marin County south to San Diego County; and at scattered locations in Lake, Sonoma, and Solano Counties. Rare nester in Siskiyou, Modoc, and Lassen Counties Nests in dense colonies in emergent marsh vegetation, such as tules and cattails, or upland sites with blackberries, nettles, thistles, and grainfields. Habitat must be large enough to support 50 pairs. Probably requires water at or near the nesting colony Moderate. May nest in areas with suitable nesting habitat. Western burrowing owl Athene cunicularia hypugea --/SSC Lowlands throughout California, including the Central Valley, northeastern plateau, southeastern deserts, and coastal areas. Rare along south coast Level, open, dry, heavily grazed or low stature grassland or desert vegetation with available burrows High. Known to nest within General Plan Area Western yellow-billed cuckoo Coccyzus americanus occidentalis C/E Nests along the upper Sacramento, lower Feather, south fork of the Kern, Amargosa, Santa Ana, and Colorado Rivers Wide, dense riparian forests with a thick understory of willows for nesting; sites with a dominant cottonwood overstory are preferred for foraging; may avoid valley- oak riparian habitats where scrub jays are abundant Low. May be extirpated from General Plan Area. Last known occurrence in Stanislaus Co. was in 1973. White-tailed kite Elanus leucurus --/FP Lowland areas west of Sierra Nevada from the head of the Sacramento Valley south, including coastal valleys and foothills to western San Diego County at the Mexico border Low foothills or valley areas with valley or live oaks, riparian areas, and marshes near open grasslands for foraging Moderate. May nest in large trees near areas with suitable foraging habitat. Yellow-breasted chat Icteria virens --/SSC Nests locally in coastal mountains and Sierra Nevada foothills, east of the Cascades in northern California, along the Colorado river, and very locally inland in southern California Nests in dense riparian habitats dominated by willows, alders, Oregon ash, tall weeds, blackberry vines, and grapevines Low. Mainly found in the foothills but may occur in riparian habitat within the General Plan Area. Mammals Greater western mastiff bat Eumops perotis californicus --/SSC Occurs along the western Sierra primarily at low to mid elevations and widely distributed throughout the southern coast ranges. Recent surveys have detected the species north to the Oregon border Found in a wide variety of habitats from desert scrub to montane conifer. Roosts and breeds in deep, narrow rock crevices, but may also use crevices in trees, buildings, and tunnels. Roost entrances must have vertical faces and be high enough to drop off to take flight. None. General Plan Area is outside of known range. No suitable habitat occurs within the General Plan Area. ---PAGE BREAK--- Table E-2. Continued Page 5 of 5 Common and Scientific Name Status Federal/State Geographic Distribution Habitat Requirements Potential Occurrence in Study Area Pacific Townsend’s (=western) big-eared bat Corynorhinus townsendii townsendii --/SSC Coastal regions from Del Norte County south to Santa Barbara County Roosts in caves, tunnels, mines, and dark attics of abandoned buildings. Very sensitive to disturbances and may abandon a roost after one onsite visit Low. May roost in riparian areas located within the General Plan Area. Pallid bat Antrozous pallidus --/SSC Occurs throughout California except the high Sierra from Shasta to Kern County and the northwest coast, primarily at lower and mid elevations Occurs in a variety of habitats from desert to coniferous forest. Most closely associated with oak, yellow pine, redwood, and giant sequoia habitats in northern California and oak woodland, grassland, and desert scrub in southern California. Relies heavily on trees for roosts Moderate. May roost throughout the General Plan Area. Riparian (San Joaquin Valley) woodrat Neotoma fuscipes riparia E/SSC Historical distribution along the San Joaquin, Stanislaus, and Tuolumne Rivers, and Caswell State Park in San Joaquin, Stanislaus, and Merced Counties; presently limited to San Joaquin County at Caswell State Park and a possible second population near Vernalis Riparian habitats with dense shrub cover, willow thickets, and an oak overstory Low. Known to occur in riparian habitat along the Stanislaus River. West of the General Plan Area. Riparian brush rabbit Sylvilagus bachmani riparius E/E Limited to San Joaquin County at Caswell State Park near the confluence of the Stanislaus and San Joaquin Rivers and Paradise Cut area on Union Pacific right-of-way lands Native valley riparian habitats with large clumps of dense shrubs, low-growing vines, and some tall shrubs and trees Low. Known to occur in riparian habitat along the Stanislaus River. West of the General Plan Area. San Joaquin kit fox Vulpes macrotis mutica E/T Principally occurs in the San Joaquin Valley and adjacent open foothills to the west; recent records from 17 counties extending from Kern County north to Contra Costa County Saltbush scrub, grassland, oak, savanna, and freshwater scrub None. General Plan Area is outside of known range. Records for San Joaquin kit fox in Stanislaus Co. include areas west of I-5 and extreme eastern county near La Grange. Status explanations: Federal E = listed as endangered under the federal Endangered Species Act. T = listed as threatened under the federal Endangered Species Act. C = candidate species under the federal Endangered Species Act. = no listing State E = listed as endangered under the California Endangered Species Act. T = listed as threatened under the California Endangered Species Act. FP = fully protected under the California Fish and Game Code. SSC = species of special concern in California. – = no listing. ---PAGE BREAK--- Appendix F. Tuolumne River Regional Park Master Plan Draft Master Environmental Impact Report Executive Summary ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- Appendix G. Designated Landmark Preservation Sites and Photographs of Carey & Company Sites ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK---