Ceres City Council
April 13, 2026

The updated Housing Element identifies five goals: facilitate housing construction, improve the existing housing stock and preserve affordable housing, support new affordable and other special needs housing, exemplify sustainable development and energy conservation, and publicize housing needs and resources. Under each goal, the element sets out policies that amplify how the goal would be attained. Implementation programs, listed at the end of the corresponding group of policies, briefly describe the proposed action, the EXHIBIT B ITEM 13
Copper Trails Specific Plan and Annexation EIR 13-4 November 2024 City agencies or departments with primary responsibility for carrying out the program, the funding source, and the time frame for accomplishing the program. Several of the implementation programs also identify quantified objectives.

Each housing element period, the HCD prescribes housing allocations for each California region. The Regional Housing Need Plan (RHNA) is part of a statewide mandate to address housing issues that are related to future growth and is required by State law. The RHNA allocates to cities and counties their “fair share” of the region’s projected housing needs by household income group over the planning period of each jurisdiction’s housing element.

Upon review by the local jurisdictions, the StanCOG Policy Board adopted the RHNA in 2022. In its housing needs determination for Ceres, StanCOG allocated a total of 3,361 housing units to the city for the 2023-2031 time period. The total housing needs determination for Ceres includes 1,505 above-moderate income housing units, 661 moderate-income housing units, 489 low-income housing units, and 706 very low-income housing units. In the previous Housing Element cycle (2014-2023), the City issued a total of 79 housing permits (City of Ceres 2024b).

Stanislaus County General Plan
Stanislaus County adopted the latest version of its General Plan in 2016. Like the Ceres General Plan, the County General Plan guides development, in this case within the unincorporated areas of Stanislaus County. The County General Plan currently covers the project site and County lands to the south and east. Should the project site be annexed, the County General Plan designations would no longer be applicable.

Most of the CTSP Area has been designated by the County General Plan as Urban Transition (Figure 13-2). The Urban Transition designation is used to ensure that land remains in agricultural usage until urban development consistent with a city’s general plan designation is approved. Generally, urban development will only occur upon annexation to a city, but such development may be appropriate prior to annexation provided the development is not inconsistent with the land use designation of the general plan of the affected city (Stanislaus County 2016a).

A small portion of the southwest corner of the Pocket Area is designated Agriculture. For the non-CTSP parcels, the County General Plan has applied designations of Low Density Residential, Medium-High Density Residential, Commercial, and Urban Transition.

Ceres Municipal Code Title 18 - Zoning
Ceres Municipal Code Title 18 is known as the Ceres Zoning Ordinance. The purpose of the Zoning Ordinance is to encourage, classify, designate, regulate, restrict, and promote the highest and best location and use of buildings, structures and land for residence, commerce, trade, manufacturing, recreation, community facilities, or other purposes in appropriate places within the City. The ordinance is intended to conform to the Ceres General Plan and all environmental design plans adopted pursuant to the general plan, which would include specific plans. The project site would be prezoned into zoning districts in accordance with the City’s Zoning Ordinance, prior to submittal of the annexation application to LAFCo (see below). However, land use regulation in the CTSP EXHIBIT B ITEM 13
Copper Trails Specific Plan and Annexation EIR 13-5 November 2024 Area would be in accordance with the land use designations of the CTSP, rather than the Ceres Zoning Ordinance.

Stanislaus County Code Title 21 – Zoning
Title 21 of the Stanislaus County Code sets forth a zoning plan for Stanislaus County similar to that of the Ceres Zoning Ordinance. Parcels within the project site are currently zoned by the County (Figure 13-3). The CTSP Area is zoned A-2-10 - General Agriculture, 10-acre minimum. The Pocket Area has zoning designations of A-2-10 - General Agriculture, 10-acre minimum; C-2 – General Commercial; H-1 – Highway Frontage; M – Industrial; R-A – Rural Residential; R-2 – Medium Density Residential; and P-D – Planned Development. Should the project site be annexed, County zoning would no longer apply.

Ceres Municipal Code Title 17 - Subdivisions
Ceres Municipal Code Title 17 is the Subdivision Code of the City of Ceres. The purpose of this title is to regulate and control the division of land within the City of Ceres, to the extent authorized by the State’s Subdivision Map Act, concerning the design, improvement, and survey data of subdivisions, the form and content of all required maps provided by the Subdivision Map Act, and the procedures to be followed in securing the official approval of the City regarding the maps. The regulations established by this title are designed to assist in the systematic implementation of the Ceres General Plan, each applicable specific plan, the Zoning Ordinance, and other applicable City, State, or federal land use regulations.

Stanislaus Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCo)
The Stanislaus LAFCo is the agency responsible for proposed reorganizations for cities and special districts within Stanislaus County; as such, it would review and decide on the proposed annexation of the CTSP and Pocket Areas and their detachment from the Ceres Fire Protection District and the Keyes Fire Protection District. As an agency with approval authority over the project, LAFCo is a Responsible Agency under CEQA and would use this EIR in its decision-making process.

LAFCo’s review encompasses the consistency of the project with State statutes and policies, particularly the Cortese-Knox-Hertzberg Local Government Reorganization Act, as well as its own adopted policies. In determining the appropriateness of a proposed annexation, LAFCo considers whether the project would constitute a logical expansion of a city boundary and whether a proposed annexation area would be provided with public utilities and services in an efficient manner.

LAFCo’s policies with respect to proposed annexations are specified in its Stanislaus LAFCo Policies and Procedures, adopted in 2020. For proposed annexations, a plan for service shall be prepared and submitted that must include information that the range and level of services currently available within the annexation area will, at least, be maintained by the annexing agency. Services include all those services currently provided or to be extended by the agency.

EXHIBIT B ITEM 13
Copper Trails Specific Plan and Annexation EIR 13-6 November 2024 In addition, prezoning is mandated by California Government Code Section 56375. No city annexation application will be deemed complete unless the prezoning process has been completed. As discussed in Chapter 3.0, Project Description, the CTSP Area would be prezoned P-C, Planned Community, while the Pocket Area would be prezoned in accordance with the current Ceres General Plan designations for that area. Also, as discussed in Chapter 5.0, Agricultural Resources, a Plan for Agricultural Preservation must be provided with the application (Stanislaus LAFCo 2020).

Sphere of Influence
One of the responsibilities of a LAFCo is to determine the Sphere of Influence of local governmental agencies. A Sphere of Influence designates the probable future physical boundary and service area of a local agency. It is an area within which a city or district may expand, over an undefined period of time, through the annexation process. The Stanislaus LAFCo also requires determination of a Primary Area of Influence, within which territory is eligible for annexation and the extension of urban services within a 0-10 year period (Stanislaus LAFCo 2020). The project site is within both the City of Ceres’s Sphere of Influence and its Primary Area of Influence.

LAFCo will approve an application for a change of organization or reorganization only if the proposal is consistent with an approved Sphere of Influence plan for the affected agency or agencies. No proposal which is inconsistent with an agency’s adopted Sphere of Influence and/or Primary Area shall be approved until LAFCo, at a noticed public hearing, has considered and approved an amendment or revision to that agency’s Primary Area of its Sphere of Influence (Stanislaus LAFCo 2020).

Municipal Service Review
As part of the Sphere of Influence update process, the Cortese-Knox-Hertzberg Act requires a Municipal Service Review to be prepared. The Municipal Service Review evaluates existing and future service conditions and reviews the advantages and disadvantages of various government service structure options. It provides information upon which the LAFCo can base its decision on a Sphere of Influence determination, as well as future actions on annexation requests.

The City’s latest Municipal Services Review was reviewed and approved by LAFCo in 2012. In accordance with the Cortese-Knox-Hertzberg Act, written determinations were provided for the following issue areas (City of Ceres 2012):
● Growth and population projections for the affected area, ● Present and planned capacity of public facilities and adequacy of public services, including infrastructure needs or deficiencies, ● Financial ability of agencies to provide services,
● Status of, and opportunities for, shared facilities,
● Accountability for community service needs, including governmental structure and operational efficiencies, and
EXHIBIT B ITEM 13
Copper Trails Specific Plan and Annexation EIR 13-7 November 2024 ● Additional matters related to effective or efficient service delivery, as required by LAFCo policy.

SB 244 - Disadvantaged Unincorporated Communities
SB 244, enacted in 2011, addresses a specific community type known as a Disadvantaged Unincorporated Community (DUC). A DUC is an unincorporated community that includes 12 or more registered voters and has an annual median income that is less than 80% of the statewide annual median household income. SB 244 requires a LAFCo to make certain determinations when a proposed annexation is adjacent to a DUC. SB 244 prohibits LAFCo from approving an annexation adjacent to a DUC unless 1) an application to annex the adjacent community has been filed in the past five years, or 2) the LAFCo finds, based upon written evidence, that a majority of the residents within the adjacent community are opposed to annexation.

In 2015, a Disadvantaged Unincorporated Communities Report was prepared for the Stanislaus County Planning and Community Development Department. The report identified seven DUCs in Stanislaus County, along with their community needs. The DUCs closest to the project site are the Cowan Tract and the community of Keyes. Cowan Tract, located approximately two miles southwest of the project site, is a rural neighborhood primarily comprised of mobile homes. Keyes, located approximately 2.5 miles southeast of the project site, is an 1,810-acre unincorporated community spanning SR 99. It is a predominantly residential community with some commercial and public land uses (Stanislaus LAFCo 2015). The project site is not within or adjacent to either of the designated DUCs.

Stanislaus County Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (ALUCP) As described in Chapter 11.0, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, an ALUCP was adopted for the three public use airports in Stanislaus County. The project site is not within any airport safety zones; however, a portion of the site is within the Airport Influence Area of the Modesto City-County Airport (Stanislaus County 2016c).

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
Significance Thresholds
According to Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, a project may have a significant impact on land use, population, and housing if it would:
● Physically divide an established community,
● Cause a significant environmental impact due to a conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect,
EXHIBIT B ITEM 13
Copper Trails Specific Plan and Annexation EIR 13-8 November 2024 ● Induce substantial unplanned population growth in an area, either directly (e.g., by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (e.g., through extension of roads or other infrastructure), or
● Displace substantial numbers of existing people or housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere.

Impact LUP-1: Division of Established Communities
The project would annex approximately 681 acres of unincorporated land south of the City of Ceres. The entire annexation area is designated for urban development in the Ceres General Plan and would be pre-zoned consistent with the General Plan as part of the annexation. Approximately 146 acres of the annexation area is land that would otherwise become an unincorporated “island” upon the annexation of the CTSP Area, which would be contrary to LAFCo policy. To avoid this potential conflict these lands are included in the proposed annexation and would, with the CTSP Area, be incorporated into the Ceres community.

The CTSP Area consists of mostly rural and agricultural land uses with some school development. There are no established communities on or adjacent to the CTSP Area, including DUCs; existing development in the unincorporated Pocket Area north of the CTSP would be united with the existing City and the CTSP by the proposed annexation.

Therefore, the project would have no impact regarding the division of established communities.

Level of Significance: No impact
Mitigation Measures: None required
Impact LUP-2: Conflicts with Land Use Plans, Policies, and Regulations Ceres General Plan
As noted, most of the CTSP Area is presently designated as Urban Transition by the Stanislaus County General Plan, and parcels within the annexation area are currently designated for development by the Ceres General Plan. The project would not involve any change to the geographic area of planned urban development in Ceres as described in the Ceres General Plan.

Adoption of the CTSP would establish a modified and more precise land use plan for the CTSP Area, as discussed in more detail in Chapter 3.0, Project Description. The CTSP would require General Plan Amendments for some of the proposed land use designations; for example, changing the designated area “Business Park” to the proposed Regional Commercial designation. However, these changes reflect the purpose of the CTSP and are consistent with and supportive of the overall goals and objectives of the General Plan. With adoption of the required General Plan Amendments, and for the reasons described in the CTSP, the designations within the CTSP Area would be consistent with the Ceres General Plan.

EXHIBIT B ITEM 13
Copper Trails Specific Plan and Annexation EIR 13-9 November 2024 Potential conflicts with specific Ceres General Plan policies designed to avoid or mitigate environmental effects may potentially occur with the project. These policies are listed below, along with the EIR chapter in which the issue is addressed and resolved. • 2.A.4 Urban/Agriculture Compatibility. Minimize conflict between urban and agricultural uses. [Chapter 5.0, Agricultural Resources] • 2.D.1 Promote Infill. Promote infill development and reuse of underutilized parcels in the city to reduce pressure to develop on farmland or other “greenfield” sites on the periphery. [Chapter 5.0, Agricultural Resources] • 3.A.4 Reduce Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT). Support statewide efforts to reduce vehicle miles of travel (VMT) from existing and new development by encouraging infill and mixed-use development, providing a multi-modal transportation network, and incorporating transportation and parking demand management measures into new development by design. [Chapter 16.0, Transportation]
• 4.A.1 Land Use Pattern. Prioritize infill development, allowing development on agricultural lands only where contiguous to existing urban development and when it advances the city’s overall growth and development objectives.

Encourage compact development that concentrates development in urbanized areas in order to limit the conversion of agricultural land and minimize the potential for land use conflicts along the urban/agricultural interface. [Chapter

5.0, Agricultural Resources]
• 4.D.1 Special-Status Species. Support the preservation of habitats of rare, threatened, endangered, and other special-status species. Require development in areas known to have value for wildlife to be carefully planned and, where possible, sited to maintain reasonable wildlife value of the habitat. [Chapter 7.0, Biological Resources]
• 4.F.4 Impervious Surfaces. Minimize the amount of impervious surface in the Planning Area in order to reduce stormwater flows that may have a negative impact on the hydrology of the Tuolumne River and other downstream water bodies. [Chapter 12.0, Hydrology and Water Quality]
• 4.G.5 Reduce VMT. Emphasize transit-oriented, walkable, compact development patterns to reduce total vehicle miles traveled. [Chapter 16.0, Transportation]
Potential conflicts with these policies are discussed in the cited EIR chapters. For these issues, potential conflicts could be mitigated, or these conflicts are addressed internally in the Ceres General Plan EIR. In the latter case, these issues do not need to be discussed again in this EIR. And as a result, the project would not involve any substantial conflict with Ceres General Plan policies designed to avoid or mitigate an environmental effect.

EXHIBIT B ITEM 13
Copper Trails Specific Plan and Annexation EIR 13-10 November 2024 Stanislaus County ALUCP
As noted in Chapter 11.0, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, a portion of the project site is within the Airport Influence Area of the Modesto City-County Airport. All projects within the Airport Influence Area would be reviewed by the County Airport Land Use Commission. No portion of potential future development within the CTSP or Pocket Areas is expected to conflict with any land use and noise standards described in the ALUCP.

Stanislaus LAFCo
The Stanislaus LAFCo has adopted policies with which proposed annexations must be consistent. One of these policies states that development of existing vacant or non-prime agricultural lands within a city or its Sphere of Influence should be encouraged before annexation of existing open space lands outside of a city’s jurisdiction or its Sphere of Influence (Stanislaus LAFCo 2020). The City of Ceres is extensively developed within its current City limits. There is no vacant land available within the City that could accommodate the development proposed in the CTSP. As has been noted, the project site has been designated for urban development and is within both the City’s Sphere of Influence and its Primary Area of Influence.

Another policy is the Agricultural Preservation Policy discussed in Chapter 5.0, Agricultural Resources. In accordance with this policy, the project would be required to prepare a Plan for Agricultural Preservation that shall specify the method or strategy proposed to minimize the loss of agricultural lands.

The project would be consistent with the City’s adopted Municipal Service Review, which demonstrates that adequate services can be provided within the timeframe needed by the inhabitants of the annexed area. As discussed in Chapter 17.0, Utilities and Energy, the City can accommodate wastewater, water, and storm drainage demands of the project, and the project would be required to design infrastructure consistent with City plans and specifications.

Overall, the project would not substantially conflict with applicable plans, policies, and regulations designed to avoid or mitigate an environmental effect. Project impacts in this area of concern are considered less than significant.

Level of Significance: Less than significant
Mitigation Measures: None required
Impact LUP-3: Unplanned Population Growth
Proposed development associated with the project, particularly with adoption of the proposed CTSP, would lead to an increase in population in the area, mainly due to residential development. Based on per household factors provided by the City, the population may increase by an estimated 6,745 persons. The lands within the Pocket Area would contribute only minimally, if at all, to future population growth.

The Ceres General Plan currently designates the majority of the CTSP Area as Low Density Residential, with additional areas designated for Medium Density Residential and High EXHIBIT B ITEM 13
Copper Trails Specific Plan and Annexation EIR 13-11 November 2024 Density Residential. As discussed in Chapter 19.0, Alternatives, the current General Plan designations would yield a slightly higher number of residential units than would the proposed CTSP. Therefore, the proposed CTSP would generate similar population growth to the current General Plan designations, which were assumed in the analysis of population impacts in the Ceres General Plan EIR.

In addition, as noted, the total number of housing units that could potentially be developed under the proposed CTSP would be an estimated 2,392 units. The current Housing Element of the Ceres General Plan indicated that the City would need 2,571 housing units during the Housing Element planning period. Thus, the number of housing units that would potentially be constructed under the proposed CTSP would be consistent with the identified need in the current Housing Element. It is expected that the housing units proposed under the CTSP would contribute to fulfilling the estimated housing need specified in the updated Housing Element should it become certified. Based on the above information, project impacts related to unplanned population growth are considered less than significant.

Level of Significance: Less than significant
Mitigation Measures: None required
Impact LUP-4: Displacement of Housing and People
If adopted, implementation of the CTSP would lead to removal of existing residences in conjunction with urban development of the various properties on which they are located.

Although a few residences could be preserved and incorporated into new development, it is assumed that all existing residences within the CTSP Area would be removed. However, these residences would eventually be replaced by up to 2,392 housing units to be constructed in the CTSP Area during the buildout period. The majority of new housing would consist of units provided in higher-density residential areas, but single-family residences would account for almost half of the total units (see Table 3-1 in Chapter 3.0, Project Description). Therefore, implementation of the proposed CTSP would lead to a substantial net increase in the housing stock of the City of Ceres. The project would have a positive effect on the City’s ability to provide housing consistent with the RHNA for Stanislaus County, as well as provide more housing options in a city that has a lower vacancy rate than the State average.

The project would not result in any forced displacement from existing housing units. Plans to vacate and demolish existing residences would be subject to agreements and negotiations between developers and owners, or owners and tenants. City demolition permits would be required before removal of the existing units. Therefore, project impacts on displacement of housing or people would be less than significant.

Level of Significance: Less than significant
Mitigation Measures: None required
EXHIBIT B ITEM 13
Figure 13-1
BaseCamp Environmental CERES GENERAL PLAN
EXHIBIT B ITEM 13
Figure 13-2
BaseCamp Environmental STANISLAUS COUNTY GENERAL PLAN

PROJECT SITE
EXHIBIT B ITEM 13
Figure 13-3
BaseCamp Environmental STANISLAUS COUNTY ZONING
EXHIBIT B ITEM 13
Copper Trails Specific Plan and Annexation EIR 14-1 November 2024

14.0 NOISE
Information for this chapter comes primarily from a noise study conducted for the project by Saxelby Acoustics, which is available in Appendix F of this EIR. The noise study involved continuous hourly noise measurements during a 24-hour period at four locations on the project site, along with two short-term measurements at two locations. Data from these measurements were the basis for developing estimated noise levels with the project.

Existing and future traffic noise levels were estimated using the Federal Highway Administration Traffic Noise Prediction Model (FHWA RD 77-108), with inputs provided by the Transportation Impact Analysis prepared for the project (see Chapter 16.0, Transportation, and Appendix G of this EIR).

The focus of the noise study is on the CTSP Area, as development under the CTSP is expected to have the largest noise impact. Given its mostly developed state, the Pocket Area is not expected to contribute substantially to future noise levels.

ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
Noise Background
Noise is typically defined as airborne sound that is loud, unpleasant, unexpected, or undesired. Perceptions of noise are highly subjective from person to person. The effects of noise on people can be placed in three categories: 1) subjective effects of annoyance, nuisance, and dissatisfaction; 2) interference with activities such as speech, sleep, and learning; and 3) physiological effects such as hearing loss or sudden startling.

Environmental noise typically produces effects in the first two categories; workers in industrial plants can experience noise effects in the third category.

Noise is measured using the decibel (dB) scale. The dB scale uses the hearing threshold as a point of reference, defined as 0 dB. Other sound pressures are then compared to this reference pressure, and the logarithm is taken to keep the numbers in a practical range. The decibel scale allows a million-fold increase in pressure to be expressed as 120 dB. Changes in dB levels correspond closely to human perception of relative loudness. The decibel scale is logarithmic, so two sound levels 10 dB apart would differ in acoustic energy by a factor of 10.

The perceived loudness of sounds is dependent upon many factors, including sound pressure level and frequency content. However, within the usual range of environmental noise levels, perception of loudness is relatively predictable and can be approximated by A-weighted sound levels, expressed as dBA. When the standard logarithmic decibel is Aweighted, an increase of 10 dBA is generally perceived as a doubling in loudness. For example, a 70-dBA sound is twice as loud as a 60-dBA sound, and half as loud as an 80- dBA sound. There is a strong correlation between dBA and the way the human ear perceives sound; for this reason, the A-weighted sound level has become the standard tool of environmental noise assessment. All noise levels reported in this chapter are in terms of dBA, unless otherwise noted.

EXHIBIT B ITEM 13
Copper Trails Specific Plan and Annexation EIR 14-2 November 2024 Community noise is commonly described in terms of the “ambient” noise level, which is defined as the all-encompassing noise level associated with a given environment. A common statistical tool to measure the ambient noise level is the average, or equivalent, sound level (Leq), which corresponds to a steady-state, A-weighted sound level containing the same total energy as a time varying signal over a given time period, usually one hour.

The Leq shows very good correlation with community response to noise and is the foundation for other composite noise descriptors such as the Day-Night Average Level (Ldn) and the Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL). The Ldn is based upon the average hourly Leq over a 24-hour day, with a +10-dB weighting applied to noise occurring between 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. The nighttime weighting is based upon the assumption that people react to nighttime noise exposures as though they were twice as loud as daytime exposures. The CNEL is similar to the Ldn, but it also applies a +5-dB weighting to noise occurring between 7:00 p.m. and 10:00 p.m., defined as “relaxation hours.” (City of Ceres 2018a). These composite noise standards are appropriate tools for assessing the acceptability of prevailing noise conditions. However, they do not recognize the impact of intrusive noise sources or sources which involve intermittent, temporary, or similar noise events that may be above ambient levels.

Existing Noise Sources
Common sources of noise and vibration in Ceres include traffic on transportation corridors, including roads and railroads, operations at Modesto City-County Airport, and stationary noise sources such as mechanical equipment and generators. Agricultural operations outside developed areas may also be a source of noise, due to use of heavy equipment and spraying, along with construction and the use of portable or small-scale pieces of equipment (City of Ceres 2018a). Train operations on the UPRR tracks southwest of SR 99 are a substantial noise source. However, due to the predominance of noise from SR 99 traffic, railroad operations are not an important noise source.

Figure 14-1, from the Ceres General Plan, shows the noise contours around the main noise sources affecting Ceres, primarily the main roads and Modesto City-County Airport. As illustrated by Figure 14-1, noise generated by SR 99 vehicle traffic affects land use several hundred feet from the highway corridor. The entire Pocket Area is within the 60-dB noise contour of SR 99, and essentially the entire portion east of SR 99 is within the 65-dB noise contour. Within the CTSP Area, the lands exposed to the highest levels of noise are those near SR 99. Elevated levels of noise have been plotted along the Service Road and the Central Avenue corridors. The southwestern portion of the CTSP Area is currently outside the 55-dB noise contour, the lowest noise level delineated. No plotted noise contours from the airport reach the project site.

The existing noise environment in the project area is primarily defined by traffic on SR 99, the UPRR tracks, and East Service Road. Secondary noise sources include traffic on the local roadway network. The primary source of stationary noise on the project site is a pump station located at the Ceres WWTP. As noted, the noise study conducted measurements of ambient noise levels at six locations – four with continuous measurements and two with short-term measurements. Figure 14-2 shows the locations where the noise measurements were taken. The results of the noise measurements are shown in Table 14-1.

EXHIBIT B ITEM 13
Copper Trails Specific Plan and Annexation EIR 14-3 November 2024 TABLE 14-1

EXISTING BACKGROUND NOISE
Location1 dBA Ldn
Daytime (dBA) Nighttime (dBA)
Leq Lmax Leq Lmax
LT-1: 230 ft. to centerline of SR
99 76 70 84 70 84
LT-2: 25 ft. to centerline of
Redwood Rd.
66 62 82 59 74
LT-3: 40 feet to centerline of
Central Ave.
73 71 90 65 84
LT-4: 65 ft. to centerline of
Service Rd.
74 71 82 67 81
ST-1: 20 ft. to centerline of
Gondring Rd.

N/A 44 51 N/A N/A
ST-2: 20 ft. to centerline of
Blaker Rd.

N/A 52 55 N/A N/A
Notes: Lmax – maximum sound level measured; N/A – not available 1 See Figure 14-2 for locations.

Source: Saxelby Acoustics 2024.

Noise-Sensitive Land Uses
Noise-sensitive receptors are land uses where the presence of unwanted sound could adversely affect the use of the land. Examples may include residential areas, senior and childcare facilities, schools, and religious facilities (City of Ceres 2018b). The noise study stated sensitive land uses in the vicinity of the CTSP Area include existing single-family residential uses to the north and south.

Groundborne Vibration
Groundborne vibration is not a common environmental problem. It is typically associated with transportation facilities, although it is unusual for vibration from sources such as buses and trucks to be perceptible, even in locations close to major roads. Some common sources of groundborne vibration are trains, trucks, and buses on rough roads, heavy earth-moving equipment, and construction activities such as blasting and pile driving. The effects of groundborne vibration include perceptible movement of the building floors, rattling of windows, shaking of items on shelves or hanging on walls, and rumbling sounds. In extreme cases, vibrations can cause damage to buildings (FTA 2006).

Vibration can be measured in terms of acceleration, velocity, or displacement. A common practice is to monitor vibration measures in terms of peak particle velocities in inches per second. Standards pertaining to human annoyance and damage to structures have been developed for vibration levels defined in terms of peak particle velocities. Table 14-2 shows the effects that vibration may have on humans and buildings.

EXHIBIT B ITEM 13
Copper Trails Specific Plan and Annexation EIR 14-4 November 2024 TABLE 14-2

EFFECTS OF VIBRATION ON PEOPLE AND BUILDINGS
Peak Particle Velocity
mm/second inches/second Human Reaction Effect on Buildings

0.15-0.30 0.006-0.019 Threshold of perception;
possibility of intrusion
Vibrations unlikely to
cause damage of any type

2.0 0.08 Vibrations readily
perceptible
Recommended upper
level of the vibration to
which ruins and ancient
monuments should be
subjected

2.5 0.10 Level at which
continuous vibrations
begin to annoy people
Virtually no risk of
“architectural” damage to
normal buildings

5.0 0.20 Vibrations annoying to
people in buildings (this
agrees with the levels
established for people
standing on bridges and
subjected to relative
short periods of
vibrations)
Threshold at which there
is a risk of “architectural”
damage to normal
dwelling - houses with
plastered walls and
ceilings. Special types of
finish such as lining of
walls, flexible ceiling
treatment, etc., would
minimize “architectural”
damage
10-15 0.4-0.6 Vibrations considered
unpleasant by people
subjected to continuous
vibrations and
unacceptable to some
people walking on
bridges
Vibrations at a greater
level than normally
expected from traffic, but
would cause
“architectural” damage
and possibly minor
structural damage
Source: Caltrans 2002.

REGULATORY FRAMEWORK
Ceres General Plan
The Noise Element of the Ceres General Plan has incorporated noise standards in Table 5- 3 of the Noise Element. These standards serve as guidelines to evaluate land use compatibility of new development, including whether a proposed use is compatible with the existing or planned noise environment of a given location, as well as whether a proposed use would negatively affect the noise environment for existing or planned uses in the area.

EXHIBIT B ITEM 13
Copper Trails Specific Plan and Annexation EIR 14-5 November 2024 Under the standards incorporated by the General Plan, an exterior noise environment of up to 55 dBA (Ldn or CNEL) is "normally acceptable" for lower-density residential uses, and noise levels of up to 65 dBA are “conditionally acceptable.” For multifamily residential, along with schools, libraries, churches, hospitals, and nursing homes, an exterior noise environment of up to 60 dBA is considered “normally acceptable” and one up to 65 dBA is considered “conditionally acceptable.” Commercial, industrial, and recreational uses are less sensitive to noise (City of Ceres 2018b).

Table 5-4 of the Noise Element sets the maximum allowable noise exposure of land uses to transportation noise sources. Table 14-3 sets forth the noise levels established by Table 5-4.

TABLE 14-3

MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE EXPOSURE TO NOISE FROM

TRANSPORTATION NOISE SOURCES
Land Use
Outdoor Activity Areas
(dB Ldn, CNEL)
Residential 60
Transient Lodging 60
Hospitals, Nursing Homes 60
Theaters, Auditoriums, Music Halls ---
Churches, Meeting Halls 60
Office Buildings 65
Schools, Libraries, Museums 60
Playgrounds, Neighborhoods Parks 65
Note: CNEL used for quantification of aircraft noise exposure.

Source: City of Ceres 2018b.

For noise exposure to stationary sources – sources that are not traffic-related - the Noise Element has adopted Table 5-5, which sets forth performance standards to regulate operational noise associated with new non-residential development or changes of nonresidential use. Table 14-4 below sets forth these noise standards from Table 5-5 of the Noise Element.

EXHIBIT B ITEM 13
Copper Trails Specific Plan and Annexation EIR 14-6 November 2024 TABLE 14-4

PERFORMANCE STANDARDS FOR STATIONARY NOISE SOURCES
Noise Level Descriptor
Day
(7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m.)
Night
(10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m.)
Hourly Leq, dBA 55 45
Maximum level, dBA 60 45
Note: Each of the noise levels specified above shall be lowered by 5 dBA for simple tone noise, noise consisting primarily of speech or music, or recurring impulsive noises.

Source: City of Ceres 2018b.

Ceres Municipal Code
Ceres Municipal Code Section 9.04.010 states that it is unlawful for any person to make, continue or cause to be made or continued any loud, unnecessary, or unusual noise or any noise which either annoys, disturbs, injures, or endangers the comfort, repose, health, peace, or safety of others. Section 9.04.020 lists the types of noise characterized as “unnecessary” and therefore subject to legal action. Among these noises are those associated with the erection, demolition, alteration, or repair of any building at times other than between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m.

Stanislaus County ALUCP
As noted in Chapter 11.0, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, the Stanislaus County ALUCP was prepared for the three public use airports in the County. One of the purposes of the ALUCP is to protect the public from the adverse effects of airport noise. The nearest airport to the project site is Modesto City-County Airport, approximately three miles to the north. The ALUCP includes noise contours around Modesto City-County Airport, which are shown in Figure 14-2. These contours are based upon a noise compatibility study conducted by the City of Modesto in accordance with FAR Part 150 which included a “long range” forecast of airport operations (Stanislaus County 2016c). The outermost noise contour (60-65 dB CNEL), as delineated in Figure 14-3, does not extend to the project site.

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
Significance Thresholds
According to Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, a project may have a significant impact on noise if it would result in:
● Generation of a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies, ● Generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels, or ● For a project located within the vicinity of a private airstrip or an airport land use plan, or within two miles of a public or public use airport if no plan has EXHIBIT B ITEM 13
Copper Trails Specific Plan and Annexation EIR 14-7 November 2024 been adopted, expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels.

Generally, a project may have a significant effect on the environment if it will substantially increase the ambient noise levels for adjoining areas or expose people to severe noise levels. However, a limitation of using a single noise level increase value to evaluate noise impacts is that it fails to account for pre-project noise conditions. To account for these preproject conditions, the noise study recommendations made by the Federal Interagency Committee on Noise provide guidance in the assessment of changes in ambient noise levels resulting from aircraft operations. The recommendations are based upon studies that relate aircraft noise levels to the percentage of persons highly annoyed by the noise. Although these recommendations were specifically developed to assess aircraft noise impacts, it has been accepted that they are applicable to all sources of noise described in terms of cumulative noise exposure metrics such as the Ldn. Based on these recommendations, the following increases in traffic noise levels would be considered a significant impact:
• +5.0 dB or more if ambient noise level without project is less than 60 dB • +3.0 dB or more if ambient noise level without project is 60-65 dB • +1.5 dB or more if ambient noise level without project is greater than 65 dB Impact NOISE-1: Project Traffic Noise
As noted, the Pocket Area is not expected to contribute significantly to ambient noise, as most of this area is already developed. However, new development within the CTSP Area would increase ambient noise levels in the project, mainly due to vehicle traffic generated by the new development.

The noise study assessed noise impacts due to project-related traffic increases on the local roadway network for the Near-Term and Near-Term Plus Project conditions, as described in the Transportation Impact Analysis. Traffic noise levels were predicted at the nearest sensitive receptors located at the closest typical setback distance along each project-area roadway segment. The results of the modeling are presented in Table 14-5.

TABLE 14-5

PREDICTED TRAFFIC NOISE LEVELS AND NOISE LEVEL CHANGES
Roadway and Segment
Near-Term No
Project (dBA)
Near-Term Plus
Project (dBA) Change
El Camino Ave., North of North Street 65.1 66.3 +1.2
North Street, East of El Camino Ave. 60.8 59.2 -1.6
El Camino Ave., South of 4th Street 63.4 62.2 -1.2
E. Service Road, West of SR 99 68.8 72.5 +3.7
Note: Bold indicates noise level change exceeds applicable significance threshold.

Source: Saxelby Acoustics 2024.

EXHIBIT B ITEM 13
Copper Trails Specific Plan and Annexation EIR 14-8 November 2024 As indicated in Table 14-5 the proposed project is predicted to result in an increase in a maximum traffic noise level increase of 3.7 dBA along East Service Road. As noted, at existing ambient noise levels greater than 65 dB, a noise level increase of 1.5 dB is considered significant; since the 3.7-dB increase exceeds 1.5 dB, this increase is considered a significant effect, particularly since there are existing residences along East Service Road.

Traffic noise levels on the other roadway segments would not exceed applicable significance thresholds.

The noise study evaluated potential mitigation measures for the East Service Road noise level increase. It concluded that “quiet pavements” would be the most practical measure, as sound walls would require many openings for driveway access, reducing the effectiveness of these walls. Quiet pavements are asphalt pavements that reduce tire/pavement noise, usually by controlling the texture of the pavement surface to absorb some of the noise produced by moving vehicles. The noise study noted that quiet pavements are typically assumed to provide a 3 to 5 dBA reduction in noise. Mitigation below would require the installation of quiet pavement where widening or resurfacing of East Service Road is required. Based on the typical reduction, the measure would lower increases in traffic noise levels along this road to levels below the significance thresholds, reducing traffic noise impacts to a less than significant level.

The impacts of project traffic noise on development of new noise-sensitive land uses, such as residences, within the project site are not considered a CEQA impact. The California Supreme Court ruled in CBIA v. BAAQMD (2015) that CEQA does not generally require the analysis of the impacts of the environment on a project – a “CEQA in reverse” situation.

However, the noise study did evaluate the potential for residential development in the CTSP to meet the City’s exterior and interior noise level standards from exposure to transportation noise. The noise study found that new residential development along East Service Road would be exposed to traffic noise levels exceeding the City’s maximum allowable exterior noise exposure levels. In addition, interior noise level standards may be exceeded in unshielded residences at the first-floor and second-floor levels. The noise study specified measures to reduce noise impacts for new residential projects along East Service Road, including the construction of sound walls. These measures are described on Pages 26-27 of the noise study and will not be discussed here. This information is provided in this EIR for future consideration during the review of CTSP residential projects along East Service Road. The City may choose to apply the recommendations of the noise study on these projects as conditions of approval.

Level of Significance: Significant
Mitigation Measures:

NOISE-1: To reduce traffic noise increases under Near-Term Plus Project conditions to less than +1.5 dB, widening or new improvements to the segment of East Service Road north of the Copper Trails Specific Plan boundary shall be paved with quiet pavement. The pavement would be required for any portion of the roadway passing a noisesensitive use, and for a distance of 100 feet on either side of the sensitive use.

Significance After Mitigation: Less than significant
EXHIBIT B ITEM 13
Copper Trails Specific Plan and Annexation EIR 14-9 November 2024 Impact NOISE-2: Noise from Project Operations
Increases in ambient noise could result from the development of new stationary noise sources on the project site, with the potential to impact nearby land uses. The noise study noted that stationary noise sources associated with the project may include rooftop heating, ventilating, and air conditioning units; commercial parking lot circulation, and drive-thru speaker boxes. A specific stationary source identified by the noise study is a pump station at the Ceres WWTP.

The noise study assessed the impacts of noise generated by the commercial portion of the project by evaluating individual commercial areas at the closest residential use, as measured from the center of each commercial area. The project was determined to have four main commercial areas. Noise sources are assumed to be evenly distributed across the commercial area. Table 14-6 shows the predicted operational noise levels at the nearby sensitive receptors.

TABLE 14-6

PREDICTED OPERATIONAL NOISE LEVELS FROM COMMERCIAL AREA Area
Distance to
Sensitive
Receptors (ft.)
Daytime (dBA) Nighttime (dBA)
Leq Lmax Leq Lmax
RC 14.7 Acres 1,230 42.8 62.8 39.8 59.8
RC 16.5 Acres 2,070 28.2 48.2 25.2 45.2
RC 25.1 Acres 980 46.5 66.5 43.5 63.5
RC 51.1 Acres 2,000 33.4 53.4 30.4 50.4
Notes: Lmax – maximum sound level measured
Source: Saxelby Acoustics 2024.

As shown in Table 14-6, the project is predicted to expose nearby residences to noise levels no greater than 46.5 dBA Leq during daytime (7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m.) hours and 43.5 dBA Leq during nighttime (10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m.) hours. The predicted project noise levels would meet the City of Ceres noise standard for non-transportation noise sources of 45 dBA Leq.

The existing average ambient noise level at the sensitive receptors near the proposed commercial uses ranges from 62-70 dBA Leq during the day and 59-70 dBA Leq at night.

These levels are well above the 55 dBA Leq and 45 dBA Leq daytime and nighttime noise level standards. This is primarily due to transportation noise from SR 99 and the UPRR tracks. The commercial area contributions of 46.5 dBA Leq and 43.5 dBA Leq to these existing receptors would result in a less than 0.1 dBA increase in noise levels. This is less than the minimum threshold of +1.5 dBA for long-term project-related noise increases in areas with ambient noise levels greater than 65 dB. Therefore, generally speaking, noise generated by commercial development would be less than significant.

EXHIBIT B ITEM 13
Copper Trails Specific Plan and Annexation EIR 14-10 November 2024 Certain specific elements of commercial development, such as loading docks and car washes, can produce substantial amounts of noise, as documented in Table 14 (page 24) of the noise study, Appendix F. The distances and other data shown in Table 14 are, however, general in nature; the potential significance of such effects needs to be addressed on a caseby-case basis considering the nature of the commercial facility or equipment design, barriers to noise propagation, including buildings, and distance to potential sensitive receptors. Compliance with mitigation NOISE-2 would reduce potential noise impacts of these facilities to a less than significant level.

The CTSP includes several proposed park spaces that could support a range of recreational uses. Public parks with largely passive recreational amenities such as unstructured open space, playgrounds and picnic areas generally produce noise levels of around 55 dBA Leq at a distance of 50 feet from the use center. Development of these uses, even in close proximity to sensitive receptors, would be consistent with City daytime noise standards (55 dBA Leq) and would not involve significant noise effects.

On the other hand, certain active recreational facilities such as pickleball courts, soccer fields, and baseball fields can produce higher levels of noise, at least periodically as illustrated in Table 14 of the noise study, Appendix F. Among other things, Table 14 lists screening distances that could be needed to comply with the Ceres noise level standards, with and without mitigation. The table data are general, conservative and may represent worst case conditions rather than comparison to an appropriate CEQA significance threshold. The table data reflect maximum noise levels, but noise associated with sports activities are variable. Sports events tend to occur during the less-sensitive “daytime” for noise analysis (7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m.) and may not exceed the daytime standards.

Typically, regulations for nighttime recreational facility use require “lights out” at 10:00 p.m. As importantly, perception of active sports noise varies widely from person to person, being a welcome part of life to some and objectionable to others.

Taking the above considerations into account, potential active sports noise is probably better addressed less formally, on a project-by-project basis, during land use planning and project review, so that particularly sensitive residential projects, for example senior projects, are not tightly juxtaposed with active sports or other noise-generating activities.

Where such positioning cannot be avoided, adequate mitigation can be defined and implemented via a project-specific acoustical analysis by a qualified acoustical consultant, as provided in mitigation measure NOISE-2. With implementation of this mitigation measure, project impacts of operational noise would be less than significant.

It should be noted that the noise study evaluated the potential exposure of future residential development to stationary noise levels emanating from the WWTP, even though this is not a CEQA issue for the reasons explained under Impact NOISE-1. The proposed project would be exposed to WWTP noise of up to 46.7 dBA Leq at the property line during both daytime and nighttime hours. Based upon the proposed street sections, the medium density residential development in the area will be shielded along the western boundary by a masonry wall, assumed to be at least 6 feet in height relative to the centerline of Blaker Road. This would be sufficient to reduce noise levels to below the City’s stationary noise level standard of 45 dBA Leq.

Level of Significance: Potentially significant
EXHIBIT B ITEM 13
Copper Trails Specific Plan and Annexation EIR 14-11 November 2024 Mitigation Measures:

NOISE-2: Proposed commercial and active sports recreational projects shall be subject to a preliminary review by Community Development staff for potentially significant noise impacts. Where potential noise impacts may be significant, an acoustical analysis shall be performed by a qualified acoustical consultant as to the project’s consistency with exceed the City’s noise level standards and mitigation measures needed to bring the proposed source into compliance with City standards.

Significance After Mitigation: Less than significant
Impact NOISE-3: Project Construction Noise
CTSP development will involve a range of construction activity, which would add to the noise environment in the immediate project vicinity. Equipment used in construction would generate maximum noise levels ranging from 76 to 90 dB at a distance of 50 feet, as shown in Table 14-7 below.

TABLE 14-7

CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT NOISE
Type of Equipment
Maximum Level,
dB at 50 feet
Auger Drill Rig 84
Backhoe 78
Compactor 83
Compressor (air) 78
Concrete Saw 90
Dozer 82
Dump Truck 76
Excavator 81
Generator 81
Jackhammer 89
Pneumatic Tools 85
Source: FHWA 2006.

EXHIBIT B ITEM 13
Copper Trails Specific Plan and Annexation EIR 14-12 November 2024 Noise would also be generated during the construction phase by increased truck traffic on area roadways, associated with transport of heavy materials and equipment to and from the construction site. This noise increase would be of short duration and would typically occur during daytime hours.

The City has adopted noise controls in Chapter 9 of the Municipal Code. These requirements include prohibition of construction activity between 8:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m.

9.04.010 Noise Prohibited. It is unlawful for any person to make, continue or cause to be made or continued any loud, unnecessary or unusual noise or any noise which either annoys, disturbs, injures or endangers the comfort, repose, health, peace or safety of others.

9.04.020 Unreasonable Disturbing Noises. (E) Construction or Repairing of Buildings: The erection (including excavating), demolition, alteration or repair of any building other than between the hours of seven o’clock (7:00) A.M. and eight o’clock (8:00) P.M., except that, by special permit issued by the Building Inspector or City Engineer, as the case may be, upon a determination that the public health and safety will not be impaired thereby, the erection, demolition, alteration or repair of any building or the excavation of streets and highways may be permitted within the hours of eight o’clock (8:00) P.M. and seven o’clock (7:00) A.M.

Construction activities would be temporary in nature and are anticipated to occur largely during daytime working hours. These effects would be intermittent and temporary.

The noise study compared potential construction noise with Caltrans standards; Caltrans defines a significant increase due to noise as an increase of 12 dBA over existing ambient noise levels. Table 15 of the noise study predicts potential noise levels associated with the project; project related construction is not expected to generate an increase more than 7 dB above the ambient noise environment, which is less than the 12-dB significance threshold.

Although construction activities are temporary in nature and would typically occur during normal daytime working hours, construction-related noise could result in sleep interference at existing noise-sensitive land uses in the vicinity of the construction if construction activities were to occur outside the normal daytime hours. Therefore, impacts resulting from noise levels temporarily exceeding the threshold of significance due to construction would be considered potentially significant. Mitigation described below would avoid or minimize the exposure of nearby sensitive receptors to construction noise. Impacts after mitigation would be less than significant.

Level of Significance: Potentially significant
Mitigation Measures:

NOISE-3: The City shall establish the following as conditions of approval for any CTSP development permit that would require the use of construction equipment:
• Construction shall be limited to the hours of 7:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. unless allowed by special approval from the Building Inspector or City Engineer.

EXHIBIT B ITEM 13
Copper Trails Specific Plan and Annexation EIR 14-13 November 2024 • All construction equipment powered by internal combustion engines shall be properly muffled and maintained.
• Quiet construction equipment, particularly air compressors, are to be selected whenever possible.
• All stationary noise-generating construction equipment such as generators or air compressors are to be located as far as is practical from existing residences. In addition, the project contractor shall place such stationary construction equipment so that emitted noise is directed away from sensitive receptors closest to the project site.
• Unnecessary idling of internal combustion engines is prohibited.

In accordance with State regulations, idling shall be limited to no more than five minutes.
• The construction contractor shall, to the maximum extent practical, locate on-site equipment staging areas to maximize the distance between construction-related noise sources and noisesensitive receptors nearest the project site during all project construction.

Significance After Mitigation: Less than significant
Impact NOISE-4: Groundborne Vibrations and Noise
The project would not involve potential groundborne vibration sources, other than operation of construction equipment during development. In most cases, vibration induced by typical construction equipment does not result in adverse effects on people or structures.

Vibration levels for various construction equipment, provided in Table 7 of the noise study, indicate that the construction equipment most likely to generate significant vibrations – vibratory compactor/roller – would generate vibration levels of less than 0.20 inches per second peak particle velocity at a distance of 26 feet. Sensitive receptors which could be impacted by construction-related vibrations are located further than 26 feet from typical construction activities. At distances greater than 26 feet construction vibrations are not predicted to exceed acceptable levels related to human reaction or effects on buildings.

Additionally, construction activities would be temporary in nature and would likely occur during normal daytime working hours. Therefore, impacts related to groundborne vibrations are considered less than significant.

Level of Significance: Less than significant
Mitigation Measures: None required
Impact NOISE-5: Exposure to Aviation Noise from a Public Airport, Public Use Airport or Private Airstrip
As noted, the Modesto City-County Airport is approximately three miles north of the project site. None of the noise contours delineated for the airport reached the project site (see Figure 14-2). The flight paths for aircraft arriving at or departing from the airport do not go over the project site. No airstrips have been identified on the project site or in the vicinity. The project would have no impact related to noise from airports or airstrips.

EXHIBIT B ITEM 13
Copper Trails Specific Plan and Annexation EIR 14-14 November 2024 Level of Significance: No impact
Mitigation Measures: None required
EXHIBIT B ITEM 13
Figure14-1
BaseCamp Environmental EXISTING (2017) NOISE CONTOURS
EXHIBIT B ITEM 13
Figure14-2
BaseCamp Environmental NOISE STUDY MEASUREMENT LOCATIONS EXHIBIT B ITEM 13
Figure14-3
BaseCamp Environmental MODESTO AIRPORT NOISE CONTOURS
EXHIBIT B ITEM 13
Copper Trails Specific Plan and Annexation EIR 15-1 November 2024

15.0 PUBLIC SERVICES
ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
Fire Protection
The City of Ceres Fire Department served an area of 15 square miles, including about 47,000 residents in the City of Ceres; 1,200 residents in Stanislaus County south of Ceres city limits in the Ceres Fire Protection District; and 4,000 residents in Stanislaus County north of Ceres city limits in the Industrial Fire Protection District. The Fire Department had four fire stations in Ceres, including Station #1 which housed the Fire Department’s administrative headquarters and fire prevention services. As of 2016, the Department had a staff of 38.5, including one secretary (half time), one chief, three battalion chiefs, 13 captains, 12 engineers, and nine firefighters. Policy 6.K.1 of the Ceres General Plan seeks to meet the National Fire Protection Association’s National Response Time Standard of responding within nine minutes of the dispatch notification at least 90 percent of the time (City of Ceres 2018b).

On June 14, 2021, the Ceres City Council approved a contract with the City of Modesto for fire services. Through a joint services agreement, the Modesto Fire Department (Modesto Fire) now provides fire protection, emergency medical, hazardous materials mitigation, and technical rescue and water rescue services to the City of Ceres. Modesto Fire staffs all four fire stations in Ceres, but these stations and their equipment retain the Ceres name. One of the stations is Station 17 on 420 East Service Road, which is the closest to the project site (Figure 15-1). Station 17 was converted to a satellite regional training facility; it is not staffed at all times with fire suppression personnel. The nearest fire station staffed with firefighting personnel at all times is Station 15, approximately one mile north of the CTSP Area at 2755 3rd Street in downtown Ceres (Darin Jesberg pers. comm.).

The Ceres Fire Protection District is generally situated to the south and southeast of the city limits of Ceres, with a small remainder area just north of the city limits along the Tuolumne River. The service area of the Fire District includes most of the project site and predominantly serves residential ranchettes and mobile home parks. The Fire District has no staff or stations (Darin Jesberg pers. comm.). In the past, the Fire District had been served by the Ceres Fire Department under contract (City of Ceres 2012). Fire services are now extended to the Fire District area under the joint services agreement between the City and Modesto Fire.

Part of the southeastern portion of the CTSP Area is served by the Keyes Fire Protection District. The Keyes Fire Protection District serves an area of approximately 22 square miles that includes the unincorporated community of Keyes and the surrounding rural area. It has only one station, located at 5629 Seventh Street in Keyes.

EXHIBIT B ITEM 13
Copper Trails Specific Plan and Annexation EIR 15-2 November 2024 The Cities of Ceres and Modesto and the fire districts are currently in discussions as to the future allocation of responsibilities among the agencies, including consideration of fire protection issues and concerns associated with the Copper Trails Specific Plan.

Police Protection
The City of Ceres Police Department provides law enforcement services for the City. The Police Department, operating from its station at 2727 Third Street (Figure 15-1), has 52 sworn officer positions provided for in fiscal year 2023-24, in addition to 18 non-sworn personnel. Based on this and the 2020 population of Ceres (see Chapter 13.0, Land Use), the service ratio is approximately 1.06 sworn officers per 1,000 population, which is below the goal of 1.3 officers per 1,000. The Police Department does not have response time standards; however, the average response time in 2015 for priority one (major crimes and incidents) calls was about five minutes (City of Ceres 2018a).

The Stanislaus County Sheriff’s Department provides law enforcement services to the unincorporated areas of Stanislaus County, and it currently serves the project site, including both the CTSP and Pocket Areas. Its Operations Division has principal jurisdiction in all unincorporated areas, covering an area of approximately 1,521 square miles with a population of more than 200,000 (Stanislaus County 2016b).

Public Schools
The Ceres Unified School District (CUSD) provides educational services for students of all grades in elementary, junior, and high school in the Ceres area. The CUSD is currently home to 20 neighborhood schools, including two comprehensive high schools, two dual language academies, a leadership magnet school, and a K-12 charter school (CUSD 2022).

A total of 14,539 students enrolled at CUSD schools in the 2021-22 school year. Of the total, 4,546 students were at high school grades (9-12), 2,120 students were at junior high school grades (7-8), and the remaining 7,873 students were at elementary school grades (K-6) (California Department of Education 2023).

Two schools managed by the CUSD are located within the project site. Hidahl Elementary School, at 2351 East Redwood Road, enrolled a total of 428 elementary school students in the 2021-22 school year. Central Valley High School, at 4033 Central Avenue on the southwest corner of the intersection of Central Avenue and East Service Road, enrolled a total of 2,260 high school students in the 2021-22 school year (California Department of Education 2023).

Public school operation costs are met with State funds that are distributed based on average daily attendance. To assist in making school improvements such as new or expanded facilities, the CUSD collects development impact fees, which are discussed below.

Applicable fees would be collected at the time of residential and/or commercial development.

Parks and Recreation
The City of Ceres, through its Recreation Department, maintains 14 parks that cover approximately 152 acres, of parks located throughout the community, which typically serve surrounding neighborhoods. There are 12 neighborhood parks totaling 48.21 acres, one EXHIBIT B ITEM 13
Copper Trails Specific Plan and Annexation EIR 15-3 November 2024 community park of 27.88 acres, and one regional park of 76 acres. The regional park, River Bluff Regional Park, has a soccer complex with seven soccer fields. The community park, Smyrna Park, has the George Costa Ball Field Complex with five fields for baseball and softball.

The City’s Recreational Department provides a wide range of programs for youth, teens, adults, and seniors, including but not limited to exercise classes, sports leagues, art classes and workshops, dance classes, first aid training, and aquatics programs. Most classes and workshops are taught at the Ceres Community Center, located at 2701 4th Street. As the Community Center does not have indoor space for active uses, such as aquatics and indoor athletics, the City of Ceres has a Joint Facility Use Agreement with CUSD. The City utilizes the gyms, pools, and classrooms at school sites when schools are not in session, and CUSD utilizes the Ceres Community Center (City of Ceres 2018a).

Stanislaus County operates a park system through its Parks and Recreation Department.

The County maintains five regional parks, 12 neighborhood parks, 10 community parks, and two off-highway vehicle parks, along with other recreational facilities. There are no County parks or recreational facilities within or adjacent to the project site.

Other Community Facilities
Community facilities are public and private institutions that support the civic and social needs of the population. They offer a variety of recreational, artistic, and educational programs for all ages, and often serve as venues for special public and private events.

The main community facility is the Ceres Community Center, located at 2701 4th Street in downtown Ceres. The Community Center, built in 2009, contains 26,500 square feet of usable community space and features a teen activity room, an arts and crafts center, a computer learning center, a senior activity room, assembly space, and a kitchen. It hosts special events, classes for all ages, and more (City of Ceres 2018a).

Other community facilities include the following (City of Ceres 2018a):
• City administrative offices. City administrative offices are located at 2720 Second Street and 2200 Magnolia Street in downtown Ceres and serve as the headquarters for City government.
• Ceres Public Works Department. The Ceres Public Works Department is located at 2220 Hackett Road.
• Daniel Whitmore Home. The Daniel Whitmore Home was built by the founder of Ceres in 1870 and is a historical landmark on the National Register of Historical Places. It is in downtown Ceres and is part of the Ceres Museum. • Whitmore Mansion. The Whitmore Mansion was built in 1903 by the city founder’s son. The City bought the Mansion in 2012 and partners with a nonprofit group that is responsible for its operation, including renting the Mansion and grounds for special events.

EXHIBIT B ITEM 13
Copper Trails Specific Plan and Annexation EIR 15-4 November 2024 • Ceres American Legion Memorial Building. The American Legion Memorial Building, located at 2609 Lawrence Street, can be rented for meetings and events.
• Ceres Unified School District Administrative Office. The CUSD administrative office is located at 2503 Lawrence Street and serves as the headquarters for the school district.
• Stanislaus County offices. Stanislaus County offices, including the County public safety services, animal shelter, welfare department, administration, and sheriff department are located in southwest Ceres to the immediate east of Crows Landing Road.
• Ceres Public Library. The Ceres Public Library is located at 2250 Magnolia Street, adjacent to the Community Center in downtown Ceres. It is a branch of the Stanislaus County Library. Along with typical library services, the Ceres Public Library offers public computers and a document station for printing, scanning, and faxing.

REGULATORY FRAMEWORK
California Fire Code
The California Fire Code (California Code of Regulations Title 24, Part 9) establishes regulations to safeguard against hazards of fire, explosion, or dangerous conditions in new and existing buildings, structures, and premises. The provisions of the Fire Code apply to the construction, alteration, movement, enlargement, replacement, repair, equipment, use and occupancy, location, maintenance, removal, and demolition of every building or structure throughout the State of California. The Fire Code includes regulations regarding fire resistance-rated construction, fire protection systems, such as alarm and sprinkler systems, fire service features such as fire apparatus access roads, means of egress, fire safety during construction and demolition, and wildland-urban interface areas. The City of Ceres has adopted the 2022 California Fire Code.

SB 50
SB 50, enacted in 1998, created the present School Facility Program, which is a State/local match program for the funding of new kindergarten-12th grade school facilities and the modernization of existing facilities. SB 50 established a base fee for both residential and commercial/industrial development, the proceeds from which provide capital improvement funding for schools. This base has been adjusted for inflation every two years. School districts must establish the nexus between the development and the need for school facilities via a fee justification study to impose the biannual increase. Fees are levied and collected at the time the building permit is issued. District certification of the payment of the applicable fee is required before the city or county can issue the building permit.

The CUSD is eligible to levy Level II development impact fees on new development, but it is imposing only Level I fees at this time. According to the School District’s website, EXHIBIT B ITEM 13
Copper Trails Specific Plan and Annexation EIR 15-5 November 2024 development impact fees are $5.17 per square foot of single-family residential development and multi-family residential development, and $0.84 per square foot of commercial/industrial development, effective June 14, 2022.

California Government Code Sections 65995 to 65998 (School Facilities) California Government Code Section 65996 specifies that an acceptable method of offsetting a project’s effect on the adequacy of school facilities is the payment of a school impact fee prior to issuance of a building permit. Sections 65995 to 65998 set forth provisions for the payment of school impact fees by new development by “mitigating impacts on school facilities that occur (as a result of) the planning, use, or development of real property” [Section 65996(a)]. The legislation goes on to say that the payment of school impact fees is deemed to provide full and complete school facilities mitigation under CEQA [Section 65996(b)]. The school district is responsible for implementing the specific methods for mitigating school impacts under the Government Code.

Quimby Act
The Quimby Act of 1975 authorizes cities and counties to pass ordinances requiring developers to set aside land, donate conservation easements, or pay fees for park improvements. Revenues generated by the Quimby Act cannot be used for the operation and maintenance of park facilities. A 1982 amendment, AB 1600, requires agencies to clearly show a reasonable relationship between the public need for a recreation facility or park land, and the type of development project upon which the fee is imposed. Also, local ordinances must now include definite standards for determining the proportion of the subdivision to be dedicated and the amount of the fee to be paid. The City has incorporated such standards in Title 17, Chapter 13 of the Ceres Municipal Code, including a formula to determine the amount of parkland to be dedicated in a subdivision.

Ceres Parks and Recreation Master Plan
The Ceres Parks and Recreation Master Plan was adopted in 2016. The Master Plan provides an analysis of the context of park and recreational needs and presents an inventory of Ceres park facilities. It outlines community input and suggestions gathered, and it synthesizes these results into a set of recommendations. Finally, the Master Plan provides an outline for implementation and identifies potential funding mechanisms and opportunities. The Master Plan shows proposed parks at three locations within the CTSP Area (City of Ceres 2016c).

Ceres General Plan
The Ceres General Plan establishes a goal to provide 4.0 acres of park space for every 1,000 residents. This standard has been incorporated in Section 17.13.030 of the Ceres Municipal Code. Based on the current park acreage and the estimated 2023 population of 47,729, the City currently has a park ratio of approximately 3.2 acres per 1,000 residents.

The Parks and Recreation Master Plan indicates that three parks totaling 22.6 acres are in the planning stages. With these three additional parks, the park ratio would be approximately 3.7 acres per 1,000 residents.

EXHIBIT B ITEM 13
Copper Trails Specific Plan and Annexation EIR 15-6 November 2024 Ceres Municipal Code
Title 3, Chapter 13 of the Ceres Municipal Code authorizes the imposition of public facilities fee prior to the issuance of any building permits. As defined in the Municipal Code, “public facilities” include public improvements, public services, and community amenities. Public facility fees are adopted and periodically updated by resolution of the City Council.

As noted, Title 17, Chapter 13 of the Municipal Code includes definite standards for determining the proportion of a subdivision to be dedicated to parks and the amount of the fee to be paid. As a condition of approval of a tentative subdivision map or parcel map, including vesting map, the subdivider shall be required to dedicate land, pay a fee in lieu thereof, or both, at the option of the City, and pay a fee for improving the land for parks or recreational purposes according to the standards and formula contained in this chapter and the City of Ceres public facility fees program as adopted by the City Council.

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
Significance Thresholds
According to Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, a project may have a significant impact on the environment related to public services and recreation if it would:
● Result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, or generate a 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, police protection, schools, parks, or other public facilities, ● Increase 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.

Impact PS-1: Fire Protection Services
The proposed project, especially planned development under the CTSP, would add new population and businesses that would require fire protection service, which would be the responsibility of Modesto Fire under its current contract with the City until 2026, and possibly beyond that year. The future allocation of fire protection responsibilities is currently being discussed by the responsible entities. The potential for brush fires would be reduced with urban development of agricultural areas within the CTSP Area, but the number of structural fires has the potential to increase. Buildout of the CTSP is estimated to result in 988 new single-family residences, 1,404 other residential units and approximately 1.17 million square feet of new commercial development.

EXHIBIT B ITEM 13
Copper Trails Specific Plan and Annexation EIR 15-7 November 2024 The City currently has no staffing ratio for firefighters, but it does have a General Plan policy regarding response times. With CTSP development, it is expected that another fire station may be required to ensure the target response time is met. The CTSP map shows land set aside acreage at the intersection of East Redwood Road and Moffett Road for community facilities, which may include a fire station. A fire station at this site has the potential to meet the City’s ensure that the target response time is met in the entire project area. However, as noted, the location of the community facility area is flexible and could be moved to another location that better serves development needs, as determined by the City. In any case, the potential environmental impacts of fire station construction would not be different from those caused by CTSP Area development overall. The specific impacts of a new fire station would be analyzed in a project-level CEQA analysis.

New development would be required to pay Public Facility Fees, a portion of which would be dedicated to improvement of fire protection capital facilities. Payment of Public Facility Fees may or may not be sufficient to support development of an additional fire station. The potential environmental effects of construction of a new fire station within the CTSP Area are addressed by the overall environmental effects of the CTSP, and subject to the mitigation measures, as described in this document.

All new development within the project site must meet the requirements of the adopted Fire Code, which would reduce the risk of damaging structural fires. Construction of new roads must meet turning radius standards for firefighting apparatus; new water systems must meet minimum fire flow rates as specified by the City’s Fire Code. Compliance with applicable codes and requirements, along with the acreage set aside for a potential fire station, would mitigate potential fire protection service impacts to a level that would be less than significant.

Level of Significance: Less than significant
Mitigation Measures: None required
Impact PS-2: Police Protection Services
The proposed project, especially planned development under the CTSP, would add new population and businesses that would require police protection, which would be the responsibility of the Ceres Police Department. The CTSP would involve potential population increases of up to 6,745 persons associated with planned residential development and non-residential activity associated with the approximately 1.17 million square feet of new non-residential development envisioned in the CTSP. Based on the City’s police protection goals, the City would need to hire an additional 8-9 sworn officers to serve the new CTSP population.

Future police staffing costs are determined in financial planning and City decision-making that is beyond the scope of the EIR. However, according to a Municipal Service Review conducted by the City, existing development fees and taxes are expected to finance the majority of costs associated with new development, although additional revenue demands will be assessed on a project-specific basis (City of Ceres 2012).

EXHIBIT B ITEM 13
Copper Trails Specific Plan and Annexation EIR 15-8 November 2024 Also, as noted in Impact PS-1, the CTSP sets aside acreage at the intersection of East Redwood Road and Moffett Road for community facilities, including possibly a police substation. In addition, new development would be required to pay Public Facility Fees, a portion of which would be dedicated to improvement to police protection facilities. The potential environmental effects of construction of a new substation within the CTSP Area are addressed by the overall environmental effects of the CTSP, and subject to the mitigation measures, as described in this document. With these provisions, project impacts on police protection services are considered less than significant.

Level of Significance: Less than significant
Mitigation Measures: None required
Impact PS-3: Public School Services
Development and occupation of the residential portions of the CTSP will lead to the generation of additional student populations over time. Potential future student generation would amount to approximately 1,291 K-6 students, 340 middle school students, and 581 high school students, based on the residential development potential of 1,050 residential units, and student generation factors used by CUSD, as presented in Table 15-1.

TABLE 15-1

STUDENT GENERATION RATE PER RESIDENTIAL HOUSEHOLD
Grade Level
Per SingleFamily UnitPer MultiFamily UnitStudents
Generated
School
Capacity
Schools
Required
Elementary (K-6) 0.506 0.611 1,291 500 2.58
Middle (7-8) 0.135 0.157 340 900 0.38
High (9-12) 0.258 0.211 581 1,500 0.39
TOTAL 2,212
Source: CUSD 2019.

Buildout of the CTSP would contribute to the projected need for school expansion or new schools within CUSD. As indicated in Table 15-1, the project would, over time, generate the need for two elementary schools to accommodate elementary students. CTSP development could generate needs for expansion of existing middle and high school facilities. In its School Facility Needs Analysis, the CUSD determined there is excess capacity at the K-6 and 7-8 grade levels to house students generated from new development; the Needs Analysis indicates that new facilities would be required to accommodate the anticipated number of high school students (CUSD 2019). Decisions regarding how needs generated by new student load are met would be the responsibility of the CUSD; in these decisions, CUSD may consider construction of new schools or redistribution of student load among existing schools.

EXHIBIT B ITEM 13
Copper Trails Specific Plan and Annexation EIR 15-9 November 2024 As noted, new development would be required to pay impact fees to the CUSD. The fees would be used to fund construction of new CUSD facilities or to expand existing facilities.

As set forth in California Government Code Section 65996(b), the payment of school impact fees is deemed to provide full and complete school facilities mitigation under CEQA. With payment of development impact fees to CUSD, project impacts on schools are considered less than significant.

Level of Significance: Less than significant
Mitigation Measures: None required
Impact PS-4: Park and Recreation Services
As noted in Chapter 13.0, Land Use, the CTSP is expected to generate a population of approximately 6,745. Based on the goal set in the Ceres General Plan of 4.0 acres of park space per 1,000, the CTSP population would need approximately 25.9 acres of parkland.

The proposed CTSP provides for the development of approximately 42.3 acres of parks and open space in conjunction with new development (see Table 3-2 in Chapter 2.0, Project Description). New park development would exceed the General Plan parkland standard and reduce potential impacts on park demand to a less than significant level.

As noted, the Ceres Municipal Code requires, as a condition of approval, that all tentative subdivision maps and parcel maps dedicate land, pay a fee in lieu thereof, or both, at the option of the City, and pay a fee for improving the land for parks or recreational purposes.

It is expected that these fees would be paid when such maps are submitted to the City. As a result, project impacts on parks and recreation would be less than significant.

Level of Significance: Less than significant
Mitigation Measures: None required
Impact PS-5: Other Public Services
As noted, there are several community facilities in the City of Ceres. Most of these facilities would not be affected by the development of the CTSP Area and the resultant population change. Three public facilities that could be potentially affected are the Ceres Community Center, the City administrative offices, and the Ceres Public Library. These facilities could experience an increase in use by residents of the CTSP Area, potentially requiring new or expanded facilities.

While the City uses the Community Center for activities, others would be required to pay rent to the City. It is expected that these rents would cover expenses associated with use of Community Center facilities. In addition, new residential development would be required to pay Public Facility Fees, a portion of which would be dedicated to community facilities.

As noted, the Ceres Public Library is a branch of the Stanislaus County Library. Therefore, funding for any new or expanded facilities would need to be provided by the County. The County currently has no plans for new or expanded library facilities in Ceres.

EXHIBIT B ITEM 13
Copper Trails Specific Plan and Annexation EIR 15-10 November 2024 Should implementation of the project result in the need for new public facilities, existing regulations such as the adopted Green Building Code and the Ceres Storm Water Management and Discharge Control Ordinance would serve to reduce potential environmental impacts. Additionally, new projects would be subject to CEQA requirements for environmental assessment. Although compliance with CEQA requirements would not necessarily guarantee that significant impacts would be avoided or mitigated, it would allow for the identification and consideration of potential impacts and mitigation (City of Ceres 2018a).

New facilities would be located consistent with specified land use designations and would be subject to policies in the General Plan. These policies would further reduce potential impacts of siting, construction, and operation of new facilities to the extent assessed in other sections of this EIR. Proposed policies include those requiring construction best management practices to limit land disturbance, development review to protect significant biological resources, air pollution mitigation measures as a condition of obtaining permits, and management of archaeological materials found during development (City of Ceres 2018a). As a result, project impacts on park and recreation services would be less than significant.

Level of Significance: Less than significant
Mitigation Measures: None required
EXHIBIT B ITEM 13
Figure 15-1
BaseCamp Environmental PUBLIC SERVICE FACILITIES
CERES FIRE STATION 15

CERES PUBLIC SAFETY FIRE DEPARTMENT

CERES COMMUNITY CENTER

CERES POLICE DEPARTMENT
HIDAHI

ELEMENTARY
SCHOOL

CENTRAL

VALLEY HIGH
SCHOOL

CERES ADULT
SCHOOL
EXHIBIT B ITEM 13
Copper Trails Specific Plan and Annexation EIR 16-1 November 2024

16.0 TRANSPORTATION
This chapter addresses the potential transportation impacts of the project, including the adoption of the CTSP. Potential effects are discussed in terms of vehicular traffic, transit, bicycle and pedestrian and other transportation modes. The potential impacts were evaluated by the EIR consultant and the City of Ceres, with technical assistance from Wood Rodgers. The Wood Rodgers Transportation Impact Analysis is available in Appendix G of this EIR. The analysis used the latest version of the StanCOG Travel Demand Model, along with trip generation data and methodologies contained in the Institute of Transportation Engineers’ Trip Generation Manual, 11th Edition. For analysis of traffic queues, Synchro 11 software was used to model the study intersections and SimTraffic 11 software was used to analyze 95th percentile queues.

Figure 16-1 shows the 27 roadway segments, existing and proposed, evaluated in the Transportation Impact Analysis. This analysis considers several scenarios that reflect existing, near-term, and cumulative traffic conditions. Existing conditions represent 2023 traffic conditions. Near-term conditions in the Analysis represent a 2028 condition where the Service Road Interchange is complete; the interchange project is, however, still in the planning stages and is several years away from construction. Cumulative conditions represent a long-term future (2048) condition that includes forecasted growth and future roadway network conditions contained in the StanCOG Travel Demand Model. Existing and cumulative conditions in the analysis of VMT impacts, while near-term conditions are used to evaluate traffic queuing. Chapter 18.0, Cumulative Impacts, presents the analysis of cumulative traffic conditions.

The analysis evaluates traffic conditions, both without and with the project, in terms of Level of Service (LOS). LOS measures the quality of traffic flow based on driver convenience using letter designations ranging from A to F, with A representing the best conditions and F the worst conditions. LOS was once used to determine the significance of the environmental impacts of a project on transportation. However, with the passage of SB 743, LOS is no longer used in that capacity; rather, VMT is the preferred metric to determine the significance of transportation impacts. SB 743 and VMT are discussed later in this chapter.

It should be noted that the focus of the Transportation Impact Analysis is on the CTSP Area and development within that area. Since the Pocket Area is relatively small and mostly developed, it is not expected to make a significant contribution to transportation impacts.

EXHIBIT B ITEM 13
Copper Trails Specific Plan and Annexation EIR 16-2 November 2024 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
Existing Roadways
The CTSP Area is bordered by Lucas Road and Mitchell Road to the east, Service Road to the north, Blaker Road to the west, and the TID Lower Lateral 2 to the south. CTSP travel would access the surrounding roadway network via existing and new connections to Service Road, Central Avenue, Blaker Road, Moffett Road, Lucas Road, and East Redwood Avenue.

Service Road is designated an Expressway in the Ceres General Plan. Expressways are limited access, moderate- to high-speed facilities that typically have four to six lanes and generally only intersect with primary collectors, arterials, and expressways (City of Ceres 2018b). Within the CTSP Area, Service Road currently has two lanes from the existing SR 99 overcrossing to Central Avenue, where it becomes four lanes to Blaker Road and beyond.

Central Avenue is designated an Arterial in the Ceres General Plan. Arterial roadways are intended to accommodate high volumes of traffic within a four- to six-lane cross-section, plus left-turn pockets, and sometimes right-turn pockets. These roads typically provide access to collector streets into residential subdivisions and can also provide direct access to commercial areas (City of Ceres 2018b). Central Avenue currently has two lanes with turn pockets from downtown Ceres to Service Road, where it becomes four lanes on its frontage with Central Valley High School, then becomes two lanes again beyond the high school.

All other roads named above are designated as Primary Collectors in the Ceres General Plan. Primary collector streets generally collect traffic from other collector and minor streets and provide connections to arterial streets. Primary collector streets also provide direct linkages to neighborhood shopping areas. Currently, Blaker Road, Central Avenue, Moffett Road, Lucas Road, and East Redwood Avenue are two-lane roadways.

The Pocket Area has access to Service Road, Central Avenue, and Moffett Road. Other roads in the Pocket Area include Don Pedro Road, Laurel Avenue, Industrial Way, and 10th Street. As noted, the Transportation Impact Analysis does not focus on the Pocket Area.

SR 99 is a north-south freeway that connects Ceres to Modesto and Turlock and beyond.

Caltrans manages the operation of SR 99, and it is the only grade-separated and accesscontrolled freeway within Ceres city limits. SR 99 is a six-lane freeway in the CTSP vicinity. Currently, the only access from SR 99 to the project site is at a partial interchange at Mitchell Road. Caltrans has had plans to construct a new SR 99/Mitchell/Service Road Diverging Diamond Interchange (Service Road interchange), which has a target opening year of 2030; however, the City has unresolved concerns regarding the design and cost of interchange improvements.

EXHIBIT B ITEM 13
Copper Trails Specific Plan and Annexation EIR 16-3 November 2024 Other Transportation Modes
Bus Transit
Bus transportation services in Ceres and other communities of Stanislaus County are provided by the Stanislaus Regional Transit Authority (StanRTA). StanRTA was formed in 2021 by a merger of Modesto Area Express and Stanislaus County Regional Transit.

The City of Ceres formerly provided bus service for its residents through Ceres Area Transit. However, the City turned over bus transit operations to Modesto Area Express in 2020, which in turn merged into StanRTA.

StanRTA provides both fixed-route and dial-a-ride services to Ceres. Route 29 runs between the southeast corner of Ceres to the Downtown Modesto Transit Center. Route 47 extends along Mitchell Road and Hatch Road before ending at the Downtown Modesto Transit Center. Route 42 connects the far west side of Ceres at the Stanislaus County offices campus with downtown Ceres. Currently, Route 42 runs on the segment of East Service Road between Central Avenue and Blaker Road. This segment fronts Central Valley High School.

StanRTA also operates long-distance commuter buses that serve multiple cities across Stanislaus County. These services typically have long headways and few trips per day.

Route 61 connects Downtown Modesto and the communities of Ceres, Empire, Waterford, Hickman, and Hughson. Within Ceres City limits, Route 61 travels along Whitmore Avenue and Mitchell Road before entering SR 99. Route 15 connects Downtown Modesto and the communities of Ceres, Keyes, and Turlock. This route travels along several City streets including Hatch Road, Richland Avenue, Whitmore Avenue, and Mitchell Road (City of Ceres 2021a). No StanRTA long-distance routes currently serve the CTSP Area.

Bicycle Transportation
Ceres has a small number of bicycle facilities interspersed throughout the city. The City’s bicycling network contains four different types of bikeways (City of Ceres 2021a):
• Class 1 (bike paths), also known as multi-use paths, are separated completely from motor vehicle traffic and are usually shared with pedestrians. Class 1 multi-use paths are located along Hatch Road and the TID Main Canal. No Class 1 facilities are within the CTSP Area.
• Class 2 (bike lanes) are delineated lanes within the roadway for the exclusive use of bicycles. Vehicle and pedestrian crossflow are permitted. The striping is supported by pavement markings and signage. Class II bikeways can be enhanced by features such as green paint or painted buffers. Class 2 bike lanes are located along East Service Road fronting Central Valley High School. • Class 3 (bike routes) are located on roadways on which bicyclists share the roadway with motor vehicles. Bike routes are designated by signage and/or shared roadway bicycle markings (sharrows). Some bicycle routes (Class 3.5) have wide shoulders that provide space for bicyclists, although they do not have bike lane markings. No Class 3 facilities are within the CTSP Area.

EXHIBIT B ITEM 13
Copper Trails Specific Plan and Annexation EIR 16-4 November 2024 • Class 4 bikeways (cycle tracks) are within or adjacent to a roadway and separated from traffic by a physical barrier such as bollards, on-street parking, or planters. This design allows an exclusive right-of-way for bicycle travel. No Class 4 facilities are within the CTSP Area.

Other than the multi-use paths, most bikeways in the Ceres area have gaps that limit bikeway connections. There are substantial connectivity barriers for bicycling and other transportation modes in Ceres. In addition to the northern barrier of the Tuolumne River, SR 99 and active freight railroad tracks bisect the City at near-45-degree angles from northwest to southeast.

Pedestrian Transportation
Pedestrian facilities include sidewalks and pathways, as well as crosswalks, pedestrian crosswalk signals, lighting, street trees, and curb ramps. The state of the pedestrian network in Ceres varies greatly based on the location within the community, as it contains a diverse mix of land uses, density, neighborhood character, and age of development. These factors result in sidewalk gaps at locations such as road segments adjacent to undeveloped land and between areas with pedestrian infrastructure like residential neighborhoods and commercial areas. Other connectivity gaps are a result of low-quality sidewalks and crossings. For example, existing pedestrian connections over SR 99 and the adjacent rail line are sometimes substandard, such as the overcrossings at Pine Street and Hatch Road (City of Ceres 2021a).

There are few sidewalks or other pedestrian facilities currently within the CTSP Area, which is expected given its predominantly rural character. Sidewalks have been installed along the Service Road and Central Avenue frontages of Central Valley High School and along the East Redwood Road frontage of Hidahl Elementary School. The more developed Pocket Area has segments of sidewalk along its more traveled streets such as Service Road and Don Pedro Road, as well as along streets in some of its residential areas.

Railroad
There are two types of rail transportation: freight and passenger. The Union Pacific Railroad operates two rail lines through the City of Ceres that primarily carry freight trains.

One line generally parallels SR 99, and grade-separated crossings are provided at major roadways, including Hatch Road, Whitmore Avenue, and Service Road. The second line has a north-south orientation and is located equidistant between Crows Landing Road and Morgan Road. At-grade crossings are provided on the local street network.

Passenger rail service is not directly provided in Ceres. Amtrak provides passenger rail service between the San Francisco Bay Area and Bakersfield on its San Joaquin trains.

While these trains pass by the City, the closest Amtrak station is approximately eight miles northeast of downtown Ceres, on the eastern edge of Modesto on Held Drive. A bus transit connection is provided via StanRTA Route 25 to the Downtown Modesto Transit station, where bus routes to Ceres can be accessed.

The Altamont Corridor Express (ACE), a commuter rail service that connects Stockton to San Jose, plans a rail line extension from Lathrop in San Joaquin County to Ceres, with an EXHIBIT B ITEM 13
Copper Trails Specific Plan and Annexation EIR 16-5 November 2024 eventual extension to Merced. The initial extension would include an ACE station in Ceres, located between Railroad Avenue and SR 99 near the southbound Whitmore Avenue exit underpass. Construction and operation for the Ceres station were initially scheduled 2023 and 2024 (Benziger 2022); these planned improvements may not be considered feasible (Beltran pers. comm.).

Air Transportation
There are no airports within the City of Ceres. As stated in Chapter 11.0, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, the nearest public airport is the Modesto City-County Airport.

Modesto Airport provides general aviation services; however, it currently does not provide commercial passenger service. Limited passenger service is provided at the Stockton Metropolitan Airport, approximately 25 miles northeast of Ceres. International airports are located approximately 60 to 70 miles to the west in San Francisco, Oakland, and San Jose, and approximately 75 miles to the north in Sacramento.

REGULATORY FRAMEWORK
California Department of Transportation (Caltrans)
Caltrans is the primary State agency responsible for transportation issues. One of its duties is the construction and maintenance of the State highway system. Caltrans has established standards for roadway traffic flow and has developed procedures to determine if Statecontrolled facilities require improvements. For projects that may physically affect facilities under its administration, Caltrans requires encroachment permits before any construction work may be undertaken. For projects that would not physically affect facilities but may influence traffic flow and LOS, Caltrans may recommend measures to mitigate these traffic impacts.

The nearest Caltrans facilities to the CTSP Area are SR 99, the on- and off-ramps at the SR 99/Mitchell Road interchange, and the SR 99 overpass on Service Road. For all its facilities, Caltrans maintains a minimum LOS at the transition between LOS C and LOS D, based on the facility and its applicable measure of effectiveness, which is time delay at intersections and traffic density on roadway segments (Caltrans 2002).

State CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3
The State of California has recently added Section 15064.3 to the CEQA Guidelines, which is meant to incorporate SB 743 into CEQA analysis. SB 743 was enacted in 2013 with the intent to balance congestion management needs and the mitigation of the environmental impacts of traffic with statewide GHG emission reduction goals. SB 743 directed the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR) to develop an alternative mechanism for evaluating transportation impacts and to amend the CEQA guidelines to provide a transportation impact analysis framework that prioritizes reducing GHG emissions, replacing the prior focus of minimizing automobile delay.

Section 15064.3 states that VMT is the preferred metric for evaluating transportation impacts, rather than LOS. VMT measures the total miles traveled by vehicles as a result of EXHIBIT B ITEM 13
Copper Trails Specific Plan and Annexation EIR 16-6 November 2024 a given project by multiplying the number of vehicle trips by the length of vehicle trips.

Unlike LOS, VMT accounts for the total environmental impact of transportation associated with a project, including use of non-vehicle travel modes. Section 15064.3(b) sets forth the criteria for analyzing transportation impacts using the preferred VMT metric:
• VMT exceeding an applicable threshold of significance may indicate a significant impact. [The Transportation Impact Analysis, in coordination with the City, developed thresholds of significance related to VMT, which are discussed later in this chapter.]
• Generally, projects within one-half mile of either an existing major transit stop or a stop along an existing “high-quality transit corridor” should be presumed to cause a less-than-significant transportation impact. • Projects that decrease VMT in the project area compared to existing conditions should be presumed to cause a less-than-significant transportation impact.

While a quantitative analysis of VMT is preferred, a qualitative analysis may be used if existing models or methods are not available to estimate VMT for the project being considered.

The OPR has issued a Technical Advisory on the evaluation of CEQA transportation impacts based on VMT. Based on OPR’s extensive review of the applicable research and an assessment by the ARB quantifying the need for VMT reduction to meet the State’s long-term climate goals, the OPR Technical Advisory recommends that a per capita or per employee VMT that is 15 percent below that of existing development may be a reasonable threshold. More specifically, for residential projects, OPR suggests that a proposed project exceeding a level of 15 percent below existing VMT per capita may indicate a significant transportation impact (OPR 2018). As noted, the Transportation Impact Analysis has developed thresholds of significance for its VMT analysis.

Regional Transportation Plans
Regional transportation plans applicable to Ceres have been prepared by StanCOG, which is a joint powers authority comprised of Stanislaus County and its incorporated cities, including Ceres. It is responsible for developing and updating a variety of transportation plans, and for allocating the federal, state, and local funds to implement them. StanCOG is the Metropolitan Planning Organization for the Stanislaus region as designated by the federal government, the Regional Transportation Planning Agency as designated by the State of California, and the Local Transportation Authority.

Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy As the designated Metropolitan Planning Organization and Regional Transportation Planning Agency representing Stanislaus County, StanCOG is required by both federal and State law to prepare a long-range transportation planning document known as a Regional Transportation Plan (RTP). The 2022 RTP, the most recent version, was adopted by StanCOG at a meeting on August 17, 2022.

EXHIBIT B ITEM 13
Copper Trails Specific Plan and Annexation EIR 16-7 November 2024 The 2022 RTP sets the foundation for transportation investment and land use priorities for the years 2022 through 2046. It established a set of goals, objectives, and measures that express the aspirations and desired outcomes of the planning process. The goals and objectives were developed to be consistent with local, state, and national goals/objectives and align the region’s investment plan with state goals and objectives on climate, equity, multimodal mobility and accessibility/connectivity, safety, public health, livability, economy, environment, and infrastructure. An Investment Plan was developed that directs transportation system spending on projects furthering these goals, objectives, and measures. Projects near the CTSP Area that are part of the 2022 RTP include construction of the Service Road interchange and traffic signal synchronization on Service Road and Central Avenue (StanCOG 2022a).

The RTP includes a Sustainable Communities Strategy (SCS), as required by SB 375, which links land use and transportation strategies with the intent of meeting specified per capita GHG reduction targets for emissions from cars and light trucks. Chapter 10.0, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, provides a detailed discussion of the SCS.

Congestion Management Process
A Congestion Management Process (CMP) is an important State and Federal requirement in the metropolitan transportation planning process. Federal regulation calls for MPOs to address congestion management through a process that provides for safe and effective integrated management and operation of a multimodal transportation system. A CMP is required by the Federal Highway Administration to be developed and implemented in urbanized areas with a population over 200,000. The CMP applies to a road network that must include those areas that meet the regionally identified definition of “congested” and represent the area for data collection and monitoring activities. In the vicinity of the CTSP Area, the only road in the Stanislaus County CMP network is SR 99.

StanCOG updated its CMP in 2020. The 2020 CMP has employed a new and innovative approach using transportation analytics with a more comprehensive and sophisticated set of performance measures, that takes advantage of the availability of large volumes of data from mobile phones, rather than the older volume-to-capacity based performance evaluation methodology employed for measuring roadway traffic congestion. From the analysis of these data, a wide range of strategies was developed to help relieve traffic congestion, while better accommodating the flow of people and goods and advancing CMP and RTP/SCS goals (StanCOG 2020).

Non-Motorized Transportation Plan
StanCOG adopted an updated Non-Motorized Transportation Plan in 2021. The NonMotorized Transportation Plan presents strategic recommendations, based on community input and technical analyses to improve non-motorized transportation in the Stanislaus region. Non-motorized transportation includes the use of walking, bicycles, electric bicycles, scooters, skateboards, and wheelchairs or other mobility-assistance devices.

Among the purposes of this plan are to enhance opportunities for walking, bicycling, and other forms of non-motorized transportation and to reduce congestion and vehicle miles traveled to lower greenhouse gas emissions and improve regional air quality. The EXHIBIT B ITEM 13
Copper Trails Specific Plan and Annexation EIR 16-8 November 2024 programmatic and infrastructure improvements recommended in the plan prioritize infrastructure changes and programs aimed at making walking and bicycling facilities safer and more comfortable for people of all ages and abilities.

In Ceres, proposed projects under the Non-Motorized Transportation Plan include a Class 3 bicycle boulevard on Roeding Road from Moore Road to 6th Street and on 5th/6th Street between East Whitmore Avenue to Roeding Road (StanCOG 2021). No projects are proposed within the CTSP Area.

City of Ceres
Ceres Citywide Active Transportation Plan
The Ceres Citywide Active Transportation Plan guides the development of pedestrian and bicycle facilities throughout the City of Ceres. The Active Transportation Plan supports and implements a comprehensive, integrated network that allows safe and convenient travel along and across streets for all users as outlined in the Ceres General Plan and other recently adopted City plans. The plan presents an overview of existing walking and biking conditions, pedestrian and bicycle facilities, and relevant plans, policies and programs to determine walking and biking needs for the City, complemented by input received by members of the public. It then develops a list of projects and programs that include a description of proposed improvements, planning-level cost estimates, and phases of implementation (City of Ceres 2021a).

The Active Transportation Plan proposes several new bicycle facilities, some of which would be installed within the CTSP Area. These planned improvements include bicycle and bicycle/pedestrian facilities along East Service Road, along the TID Lower Lateral 2 alignment, along Central Avenue and Blaker Road. It also proposes pedestrian facility improvements in several places, including along Service Road near Central Valley High School, the Central Avenue/Service Road and Service Road/Moffett Road intersections, and on Central Avenue at the north and south entrances to Central Valley High School (City of Ceres 2021a)
Ceres General Plan
Policy 3.A.2 of the Ceres General Plan states that the City shall develop and manage the roadway system to maintain LOS C or better on secondary collectors and local streets and LOS D or better on primary collectors, arterials, expressways, and freeways. One service level deviation may be permitted at locations where land development or transportation improvement projects support other goals from the General Plan including transit, active transportation, and economic development. Exceptions may also be allowed in areas where the City finds that the improvements or other measures required to achieve the LOS standards are unacceptable because of right-of-way limitations, physical impacts on surrounding properties, adverse effects on other travel modes, and/or the visual aesthetics of the required improvement and its impact on community identity and character.

As has been noted, LOS is no longer an accepted metric for determining environmental impacts related to transportation. However, the LOS standards set by Policy 3.A.2 may still be used to assess the need for any transportation facility improvements.

EXHIBIT B ITEM 13
Copper Trails Specific Plan and Annexation EIR 16-9 November 2024 Policy 3.A.4 of the Ceres General Plan supports statewide efforts to reduce VMT from existing and new development by encouraging infill and mixed-use development, providing a multi-modal transportation network, and incorporating transportation and parking demand management measures into new development by design. This policy does not set thresholds of significance in determining the impacts of a project on VMT.

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
Significance Thresholds
According to Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, a project may have a significant impact on transportation if it would:
● Conflict with a program, plan, ordinance, or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities, ● Conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3, subdivision (b),
● Substantially increase safety hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment), or
● Result in inadequate emergency access.

For determining the significance of VMT impacts, the Transportation Impact Analysis followed guidance from OPR’s Technical Advisory (OPR 2018). For residential land uses, the CTSP would result in a less-than-significant VMT impact if the VMT per capita is at least 15% below the existing City average VMT per capita. For office land uses, the CTSP would result in a less-than-significant VMT impact if the VMT per employee is at least 15% below the existing City average VMT per employee. For retail land uses, the CTSP would result in a less-than-significant VMT impact if the retail land uses result in “no net increase” in VMT on Stanislaus County roadways under both Existing and Cumulative conditions.

Impact TRANS-1: Conflict with Circulation Plans – Motor Vehicle The Transportation Impact Analysis evaluated traffic impacts on 27 existing and proposed study roadway segments under both Existing and Near-Term conditions without and with the CTSP. As noted, Near-Term conditions represent 2028 conditions where the Service Road interchange on SR 99 is complete and CTSP development has not yet occurred. While the Caltrans Traffic Operations Analysis Report for the interchange requires ramp queuing analysis under Existing conditions, Near-Term conditions were considered more appropriate for the Transportation Impact Analysis, as that is when the new Service Road interchange is planned to open. The majority of CTSP traffic would access SR 99 via the Service Road interchange (Wood Rodgers 2024). However, Existing conditions were used to evaluate VMT against thresholds, the results of which are discussed later in this chapter.

EXHIBIT B ITEM 13
Copper Trails Specific Plan and Annexation EIR 16-10 November 2024 Table 16-1 lists all the roadway segments and the average daily traffic on these segments for Existing conditions and for Near-Term conditions without and with the CTSP. Under Near-Term (No Project) conditions, the study intersections near the Service Road Interchange and Mitchell Road Interchange were assumed to have the geometries specified in the Service Road Interchange Geometric Approval Drawing, prepared in accordance with Caltrans standards. Some CTSP traffic is anticipated to utilize the existing SR 99 ramps located on El Camino Avenue between Magnolia Street and Pine Street. The study intersections near the El Camino Avenue interchange were assumed to have existing conditions geometries.

TABLE 16-1
ROADWAY SEGMENT AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC –

EXISTING AND NEAR-TERM CONDITIONS
No.1 Segment
Average Daily Traffic
Existing
Near-Term
w/o CTSP
Near-Term
w/ CTSP
1 Morgan Rd between Hackett Rd and
Service Rd
7,789 8,223 12,231
2 Blaker Rd between Hackett Rd and
Service Rd
3,820 4,098 4,495
3 Blaker Rd south of Service Rd 925 962 1,342
4 Central Ave between Pine St and
Service Rd
9,306 9,774 12,623
5 Central Ave between Service Rd and
High School Southern Access
9,715 9,924 16,128
6 Central Ave between High School
Southern Access and E Redwood Rd
7,352 7,564 11,770
7 Pine St between Central Ave and El
Camino Ave
12,187 12,562 13,585
8 Collins Rd between Don Pedro Rd and
Service Rd
1,510 1,511 2,342
9 Moffett Rd south of Service Rd 766 826 40,056
10 Moffett Rd north of E Redwood Rd2 766 789 12,189
11 El Camino Ave north of Pine St 10,514 10,515 9,596
12 El Camino Ave south of Service Rd3 2,736 0 0
13 Mitchell Rd between Don Pedro Rd
and Service Rd
27,390 28,924 35,296
14 Mitchell Rd south of Service Rd 28,953 30,058 26,346 EXHIBIT B ITEM 13
Copper Trails Specific Plan and Annexation EIR 16-11 November 2024 No.1 Segment
Average Daily Traffic
Existing
Near-Term
w/o CTSP
Near-Term
w/ CTSP
15 Service Rd between Morgan Rd and
Blaker Rd
11,616 12,298 11,806
16 Service Rd between Blaker Rd and
Central Ave
13,780 14,680 13,807
17 Service Rd between Central Ave and
Moffett Rd
16,089 17,153 17,697
18 Service Rd between El Camino Ave and
Mitchell Rd
18,876 19,588 28,240
19 Lucas Rd south of Service Rd 696 799 1,015
20 Lucas Rd north of Mitchell Rd2 696 799 753
21 E Redwood Rd between Central Ave
and Moffett Rd
851 853 5,855
22 E Redwood Rd between Moffett Rd
and Lucas Rd
278 302 13,384
23 New Project Rd between E Redwood
Rd and Lucas Rd
0 0 395
24 New Project Rd between Blaker Rd
and Central Ave
0 0 1,238
25 New Project Rd between Central Ave
and Moffett Rd
0 0 356
26 New Project Rd between Moffett Rd
and Lucas Rd
0 0 17,826
27 Mitchell Rd between E Redwood Rd
and Lucas Rd2
278 0 1,462
1 See Figure 16-1 for locations. 2 Existing segment average daily traffic is assumed to be the same as the adjacent segment. 3 This segment would cease to exist with construction of the Service Road interchange.

Source: Wood Rodgers 2024.

Under Near-Term Plus Project conditions, all intersection geometries were assumed to be the same as under Near-Term (No Project) conditions, except the following lane configuration and controls were implemented at the Moffett Road/Service Road intersection to accommodate the addition of CTSP traffic:
• Signalization with protected left-turn phasing on all approaches and northbound right-turn overlap phasing.

EXHIBIT B ITEM 13
Copper Trails Specific Plan and Annexation EIR 16-12 November 2024 • Eastbound Approach: one left-turn lane, three through lanes, and one right-turn lane.
• Westbound Approach: three left-turn lanes (including one left-turn trap lane), two through lanes, and one right-turn lane.
• Northbound Approach: one left-turn lane, one through lane, and two right-turn lanes.
• Southbound Approach: one left-turn lane and one shared through-right-turn lane.

It was further assumed that the Moffett Road/Service Road signal would be coordinated with the Service Road interchange signals.

The Transportation Impact Analysis indicates that none of the roadway segments studied would have LOS that would be unacceptable by City standards. As such, the CTSP would be consistent with Ceres General Plan policies applicable to LOS. The CTSP is not expected to interfere with the implementation of the 2022 RTP, particularly with the SR 99/Mitchell Road/Service Road interchange project, which the Transportation Impact Analysis assumes would be constructed.

As noted, the only road in the vicinity of the CTSP Area that is part of the CMP network is SR 99. The Transportation Impact Analysis does not indicate that the project would decrease LOS on SR 99 to an unacceptable level. In summary, the CTSP is not expected to conflict with traffic plans, or any potential conflict would be irrelevant from a CEQA perspective. Project impacts related to motor vehicle transportation plans would be less than significant.

Level of Significance: Less than significant
Mitigation Measures: None required
Impact TRANS-2: Conflict with Circulation Plans – Non-Motor Vehicle The CTSP proposes the following internal pedestrian and bicycle features:
• 12-foot bicycle/pedestrian facilities on eastbound Service Road along Project frontage
• 5-foot sidewalks in both directions along typical interior Project streets • 5-foot sidewalks and 7-foot bike lanes in both directions along Central Avenue • 12-foot multiuse path along northbound Blaker Road along Project frontage • 8-foot sidewalks and 14-foot travel lanes in both directions along interior collector streets
• 8-foot path/trail along Project frontage parallel to the TID Lateral canal EXHIBIT B ITEM 13
Copper Trails Specific Plan and Annexation EIR 16-13 November 2024 The proposed pedestrian features would provide connectivity to the existing sidewalk network on Blaker Road and Central Avenue and to the proposed pedestrian and bicycle facilities to be completed with the Service Road interchange project. The CTSP is also considering a potential extension of StanRTA’s fixed-route bus service, which would run along Central Avenue, E. Redwood Road, proposed Street C, Lucas Road, proposed Street B, and Moffett Road within the CTSP Area.

The CTSP would not impact existing or proposed public transit, pedestrian or bicycle facilities in a way that would discourage their use. Therefore, it would not conflict with plans intended to promote the use of these alternative modes of transportation, such as the Non-Motorized Transportation Plan and Ceres Citywide Active Transportation Plan.

Project impacts related to non-motor vehicle transportation plans would be less than significant.

Level of Significance: Less than significant
Mitigation Measures: None required
Impact TRANS-3: Vehicle Miles Traveled
The latest version of the StanCOG TDM was used to estimate VMT generated by the CTSP land uses. Three VMT metrics are used in this analysis: VMT per capita (based on homebased trips), VMT per employee (based on work commute trips), and net change in VMT (based on all trips). Home-based trips include trips made by residents of the City or the CTSP Area to or from the home, including driving to/from work, school, shopping, and other destinations. Work commute trips include trips made by employees of land uses within the City or CTSP Area for commuting to/from work. “All” trips include all trips made within the StanCOG model boundary, including home-based trips, work trips, and trips made for all other purposes including shopping, recreation, and other activities.

Additional detail and calibration changes were made to the StanCOG TDM to create an accurate estimate of travel characteristics near the CTSP Area. Additional detail and calibration changes included editing roadway network and land use assumptions in the study area to better match existing conditions and adding detail where lacking in the offthe-shelf model. In calculating CTSP VMT, further adjustments were made based on estimated “internal trips” – trips between land uses within the CTSP Area, as opposed to trips in and out of the area. Also, adjustments were made to account for the VMT impact of the multi-use paths proposed in the CTSP Area. Table 16-2 shows estimated VMT associated with land uses within the CTSP, along with the City average VMT for residential and office land uses and the significance thresholds based on OPR guidance.

As shown in Table 16-2, CTSP retail uses would cause a net decrease in total County VMT.

Therefore, retail land uses in the CTSP would have a VMT impact that is less than significant. However, CTSP residential and office land uses would generate VMT such that significance thresholds for these land uses would be exceeded. Thus, VMT impacts of CTSP residential and office land uses are potentially significant and require mitigation.

EXHIBIT B ITEM 13
Copper Trails Specific Plan and Annexation EIR 16-14 November 2024 TABLE 16-2

VMT SIGNIFICANCE THRESHOLDS AND CTSP VMT
Land Use City Average VMT
VMT Significance
Threshold CTSP VMT
Residential1 14.7 12.5 12.9
Office2 23.1 19.7 25.1
Retail3 - No net increase -15,296
Bold indicates that significance threshold is exceeded. 1 VMT figures are per capita. 2 VMT figures are per employee. 3 VMT change under Existing Plus Project conditions. Cumulative conditions are discussed in Chapter 18.0, Cumulative Impacts.

Source: Wood Rodgers 2024.

The Transportation Impact Analysis recommends that the City and the project applicant coordinate to identify and implement a number of VMT mitigation measures that would be feasible to implement for the CTSP and which would reduce the VMT impacts. Examples of VMT reduction measures that could be implemented are provided in Table 6.15 in the EXHIBIT B ITEM 13
Copper Trails Specific Plan and Annexation EIR 16-15 November 2024 Transportation Impact Analysis shown below.

Inclusion of these measures in the CTSP would provide an opportunity to reduce the significant VMT impacts of the project. It is not, however, expected that all the listed measures would be feasible to implement, while other VMT reduction measures not listed in Table 6.15 might be implemented. Given the uncertainty regarding which VMT measures may be implemented and their efficacy, it is concluded that potential VMT reductions cannot be quantified, which would leave the project inconsistent with the objectives of CEQA Guidelines Section 15064(b). The project’s VMT impacts would be significant and unavoidable.

Level of Significance: Significant and unavoidable
EXHIBIT B ITEM 13
Copper Trails Specific Plan and Annexation EIR 16-16 November 2024 Mitigation Measures:

TRANS-1: Prior to final approval of the Copper Trails Specific Plan, the City and the project applicant shall meet to identify and incorporate measures with substantial potential to reduce vehicle miles traveled generated by CTSP residential and office land uses within the Specific Plan area. The measures shall, if possible, quantify potential reductions in vehicle miles traveled and the degree to which CTSP VMT could approach the respective significance thresholds for these land uses, as established in the Copper Trails Specific Plan Transportation Impact Analysis prepared by Wood Rodgers in March 2024. These measures shall, to the degree feasible, be incorporated within the Copper Trails Specific Plan.

Level of Significance: Significant and unavoidable
Impact TRANS-4: Traffic Hazards - Collisions
The Land Development and Intergovernmental Review Safety Review Practitioners Guidance, issued by Caltrans, establishes the safety review expectations for proposed land use projects that would affect Caltrans facilities in the context of the CEQA review process.

The guidelines consist of a freeway queueing analysis and traffic safety review, including collision analysis (Caltrans 2020).

Five years of collision data were obtained from the Caltrans Traffic Accident Surveillance and Analysis Systems for eight Caltrans facilities to identify high collision locations and common collision characteristics. These facilities were on-ramps and off-ramps from SR 99 interchanges closest to the CTSP Area (see Transportation Impact Analysis in Appendix G for more information). The data indicate that the SR 99 Northbound Off-Ramp to Pine Street/El Camino Avenue/4th Street, the SR 99 Southbound On-Ramp from 2nd Street/North Street, and the SR 99 Southbound Off-Ramp to Mitchell Road have experienced higher Total Collision rates and Fatal + Injury collision rates than the State average for similar facilities. Additionally, the SR 99 Southbound Off-Ramp to Mitchell Road experienced a higher-than-average Fatal collision rate. The most common primary collision factors were speeding and improper turning.

The CTSP is primarily projected to add trips to the SR 99 northbound on-ramp from Pine Street/El Camino Avenue/4th Street and the SR 99 southbound off-ramp to El Camino Avenue/North Street. Both facilities have experienced collision rates below the average for similar facilities. Construction of the Service Road interchange would reconstruct the entire Mitchell Road interchange by eliminating the SR 99 northbound on-ramp from Mitchell Road and the SR 99 southbound off-ramp to Mitchell Road and modifying the northbound off-ramp and southbound on-ramp. With the new Service Road interchange in place, CTSP traffic is unlikely to utilize the Mitchell Road ramps. Additionally, the new Service Road interchange is projected to redirect a significant amount of traffic away from the remaining nearby existing ramps to the new ramps at Service Road. The Transportation Impact EXHIBIT B ITEM 13
Copper Trails Specific Plan and Annexation EIR 16-17 November 2024 Analysis concluded that the CTSP would not add a significant number of trips to the existing ramps that have higher than typical collision rates. Project impacts related to collisions at Caltrans facilities would be less than significant.

Level of Significance: Less than significant
Mitigation Measures: None required
Impact TRANS-5: Traffic Hazards - Queuing
Vehicle queuing could be a safety issue, particularly if resultant queues from inadequate lanes or turn pockets could hinder traffic flow. This would especially be the case for Caltrans facilities, where added cars to an off-ramp queue could extend into the freeway mainline.

The Transportation Impact Analysis conducted an evaluation of off-ramp queuing at five off-ramps near the CTSP Area, including those at the planned Service Road interchange.

Off-ramp queueing was performed for Near-Term and Near-Term Plus Project conditions.

Near-Term scenarios were used in lieu of Existing conditions scenarios for the ramp queueing analysis, as the new Service Road interchange is planned to be constructed well before CTSP development is complete. Synchro 11 software was used to model the study intersections, and SimTraffic 11 software was used to analyze 95th percentile queues (i.e., there is a 95% certainty that the queues will not extend beyond a certain point).

The results of the queuing analysis indicate that all off-ramp queues are projected to fit within available storage under Near-Term conditions. The SR 99 southbound off-ramp queue at Service Road is projected to exceed available storage under Near-Term Plus Project PM peak hour conditions; the remaining off-ramp queues are projected to fit within available storage under Near-Term Plus Project conditions. The queueing impact at the SR 99 southbound off-ramp is largely due to the significant increase in southbound right turn volumes due to vehicles traveling to the CTSP Area. In addition, observation of the microsimulation runs reveal excessive eastbound queueing on Service Road between Moffet Road and the SR 99 northbound on-ramps. This is due to the significantly increased volume of eastbound left-turn traffic entering the northbound on-ramp from the CTSP Area via Service Road.

The Transportation Impact Analysis recommended measures to be implemented at both locations where potential excessive queuing was identified. These measures were initially identified by Wood Rodgers as applicant responsibilities initially recommended as mitigation measures. Anticipated near-term changes in the planning and design of the future interchange prohibit definition of a workable queuing solution. Since the potential queuing impacts are not of immediate (near-term) concern but remain are related to the project, then the project bears responsibility for the costs of mitigating these impacts, but these mitigation measures, and proportionate share responsibility will need to be defined, in future discussions between the applicant, City and Caltrans. It can be assumed that these mitigation measures can and would reduce queuing impacts, and associated potential safety hazards; however, for the time being the effectiveness of those measures in reducing the EXHIBIT B ITEM 13
Copper Trails Specific Plan and Annexation EIR 16-18 November 2024 queuing impact to a less than significant level is uncertain, and this would remain a potentially significant effect after mitigation.

Level of Significance: Potentially significant
Mitigation Measures:

TRANS-2: The applicant shall participate in the planning and design of the SR 99/Service Road SB and NB ramp intersections as needed to minimize queuing concerns associated with Copper Trails development as described by Wood Rodgers in its 2024
Transportation Impact Analysis until the design and funding of the overall interchange improvement project is in place. The applicant shall be 100% responsible for the costs of temporary improvements, or the project’s proportionate share costs of the long-term improvements as determined by the City Engineer in coordination with the California Department of Transportation.

Significance after Mitigation: Potentially significant
Impact TRANS-6: Emergency Access
Adequate access is currently available for emergency vehicles entering both the CTSP Area and the Pocket Area through the existing roadway network. As development within the CTSP Area occurs, many of the existing roads would be improved to Specific Plan standards, developed in part to facilitate access for emergency vehicles. The planned Service Road interchange would allow more direct access from SR 99 to the CTSP Area and the Pocket Area, particularly for emergency vehicles. Project impacts related to emergency access would be less than significant.

Level of Significance: Less than significant
Mitigation Measures: None required
EXHIBIT B ITEM 13
Figure16-1
BaseCamp Environmental STUDY ROADWAY SEGMENTS
EXHIBIT B ITEM 13
Copper Trails Specific Plan and Annexation EIR 17-1 November 2024

17.0 UTILITIES AND ENERGY
ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
Potable Water
Potable water - water suitable for drinking - is provided to most land uses within the City limits by the City of Ceres; the northwest portion of the City receives water service from the City of Modesto. The City system serves 11,850 residential, commercial, industrial, and institutional/government connections as of 2023. Groundwater was the sole source of water for the City’s system until the introduction of surface water in late 2023; groundwater is provided through 14 active wells. In 2020, the demand for potable water on the City’s system was 2,151 million gallons per year (City of Ceres 2021b).

The City’s potable water system is composed of groundwater wells, aboveground storage facilities, and potable water distribution lines. The City’s 14 groundwater wells range in productive capacity from 200 to 1,040 gallons per minute, per 2023 pump efficiency tests.

Chapter 12.0 Hydrology and Water Quality, provides further discussion of groundwater related issues.

The City, as a member of the Stanislaus Regional Water Authority, has an agreement for an initial delivery of 5 million gallons per day (mgd) of treated surface water from TID, with an ultimate delivery of 15 mgd (Vera and Thompson pers. comm). This supplemental water supply system began operation in 2023 (City of Ceres 2021b). The SRWA supply is delivered via an infiltration gallery beneath the Tuolumne River, a new wet well and raw water pump station, a raw water transmission main, a water treatment plant, and a finished water transmission main to Ceres (City of Ceres 2018a).

The City’s distribution system consists of approximately 154 miles of water lines. The majority of the water lines are less than 10 inches in diameter, with some water lines greater than 12 inches in diameter. A 24-inch water line is located beneath East Service Road from SR 99 to Blaker Road. Water lines between 10 and 12 inches in diameter are also located beneath the segment of Central Avenue from East Service Road to TID Lower Lateral 2, and on a segment of East Redwood Road east of Central Avenue (Figure 17-1). The City has two at-grade reservoirs with a combined storage capacity of 3.8 million gallons. There is also a surface water reservoir tank with a storage capacity of 3.0 million gallons, along with two pumps of 250 horsepower. The existing system includes one booster pump station with six booster pumps each rated at 1,500 gallons per minute.

Within the CTSP Area, only the two schools are connected to the City’s water system.

Residences and businesses not connected to the water system obtain potable water from individual groundwater wells. Most of the developed portion of the Pocket Area is served by the City’s water system; the remaining portion either is served by individual groundwater wells or has no water service.

EXHIBIT B ITEM 13
Copper Trails Specific Plan and Annexation EIR 17-2 November 2024 Irrigation Water
The TID provides water for irrigation of agricultural fields south of the City, including those in the CTSP Area. The TID, established in 1887, provides irrigation water to 197,261 acres of agricultural lands in Stanislaus and Merced counties. Its service area is generally bounded on the north by the Tuolumne River, on the south by the Merced River, and on the west by the San Joaquin River. The Tuolumne River provides the principal water supply of TID. Don Pedro Reservoir, on the Tuolumne River, is TID’s principal storage reservoir, with Turlock Lake being another storage reservoir.

From 2015 to 2019, TID has had on average 546,400 acre-feet of water supply available annually, of which 423,600 acre-feet was surface water, 108,700 acre-feet was from groundwater, and 14,000 acre-feet was from other sources. During that same time period, TID on average delivered 391,413 acre-feet of water annually to its agricultural users.

Another 86,463 acre-feet were lost annually to canal spillage, seepage, and evaporation (TID 2021).

TID operates approximately 222 miles of lined canals and 18.5 miles of unlined canals (TID 2021). As has been noted, the TID Lower Lateral 2 marks the southern boundary of the CTSP area extending west from the Ceres Main Canal to beyond Blaker Road. Lower Lateral 2 has a right-of-way of 60 feet. The Ceres Main Canal is adjacent to Mitchell Road, along the southeastern boundary of the CTSP Area. The Main Canal has a right-of-way of 90 feet. Electrical lines and utility poles carrying them are in the right-of-way of both canals. In addition, as noted in Chapter 12.0, Hydrology and Water Quality, a TID drainage well is located on Blaker Road near the intersection with Service Road.

As noted above, TID has entered into an agreement with the City, under the auspices of the Stanislaus Regional Water Authority, to provide additional surface water to supply the City’s potable water system. In addition, TID facilities are used by the City to discharge stormwater drainage, as described later in this chapter.

Wastewater System
The City of Ceres provides wastewater collection and treatment services within its boundaries. Figure 17-2 shows the existing wastewater system. The City’s service area consists of approximately 4,100 acres of land with about 13,800 sewer connections. Except for areas designated for agriculture, the City’s system serves all portions of the General Plan Planning Area, including customers outside of city limits such as the Pocket Area (City of Ceres 2018a). However, the CTSP Area is not connected to the City’s system.

Approximately 280 developed parcels between Herndon Road and Mitchell Road do not have wastewater services provided by the City; these areas have on-site septic tanks and leach field systems. Residences on agricultural parcels likewise rely upon on-site septic tanks and leach field systems for wastewater collection.

The wastewater generated from residential, commercial, institutional, and industrial users in the City’s sewer service area is received at the City’s WWTP, which is then either sent to the City’s percolation ponds or to the City of Turlock’s WWTP. Wastewater that is not delivered to the City’s WWTP is delivered to the City of Modesto’s treatment plant. The EXHIBIT B ITEM 13
Copper Trails Specific Plan and Annexation EIR 17-3 November 2024 area that delivers its wastewater to Modesto’s WWTP is called the North Ceres Sewer Service Area. The Ceres WWTP treats wastewater through a variety of processes and facilities, including headworks, aerated treatment ponds, filters, and percolation ponds.

Currently, the Ceres WWTP treats an average flow of approximately 2.5 mgd of wastewater (Sam Royal pers. comm.). The predicted hydraulic capacity limit of existing on-site disposal is limited to 2.8 mgd, but existing permit conditions limit discharge to 2.5 mgd. The City has an agreement with the City of Turlock that allows export of up to 2.0 mgd of wastewater to the Turlock WWTP, giving the City a combined capacity of 4.5 mgd (City of Ceres 2013).

Storm Drainage
Ceres’ storm drain system includes approximately 1,541 drain inlets, more than 80 miles of storm drain pipe, 40 retention/detention ponds, 40 pump stations, 25 French drains, and 80 rock (dry) wells (Figure 17-3). There is not a single citywide storm drainage system; rather, there are several individual smaller storm drainage systems. Stormwater runoff is disposed of by percolation ponds at the City’s WWTP, discharge to four TID canals at 25 locations, and discharge in four locations to the Tuolumne River. The majority of stormwater runoff flows into detention basins, with only a limited number of neighborhoods discharging directly to a TID canal or to the river. Discharge to TID facilities is permitted under the 1996 Master Storm Drain Agreement between TID and the City; the agreement is described later in this chapter.

The City’s stormwater system design is based on providing capacity for a 100-year, 24- hour storm, in accordance with Stanislaus County’s Storm Drain Design Manual and City improvement standards. Nevertheless, significant storm events (10-year events and above) have the potential to cause widespread overflows of the City’s drainage system. In particular, some older areas of the city may experience flooding in storms that exceed a half-inch per hour of rainfall. Street flooding due to storm-clogged storm drain inlets is generally cleared within half a day. In recent years, new development projects have been required to use on-site percolation systems to dispose of the stormwater runoff. The City is currently updating its storm drainage master plan.

As discussed in Chapter 12.0, Hydrology and Water Quality, storm water quality is regulated under the federal Clean Water Act through the NPDES program. The federal NPDES requirements are delegated to the Central Valley RWQCB, which adopted a Phase II Small MS4 General Permit in 2013 (Order 2013-0001-DWQ).

Solid Waste
The City is currently contracted with Bertolotti Disposal for solid waste, recycling, and organic waste collection, bulky item pick-up, leaf and limb pick-up, and illegal dump removal. Residents can dispose of hazardous waste, including batteries, herbicides, pesticides, pool cleaners, batteries, electronics, and automotive facilities at Stanislaus County facilities.

Bertolotti Disposal sends solid waste to the Fink Road Landfill and the Stanislaus Resource Recovery Facility (SRRF). Recyclable material is taken to its Stockton facility, and organic EXHIBIT B ITEM 13
Copper Trails Specific Plan and Annexation EIR 17-4 November 2024 waste is taken to either the Modesto Jennings compost facility or to California Soils in Vernalis in San Joaquin County. The Fink Road Landfill is in southwestern Stanislaus County. The landfill has a maximum permitted capacity of 15 million cubic yards and is currently at approximately 50 percent capacity (CalRecycle 2023). The landfill was scheduled to close in December 2023, but the closure date has been extended to 2050. The Fink Road Landfill has a maximum permitted throughput of 2,400 tons per day (City of Ceres 2018a).

The SRFF is a solid waste disposal, resource recovery, and electric generating facility that began operations in 1989. The facility was developed pursuant to a service agreement with the City of Modesto and the County of Stanislaus. It is capable of burning 800 tons of trash per day. As of 2018, the SRRF has processed more than 4.9 million tons of garbage and generated over 2.4 billion kilowatt-hours of electricity (City of Ceres 2018a).

Trash can be diverted away from landfills through strategies such as recycling, composting, reuse, and waste reduction. Waste reduction and diversion reduce greenhouse gas emissions, methane production, and the burden on landfills to accommodate waste. In order to meet or exceed the State mandates for solid waste reduction or diversion, the City partners with Stanislaus County and participates in the countywide Integrated Waste Management Plan.

Energy
CEQA requires that an EIR includes a discussion of the potential energy impacts of a proposed project, with emphasis on avoiding or reducing inefficient, wasteful, and unnecessary consumption of energy. Appendix F of the CEQA Guidelines provides guidance for a discussion of energy impacts. Subjects may include identifying wasteful, inefficient, and unnecessary consumption of energy during project construction, operation, maintenance, and/or removal that cannot be feasibly mitigated, and the pre-emption of future energy development or future energy conservation.

Energy Usage
According to the latest information from the U.S. Energy Information Administration, California consumed 7,359 trillion British thermal units (BTUs) of energy in 2021, making it the second largest consumer of energy among states. However, consumption per capita in California was 189 million BTUs, which was 48th among all states. Transportation accounted for approximately 37.8% of the energy consumed in California, followed by industrial with 23.2%, residential with 20.0%, and commercial with 19.0% (EIA 2023).

Electricity is a major energy source for residences and businesses in California. In 2022, the most recent year for which data are available, electricity consumption in California totaled approximately 287,826 gigawatt-hours. In Stanislaus County, electricity consumption in 2022 totaled approximately 5,245 million kilowatt-hours (kWh) [5,245 gigawatt-hours], of which approximately 2,026 million kWh were consumed by residential uses and the remainder by non-residential uses (CEC 2024a). As indicated above, natural gas is another major energy source. In 2022, natural gas consumption in California totaled approximately 11,711 million therms. In Stanislaus County, natural gas consumption in EXHIBIT B ITEM 13
Copper Trails Specific Plan and Annexation EIR 17-5 November 2024 2022 totaled approximately 203 million therms, of which approximately 62 million therms were consumed by residential uses and the remainder by non-residential uses (CEC 2024b).

Motor vehicle use also accounts for substantial energy usage through the consumption of gasoline and diesel fuel. As noted in Chapter 16.0, Transportation, the estimated VMT in the StanCOG region in 2020 was 9,159,585 miles, or approximately 25,095 VMT daily.

Based on the estimated 2020 VMT, approximately 236 million gallons of fuel were consumed in 2020, of which approximately 197 million gallons were gasoline and 39 million gallons were diesel fuel (StanCOG 2022b).

Energy Systems and Facilities
Among all states, California ranked seventh in petroleum production and fourth in production of electricity as of 2022. California ranked second in the U.S. as a producer of electricity from renewable resources, and it has the second-largest hydroelectric power generating capacity. Typically, California receives between one-fifth and one-third of its electricity supply from outside the state (EIA 2023).

Electricity in the Ceres area is provided by TID. The residential sector uses nearly half of all electricity consumed in the Ceres area, followed by the industrial and commercial sectors. TID generates its electricity from hydroelectric facilities, natural gas power plants, a geothermal power plant, solar panels, and wind turbines (City of Ceres 2018a). Recently, TID has purchased power from biomass power plants that use dead and dying trees in California for a significant portion of their fuel, pursuant to SB 859 (TID website). A 230- kilovolt transmission line runs along Mitchell Road at the eastern boundary of the project site. Another 230-kilovolt transmission line runs along TID Lower Lateral 2 for approximately three-quarters mile west of Mitchell Road, then continues westward south of the lateral. Local TID electrical distribution lines providing services to individual users are located throughout the project site. The majority of the distribution lines are overhead, but some have been undergrounded in developed residential areas.

Natural gas service in the Ceres area is provided by the Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E), a private utility. PG&E provides natural gas to a 70,000-square mile service area in northern and central California, utilizing approximately 6,700 miles of gas transmission pipelines and 42,000 miles of gas distribution pipelines (PG&E website). For the Ceres area, the residential sector uses the most natural gas, followed by commercial. According to data from PG&E, Ceres industrial land uses did not use natural gas (City of Ceres 2018a).

Interregional gas mains are located along the SR 99 corridor, and branch lines extend to the cities, with service pipelines located primarily within City streets.

The California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) requires that public utility facilities for urban development be placed underground. CPUC rules govern the operations of all the above-described entities except TID, which is governed locally in accordance with the California Water Code. State-regulated energy franchise utilities are obligated to extend services to new development as necessary.

EXHIBIT B ITEM 13
Copper Trails Specific Plan and Annexation EIR 17-6 November 2024 REGULATORY FRAMEWORK
State
SB 610
SB 610, enacted in 2001, amended the California Public Resources Code and the Water Code to expand requirements for documentation of available water supply in connection with land development approvals. Specifically, SB 610 requires land use agencies with authority over large development projects to document the availability of an adequate supply of potable water and to include this documentation in the EIR or Negative Declaration for larger development projects.

The required documentation is a Water Supply Assessment (WSA). The WSA evaluates the adequacy of the total projected water supplies of the agency providing water to a proposed project, including existing water supplies and future planned water supplies, to meet the existing and projected future water demands, including future water demands associated with a project. This evaluation is conducted under three hydrologic conditions:
a normal precipitation year, a single dry year, and multiple dry years. The water supply assessment may be based on an Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP) or provide other equivalent information indicating that a 20-year supply is available to the project.

WSA requirements apply to specified residential, commercial, and industrial projects.

Industrial projects employing more than 1,000 persons, occupying more than 40 acres of land, or having more than 650,000 square feet of floor area require a WSA. WSA requirements are not applicable to specific plans. California Water Code Sections 10910- 10915 require that the land use agency request preparation of the WSA from the responsible public water system. For larger proposed projects in the CTSP Area, the City of Ceres will be both the land use agency and the public water service provider through the City’s Public Works Department. WSAs will need to be prepared in conjunction with these projects.

In 2021, the City adopted the 2020 UWMP. The 2020 UWMP describes the City’s water system, characterizes water use, describes the water supply sources for the City, and analyzes the reliability of the City’s water service for normal, dry, and five-year drought conditions for the next 20 years. To further improve the reliability of the City’s water system, the UWMP includes a Water Shortage Contingency Plan that identifies strategies to implement during water shortages and describes procedures for identifying the potential of a water shortage. The UWMP planning area encompasses the City’s Sphere of Influence, which includes the CTSP and Pocket Areas (City of Ceres 2021b).

Solid Waste Regulations
The California Integrated Waste Management Act (AB 939), enacted in 1989 and subsequently amended, requires local jurisdictions to divert at least 50% of their solid waste from landfills by 2000; the City is compliance with AB 939. More recent legislation, AB 341, increased the recycling requirement to 75% of solid waste by 2020. Beginning April 1, 2016, AB 1826, the State’s Mandatory Organic Waste Recycling law, phases in EXHIBIT B ITEM 13
Copper Trails Specific Plan and Annexation EIR 17-7 November 2024 requirements for businesses, including multifamily properties of five or more units, based on the amount and type of waste the business produces weekly, with full implementation in 2019.
● January 1, 2017: Businesses that generate 4 cubic yards of organic waste per week arrange organic waste recycling services.
● January 1, 2019: Businesses that generate 4 cubic yards or more of commercial solid waste per week arrange organic waste recycling services.

Other applicable legislation includes AB 1826, which states that businesses and multifamily residential dwellings of five or more units that generate two or more cubic yards of organic waste are required to recycle this waste. SB 1383 sets methane emission reduction targets to reduce emissions of short-lived climate pollutants. The targets are intended to reduce organic waste disposal 75% by 2025 and to rescue for people to eat at least 20% of currently disposed surplus food by 2025. All jurisdictions will need to provide organic waste collection services to all residents and businesses and to recycle these organic materials using facilities such as anaerobic digestion facilities and composting facilities.

California Energy Code
California has adopted comprehensive energy efficiency standards as part of its Building Standards Code, California Codes of Regulations, Title 24. Part 6 of Title 24, also known as the California Energy Code, contains energy conservation standards applicable to all residential and non-residential buildings throughout California, including schools and community colleges. These standards are occasionally updated and were last updated in 2022. The City of Ceres has adopted the 2022 version of the California Energy Code as part of its building codes.

Section 100 of the 2022 Energy Code requires that buildings are to be “solar ready,” meaning that buildings must be designed so that they can accommodate a solar electric or solar thermal system that can be installed later. Specific solar-ready requirements for nonresidential buildings are set forth in Section 110 of the Energy Code.

California Green Building Standards Code (CALGreen)
In 2009, the California Building Standards Commission adopted a voluntary Green Building Standards Code, also known as CALGreen. In January 2010, the Commission made CALGreen mandatory, effective January 1, 2011, and it has since been incorporated in the State’s Building Standards Code, California Codes of Regulations, Title 24. Part 11.

CALGreen sets forth mandatory measures for nonresidential structures related to site development, water efficiency and conservation, indoor air quality, and material conservation among others. They also include energy efficiency measures, which essentially require compliance with the latest building energy efficiency measures adopted by the State. The City of Ceres has adopted the 2022 CALGreen, including the water conservation measures specified therein.

EXHIBIT B ITEM 13
Copper Trails Specific Plan and Annexation EIR 17-8 November 2024 Renewables Portfolio Standard
As discussed in Chapter 10.0, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, California has adopted a Renewables Portfolio Standard, under which California shall purchase an increasing share of electricity generated by renewable sources. Most retail electricity retail sellers met the original target of 33% electricity from renewable sources by 2020. Current target, set by subsequent legislation, are 50% by 2026, 60% by 2030, 90% by 2035, and 95% by 2040.

The goal is for California to obtain 100% of its electricity from renewable sources by 2045.

Local
Water Master Plan
The City adopted its Water Master Plan in 2011. The Water Master Plan identifies strategies for maintaining water supplies and service levels for the community, guides capital expenditures for the City’s water system, furnishes guidance on operational issues, and charts a course for future updates to water rates. The water system planning area is based on the Ceres General Plan as adopted in 1997. Proposed improvements that are located in the CTSP Area include 12-inch diameter pipelines throughout the site, a 16-inch diameter pipeline along Blaker Road, and a new well near the intersection of Central Avenue and Redwood Road (City of Ceres 2011). To date, the only improvements identified in the Water Master Plan that have been installed within the project site are pipelines along Central Avenue and Redwood Road that serve the two existing schools.

Urban Water Management Plan
The California Water Code requires each urban water supplier within the state to prepare and adopt a UWMP for submission to the DWR every five years. The purpose of the UWMP is to maintain efficient use of urban water supplies, continue to promote conservation programs and policies, ensure that sufficient water supplies are available for future beneficial use, and provide a mechanism for response during water drought conditions.

Sewer System Master Plan
The City adopted its Sewer System Master Plan in 2013. The Sewer System Master Plan evaluates the condition and available capacity of existing facilities, projects the need for expanded sewer facilities to meet the demands of planned growth, and provides a plan of the orderly expansion of those facilities after evaluating alternatives. Like the Water Master Plan, the planning area is based on the Ceres General Plan as adopted in 1997. Proposed improvements that are located on the project site include new sewer mains along Service Road, Central Avenue, and Moffett Avenue, with a lift station and a line extension eastward beneath SR 99 to a proposed main along Mitchell Road (City of Ceres 2013).

Storm Drain System Master Plan
The City adopted its current Storm Drain System Master Plan in 1995. The Master Plan is intended to demonstrate how the City plans to handle storm drainage for its 1995 General Plan area. The Storm Drain Master Plan provides a needs analysis of the existing system EXHIBIT B ITEM 13
Copper Trails Specific Plan and Annexation EIR 17-9 November 2024 and addresses the proposed future system needs as defined by the limits of the General Plan. An important part of the Master Plan is to show the TID how the City’s system currently utilizes TID’s irrigation canal system and plans to utilize it in the future. Proposed improvements that are located on the project site include a storm drainage pump and two detention basins with associated piping (City of Ceres 1995).

The City is in the process of updating its Storm Drain Master Plan. The updated Master Plan would update and evaluate the existing storm drain system and develop a storm drain hydraulic model of the backbone system components to plan for growth and phased improvements, as defined in the Ceres General Plan 2035. It would identify needed facilities to correct deficiencies in the existing system and to support future development.

Future facilities proposed in the CTSP Area include pipelines, ranging in diameter from 24 to 72 inches, and four detention basins (City of Ceres 2024a), which is consistent with what is proposed in the CTSP.

Turlock Irrigation District Master Storm Drain Agreement In 1996, the City and TID entered into an agreement that authorizes the City to discharge stormwater runoff into TID canals for ultimate disposal to the Tuolumne River. The agreement authorizes the City to discharge stormwater from 20 sub-watersheds into the Delmas Ditch, Lateral 1 Canal, Lateral A, Lateral 2 Canal, and Ceres Main Canal. Each sub-watershed discharge point is authorized to discharge a specified capacity listed in the Master Storm Drain Agreement.

The Tuolumne River provides water supply to the TID canals during irrigation season.

During non-irrigation seasons, the TID canals are drained to the Tuolumne River..

Generally, the TID canal system capacity is limited by the discharge capacity at the downstream end of the system. TID limits stormwater discharges at times during the offirrigation season and during canal maintenance.

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
Significance Thresholds
According to Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, a project may have a significant impact related to utilities if it would:
● Require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment, stormwater drainage, electric power, natural gas, or telecommunications facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects,
● Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project and reasonably foreseeable future development during normal, dry, and multiple dry years, ● Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has inadequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments, EXHIBIT B ITEM 13
Copper Trails Specific Plan and Annexation EIR 17-10 November 2024 ● Generate solid waste in excess of State or local standards, or in excess of the capacity of local infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals, or
● Not comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste.

Recently, CEQA Guidelines Appendix G was updated to include questions regarding energy consumption and conservation. According to the updated Appendix G, a project may have a significant impact related to energy if it would:
● Result in potentially significant impacts due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources during project construction or operation, or
● Conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency.

Impact UTIL-1: Relocation and Construction of Infrastructure Facilities The Pocket Area, being mostly developed, is already served by existing infrastructure facilities. No major new facilities are expected to be constructed there.

New development within the CTSP Area is anticipated to connect with the City’s water, wastewater, and storm drainage systems, along with PG&E’s electrical and natural gas systems. This would require the extension of new mains that provide water, collect wastewater and storm drainage, and convey natural gas; these extensions would occur as part of new street improvements. The CTSP is served by existing electrical lines; these lines may need to be extended, reinforced and underground, or a new substation may need to be constructed in conjunction with new development.

As new development proceeds within the CTSP Area, applicants would be required to design and construct street and utility improvements needed to serve new projects.

Subdivision maps would be required under Title 17 of the Ceres Municipal Code to identify location and size of both existing and proposed utilities, including pipelines and easements.

All such facilities would be installed in accordance with applicable City standards, specifications, and plans. Improvement costs would be met from established City and County impact fees, developer contributions and/or development fees; these financing mechanisms are defined in the CTSP Public Facilities Financing Plan (PFFP). These requirements would be addressed at a project level during the City’s development review process. The physical impact of utility improvements would generally fall within the clearing and grading impacts associated with the extension or widening of public streets, within existing right-of-way.

TID and PG&E are obligated to extend electricity and natural gas facilities when required to provide service to new development. During the development review process, the developers must consult with the service providers to ensure that infrastructure is available when needed and to prevent impacts on existing buried utilities. Any utility extension would be coordinated with development as it occurs within the CTSP Area.

EXHIBIT B ITEM 13
Copper Trails Specific Plan and Annexation EIR 17-11 November 2024 In its NOP comment letter, TID notes that there are several irrigation improvement districts and numerous private irrigation facilities that exist in the CTSP Area. One of the improvement districts (ID 91C, Lateral C), flows through the CTSP Area, from east to west, to serve agricultural land beyond the CTSP Area. A portion of this facility was upgraded as part of the development of Central Valley High School. The remainder of this line will have to be upgraded and possibly relocated to accommodate development.

Moreover, TID stated that, depending on the sequence of development in both the CTSP Area and the Pocket Area, there exists an opportunity for the abandonment and removal of many of these other irrigation facilities.

The TID recommends that an overall strategy for mitigating impacts to irrigation should be developed to avoid inefficiencies that can occur when reviewing on a project-by-project basis. This recommendation is incorporated as a mitigation measure below. With implementation of this mitigation measure, project impacts involving extension, relocation, or construction of infrastructure facilities would be less than significant.

Level of Significance: Potentially significant
Mitigation Measures:

UTIL-1: Prior to the start of development that impacts TID irrigation facilities, the project shall design one or more method acceptable to the City and TID that will minimize or avoid the impacts of development on the continued operation of existing TID irrigation facilities. The agreedupon methods shall be incorporated as applicable into the design and construction of future development.

Significance After Mitigation: Less than significant
Impact UTIL-2: Availability of Adequate Domestic Water Supply Development pursuant to the adopted CTSP can be expected to substantially increase demand on the City’s water supplies. Any additional development that may occur within the Pocket Area would not be expected to do the same, as most of this area is already developed.

The CTSP proposes the construction of a domestic water system to serve future development. The water distribution system would consist of looping pipelines located in arterial and collector roads to form a transmission main grid consisting of 12-inch to 24- inch diameter mains through the CTSP Area. This system includes a planned connection to the 24-inch trunk line in Service Road, and additional connections are planned at Moffett Road and Lucas Road. The construction of an additional domestic well, storage tank, and booster pump is planned to meet the flow demand for buildout of the CTSP Area. A domestic well and tank site are planned at the south terminus of Moffett Road.

Increased water demand may require the City to seek new supplies of water or to draw upon its existing groundwater supply. Both actions would have potentially significant impacts. The 2020 UWMP assessed the potential future demand for water from development in the Ceres area, including the project site as set forth in the Ceres General EXHIBIT B ITEM 13
Copper Trails Specific Plan and Annexation EIR 17-12 November 2024 Plan. The demand was compared to the supply of water available to the City during a normal rain year, a dry year, and the fifth of five multiple dry years. Table 17-1 shows the results of the UWMP analysis. As seen in Table 17-1, the City would have adequate water supplies to meet anticipated demand over a 20-year period, to the year 2040.

TABLE 17-1
CERES WATER SUPPLY AND DEMAND COMPARISON, 2025-2040
Precipitation Year 2025 2030 2035 2040
Normal Year
Supply 8,258 8,258 8,258 8,258
Demand 2,996 3,527 4,152 4,152
Difference 5,262 4,731 4,106 4,106
Dry Year
Supply 8,258 8,258 8,258 8,258
Demand 4,195 4,938 5,813 5,813
Difference 4,063 3,320 2,445 2,445
Multiple Dry Years (fifth of 5 years)
Supply 8,258 8,258 8,258 8,258
Demand 3,296 3,880 4,567 4,567
Difference 4,962 4,378 3,691 3,691
Note: All figures in million gallons per year.

Source: City of Ceres 2021b.

NorthStar Engineering, which worked on the preparation of the CTSP, estimated the water demand that would be generated by proposed CTSP development at buildout by applying a water demand factor based on the land use. The results indicate that development under the proposed CTSP would generate an average water demand of approximately 865.6 gallons per minute, or approximately 455.3 million gallons per year (1,397 acre-feet per year). A memorandum by West Yost Engineers estimated water demand from CTSP development, excluding the existing schools, at 955 acre-feet per year (Vera and Thompson pers. comm.). In either case, based on the information in Table 17-1, the City would have adequate water supply to accommodate development under the CTSP, even during multiple dry years. Therefore, project impacts on water supplies are considered less than significant.

Level of Significance: Less than significant
Mitigation Measures: None required
EXHIBIT B ITEM 13
Copper Trails Specific Plan and Annexation EIR 17-13 November 2024 Impact UTIL-3: Wastewater System Capacity
The proposed CTSP is expected to substantially increase demand on the City’s wastewater treatment plant. As with the potable water system, the Pocket Area is not expected to do the same, as most of this area is already developed. Therefore, the focus of this analysis is on the CTSP.

Wastewater generated in the CTSP Area would place additional demands on the Ceres WWTP. North Star Engineering estimated the amount of wastewater that would be generated by planned CTSP development at buildout, including wastewater generated by the existing two schools. The results are provided in Table 17-2 below.

TABLE 17-2

CTSP POTENTIAL WASTEWATER GENERATION AT BUILDOUT
Land Use
Gross
Acres
Average Wastewater
Flow1
Low-Density Residential 179.6 280,176
Medium-Density Residential 33.1 71,129
Medium High-Density Residential 16.8 53,582
High-Density Residential 30.8 128,889
Regional Commercial 107.4 50,263
New Public Usage 3.4 3,359
Existing Schools 74.1 924,768
TOTAL 1,512,166
1 Gallons per day.

Source: North Star Engineering.

As indicated in Table 17-2, development under the proposed CTSP at buildout would generate an average wastewater flow of approximately 1,512,166 gallons per day, or approximately 1.51 mgd. As noted, the City currently has 4.5 mgd of treatment capacity when existing WWTP capacity and access to the Turlock WWTP are considered, and the WWTP currently treats approximately 2.5 mgd of wastewater on average. Therefore, the City’s wastewater treatment system would have adequate capacity to accommodate CTSP development.

At this time, the City has plans to expand its WWTP to a tertiary treatment system. Should such expansion be pursued, development within the CTSP Area would be charged development fees for wastewater system expansion, which could be used to fund WWTP expansion. Project impacts on wastewater treatment capacity are considered less than significant.

EXHIBIT B ITEM 13
Copper Trails Specific Plan and Annexation EIR 17-14 November 2024 Level of Significance: Less than significant
Mitigation Measures: None required
Impact UTIL-4: Storm Drainage Services
Development of the CTSP Area for urban uses would involve new structures and pavement, which would generate additional runoff and the need for storm drainage facilities (see also Chapter 12.0, Hydrology and Water Quality). The CTSP’s planned drainage improvements consist of a combination of conventional subsurface and surface drainage systems, including construction of pipe conveyance systems and storm drainage basins. The storm drainage infrastructure system is designed to create four major drainage sheds within the Plan Area that serve separate north, south, east, and west areas, each with its own stormwater basin. As noted, the draft update of the City’s Storm Drain Master Plan proposes four detention basins in the CTSP Area.

Subdivision maps would be required under Title 17 of the Ceres Municipal Code to identify location and size of both existing and proposed utilities, including storm drainage facilities.

All such facilities would be installed in accordance with applicable City standards, specifications, and plans. Should additional improvements to the City systems be needed, depending on the source of the demand, improvement costs would be met from developer contributions and/or development fees. In addition, the City Engineers states that commercial development in the eastern portion of the CTSP shall retain its storm water on site (Sam Royal pers. comm.).

As discussed in Chapter 12.0, Hydrology and Water Quality, storm water quality in the City is regulated by the City’s Storm Water Management Program and its Storm Water Management and Discharge Control Ordinance. These control non-storm water discharges to the stormwater conveyance system from spills, dumping, or disposal of materials other than storm water, and by reducing pollutants in urban storm water discharges to the maximum extent practicable. Requirements to accomplish these objectives are incorporated into projects in conjunction with routine City project review. Project impacts related to storm drainage would be less than significant.

Level of Significance: Less than significant
Mitigation Measures: None required
Impact UTIL-5: Irrigation Water Systems
As has been noted, the CTSP Area contains a substantial amount of agricultural lands, water for which is provided by TID. Future development of the CTSP Area would reduce the demand for irrigation water by TID as agricultural lands are converted to urban uses.

This would make more water available for other agricultural activities in the TID service area.

However, as discussed, development of the CTSP would increase demand for the City’s storm drainage services. The City utilizes the TID canals for the discharge of collected storm drainage, and it is anticipated that storm drainage collected in the CTSP Area would EXHIBIT B ITEM 13
Copper Trails Specific Plan and Annexation EIR 17-15 November 2024 be discharged to these canals as well. Discharges of storm drainage to TID canals would be subject to the provisions of the Master Storm Drain Agreement between TID and the City. In addition, the construction of any facilities that are proposed to occur within the TID canals would require a permit from TID prior to work. Project impacts on irrigation water systems would be less than significant.

Level of Significance: Less than significant
Mitigation Measures: None required
Impact UTIL-6: Solid Waste
Project development would contribute to solid waste generation due to the construction and ongoing occupancy/operation of new residential and non-residential development, although this would occur almost exclusively within the CTSP Area. The California Department of Resources Recovery and Recycling (CalRecycle) has posted a table of solid waste generation rates for various land uses, based on a solid waste guide for development projects in Santa Barbara County (CalRecycle 2019). Using these factors and applying them to the proposed land uses, CTSP development would generate an estimated 53,200 pounds per day, as shown in Table 17-3.

TABLE 17-3

CTSP POTENTIAL SOLID WASTE GENERATION AT BUILDOUT
Land Use
Unit of
Measure
Solid Waste
Rate1, 2
Estimated Solid
Waste (lbs)1
Low-Density Residential 988 units 11.4 lbs/unit 11,263 Medium-Density Residential 298 units 8.6 lbs/unit 2,563 Medium High-Density Residential 336 units 8.6 lbs/unit 2,890 High-Density Residential 770 units 8.6 lbs/unit 6,622
Regional Commercial 1,169,586 sq. ft. 2.5 lbs/100 sq. ft. 29,240 New Public Usage 88,862 sq. ft.3 0.007 lbs/sq. ft. 622 TOTAL 53,200
1 Rates and amounts are daily. 2 Maximum rates used. 3 Square footage based on floor-are ratio of 0.6 as specified in Ceres Municipal Code.

Source: CalRecycle 2019.

Based on the results in Table 17-3, CTSP development at buildout would generate 19,418,000 pounds of solid waste per year. While the content of a ton of solid waste varies, it has been approximated that a cubic yard of solid waste weighs 300 pounds, so the project would generate approximately 64,727 cubic yards of solid waste per year. As stated above, EXHIBIT B ITEM 13
Copper Trails Specific Plan and Annexation EIR 17-16 November 2024 the Fink Road Landfill space currently has half of its total capacity available. As such, it could accommodate the additional solid waste without requiring new landfill space.

Moreover, new development would participate in the City’s existing recycling programs, which would reduce the amount of solid waste that would be sent to the landfill. Future development is expected to comply with all applicable federal, State, and local solid waste regulations. As a result, solid waste generation impacts of the CTSP on landfills are expected to be less than significant.

Level of Significance: Less than significant
Mitigation Measures: None required
Impact UTIL-7: Energy Consumption
The project would lead to a substantial increase in energy consumption due to new development. This new development would occur almost exclusively within the CTSP Area. The Pocket Area is mostly developed, and any development there would add little to the overall energy consumption of the project.

Development under the proposed CTSP would add residential dwelling units, regional commercial space, and other non-residential development. Electricity and natural gas would be the main energy sources for this development. The estimated amount of energy that would be consumed by CTSP development at buildout is provided in Table 17-4, based on consumption factors used by the U.S. Energy Information Administration. It is likely that actual energy consumption would be different for a few reasons – certain land uses may use electricity exclusively; more energy-efficient appliances and climate control systems would be installed, more stringent energy codes would be applied over time.

However, such influences on energy estimates cannot be reasonably determined, so the consumption figures in Table 17-4 should be considered rough approximations.

TABLE 17-4

CTSP POTENTIAL ANNUAL ENERGY CONSUMPTION AT BUILDOUT
Land Use
Units of
Measure1
Electricity Natural Gas
Factor2 Usage (kWh) Factor2 Usage (ccf)
Low-Density
Residential
988 10,330 10,206,040 527 520,676
Medium-Density
Residential
298 5,173 1,541,554 252 75,096
Medium High-Density
Residential
336 4,581 1,539,216 159 53,424
High-Density
Residential
770 4,581 3,527,370 159 122,430
Regional Commercial 1,169,586 20.6 24,093,471 48.7 56,958,838 EXHIBIT B ITEM 13
Copper Trails Specific Plan and Annexation EIR 17-17 November 2024 New Public Usage 88,862 12.8 1,137,434 22.0 1,954,964
TOTAL 42,042,085 59,685,428
Note: kWh - kilowatt-hour; ccf – 100 cubic feet 1 Residential unit of measure is dwelling units; commercial and public unit of measure is square feet. 2 Residential electricity factors in kWh per dwelling unit and natural gas factors in ccf per dwelling unit. Commercial and public electricity factors in kWh per square foot and natural gas factors in ccf per square foot.

Sources: EIA 2015, 2018a, 2018b.

All future project development would be required to comply with applicable provisions of the adopted California Energy Code and CALGreen in effect at the time of project approval. The provisions of these codes are intended to increase energy efficiency of buildings, thereby reducing energy consumption from this sector.

Development of individual parcels would consume substantial amounts of energy in the grading, utility and road construction, development of future buildings and site improvements. The proposed CTSP does not address particular construction methods; required project conformance with air quality mitigation programs, including provision of required construction mitigation, or payment of Indirect Source Rule fees (see Chapter

6.0), would result in reductions in energy expenditures associated with construction. Due to the relatively flat slopes of the site, development within the CTSP Area would not require any extraordinary grading requirements. There is no evidence that development within the CTSP would involve substantially inefficient, wasteful, or unnecessary consumption of energy.

In summary, project development would involve substantial energy consumption.

However, compliance with applicable codes, along with project site conditions, would ensure that this energy consumption would not be substantially inefficient, wasteful, or unnecessary. Project impacts related to energy consumption would be less than significant.

Level of Significance: Less than significant
Mitigation Measures: None required
EXHIBIT B ITEM 13
Copper Trails Specific Plan and Annexation EIR 18-1 November 2024

18.0 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS

18.1 INTRODUCTION TO CUMULATIVE IMPACTS
As defined in CEQA Guidelines Section 15355, “cumulative impacts” refer to two or more individual effects which, when considered together, are considerable or which compound or increase other environmental impacts. The individual effects may be changes resulting from a single project or several separate projects. The cumulative impact from several projects is the change in the environment which results from the incremental impact of the project when added to other closely related past, present, and reasonably foreseeable probable future projects. Cumulative impacts can result from individually minor but collectively significant projects taking place over time.

CEQA Guidelines Section 15130 provides that an EIR must discuss the cumulative environmental impacts of a project when the project's incremental effect is cumulatively considerable. “Cumulatively considerable,” as defined in CEQA Guidelines Section 15065(a)(3), means that the incremental effects of an individual project are significant when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, other current projects, and probable future projects.

The analysis of cumulative impacts may be based on either 1) a list of past, present, and probable future projects that could produce related impacts, or 2) on a summary of projections contained in an adopted general plan or related planning document, or in a prior certified environmental document which described or evaluated regional or area-wide conditions contributing to cumulative impacts. For the proposed project, the potential cumulative impacts are addressed using the “summary of projections” approach. The summary of projections is the Ceres General Plan, and the basis for this analysis is the City’s certified GPEIR, the draft and final versions of which are available for review at the Planning Division office at 2220 Magnolia Street or online at https://www.ci.ceres.ca.us/197/General-Plan. The project site is within the Planning Area of the Ceres General Plan; therefore, the cumulative impact analysis in the GPEIR would be applicable to the proposed project.

For each environmental issue area, the cumulative impact analysis:
● Describes the geographic context for the analysis,
● Evaluates whether there exists the potential for one or more significant cumulative impacts in that environmental issue area,
● Analyzes whether the project would make a cumulatively considerable contribution to a significant cumulative impact, or would make significant a cumulative impact that would otherwise be less than significant, and EXHIBIT B ITEM 13
Copper Trails Specific Plan and Annexation EIR 18-2 November 2024 ● Determines whether and how a significant cumulative impact, or a considerable contribution to such an impact, can feasibly be avoided or reduced to a less than significant or less than considerable level, if necessary.

Where significant cumulative impacts are identified, the EIR must examine reasonable, feasible options for mitigating or avoiding the project's contribution to a level that is less than considerable. With some projects, the only feasible mitigation for cumulative impacts may involve the adoption of ordinances or regulations, rather than the imposition of conditions on a project-by-project basis.

The cumulative impact analysis should account for the nature of each environmental resource to be impacted, as well as the type and location of the project. This reflects the understanding that the context for cumulative impacts may vary from one environmental issue to another. For example, cumulative air quality impacts are reasonably considered in the context of an air basin, while cumulative hydrology impacts would be meaningfully addressed at a watershed level, and cumulative aesthetic impacts would ordinarily be addressed at a local level. The discussion of cumulative impacts shall reflect the severity of the impacts and their likelihood of occurrence, but the discussion need not provide as much detail as is provided for the effects attributable to the project alone. If the project does not involve a cumulatively considerable effect, a lead agency need not consider that effect significant, but it shall briefly describe the basis for concluding that the incremental effect is not cumulatively considerable.

18.2 CUMULATIVE IMPACT SETTING
The GPEIR evaluated the potential environmental impacts, including cumulative impacts, of the updated City of Ceres General Plan. The General Plan update was initiated to comprehensively examine the existing conditions in the city and to create a vision for the city’s future. Although the General Plan does not specify or anticipate when buildout of the city will occur, the year 2035 is assumed for planning purposes. The Planning Area of the General Plan encompasses 14,400 acres, including the City of Ceres, its Sphere of Influence, the adjacent unincorporated areas, including the CTSP and Pocket Areas and Mancini Park in the City of Modesto. It is approximately bounded on the north by the Tuolumne River, on the west by Carpenter Road, on the south by Grayson Road, and on the east by Washington Road.

The General Plan projected that additional residential development at buildout would be 7,200 housing units of all types, resulting in an additional population of 24,000. Additional non-residential development in the Planning Area at buildout would be 8,100,000 square feet commercial/office, 4,400,000 square feet industrial, and 1,400,000 square feet public/institutional. Total development of the Planning Area at buildout, both new and existing, would be 26,000,000 square feet of non-residential development and 23,400 housing units of residential development, for an anticipated population of 79,000 (City of Ceres 2018a).

As noted, the Planning Area includes the CTSP and Pocket area buildout. The General Plan Land Use Map identifies the current land use designations of parcels within these areas.

EXHIBIT B ITEM 13
Copper Trails Specific Plan and Annexation EIR 18-3 November 2024 Chapter 13.0, Land Use, discusses these designations in more detail, and Figure 13-1 shows the current General Plan Land Use Map for the general project area.

18.3 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS OF PROJECT
The following section evaluates the potential cumulative impacts of the proposed project, based on the analyses in the GPEIR. Several of these GPEIR analyses represent cumulative analyses of issues to the General Plan horizon year of 2035, as they combine the anticipated effects of the General Plan with anticipated effects of regional growth and development.

By their nature, the analyses presented in the GPEIR for air quality, transportation, noise, and GHG emissions represent cumulative analyses, because the effects specific to the General Plan cannot reasonably be differentiated from the broader effects of regional growth and development. Thus, analyses for these topics reflect not just growth in the Planning Area, but growth elsewhere in the region. The conclusions on cumulative impacts are summarized there, and significant and unavoidable impacts are listed where applicable (City of Ceres 2018a).

18.3.1 Aesthetics and Visual Resources
Cumulative impacts on aesthetics are assumed to be localized; that is, aesthetic changes at one site would not generally impact aesthetics at another site if the sites are not visually connected in some fashion. A visual connection could be established by juxtaposition or by location along a travel corridor, among other possibilities.

The Ceres GPEIR noted that growth in the Stanislaus County region, including Ceres, will result in substantial changes to the visual character of the region. StanCOG projected that between 2015 and 2035, the population of Stanislaus County will increase by 25 percent (University of the Pacific 2016). Development to accommodate these new residents and businesses would impact visual resources. Views of farmland would be replaced with views of new urban development, the visual character of existing urban areas may change with new infill and development of greater density, and development would likely create new sources of light and glare.

The Ceres General Plan seeks to protect farmland around the perimeter of the Planning Area, which will maintain agricultural views; and policies in the proposed General Plan would minimize new sources of light and glare. However, the GPEIR concluded that the General Plan will contribute to changes in the visual resources of the region, and its contribution to this impact would be cumulatively considerable.

The proposed project would have similar impacts on aesthetics to those described in the GPEIR. While some development has occurred within the CTSP area, much of the site retains an agricultural landscape. Over time, this agricultural landscape would be replaced by urban development. This would be consistent with the aesthetic impacts discussed in the GPEIR. There would be no new impacts, nor would any identified impacts become more severe than discussed in the GPEIR. Impacts of the proposed project were analyzed in Chapter 4.0, Aesthetics, and all potential impacts would be less than significant.

EXHIBIT B ITEM 13
Copper Trails Specific Plan and Annexation EIR 18-4 November 2024 Therefore, the proposed project’s contribution to cumulative aesthetic impacts would be less than considerable.

Contribution to Significant Cumulative Impacts: Less than considerable Mitigation Measures: None required

18.3.2 Agricultural Resources
Cumulative impacts on agricultural land resources may be assessed on a regional or local level. Analysis at a local level yields a more conservative result. For this project, the level of analysis will be at the County level, the same as in the GPEIR.

The GPEIR noted that regional growth will likely result in the conversion of Farmland, as defined in CEQA Guidelines Appendix G. Implementation of the Ceres General Plan by itself would result in the conversion of 3,508 acres of Farmland, along with indirect effects on agricultural uses. Therefore, the General Plan’s contribution to this impact would be cumulatively considerable. Conversion of Farmland to urban use was identified in the GPEIR as a significant and unavoidable impact of General Plan adoption. A Statement of Overriding Considerations for this issue was adopted by the Ceres City Council in conjunction with adoption of the General Plan.

As noted in Chapter 5.0, Agricultural Resources, development under the proposed project would involve the eventual conversion of approximately 319.5 acres of Farmland to urban uses. However, this would be a contribution to the conversion of Farmland previously identified in the GPEIR. There would be no new impacts, nor would any identified impacts become more severe than discussed in the GPEIR. As noted, a Statement of Overriding Considerations for this issue was adopted with the General Plan. According to CEQA Guidelines Section 15152(f)(1), where a lead agency determines that a cumulative effect has been adequately addressed in the prior EIR, that effect is not treated as significant for purposes of the later EIR and need not be discussed in detail. Based on this, the proposed project’s contribution to cumulative agricultural resource impacts would be less than considerable.

Contribution to Significant Cumulative Impacts: Less than considerable Mitigation Measures: None required

18.3.3 Air Quality
Cumulative impacts on air resources may be assessed at both a regional and local level.

The proposed project would involve contributions to potential air quality impacts at the regional level – the San Joaquin Valley Air Basin - and at the local level in the vicinity of the project site.

The GPEIR stated that development under the General Plan could violate air quality standards or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation.

Buildout of the General Plan would generate long-term air emissions, primarily mobile source emissions resulting from increased vehicle trips and VMT associated with General EXHIBIT B ITEM 13
Copper Trails Specific Plan and Annexation EIR 18-5 November 2024 Plan buildout. Operational emissions associated with the additional development that would occur would exceed the SJVAPCD significance thresholds for ozone precursors, CO, and particulate matter. Future development would be required to comply with State and federal regulations and the General Plan principles and actions applicable to air quality.

However, the GPEIR concluded that compliance would not guarantee that emissions would be mitigated below SJVAPCD thresholds; therefore, impacts would be significant and unavoidable.

The Ceres GPEIR also stated that construction activities associated with the General Plan would cause short-term emissions of criteria air pollutants. Due to the scale of development activity associated with buildout of the General Plan, construction emissions would likely exceed the SJVAPCD regional significance thresholds. In addition to regulatory measures by SJVAPCD, mitigation imposed at the project level may include extension of construction schedules and/or use of special equipment. Existing City policies and regulations and General Plan principles and actions are intended to minimize impacts associated with nonattainment criteria pollutants. While these regulations and policies would reduce impacts associated with construction activities, there is no guarantee that emissions would be mitigated below SJVAPCD thresholds. Therefore, the GPEIR concluded that impacts of General Plan buildout from construction emissions would be significant and unavoidable.

As discussed in Chapter 6.0, Air Quality, planned urban development pursuant to the project, specifically the CTSP, would involve significant emissions from increased motor vehicle use and additional area and other sources, as compared to existing conditions. The CTSP contains and reinforces the Ceres General Plan strategies for reducing air quality impacts, including support for alternative modes of transportation, increased provision for bicycle and pedestrian circulation, and a more balanced land use mix. The CTSP Area has already been committed to urban uses, mainly by designation of the area for urban uses and the construction of the two schools. Project site development would involve continuation of an existing urban development process previously indicated in the General Plan and in other documents.

Nonetheless, the project would involve a cumulatively considerable contribution to air pollutant emissions. Air quality was identified as a significant and unavoidable adverse effect of General Plan adoption, and a Statement of Overriding Considerations for this issue was adopted. Except for mitigation measures, no further consideration of this issue is required.

As was discussed in Chapter 6.0, the project would not involve any significant odor impacts. Therefore, it would not contribute significantly to any cumulative odor impacts.

Overall, the CTSP, and to a lesser extent Pocket Area development, would make a cumulatively considerable contribution to air quality. This is consistent with the analysis in the GPEIR.

Contribution to Significant Cumulative Impacts: Considerable Mitigation Measures: None feasible
EXHIBIT B ITEM 13
Copper Trails Specific Plan and Annexation EIR 18-6 November 2024

18.3.4 Biological Resources
Cumulative impacts on biological resources can be addressed in several geographic contexts, including bioregions, watersheds, or habitat areas for individual sensitive species.

Increased noise, light, and habitat disturbance resulting from urban development both within the Planning Area as well as in adjacent jurisdictions could adversely affect biological resources such as migratory birds and other wildlife species. However, with applicable policies in place as described in the direct impact analysis in the GPEIR, the General Plan’s contribution to this potentially significant cumulative impact is less than cumulatively considerable.

Conditions on the project site are similar to those described in the GPEIR for the Planning Area outside the City limits. As noted elsewhere, the portions of the annexation area outside the CTSP Area are mostly developed. There would be no new impacts, nor would any identified impacts become more severe than discussed in the GPEIR. Based on this, the proposed project’s contribution to cumulative biological resource impacts would be less than considerable.

Contribution to Significant Cumulative Impacts: Less than considerable Mitigation Measures: None required

18.3.5 Cultural Resources
The geography of cultural resources impact can be defined by region, by political subdivision or by the geography of the cultural resources present in an area, if sufficient inventory data is available to define it. Although impacts to cultural resources are typically highly localized, several impacts in a given area can contribute to a cumulative impact of loss or harm to cultural resources. In the GPEIR, the cumulative impacts were evaluated at the level of the Planning Area.

Cultural resources in the region could be affected by new development, but adherence to established local policies, as well as to federal and State laws, would protect historic architectural resources, archaeological and paleontological resources, human remains, and historic architectural resources. Therefore, cumulative impacts to cultural resources would not be considerable.

As described in Chapter 8.0 of this EIR, the project would not result in a significant cultural resource impact with mitigation. The proposed CTSP, like other development projects, has the potential for inadvertent effects on undiscovered or subsurface resources, but mitigation measures identified in Chapter 8.0 would prevent substantial occurrence of these impacts.

There would be no new impacts, nor would any identified impacts become more severe than discussed in the GPEIR. As a result, the project would not result in a considerable contribution to a cumulative cultural resource impact.

Contribution to Significant Cumulative Impacts: Less than considerable Mitigation Measures: None required
EXHIBIT B ITEM 13
Copper Trails Specific Plan and Annexation EIR 18-7 November 2024

18.3.6 Geology and Soils
Impacts related to geology and soils are not inherently cumulative; concerns are related to risks, hazards, or development constraints that are largely site-specific. However, seismic hazards are regional, and management of seismic hazards is the responsibility of the local planning and building authority. For this reason, the potential for cumulative geology and soils impacts is considered in the context of the Planning Area of the Ceres General Plan.

There are no known active earthquake faults in most of Stanislaus County, and seismically induced liquefaction is not a substantial geologic hazard in the Ceres area. Some areas of the county are susceptible to riverbank erosion and expansive soils, and the western portions of the county in the Diablo Range are susceptible to landslides. A combination of projects along the river or hillsides could contribute to a potentially significant cumulative impact. However, seismic activity in the Planning Area is considered minimal, and the risk of liquefaction and landslides in the Planning Area is low. Therefore, the General Plan’s contribution to cumulative impacts is less than considerable.

The proposed project would have similar impacts on geology and soils to those described in the GPEIR. There would be no new impacts, nor would any identified impacts become more severe than discussed in the GPEIR. Impacts of the proposed project were analyzed in Chapter 9.0, Geology and Soils, and all potential impacts would be less than significant.

Therefore, the proposed project’s contribution to cumulative geology and soil impacts would be less than considerable.

Contribution to Significant Cumulative Impacts: Less than considerable Mitigation Measures: None required

18.3.7 Greenhouse Gas Emissions
GHG emissions are related to global climate change. Global climate change is a distinct CEQA issue in that, while a project may generate GHG emissions, the impacts of such emissions are global. As such, the impacts of a project’s GHG emissions are considered cumulative in nature. Potential cumulative issues associated with global climate change are addressed in the analysis in Chapter 10.0, Greenhouse Gas Emissions.

As discussed in Chapter 10.0, potential project contributions to GHG emissions include vehicle miles traveled associated with trips generated by proposed land uses (Chapter 16.0, Transportation) and consumption of energy and water by new urban land uses. However, these potential emissions are already inherent in the existing land use designations and zoning of the annexation area, including the CTSP area, for urban uses. The proposed CTSP shifts the nature of future land development to more integrated commercial and residential land uses that would reduce vehicular travel, and thus GHG emissions. The measures incorporated into the CTSP would substantially reduce potential GHG emissions associated with development. Therefore, the project is considered to have a contribution to cumulative greenhouse gas emissions that is less than considerable.

Contribution to Significant Cumulative Impacts: Less than considerable EXHIBIT B ITEM 13
Copper Trails Specific Plan and Annexation EIR 18-8 November 2024 Mitigation Measures: None required

18.3.8 Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Cumulative impacts associated with hazards and hazardous materials are assumed to be localized. Any project exposure to hazards would occur on or in the immediate vicinity of the site, and any potential on- or off-site impact of hazardous materials use associated with the project would be limited to the immediate vicinity.

New development in the region may result in an increase in routine use, transportation, disposal, and accidental release of hazardous materials; handling of hazardous materials near existing and proposed schools; and physical interference with the Stanislaus County Emergency Operations Plan. However, existing federal, State, and local regulations create and enforce standards for activities related to hazardous materials and for new development. Upset or accident conditions, emissions of hazardous materials, and development on a site listed as containing hazardous materials usually occur on a projectby-project basis, rather than in a cumulative manner. Individual projects in Stanislaus County and nearby cities would be required to comply with federal, State, local regulations, and the Stanislaus County Emergency Operations Plan. The cumulative impact would be less than considerable.

Development in Modesto and Ceres in proximity to the Modesto City-County Airport could contribute to a cumulative impact of increased airport-related hazards. However, compliance with the Stanislaus County ALUCP would minimize potential safety hazards and the cumulative impact would be less than considerable.

Wildfire prevention is a shared responsibility between federal, State, and local agencies.

Most of Stanislaus County falls under State and local jurisdiction, with a few small areas under federal responsibility. Threats of wildfires on non-federal lands in unincorporated areas are the responsibility of Cal Fire and addressed through compliance with Title 14 of the of the California Code of Regulations. Given that there are large areas in the western portion of Stanislaus County that are High or Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones in State Responsibility Areas (Cal Fire 2022), there is a potentially significant cumulative impact. However, the Planning Area is geographically distant from these areas of fire hazard. The General Plan’s contribution to cumulative wildfire impacts is less than considerable.

The proposed project would have similar impacts on hazards and hazardous materials to those described in the GPEIR. There would be no new impacts, nor would any identified impacts become more severe than discussed in the GPEIR. Impacts of the proposed project were analyzed in Chapter 11.0, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, and all potential impacts would be reduced to less than significant with mitigation measures. Therefore, the proposed project’s contribution to cumulative hazard and hazardous material impacts would be less than considerable.

Contribution to Significant Cumulative Impacts: Less than considerable Mitigation Measures: None required
EXHIBIT B ITEM 13
Copper Trails Specific Plan and Annexation EIR 18-9 November 2024

18.3.9 Hydrology and Water Quality
Potential cumulative issues associated with surface waters can be addressed on a watershed basis, or for groundwater in the context of a groundwater basin. For the proposed project, surface water issues are addressed at the level of the Tuolumne River watershed.

Groundwater issues are addressed at the level of the Turlock Groundwater Subbasin.

Most of the water supply in Stanislaus County comes from surface water resources, most of which is used for agricultural purposes rather than for urban development. Groundwater supplements the surface water supply and is the major source for urban areas, including for the cities of Ceres, Modesto, Oakdale, and Riverbank. There are four groundwater management areas in Stanislaus County, including the Turlock Subbasin, from which Ceres sources most of its water. In recent decades, the groundwater levels in the Turlock Subbasin have declined because of demands from urbanization and expanded agricultural irrigation.

While the City of Ceres currently relies entirely on groundwater, the City is participating in implementation of the Regional Water Supply Project that will provide treated surface water to the City, thereby reducing reliance on groundwater. In addition, Ceres is a member of the Turlock Groundwater Basin Association, which has developed several groundwater basin management objectives to ensure a sustainable supply of groundwater; as well as the West Turlock Subbasin Groundwater Sustainability Agency, a joint powers authority responsible for the management of the subbasin and implementation of California’s Sustainable Groundwater Management Act requirements. Nevertheless, despite State regulations and local efforts, Ceres will continue to rely primarily on groundwater supplies, and future water demand may lower the local groundwater table. Given Ceres’s continued reliance on groundwater supplies which may lower the local groundwater table level, the General Plan’s potential contribution to this cumulative impact is considerable.

New development in the region has the potential to generate impacts related to the violation of water quality standards, erosion and sedimentation, construction-related water quality impacts, flood hazards, and dam failure. State and regional regulations described in Chapter

12.0, Hydrology and Water Quality, would reduce the rate of runoff and would filter out pollutants. Construction activities are required to comply with the SWRCB’s statewide NPDES stormwater permit program, the Porter-Cologne Act’s requirements for sitespecific waste discharge, as well as local agency public works construction standards. In addition, policies in the General Plan and existing City regulations would ensure protection of water quality, improve stormwater management, and reduce stormwater pollution. With these controls, the General Plan’s contribution to this cumulative impact is less than considerable.

The proposed project would have similar impacts on hydrology and water quality to those described in the GPEIR. There would be no new impacts, nor would any identified impacts become more severe than those discussed in the GPEIR. Impacts of the proposed project were analyzed in Chapter 12.0, Hydrology and Water Quality, and potential impacts would be less than significant, either by themselves or with recommended mitigation. Therefore, the proposed project’s contribution to cumulative hydrology impacts would be less than considerable.

EXHIBIT B ITEM 13
Copper Trails Specific Plan and Annexation EIR 18-10 November 2024 Contribution to Significant Cumulative Impacts: Less than considerable Mitigation Measures: None required

18.3.10 Land Use, Population, and Housing
Cumulative land use impacts are related to the scale of the project and the presence or absence of a defined community or land use entity that would be exposed to change by the project. The geographic context for cumulative land use analysis can range from a project site and adjacent parcels to an entire community or region. The project site is currently under County jurisdiction but is within an area adjacent to the City of Ceres.

Projects that could have the effect of physically dividing an established community, such as a major new road, highway, or similar infrastructure, tend to have a singular rather than cumulative impact. Similarly, impacts from plans and projects in the region that could conflict with existing plans, including habitat conservation plans, are not cumulative in nature.

However, potential impacts related to population and housing can be cumulative in nature.

Population growth, by itself, is not an environmental impact; however, the direct and indirect effects, such as housing and infrastructure needs that are related to population growth, can lead to physical environmental effects. Given that StanCOG estimates the population of the county will grow by 25 percent between 2015 and 2035 (University of the Pacific 2016), growth in the region could have a potentially significant impact. As discussed above, given the amount of new residential growth that the General Plan can accommodate, and the indirect effects from new job growth, its contribution to cumulative impacts would be considerable.

The proposed project would have similar impacts on land use, population, and housing to those described in the GPEIR and would contribute to those impacts; however the project would involve no new impacts, nor would any identified impacts become more severe than were discussed in the GPEIR. Impacts of the proposed project were analyzed in Chapter

13.0, Land Use of this EIR, and all potential impacts would be less than significant.

Therefore, the proposed project’s contribution to cumulative land use and population impacts would be less than considerable.

Contribution to Significant Cumulative Impacts: Less than considerable Mitigation Measures: None required

18.3.11 Noise
Noise impacts are inherently localized. The impacts of noise are reduced with distance, and unless there is a very significant existing or proposed noise source, the potential for cumulative noise impacts will ordinarily be limited to a few hundred yards from the source.

For the purposes of this EIR, the geographic context for cumulative noise analysis is defined as the project site and vicinity, as well as the elements of the Ceres street system affected by project-related traffic.

EXHIBIT B ITEM 13
Copper Trails Specific Plan and Annexation EIR 18-11 November 2024 Cumulative noise impacts were addressed in the GPEIR. The General Plan would result in both short-term and long-term changes to the existing noise environment in the Planning Area. Long-term operational noise from traffic would increase compared to existing conditions. Proposed General Plan policies prohibit development of noise-sensitive land uses in certain scenarios, require noise mitigation measures, and require acoustical analyses to ensure noise exposure standards are met. These policies would reduce potential noise impacts on new development to a less-than-significant level. However, the GPEIR noted that impacts of new traffic noise on existing sensitive receptors, such as residences near the roadway segments that would experience noise level increases of more than 3 dBA CNEL would be significant and unavoidable.

The CTSP proposes new development that would involve the potential for locally significant noise effects, mainly increases in traffic noise along local streets. These impacts were analyzed in Chapter 14.0, Noise. CTSP development would contribute to future traffic and traffic-generated noise along streets serving the project area. However, while predicted noise levels within the CTSP Area would significantly increase, they would not result in significant noise impacts, as potential impacts would be addressed by existing Ceres Municipal Code requirements and mitigation measures included in Chapter 14.0. The project would not result in a considerable contribution to cumulative noise impacts.

Contribution to Significant Cumulative Impacts: Less than considerable Mitigation Measures: None required

18.3.12 Public Services and Recreation
Potential cumulative impacts related to public services are appropriately addressed at a project site level. The County currently provides police protection and library services to the project site, the Ceres Unified School District provides educational services, and two fire districts provide fire protection services. Upon the annexation of the project site, the City of Ceres would provide police protection services, and Modesto Fire would provide fire protection services. All other public services would be provided by their current agencies.

Public services are generally provided by local governments and/or special districts for areas within their jurisdiction and are not provided on a regional basis. Fire and police protection services are provided by local governments or fire protection districts for areas within their jurisdiction, although mutual aid agreements between agencies do help spread resources. As noted in Chapter 15.0, Public Services, Ceres, Modesto, and the fire districts are currently in discussions as to the future allocation of fire protection responsibilities among the agencies.

Public schools are provided by school districts to areas within their jurisdictions. While districts may have cross jurisdictional boundaries, school services are still provided at the local, rather than regional, level.

Several agencies provide park and recreation services in the region, including counties, cities, and special districts. Each of these areas has their own parkland ratios and standards and is responsible for providing parkland to meet the local demand. An increase in regional EXHIBIT B ITEM 13
Copper Trails Specific Plan and Annexation EIR 18-12 November 2024 population may increase demand for parks and recreation facilities and services; however, these local jurisdictions have authority over land use, set and implement level of service standards, and determine the siting and timing of public service projects. The impacts on public services and facilities are not cumulative in nature and therefore are not cumulatively considerable.

The proposed project would have similar impacts on public services and recreation to those described in the GPEIR. There would be no new impacts, nor would any identified impacts become more severe than were discussed in the GPEIR. Impacts of the proposed project were analyzed in Chapter 15.0, Public Services, and all potential impacts would be less than significant. Therefore, the proposed project’s contribution to cumulative public service impacts would be less than considerable.

Contribution to Significant Cumulative Impacts: Less than considerable Mitigation Measures: None required

18.3.13 Transportation
Cumulative transportation impacts, primarily vehicular traffic, are addressed within the area potentially impacted by a project, typically within a certain radius from the project site. This is the case with the proposed project, the potential traffic impacts of which are addressed in Chapter 16.0, Transportation.

The GPEIR states that development under the General Plan would improve the operation of some roadway facilities, as expanded roadway facilities and parallel capacity would be provided. However, some roadway segments, including some on SR 99, would continue to operate at deficient service levels, and some additional segments are projected to degrade to deficient operations. General Plan policies would reduce potential impacts by requiring that new developments prepare transportation impact assessments to determine projectspecific impacts of new development such that impacts can be appropriately mitigated. The City will also coordinate with regional agencies to plan for the construction of the regional transportation network through Ceres. Additionally, City goals and policies strive to develop a multi-modal transportation network that would provide transportation alternatives to the single-occupant vehicle. However, even with implementation of these policies, the impact could remain significant and unavoidable.

According to the CEQA Guidelines, when a prior EIR addresses the potential effects of a later proposed project, the lead agency should limit the EIR on the later project to effects which were not examined as significant effects on the environment in the prior EIR, or that may be substantially reduced or avoided by specific revisions to the project, imposition of conditions or other means. In accordance with the CEQA guidelines, potential cumulative transportation effects are considered below.

Traffic Volume and VMT
Table 18-1 lists all the roadway segments and the average daily traffic on these segments for Cumulative conditions without and with the CTSP.

EXHIBIT B ITEM 13
Copper Trails Specific Plan and Annexation EIR 18-13 November 2024 TABLE 18-1
ROADWAY SEGMENT AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC –

CUMULATIVE CONDITIONS
Average Daily Traffic
No.1 Segment
Cumulative
w/o CTSP
Cumulative
w/ CTSP
1 Morgan Rd between Hackett Rd and Service Rd 8,223 12,231 2 Blaker Rd between Hackett Rd and Service Rd 4,098 4,495 3 Blaker Rd south of Service Rd 962 1,342
4 Central Ave between Pine St and Service Rd 9,774 12,623 5 Central Ave between Service Rd and High School
Southern Access
9,924 16,128
6 Central Ave between High School Southern
Access and E Redwood Rd
7,564 11,770
7 Pine St between Central Ave and El Camino Ave 12,562 13,585 8 Collins Rd between Don Pedro Rd and Service Rd 1,511 2,342 9 Moffett Rd south of Service Rd 826 40,056
10 Moffett Rd north of E Redwood Rd2 789 12,189
11 El Camino Ave north of Pine St 10,515 9,596
12 El Camino Ave south of Service Rd3 0 0
13 Mitchell Rd between Don Pedro Rd and Service
Rd
28,924 35,296
14 Mitchell Rd south of Service Rd 30,058 26,346
15 Service Rd between Morgan Rd and Blaker Rd 12,298 11,806 16 Service Rd between Blaker Rd and Central Ave 14,680 13,807 17 Service Rd between Central Ave and Moffett Rd 17,153 17,697 18 Service Rd between El Camino Ave and Mitchell
Rd
19,588 28,240
19 Lucas Rd south of Service Rd 799 1,015
20 Lucas Rd north of Mitchell Rd2 799 753
21 E Redwood Rd between Central Ave and Moffett
Rd
853 5,855
22 E Redwood Rd between Moffett Rd and Lucas Rd 302 13,384 EXHIBIT B ITEM 13
Copper Trails Specific Plan and Annexation EIR 18-14 November 2024 Average Daily Traffic
No.1 Segment
Cumulative
w/o CTSP
Cumulative
w/ CTSP
23 New Project Rd between E Redwood Rd and
Lucas Rd
0 395
24 New Project Rd between Blaker Rd and Central
Ave
0 1,238
25 New Project Rd between Central Ave and Moffett
Rd
0 356
26 New Project Rd between Moffett Rd and Lucas Rd 0 17,826 27 Mitchell Rd between E Redwood Rd and Lucas
Rd2
0 1,462
1 See Figure 16-1 for locations. 2 Existing segment average daily traffic is assumed to be the same as the adjacent segment. 3 This segment would cease to exist with construction of the Service Road interchange.

Source: Wood Rodgers 2024.

As has been noted, VMT is the metric used to determine the significance of the transportation impacts of a project on the environment. The potential traffic effects of the CTSP on VMT under the Cumulative scenarios were analyzed in the Transportation Impact Analysis, with a focus on residential, office, and retail land uses.

Under Cumulative Plus Project conditions, the net change to County VMT is -13,149 – a net decrease in total County VMT. Therefore, CTSP retail land uses would make a contribution to cumulative impacts on VMT that is less than considerable. However, the CTSP VMT would exceed significance thresholds established for residential and office land uses. Although VMT was calculated based on Near-Term conditions, it is expected that impacts and applicable mitigation would also apply to Cumulative conditions.

Therefore, implementation of Mitigation Measure TRANS-1 in Chapter 16.0, Transportation, would reduce the potential cumulative contribution of the CTSP on VMT.

However, project contributions to VMT would remain considerable.

Contribution to Significant Cumulative Impacts: Considerable Mitigation Measures: Mitigation Measure TRANS-1.

Significance after Mitigation: Considerable

18.3.14 Utilities and Energy
Cumulative utility impacts are appropriately considered at the level of the utility service area. For water, sewer, stormwater drainage, and solid waste services, this would be the City of Ceres, as the City either provides these services directly or contracts these services out to franchisees. For energy and communications services, the service area is regional or statewide, but the project would involve no potential effects that could reasonably extend EXHIBIT B ITEM 13
Copper Trails Specific Plan and Annexation EIR 18-15 November 2024 outside the immediate project vicinity.

Potable Water
Ceres’s groundwater supplies are treated at the wellheads, and therefore impacts on groundwater treatment are not cumulative in nature. Surface water treatment facilities are being developed cooperatively by local governments. The Stanislaus Regional Water Authority, a joint powers authority comprised of the cities of Ceres and Turlock, is constructing a water treatment plant to serve Ceres, Hughson, South Modesto, and Turlock.

The initial capacity of the water treatment plant will be 15 mgd, with 5 mgd capacity for the City of Ceres. However, the plant will be expandable, with plans for potential future expansion up to 45 mgd. Development in the jurisdictions served by the plant could have a significant cumulative impact, requiring the expansion of the plant. The initial capacity of 5 mgd of supply for Ceres is expected to adequately serve buildout under the proposed project; therefore, the proposed project is not expected to contribute to the need for expanded facilities. However, within the cumulative context, the proposed project could contribute to the need for expansion. The General Plan’s contribution to cumulative impacts is considerable.

The City of Ceres water distribution system is essentially isolated from other city distribution systems. Although Ceres and Turlock will both receive water from the same water treatment plant, the water will be conveyed to each city in separate transmission pipelines. Portions of the city of Ceres receive water from Modesto (the North Ceres and Walnut Manor areas). There is no connection between Ceres’s system and Modesto’s North Ceres system, but there is an emergency interconnection between Ceres’ system and the Walnut Manor system. However, the emergency interconnections are not normally used, and thus the distribution systems are essentially isolated from each other. Thus, the impacts on water distribution systems are not cumulative in nature, and the impact is less than cumulatively considerable.

The proposed project would have similar impacts on potable water services to those described in the GPEIR. There would be no new impacts, nor would any identified impacts become more severe than discussed in the GPEIR. Impacts of the proposed project were analyzed in Chapter 17.0, Utilities and Energy, and all potential impacts would be less than significant. Therefore, the proposed project’s contribution to cumulative water service impacts would be less than considerable.

Contribution to Significant Cumulative Impacts: Less than considerable Mitigation Measures: None required
Wastewater
Ceres’s wastewater flows to three wastewater treatment plants in Ceres, Turlock, and Modesto respectively. As the wastewater treatment facilities are shared across jurisdictions, impacts on the wastewater treatment facilities are cumulative in nature.

Development in each jurisdiction could result in significant cumulative impacts.

Implementation of the General Plan would result in future residential, commercial, and industrial land uses in the Planning Area, resulting in additional population and additional EXHIBIT B ITEM 13
Copper Trails Specific Plan and Annexation EIR 18-16 November 2024 demand for wastewater collection, conveyance, and treatment services over currently established levels. According to the Ceres 2013 Sewer System Master Plan, planned improvements to Ceres’s sewer and wastewater treatment system will meet Central Valley RWQCB requirements and provide adequate capacity for buildout under the General Plan.

However, Ceres will also export wastewater for treatment at the Turlock and Modesto treatment plants. Therefore, implementation of the General Plan could contribute to the expansion of wastewater treatment facilities in the region. The General Plan’s contribution to this cumulative impact is considerable.

Within the City of Ceres there are two sewer systems. The primary sewer system flows to Ceres’s wastewater treatment plant, and the smaller system in the northwest portion of Ceres flows to Modesto’s wastewater treatment plant. These sewer systems are essentially isolated from each other. Thus, the impacts on the sewer system facilities are not cumulative in nature and are less than cumulatively considerable.

The proposed project would have similar impacts on wastewater services to those described in the GPEIR. There would be no new impacts, nor would any identified impacts become more severe than discussed in the GPEIR. Impacts of the proposed project were analyzed in Chapter 17.0, Utilities and Energy, and all potential impacts would be less than significant. Therefore, the proposed project’s contribution to cumulative wastewater impacts would be less than considerable.

Contribution to Significant Cumulative Impacts: Less than considerable Mitigation Measures: None required
Storm Drainage
The storm drainage system is a proposed standalone drainage system that will be divided into four drainage sheds, with each shed containing its own retention basin. The basins are intended to discharge through infiltration into the groundwater. These sheds are isolated from each other and from nearby drainage systems. Thus, the impacts on the stormwater system facilities are not cumulative in nature.

The proposed project would have similar impacts on storm drainage services to those described in the GPEIR. There would be no new impacts, nor would any identified impacts become more severe than discussed in the GPEIR. Impacts of the proposed project were analyzed in Chapter 17.0, Utilities and Energy, and all potential impacts would be less than significant. Therefore, the proposed project’s contribution to cumulative storm drainage impacts would be less than considerable.

Contribution to Significant Cumulative Impacts: Less than considerable Mitigation Measures: None required
Solid Waste
The Fink Road Sanitary Landfill is owned by Stanislaus County and provides municipal solid waste services to Ceres, Hughson, Modesto, Newman, Oakdale, Patterson, Riverbank, Turlock, Waterford, and the unincorporated areas of Stanislaus County. Growth EXHIBIT B ITEM 13
Copper Trails Specific Plan and Annexation EIR 18-17 November 2024 in each of the jurisdictions could contribute to a significant cumulative impact on the landfill’s capacity. Although the estimated solid waste generation from the General Plan only accounts for a small amount of the total capacity of the Fink Road Sanitary Landfill, the solid waste from the Planning Area contributes to the cumulative impact on the landfill.

Therefore, the General Plan’s contribution to cumulative impacts is considerable.

The proposed project would have similar impacts on solid waste services to those described in the GPEIR. There would be no new impacts, nor would any identified impacts become more severe than discussed in the GPEIR. Impacts of the proposed project were analyzed in Chapter 17.0, Utilities and Energy, and all potential impacts would be less than significant. Therefore, the proposed project’s contribution to cumulative solid waste impacts would be less than considerable.

Contribution to Significant Cumulative Impacts: Less than considerable Mitigation Measures: None required
Energy
Future development under the General Plan would generate vehicle trips, which would consume gasoline and diesel. Future development would also result in the consumption of electricity and natural gas for power, heating, and cooking. The GPEIR projected an increase in total energy consumption within the Planning Area from 2014 to 2035.

However, the amount of energy consumed per service population would decrease by approximately 32%. The GPEIR concluded that all potential impacts related to energy would be less than significant with implementation of State actions and proposed General Plan policies, in addition to fuel savings achieved by proposed General Plan transportation policies that reduce overall VMT (City of Ceres 2018a).

The proposed project would have similar impacts on energy to those described in the GPEIR. There would be no new impacts, nor would any identified impacts become more severe than as discussed in the GPEIR. Impacts of the proposed project were analyzed in Chapter 17.0, Utilities and Energy, and were determined to be less than significant.

The GPEIR did not discuss impacts on the electricity and natural gas distribution systems that serve the Planning Area. Existing facilities are on or near the project site, and stateregulated franchise utilities are obligated to extend services to new development as necessary. Overall, the proposed project’s contribution to cumulative energy impacts would be less than considerable.

Contribution to Significant Cumulative Impacts: Less than considerable Mitigation Measures: None required
EXHIBIT B ITEM 13
Copper Trails Specific Plan and Annexation EIR 19-1 November 2024

19.0 ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT

19.1 INTRODUCTION
CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(a) requires an EIR to "consider a reasonable range of potentially feasible alternatives that will foster informed decision making and public participation.” More specifically, the EIR shall "describe a range of reasonable alternatives to the project, or to the location of the project, which would feasibly attain most of the basic objectives of the project but would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the project and evaluate the comparative merits of the alternatives." The alternatives analysis must provide sufficient information about each potential alternative to allow meaningful evaluation and comparison with the proposed project.

There are no set rules governing the nature and scope of the alternatives to be discussed, other than the "rule of reason." While the “rule of reason” is not defined, it is understood to mean that not all conceivable alternatives need to be considered. If an alternative is not feasible or does not provide an opportunity to avoid or substantially reduce environmental effects, then the alternative need not be analyzed in detail. However, the reasons for limiting the analysis should be identified. Feasibility considerations are discussed in the following section.

CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(e) states that the alternatives analysis must include evaluation of a "no project" alternative. "No project" is defined as no action with respect to the proposed project and the continuation of existing circumstances without approval of the project. More specifically, when the project is the revision of an existing land use or regulatory plan, policy, or ongoing operation, the “no project” alternative will be the continuation of the existing plan, policy, or operation into the future. The projected impacts of the proposed plan or alternative plans would be compared to the impacts that would occur under continuation of the existing conditions (CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(e)(3)(A)).

The following sections describe 1) the selection of alternatives for evaluation; 2) alternatives that were considered but not analyzed in detail; 3) alternatives that were analyzed in detail; and 4) the “environmentally superior alternative.” The alternatives analysis conforms to CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines and represents the best professional opinion of the EIR preparer, City staff, and their technical reviewers. However, the final authority for the selection or rejection of alternatives and their feasibility or infeasibility rests with the City agencies that have approval authority over the proposed project.

19.2 SELECTION OF ALTERNATIVES
Alternatives to the project were selected for evaluation in this EIR based on the criteria set forth in CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6. These criteria include:

EXHIBIT B ITEM 13
Copper Trails Specific Plan and Annexation EIR 19-2 November 2024 1) Ability of the alternative to meet most of the basic objectives of the project; 2) Feasibility of the alternative; and
3) Ability of the alternative to avoid or substantially reduce one or more of the significant environmental effects of the project.

Ability of the Alternative to Meet Project Objectives
Potential alternatives to the project were evaluated and selected with respect to the objectives of the project, as identified and discussed in Chapter 3.0 of this EIR. There are several project objectives, including General Plan implementation, comprehensive planning of the CTSP Area, a balanced land use mix, housing diversity, the meeting of RHNA targets, economic viability, and fiscal responsibility, among others. More detailed descriptions of these objectives are in Chapter 3.0.

Feasibility of the Alternative
Alternatives to the project were evaluated with respect to the “rule of reason” and general feasibility criteria suggested by the CEQA Guidelines. The criteria include:
● Suitability of the site or alternative site,
● Economic viability of the alternative,
● Availability of infrastructure,
● Consistency of the alternative with general plan designations, zoning or other plans or regulatory limitations,
● Effect of applicable jurisdictional boundaries, and
● Whether the proponent can reasonably acquire, control, or otherwise have access to an alternative site. This includes consideration of whether or not the site is already owned by the project applicant.

The application of these criteria to potential alternatives to the proposed project is described in this section and in Section 19.3.

Avoidance or Substantial Reduction of Significant Effects The alternatives analysis must consider the potential of the alternative to avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant environmental effects of the proposed project, as identified in Chapters 4.0 through 17.0 of this EIR and summarized in Chapter 2.0, Summary. The analysis also should account for the potentially significant environmental effects of the alternatives as compared to the proposed project.

Some of the potential effects of the project and the alternatives are common to virtually all development and would not vary from alternative to alternative. Similarly, certain environmental effects are addressed by routine requirements that would apply uniformly to any alternative. Since the focus of the alternatives analysis is comparison to the proposed EXHIBIT B ITEM 13
Copper Trails Specific Plan and Annexation EIR 19-3 November 2024 project, issues that do not vary substantially between the alternatives are not extensively analyzed. These include the following:

Cultural Resources and Tribal Cultural Resources. The project and other planned development have the potential to impact currently unknown archaeological resources within the project site. These potential impacts can be avoided by mitigation measures typically required of development projects. Also, tribes and consultation procedures would be the same, and mitigation measures have been identified for potential impacts on any unknown tribal cultural resources during construction. As such, this issue is not considered in detail in this alternatives analysis.

Geology, Soils, and Mineral Resources. The project site has soils with characteristics that impose potential development constraints. These constraints, common in Stanislaus County, would be addressed through routine soils engineering that would be required for development pursuant to the CTSP. Soil erosion is a potential issue that would be addressed through the SWRCB’s Construction General Permit process. Potential impacts related to inadvertent discovery of paleontological resources can be avoided by mitigation measures included in this EIR and typically required of other development projects. No mineral resources have been identified on the project site. Therefore, issues related to geology, soils, and mineral resources are not considered in this alternatives analysis.

Hydrology and Water Quality. The project would not involve significant hydrology and water quality impacts since there are no vulnerable surface waters in the project area. The project would comply with NPDES General Permit No. CAS000004, which would minimize water quality impacts. Groundwater impacts have been documented as being less than significant; the project would not affect groundwater supplies or quality. The project is not within a flood hazard area. Because of this, this issue is not considered in this alternatives analysis.

Land Use. The project would not involve significant land use effects, as proposed land uses and pre-zoning that would occur as part of the annexation process would be consistent with the City General Plan. This issue is not considered in detail in this alternatives analysis.

Public Services and Recreation. The project would generate new demands for public services that are common to new land development in the City and County. Application of routine requirements, including the payment of public improvement fees, school impact fees, and park fees, would reduce these potential effects to a level that would be less than significant. This issue is not considered in detail in this alternatives analysis.

Utilities and Energy. The project would involve new demands for water, wastewater, stormwater drainage, and other utilities. Facilities needed to serve new development would be available, either from existing systems or from onsite facilities. Issues identified in the EIR are routine matters that would be addressed by City review of development design and improvements. Utility issues are not considered in detail in this analysis.

As described in the CTSP and this EIR, the City’s planning and development review process would address and internalize mitigation for any potentially significant environmental effects associated with land development pursuant to the CTSP, this EIR EXHIBIT B ITEM 13
Copper Trails Specific Plan and Annexation EIR 19-4 November 2024 and the Mitigation Monitoring/Reporting Program for the project. This environmental impact analysis effort and implementation of recommended mitigation measures will result in substantial reductions in the potential environmental effects of the project, narrowing the potential for identification of alternatives that could reduce potential environmental effects. All the significant environmental effects of the project identified in this EIR can be reduced to a level that is less than significant level with the recommended mitigation measures, as documented in Chapters 4.0 through 18.0. Effects that have already been addressed in the GPEIR do not require additional discussion.

19.2 ALTERNATIVES NOT CONSIDERED
The following alternatives were identified in the process of EIR preparation but were not addressed in detail, as they did not meet the criteria for detailed analysis. These alternatives 1) would not meet most of the basic objectives of the project, 2) were clearly infeasible, or 3) did not have the ability to avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effects of the project as discussed below.

Alternative Location
This alternative would involve a City-sponsored specific plan proposal on an alternative site that might offer the potential to reduce the potential environmental effects of the CTSP.

The alternative location does not necessarily have to be of the same acreage as the CTSP Area, which is approximately 534.6 acres. However, to be a reasonable alternative, the location would need to accommodate a similar number of residential units and regional commercial floor area as the CTSP. On less extensive acreage, this could be accomplished through a slight increase in residential unit development density and increased height of commercial structures.

A review of the Ceres General Plan Land Use Map indicates that there would be no feasible locations within the existing City limits, as there is no vacant land that could accommodate the proposed development. The most feasible alternative locations would be in the far eastern and far southwestern portions of the Planning Area. Both these areas have been designated as agricultural land and have not been designated for any urban development.

As such, alternative locations in these areas would be inconsistent with the General Plan designations, and they would have a more severe impact related to agricultural land conversion. They also would conflict with the project objective of an orderly expansion of the City within its Sphere of Influence, as development in the alternative locations could be considered “leapfrog” development. In addition, these alternative locations would likely lead to an increase in VMT from the proposed project, along with its attendant impacts on air quality and GHG emissions.

An alternative location that would require an increase in residential unit density would most likely mean multifamily structures, which may involve increased aesthetic impacts.

An increase in the height of commercial buildings would have similar impacts. Depending on the location, infrastructure may need to be extended or improved, which would likely have effects on the local environment. Alternative locations would likely conflict with the EXHIBIT B ITEM 13
Copper Trails Specific Plan and Annexation EIR 19-5 November 2024 project objectives related to improving Service Road, as these locations would not likely be accessed by this road.

In summary, this alternative is inconsistent with the project objectives and would likely have more severe environmental impacts. The CTSP is a public/private planning collaboration that is addressed specifically to concerns with existing General Plan designations and zoning in the CTSP Area and no other geographic location. Therefore, this alternative was not analyzed in detail.

Alternative Land Use Plan or Design
For some Specific Plans, it is possible that a change in designation of certain lands may avoid some environmental impacts of the proposed project. Also, it is possible that a change in the design of proposed development may also avoid identified environmental impacts.

This EIR has identified various environmental impacts associated with development under the proposed CTSP – lands outside the proposed CTSP area would experience minor environmental impacts, if any. Alternative land use patterns or designs could be consistent with the project objectives and may be feasible to implement. However, of the potentially significant environmental effects identified in this EIR with the CTSP, none of the potential effects are related to the location of planned development within the CTSP Area. Changes in the land use designation or design would have little effect on potential environmental impacts. Therefore, this alternative would provide no identified opportunity to reduce potential environmental effects and was not analyzed in detail.

19.3 ALTERNATIVES ADDRESSED IN DETAIL
The alternatives to the proposed project that have been considered in detail are addressed in the following sections. The overall analysis is summarized in Table 19-1.

TABLE 19-1

COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT IMPACTS Issue Area Proposed Project
Alt 1: No Project/
County Zoning
Alt 2: 2007
CTSP
Alt 3: Current
GP Map
Agricultural Land
Conversion
Potentially significant Avoided Reduced No change
Air Pollutant/GHG
Emissions
Potentially significant Avoided Reduced May be more or
less severe
Biological
Resources
Less than significant
with mitigation
Avoided No change No change
Hazardous Materials Less than significant Possibly more severe
Reduced Possibly more
severe
Water Quality Potentially significant Avoided Reduced Similar to project EXHIBIT B ITEM 13
Copper Trails Specific Plan and Annexation EIR 19-6 November 2024 Noise Generation Potentially significant Avoided Minimal reduction
May be more or
less severe
Population and
Housing
Less than significant Avoided, but no
housing
Reduced,
but less
housing
No change, but
more housing
Traffic Generation Less than significant Avoided Reduced May be more or less severe

19.3.1 Alternative No. 1: No Project/County Zoning
As discussed in Section 19.1, the No Project Alternative for the revision of an existing land use or regulatory plan, policy, or ongoing operation is the continuation of the existing plan, policy, or operation into the future. As an alternative to the proposed adoption of the CTSP, the “no project” alternative involves no action by the City with respect to the CTSP or related development entitlement actions, including the proposed annexations.

Under this alternative, existing County General Plan land use designations and zoning on the project site would remain in place, as would existing public roads and other urban infrastructure in the area. As noted in Chapter 13.0, Land Use, the County General Plan designates the entire project site as Urban Transition. However, the CTSP Area is currently zoned General Agriculture. Therefore, under this alternative, existing parcels in the CTSP Area would generally remain in their current condition, mainly agriculture and rural residential. The existing schools would likewise remain. Outside the CTSP Area, parcels are currently zoned for agriculture and various types of urban development. It is expected that these land uses would over time occur on these parcels under the No Project alternative, in accordance with their zoning.

The continuation of existing uses would not result in any substantial immediate change to the existing environment within or near the CTSP Area. Existing soil, water, and biological resource conditions would be unchanged. For the CTSP Area, this alternative would involve no substantial change in land use, no increase in population, and no new demand for public services and utilities. This alternative would not result in any increased traffic, with its related air pollution and noise impacts. In addition, agricultural land conversion would be eliminated.

Future development of the Pocket Area under existing zoning would involve some residential and non-residential development. However, this development would be substantially less than within the CTSP Area; as such, environmental impacts of development in the Pocket Area would not be significant.

However, the No Project alternative is not consistent with the project objectives nor with the proposed development in the City’s General Plan. Moreover, the alternative would eliminate housing options that would otherwise satisfy housing objectives set forth in the Housing Element of the City’s General Plan. As a consequence, this may require the City to pursue alternative residential development, either through more intensive development, development on currently open space lands, or a combination of the two. This could result EXHIBIT B ITEM 13
Copper Trails Specific Plan and Annexation EIR 19-7 November 2024 in new or more severe environmental impacts in these areas, including traffic, noise, aesthetics, cultural resources, and hazards. In addition, the alternative housing development may place additional demand on existing water, sewer, and storm drainage facilities, requiring new or expanded facilities that could have environmental impacts.

Under the No Project alternative, the proposed regional commercial development would either be moved elsewhere or not be developed at all. Alternative commercial development could have similar environmental impacts to the alternative housing development. No commercial development would avoid these environmental impacts, but it would mean the City would not realize revenue from additional sales and property taxes that could be used to support public services.

In summary, the No Project alternative would avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effects of the project. However, it would not be consistent with the project objectives, and it could potentially generate new and more severe environmental impacts.

19.3.2 Alternative No. 2: 2007 CTSP
Under the 2007 CTSP Alternative, the CTSP as published for a public hearing in 2007 would be adopted. The 2007 CTSP covered approximately 175 acres, as opposed to the 534.6 acres covered by the proposed CTSP (Figure 19-1). The land area covered by the 2007 CTSP included all land within the proposed CTSP west of Central Avenue. The development proposed in the 2007 CTSP is shown in Table 19-2 below, in comparison with the proposed CTSP.

TABLE 19-2
COMPARISON OF PROPOSED AND 2007

COPPER TRAILS SPECIFIC PLAN DEVELOPMENT
Land Use
Acres Dwelling Units
Proposed 2007 Proposed 2007
Low-Density Residential 179.6 58.5 988 411
Medium-Density Residential 33.1 8.1 298 80
Medium High-Density Residential 16.8 - 336 -
High-Density Residential 30.8 6.8 770 87
Regional Commercial 107.4 - - -
Park/Open Space 42.3 15.0 - -
New Public Usage 3.4 - - -
Existing Public Usage (schools) 74.1 56.0 - -
Major Roadway/Landscape Corridor 47.1 30.6 - -
TOTAL 534.6 175.0 2,392 411
EXHIBIT B ITEM 13
Copper Trails Specific Plan and Annexation EIR 19-8 November 2024 As shown in Table 19-2, the 2007 CTSP alternative would permit substantially less development than under the proposed CTSP. The number of residential units would be reduced to 411, and the majority of these units would be single-family residential (Low Density Residential). No regional commercial development would occur. Neighborhood parks, a “pocket park,” and linear parkways would be provided, along with adequate pedestrian/bicycle links from residences to the recreational facilities.

Under this alternative, improvements would be made to Service Road, Central Avenue, and Blaker Road, along with the installation of an internal collector street and local streets.

As with the proposed CTSP, water, sewer, and storm drainage services to the 2007 CTSP area would be provided by the City of Ceres, and utility lines would be extended to the area. Installation of these utilities, along with park areas, would occur under a phasing program that proposes three phases of development, with no rigid schedule as to when these phases would be implemented.

This alternative would reduce the proposed project’s direct physical environmental effects because of the reduced acreage involved. Fewer acres of Farmland would be converted to urban uses, and much of the existing rural landscape would remain in place. More agricultural open space would remain, which would potentially mean more foraging and nesting habitat for birds and other species. With a reduction in housing units and elimination of commercial development, a substantial reduction in traffic generation and related noise and air pollutant emissions would be expected. Demands on the City’s potable water supplies and wastewater treatment capacity would be reduced, as would demands for public services. Storm water runoff would decrease, thereby reducing demand on the City’s storm drainage system.

However, the 2007 CTSP Alternative would not meet all the objectives of the proposed project. Specifically, the alternative would not meet the overall objective of development of commercial uses, and it would not meet the CTSP-specific objective of providing a balance of residential and non-residential land uses. Also, one of the CTSP project objectives is to aid the City in achieving its fair-share obligation to accommodate a percentage of the region’s forecasted population growth, as set forth in the RHNA prepared by StanCOG. With the substantial reduction in total housing units, the City would be less likely to achieve its obligation under this alternative. Moreover, this alternative proposes mainly single-family residential units, which would conflict with the CTSP objective of providing a diverse array of housing types.

As noted, this project would reduce residential development potential in the City. As such, the City’s options for accommodating the housing needs of all economic segments would be sharply reduced; land for market-rate housing would be less available and may become less desirable or affordable, affecting housing production. These are economic and social effects that typically are not considered under CEQA. However, these economic and social consequences could have effects on the physical environment. With less land available, more intensive residential development may need to occur for the City to meet its fairshare obligations. As discussed under the No Project Alternative, this could have EXHIBIT B ITEM 13
Copper Trails Specific Plan and Annexation EIR 19-9 November 2024 significant environmental impacts, especially in the areas where the residential development occurs.

In summary, the 2007 CTSP Alternative would lead to a reduction of environmental effects associated with the proposed project, specifically those pertaining to the project site.

However, this alternative is not consistent with some of the project objectives, and it could to new or more severe environmental impacts in other parts of the Ceres Planning Area and may make Housing Element compliance more difficult.

19.3.3 Alternative No. 3: Current Ceres General Plan Map Under the Current Ceres General Plan Map Alternative, the project site would be annexed and developed in accordance with the current land use designations of the Ceres General Plan and City development standards. As the land use designations within the Pocket Area are the same under both the proposed project and this alternative, the focus of this analysis is on the CTSP Area.

Within the CTSP Area, there are currently three major land use designations under the Ceres General Plan: Low Density Residential, Business Park, and Schools. Smaller areas have been designated Commercial Recreation and Very Low Density Residential. Table 19-3 provides a summary of land uses as currently proposed by the General Plan for the CTSP Area. In addition, the General Plan has applied designations of indefinite land area for Medium Density Residential, High Density Residential, Neighborhood Commercial, Parks, and Community Facilities.

TABLE 19-3

CURRENT CERES GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATIONS FOR CTSP AREA
Land Use Acres1 Dwelling Units2
Very Low Density Residential 9.4 42
Low-Density Residential 345.0 2,419
Medium-Density Residential N/D -
High-Density Residential N/D -
Business Park 90.6 -
Park N/D -
Community Facilities N/D -
Community Recreation 15.5 -
Neighborhood Commercial N/D -
Schools (existing) 74.1 -
TOTAL 534.6 2,461
N/D - not defined 1 Acreage of underlying designations. Indefinite designations not included.

EXHIBIT B ITEM 13
Copper Trails Specific Plan and Annexation EIR 19-10 November 2024 2 Estimated at maximum density as defined in Ceres General Plan.

Based on the maximum density allowed, this alternative would lead to the construction of up to 2,461 housing units, all lower density. This would slightly exceed the maximum 2,392 housing units that could be developed under the proposed CTSP. The Medium Density and High Density Residential designations would provide for additional housing units, although an estimate cannot be determined since no acreages are available. The maximum amount of Business Park development under this alternative would be approximately 1,183,960 square feet, based on the maximum floor-area ratio allowed under the General Plan. The square footage would be slightly greater than the proposed 1,169,586 square feet of Regional Commercial development under the proposed CTSP.

It is assumed that improvements would be made to roads in the area, although specific improvements are unknown. As with the proposed CTSP, water, sewer, and storm drainage services would be provided by the City of Ceres, and utility lines would be extended to the area. No phasing plan or other construction schedule for development under this alternative is available.

This alternative would meet the CTSP objectives of providing diversity in housing and in meeting the targets of the RHNA. This would be accomplished by the greater number of housing units that would be developed. It also could meet the objective of a more balanced land use mix between residential and non-residential land uses. In particular, the Business Park designation would likely lead to the creation of jobs in the area, leading to a more balanced jobs-housing ratio, which may have beneficial environmental impacts such as reduced VMT, with associated reductions in air pollutant and GHG emissions and noise.

The environmental impacts of the General Plan Alternative in general would be similar to those of the proposed project. The same Farmland acreage would be converted to urban uses, and the existing rural landscape would be changed to an urban one. Impacts on biological resources would be the same, as would water quality impacts. Demands on the City’s potable water supplies and wastewater treatment capacity would be increased, as would demands for public services. However, such increased demand would not be substantially greater than under the proposed CTSP. Demand on the City’s storm drainage system would be similar to that under the proposed CTSP.

However, the General Plan Alternative may lead to more severe impacts on air quality, GHG emissions, noise, and traffic. This would be due to more traffic being generated by the additional housing units that would be made available. Moreover, development within the Business Park may introduce more trucks to local traffic in the area. Although more stringent State regulations would reduce the air quality impacts of these trucks, as described in Chapter 6.0, Air Quality, trucks would contribute to air pollutant and GHG emissions, as well as to ambient noise levels. It was noted above that the alternative could lead to reductions in VMT, thereby reducing impacts on air quality, GHG emissions, and noise.

How much of these impact reductions would be offset by the traffic generated by the additional housing units and potential truck traffic is not known. Therefore, it is possible EXHIBIT B ITEM 13
Copper Trails Specific Plan and Annexation EIR 19-11 November 2024 that the General Plan Alternative may have greater or lesser impacts on these issues than the proposed CTSP.

In addition, development of the Regional Commercial area may introduce more hazardous materials to the area through increased transportation and storage. Therefore, potential upset or accident occurrences involving hazardous materials may increase.

This alternative would not meet all the objectives of the proposed project. Moreover, this alternative would not provide more specific guidance on the development of land uses such as parks and trails, and it would not provide for infrastructure and public facility development plans that would provide for more logical development of the area, as noted in the project objectives.

In summary, the General Plan Alternative would be consistent with many of the project objectives and could lead to some reduction of environmental effects associated with the proposed project. However, it also could lead to an increase in the severity of impacts, and it would not meet other project objectives.

19.4 ENVIRONMENTALLY SUPERIOR ALTERNATIVE
As the No Project Alternative would eliminate or avoid all potential environmental effects associated with the proposed project, it would be considered the environmentally superior alternative. However, this alternative would meet none of the project objectives, while it could generate adverse environmental impacts of its own.

CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(e)(2) requires that, if a No Project Alternative is identified as the environmentally superior alternative, then an EIR shall identify an environmentally superior alternative from the other alternatives. The 2007 CTSP Alternative would involve less severe environmental effects than the proposed project and therefore could be considered the Environmentally Superior Alternative. However, as noted, this alternative would not meet all the objectives of the proposed project.

EXHIBIT B ITEM 13
Figure 19-1
BaseCamp Environmental 2007 Copper Trails Specific Plan Area SOURCE: City of Ceres
EXHIBIT B ITEM 13
Copper Trails Specific Plan and Annexation EIR 20-1 November 2024

20.0 OTHER CEQA ISSUES

20.1 GROWTH-INDUCING IMPACTS
Definition of Growth-Inducing Impacts
CEQA Guidelines Section 15126(d) requires that an EIR shall consider the growthinducing impacts of a proposed project. CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.2(e) further explains that the EIR shall discuss the ways in which a project could foster, directly or indirectly, economic or population growth or the construction of additional housing in the surrounding environment. Projects that could induce growth include those that extend new development into previously undeveloped areas, extend new infrastructure or remove physical or economic obstacles to population growth, or encourage and facilitate other activities that could significantly affect the environment, either individually or cumulatively. The CEQA Guidelines note that it must not be assumed that growth in any area is necessarily beneficial, detrimental, or of little significance to the environment.

As one example of a growth-inducing impact, a large new industrial facility that creates numerous new jobs may increase or accelerate demands for housing. In an area of relative housing shortage, this effect could be growth-inducing; however, the same project in a labor surplus area may have no growth-inducing effect at all. Another example of this phenomenon would be the development of major new recreational, shopping, or entertainment facilities that spur development of new residential areas or other related development.

Growth can also be induced by the development of new infrastructure such as a new sewage treatment facility or potable water system, or by the extension of existing street or utility infrastructure to or near previously unserved areas. The addition or extension of such infrastructure could thereby facilitate development of these areas. However, the extension of new infrastructure in conjunction with proposed development that would be served by the new facilities may not have a distinguishable growth-inducing effect outside of its contribution to the overall development proposal.

Growth may be induced by a variety of government actions that permit or may promote additional development. These may include general plan amendments or rezonings that favor additional development, issuance of permits or approvals that establish new precedents for land development, and changes in policy that have the same result.

Growth-Inducing Impacts of the Proposed Project
The proposed project involves a request for City approval of the CTSP, along with the annexation of the CTSP Area and the Pocket Area. Most of the Pocket Area is already developed; therefore, the project would have a minimal growth-inducing effect there.

However, the requested actions are inherently growth-inducing in that they would promote the urban development of the CTSP Area.

EXHIBIT B ITEM 13
Copper Trails Specific Plan and Annexation EIR 20-2 November 2024 The CTSP Area is already designated for urban development by the Ceres General Plan. and is partially developed with schools and scattered residences, though much of the area currently remains in agricultural use. The CTSP Area is adjacent to existing development in the City and some urban infrastructure is already in place, such as water lines and roads.

Therefore, the CTSP would not involve “leapfrog” development.

The CTSP as proposed would ultimately result in the construction of up to 2,392 residential units, accommodating as many as 8,492 people. To the extent that the housing constructed is individually or cumulatively attractive to new industry or other development, the CTSP could contribute to the inducement of new industrial and/or commercial growth in Ceres within or outside the CTSP Area. As has been noted, the CTSP is intended to stimulate commercial development within the CTSP Area. However, there is no evidence to suggest that housing resulting from the project would have any substantial influence on the amount or location of new commercial or industrial development outside the CTSP Area.

The CTSP would involve the extension of existing urban infrastructure to serve new development. Infrastructure extension would take the form of new streets needed for access and new utility lines that would be installed in new streets. It is expected that major utility extensions would be needed for development of the CTSP Area, particularly potable water and wastewater lines. The growth-inducing effect of these infrastructure projects would be incremental, as these projects would support urban development as it occurs in the CTSP Area. As discussed, all these properties are already planned for urban development, and such development would be subject to City review and approval before it can occur.

The proposed CTSP has the potential to promote or stimulate future development of lands adjacent to the CTSP Area, mainly to the south and west. The City of Ceres is to the north, and SR 99 and the Ceres Main Canal would be barriers to development of lands to the east.

New investment in the CTSP Area could increase the desirability, and therefore the growth pressure, on neighboring parcels to the west and south in the form of increased land values.

However, lands to the west are already substantially developed, and the Ceres General Plan has designated these lands for urban development.

The agricultural lands south of the CTSP Area are not within either the Ceres General Plan Planning Area or the City’s Sphere of Influence. Moreover, these lands would be separated from the CTSP Area by TID Lower Lateral 2, which would act as a barrier. Any development project south of this lateral that seeks to connect to City utilities would require approval from TID for any crossing of the lateral. In summary, the CTSP is not expected to have substantial growth-inducing effects on adjacent lands to the west and south.

As noted, development proposed under the CTSP would increase the number of residential units, thereby incrementally increasing the demand for new commercial development.

Some of this demand would be met by planned commercial development in the CTSP Area.

It is anticipated that demands for commercial development generated by the project would be met on existing or planned commercial sites, rather than from promoting the entitlement of undeveloped lands.

EXHIBIT B ITEM 13
Copper Trails Specific Plan and Annexation EIR 20-3 November 2024

20.2 IRREVERSIBLE ENVIRONMENTAL CHANGES
CEQA Guidelines Section 15126(c) requires that an EIR address significant irreversible environmental changes that would be involved in the proposed project if it were implemented. As further explained in CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.2(d), uses of nonrenewable resources during the initial and continued phases of the project may be irreversible, since a large commitment of such resources makes removal or non-use thereafter unlikely. Primary impacts and, particularly, secondary impacts such as highway improvement which provides access to a previously inaccessible area, generally commit future generations to similar uses. Also, irreversible damage can result from environmental accidents associated with the project. Irretrievable commitments of resources should be evaluated to assure that such current consumption is justified.

Urban development promoted by the CTSP would involve the irreversible commitment of non-renewable materials and energy consumption to construction of proposed urban infrastructure, residential and non-residential areas and related development. Construction materials would involve sand and gravel, concrete, asphalt, plastics, and metals as well as various renewable resources. Energy use would occur from project construction activities within the CTSP Area. These materials would not be used in highly significant or unusual quantities and would be obtained from existing commercial sources. CTSP development would not vary substantially in commitment of resources from development of the area under existing Ceres General Plan designations.

The CTSP would involve significant irreversible environmental changes in the loss of agricultural land, involving the conversion of approximately 319.5 acres of Important Farmland (see Chapter 5.0, Agricultural Resources) from the present agricultural uses to urban residential, commercial, and other urban uses. Adoption of the CTSP would eventually result in an irreversible commitment of the CTSP Area to urban uses; subdivision, development, dispersion of ownership, and infrastructure installation would make any return to agricultural use unlikely. Additional information on agricultural land conversion associated with the CTSP is provided in Chapter 5.0 of this EIR.

Commitment of the CTSP Area to urban uses would involve an essentially irreversible loss of open space and the biological resource values associated with undeveloped land. Both values have been compromised to an extent by past urban development such as the two schools and by agricultural activities. As discussed in Chapter 7.0, Biological Resources, biological resources would be affected, but impacts would be reduced through the implementation of identified mitigation measures. Therefore, the CTSP’s effects on these resources would be less than significant.

Development of the CTSP Area would involve an essentially irreversible reduction in groundwater recharge that would otherwise occur on the undeveloped soils of the area.

New impervious surfaces would involve increases in runoff during rainfall events; however, these waters would be routed to storm drainage facilities where some of these waters would eventually be returned to the groundwater system. Groundwater recharge losses and increased runoff are not considered significant. These considerations are discussed in more detail in Chapters 12.0 and 17.0 of this EIR.

EXHIBIT B ITEM 13
Copper Trails Specific Plan and Annexation EIR 20-4 November 2024 No other irreversible changes or irretrievable commitment of resources are associated with implementation of the CTSP. As discussed in Chapter 17.0, Utilities and Energy, development under the CTSP would comply with the adopted Energy Code and CALGreen in effect at the time the development is approved. Compliance with these codes would reduce the energy consumption of future development. Also, as discussed in Chapter 17.0, future development would comply with the water conservation measures of CALGreen.

20.3 SIGNIFICANT AND UNAVOIDABLE IMPACTS
CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.2(b) states that an EIR shall discuss significant environmental effects that cannot be avoided if a proposed project is implemented. This includes significant impacts that can be mitigated but not reduced to a level of insignificance. Where there are impacts that cannot be alleviated without imposing an alternative design, the implications of these impacts, and the reasons why the project is being proposed notwithstanding their effects, should be described.

Table 2-1 of this EIR identifies all the potentially significant environmental effects of the project and the mitigation measures to address these effects. In most cases, the potentially significant impacts of the project can be reduced to levels that are less than significant with identified mitigation measures. However, there were four impacts that were identified as significant and unavoidable, even when mitigation measures were implemented:
● The project would convert approximately 309 acres of Prime Farmland and approximately 10.5 acres of Farmland of Statewide Importance. Although the project would participate in the City’s Agricultural Lands Mitigation Program, conversion of this farmland cannot be avoided. This issue had been previously addressed in the EIR for the Ceres General Plan, the Planning Area for which included the project site.
● Air pollutant emissions generated by project development would exceed the SJVAPCD significance thresholds, even with compliance with SJVAPCD rules and regulations and implementation of project features that would reduce emissions. ● GHG emissions generated by project development were determined to be significant and unavoidable, even with project features that are designed to reduce such emissions.
● The VMT impacts of the project were considered significant and unavoidable, even with implementation of CTSP features that would reduce VMT.

20.4 ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE
Environmental justice is not an issue that CEQA explicitly requires to be addressed, as it is more of a socioeconomic issue than one with physical environmental impacts. However, the State of California has recently emphasized the incorporation of environmental justice concerns in land use and environmental planning.

EXHIBIT B ITEM 13
Copper Trails Specific Plan and Annexation EIR 20-5 November 2024 State law defines “environmental justice” as “the fair treatment of all races, cultures, and incomes with respect to the development, adoption, implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations, and policies.” Low-income residents, communities of color, tribal nations, and immigrant communities have historically experienced disproportionate environmental burdens with their related health problems. This inequity has resulted from many factors, including inappropriate zoning and incomplete land use planning that have led to development patterns concentrating environmental hazards in communities without the political power to protect themselves. These environmental hazards include air pollutant emissions, water contamination, hazardous wastes, and pesticide exposure, among others. The State of California has made reducing disproportionate environmental burdens on these communities a priority.

In 2012, the Legislature passed SB 535, directing that 25 percent of the proceeds from the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund go to projects that provide a benefit to disadvantaged communities. To assist in identifying a disadvantaged community for the purposes of SB 535, the California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment has developed the California Communities Environmental Health Screening Tool (CalEnviroScreen).

CalEnviroScreen measures pollution and population characteristics using 20 indicators such as air quality, drinking water quality, waste sites, toxic emissions, asthma rates, and poverty. It applies a formula based on these indicators to each U.S. Census tract in California to generate a score that rates the level of cumulative environmental impacts on each area. A Census tract with a higher score is one that experiences higher pollution burdens and vulnerability than one with a lower score. A Census tract that scores in the top 25% under the CalEnviroScreen formula is considered a disadvantaged community.

The project site is located within Census Tract 6099003002, which has an overall CalEnviroScreen score of 71 (OEHHA 2023). This score is not in the top 25 percentile; therefore, the Census tract is not considered a disadvantaged community as defined by SB 535. In addition, as discussed in Chapter 13.0, Land Use, the project site is not within any identified DUCs. Because of this, environmental justice issues related to the proposed project are not considered significant and are not discussed further in this EIR.

EXHIBIT B ITEM 13
Copper Trails Specific Plan and Annexation EIR 21-1 November 2024

21.0 REFERENCES CITED AND PERSONS CONSULTED

21.1 EIR PREPARERS
This document was prepared by BaseCamp Environmental, Inc. of Lodi, with assistance from, and under the direction of, the City of Ceres and Wood Rodgers. Participants in document preparation included the following:

BaseCamp Environmental, Inc.

Charles Simpson, Principal
Terry Farmer, AICP, Senior Environmental Planner
Krista Simpson, Research and Graphics
Rayanna Beck, Research and Document Production
City of Ceres
Lea Simvoulakis, Community Development Director
Christopher Hoem, AICP, (former) Community Development Director Teddie Hernandez, Senior Planner
Wood Rodgers
Vance Jones, Project Manager

21.2 REFERENCES CITED
Benziger, Jeff. 2022. “Funding Moves ACE Train Project Quicker Along.” Ceres Courier, July 13, 2022.

Bryant, William A. and Earl W. Hart. 2007. Fault-Rupture Hazard Zones in California:

Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act with Index to Earthquake Fault Zones Maps. Department of Conservation, California Geological Survey Special Publication 42. Interim Revision 2007.

California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA). 2009. Model Policies for Greenhouse Gases in General Plans: A Resource for Local Government to Incorporate General Plan Policies to Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions. June 2009.

California Air Resources Board (ARB). 2001. Ozone Transport: 2001 Review. April 2001.

EXHIBIT B ITEM 13
Copper Trails Specific Plan and Annexation EIR 21-2 November 2024 ______. 2005. Air Quality and Land Use Handbook: A Community Health Perspective.

April 2005.
______. 2008a. 2008 California Toxic Inventory.
______. 2008b. Climate Change Scoping Plan: A Framework for Change. December 2008.
______. 2013. The California Almanac of Emissions and Air Quality. 2013 Edition. ______. 2014. First Update to the Climate Change Scoping Plan: Building on the Framework. May 2014.
______. 2016. Ambient Air Quality Standards. June 4, 2016. ______. 2017. California’s 2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan. November 2017. ______. 2018. Final Environmental Analysis Prepared for the Proposed Amendments to the Low Carbon Fuel Standard and the Alternative Diesel Fuels Regulation.

September 17, 2018.
______. 2020a. CEPAM: 2016 SIP - Standard Emission Tool, Emission Projections by Summary Category. Available online at https://www.arb.ca.gov/app/emsinv/ fcemssumcat/cepam_emssumcat_query_v5.php. Accessed December 22, 2020. ______. 2020b. Final Environmental Analysis for the Proposed Advanced Clean Trucks Regulation. June 23, 2020.
______. 2022a. California Greenhouse Gas Emissions for 2000 to 2020: Trends of Emissions and Other Indicators. October 26, 2022.
______. 2022b. 2022 Scoping Plan for Achieving Carbon Neutrality. November 16, 2022.
______. 2023. California Greenhouse Gas Emissions for 2000 to 2021: Trends of Emissions and Other Indicators. December 14, 2023.

California Department of Conservation, Division of Land Resources Protection. 2023.

California Williamson Act Enrollment Finder. Available online at https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/dlrp/WilliamsonAct/App/index.html. Accessed November 30, 2023.

California Department of Conservation, Division of Land Resources Protection, Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program (FMMP). 2016. The California Land Conservation Act of 1965 2016 Status Report. December 2016. ______. 2018. Stanislaus County Important Farmland 2018, Sheet 1 of 2 (map). ______. 2020. Stanislaus County 2004-2020 Land Use Summary.

EXHIBIT B ITEM 13
Copper Trails Specific Plan and Annexation EIR 21-3 November 2024 California Department of Conservation, Division of Oil, Gas and Geothermal Resources (DOGGR). 2023. Well Finder – CalGEM GIS. Available online at https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/doggr/wellfinder/. Accessed September 7, 2023.

California Department of Education. 2023. EdData database, ed-data.org/. Accessed September 13, 2023.

California Department of Finance. 2023. Report E-5: City/County Population and Housing Estimates, January 1, 2023. Released May 1, 2023.

California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW). 2023. California Natural Diversity Database. Available online at https://apps.wildlife.ca.gov/bios6/?tool=cnddbqv.

Accessed September 22, 2023.

California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (Cal Fire). 2022. Stanislaus County State Responsibility Area Fire Hazard Severity Zones (map). November 21, 2022.

California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD). 2023. Annual Progress Report Permit Summary - Raw Annual Progress Report Data. June 1, 2023.

California Department of Resources Recovery and Recycling (CalRecycle). 2019. Solid Waste Generation Rates. Available online at https://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/ WasteCharacterization/General/Rates#Commercial. Accessed August 7, 2019. ______. 2023. SWIS Facility/Site Activity Details, Fink Road Landfill (50-AA-0001).

Available online at https://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/SolidWaste/SiteActivity/ Details/992?siteID=3733. Accessed August 22, 2023.

California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC). 2008. Interim Guidance for Sampling Agricultural Properties (Third Revision). August 7, 2008. ______. 2023. EnviroStor database, www.envirostor.dtsc.ca.gov. Accessed September 7, 2023.

California Department of Transportation (Caltrans). 2002. Transportation Related Earthborne Vibrations. TAV-02-01-R9601. February 20, 2002. ______. 2019. List of Officially Designated State Scenic Highways. Available online at http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/LandArch/16_livability/scenic_highways/ scenic_hwy.htm. August 2019.
______. 2020. Interim Land Development and Intergovernmental Review (LDIGR) Safety Review Practitioners Guidance. July 2020.

California Department of Water Resources (DWR). 2023. Best Available Maps.

Available online at https://gis.bam.water.ca.gov/bam/. Accessed September 11, 2023.

EXHIBIT B ITEM 13
Copper Trails Specific Plan and Annexation EIR 21-4 November 2024 ______. 2024. San Joaquin Valley – Turlock Subbasin- 2022 Groundwater Sustainability Plan. Letter to Debbie Montalbano, Turlock Irrigation District and West Turlock Subbasin GSA. January 18, 2024.

California Energy Commission (CEC). 2024a. Electricity Consumption by County – Stanislaus County 2022. Available online at ecdms.energy.ca.gov/ elecbycounty.aspx. Accessed February 2, 2024.
______. 2024b. Gas Consumption by County – Stanislaus County 2022. Available online at ecdms.energy.ca.gov/gasbycounty.aspx. Accessed February 2, 2024.

California Environmental Protection Agency (CalEPA). 2021a. Sites Identified with Waste Constituents Above Hazardous Waste Levels Outside the Waste Management Unit. Available online at http://www.calepa.ca.gov/SiteCleanup/ CorteseList/CurrentList.pdf. Accessed January 14, 2021. ______. 2021b. List of "Active" CDO and CAO from Water Board. Available online at http://www.calepa.ca.gov/SiteCleanup/CorteseList/default.htm. Accessed January 14, 2021.

California Geological Survey (CGS). 2024. CGS Information Warehouse: Regulatory Maps. Available online at http://maps.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/ informationwarehouse/regulatorymaps/. Accessed April 25, 2024.

California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA). 2023.

CalEnviroScreen 4.0. Available online at oehha.ca.gov/calenviroscreen/report/ calenviroscreen-30. Accessed June 8, 2023.

California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC). 2021. 2021 California Renewables Portfolio Standard Annual Report. November 2021.
______. 2022. 2022 California Renewables Portfolio Standard Annual Report. November 2022.

Central California Information Center (CCIC). 2023. Copper Trails Specific Plan EIR.

December 20, 2023.

Ceres Unified School District (CUSD). 2019. School Facility Needs Analysis for Ceres Unified School District. Prepared by Jack Schreder and Associates. August 1, 2019.
______. 2022. LCFF Budget Overview for the 2023-24 School Year. January 2022.

City of Ceres. 1995. City of Ceres Storm Drain Study and Master Plan. Prepared by LewGarcia-Davis. June 21, 1995. ______. 2007a. Copper Trails Neighborhood Master Plan. Public Hearing Draft, October 2007.
______. 2007b. Staff Report and Recommendation: Copper Trails Master Plan DEIR/FEIR, Master Plan Adoption and Plan Area Pre-zoning (continued from EXHIBIT B ITEM 13
Copper Trails Specific Plan and Annexation EIR 21-5 November 2024 October 15, 2007 and November 5, 2007). Report to Ceres Planning Commission, December 3, 2007.
______. 2007c. City of Ceres Small Lot Design Guidelines. Approved by Resolution 2007-189, September 24, 2007.
______. 2011. City of Ceres Water Master Plan Report. Prepared by West Yost Associates. June 2011.
______. 2012. City of Ceres Municipal Service Review and Sphere of Influence Plan.

Prepared for Stanislaus LAFCo. Adopted February 22, 2012. ______. 2013. City of Ceres Sewer System Master Plan. Prepared by Stantec Consulting Services. July 2013.
______. 2016a. Ceres General Plan Update Existing Conditions Report. Prepared by Dyett and Bhatia. August 29, 2016.
______. 2016b. City of Ceres 2014-2023 Housing Element. Prepared by J.B. Anderson Land Use Planning. January 2016.
______. 2016c. Parks and Recreation Master Plan. Prepared by O’Dell Engineering.

March 2016.
______. 2018a. Ceres General Plan 2035 Draft Environmental Impact Report, SCH #2017052063. February 07, 2018
______. 2018b. Ceres General Plan 2035. Adopted May 14, 2018. ______. 2021a. Ceres Citywide Active Transportation Plan. Prepared by Placeworks.

Adopted September 27, 2021.
______. 2021b. City of Ceres 2020 Urban Water Management Plan. Prepared by Black Water Consulting Engineers. August 2021.
______. 2022. City of Ceres Consumer Confidence 2022 Annual Report. Prepared by Ceres Public Works Department.
______. 2024a. Draft Storm Drain Master Plan, City of Ceres. Prepared by Black Water Consulting Engineers. July 2024.
______. 2024b. HCD Revised Draft 6th Cycle Housing Element Update (2023-2031).

Prepared by EMC Planning Group, Inc. July 1, 2024.

Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). 2021. Flood Insurance Rate Map #06099C0555F, Stanislaus County, California. Available online at https://msc.fema.gov/portal/search. Effective date August 24, 2021.

Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), Office of Safety Analysis. 2023. 4.12 – Casualties by State and Railroad. Available online at
https://railroads.dot.gov/safety-data. Accessed September 21, 2023.

EXHIBIT B ITEM 13
Copper Trails Specific Plan and Annexation EIR 21-6 November 2024 Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). 2006. Roadway Construction Noise Model User’s Guide. FHWA-HEP-05-054. January 2006.

Fernandez-Bou, Angel Santiago, J. Pablo Ortiz-Partida, Chantelise Pells, Leticia M.

Classen-Rodriguez, Vicky Espinoza, Jose M. Rodríguez-Flores, Lorenzo Booth, Julia Burmistrova, Alan Cai, Ariadna Cairo, John A. Capitman, Spencer Cole, Humberto Flores-Landeros, Alexander Guzman, Mahesh L. Maskey, Dalia Martínez- Escobar, Pedro Andres Sanchez-Perez, Jorge Valero-Fandiño, Joshua H. Viers, Leroy Westerling, and Josué Medellín-Azuara. 2021. Regional Report for the San Joaquin Valley Region on Impacts of Climate Change. California Natural Resources Agency. Publication number: SUM-CCCA4-2021-003.

Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR). 2018. Technical Advisory on Evaluating Transportation Impacts in CEQA. December 2018.

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). 2024. Monthly Average Mauna Loa CO2 – March 2024. Available online at https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/ gmd/ccgg/trends/. Accessed April 25, 2024.

Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB). 2015. The Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan) for the California Regional Water Quality Control Board Central Valley Region: The Sacramento River Basin and the San Joaquin River Basin. Fourth Edition, Revised June 2015 (with Approved Amendments).

Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District (SMAQMD). 2021. Guide to Air Quality Assessment in Sacramento County: Chapter 6 – Greenhouse Gas Emissions. Adopted February 26, 2021.

San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (SJVAPCD). 2009. Final Staff Report - Climate Change Action Plan: Addressing GHG Emissions Impacts under CEQA.

December 17, 2009.
______. 2015. Guide for Assessing and Mitigating Air Quality Impacts. Adopted March 19, 2015.
______. 2018. 2018 Plan for the 1997, 2006, and 2012 PM2.5 Standards. November 15, 2018.
______. 2023. Ambient Air Quality Standards and Valley Attainment Status. Available online at http://www.valleyair.org/aqinfo/attainment.htm. Accessed April 27, 2023.

Saxelby Acoustics LLC. 2024. Environmental Noise Assessment, Copper Trails Master Plan, City of Ceres, California. May 1, 2024.

Stanislaus Council of Governments. (StanCOG). 2020. Congestion Management Process 2020. February 19, 2020.
______. 2021. 2021 Non-Motorized Transportation Master Plan. February 22, 2021.

EXHIBIT B ITEM 13
Copper Trails Specific Plan and Annexation EIR 21-7 November 2024 ______. 2022a. 2022 Regional Transportation Plan and Sustainable Communities Strategy. August 2022.
______. 2022b. 2022 Regional Transportation Plan and Sustainable Communities Strategy Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Report. Prepared by Rincon Consultants, Inc. June 2022.

Stanislaus County. 2015. 2015 Post-Construction Standards Plan. June 30, 2015. ______. 2016a. Stanislaus County General Plan 2015. Adopted August 23, 2016. ______. 2016b. Stanislaus County General Plan and Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan Update Draft Program Environmental Impact Report. Prepared by ICF International. April 2016.
______. 2016c. Stanislaus County Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan. Adopted October 6, 2016.
______. 2022. 2022 Stanislaus County Agricultural Report. Prepared by Stanislaus County Department of Agriculture and Weights and Measures.

Stanislaus County Office of Emergency Services (OES). 2021. Stanislaus County Emergency Operations Plan. November 2021.

Stanislaus Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCo). 2015. Stanislaus County Disadvantaged Unincorporated Communities Report. Prepared by ICF International. November 2015.
______. 2020. Stanislaus LAFCo Policies and Procedures. Adopted April 20, 2020.

State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB). 2021. State Policy for Water Quality Control: State Wetland Definition and Procedures for Discharges of Dredged or Fill Material to Waters of the State. Revised April 6, 2021. ______. 2022. 2020-2022 Integrated Report for Clean Water Act Sections 303(d) and 305(b). February 16, 2022.
______. 2023. GeoTracker website, www.geotracker.swrcb.ca.gov. Accessed September 8, 2023.

Turlock Irrigation District (TID). 2021. Turlock Irrigation District 2020 Agricultural Water Management Plan. March 2021.
______. 2023. 2022 Annual Operations Review, Turlock Irrigation District, Turlock, California. Prepared by Leidos. April 2023.

United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). 2001. Climate Change 2001: The Scientific Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Third Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

U.S. Department of Agriculture. 2019. 2017 Census of Agriculture. California, State and County Data, Volume 1 – Geographic Area Series, Part 5. Issued April 2019.

EXHIBIT B ITEM 13
Copper Trails Specific Plan and Annexation EIR 21-8 November 2024 U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS). 2023.

Custom Soil Resource Report for Eastern Stanislaus Area, California. September 7, 2023.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service (SCS). 1964. Soil Survey, Eastern Stanislaus Area, California. Issued September 1964.

U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA). 2015. 2015 Residential Energy Consumption Survey: Energy Consumption and Expenditures Tables. Table CE4.10: Annual household site end‐use consumption by fuel in the West - averages, 2015.
______. 2018a. Table C22. Electricity consumption totals and conditional intensities by building activity subcategories, 2018. Available online at https://www.eia.gov/ consumption/commercial/.
______. 2018b. Table C32. Natural gas consumption totals and conditional intensities by building activity subcategories, 2018. Available online at https://www.eia.gov/ consumption/commercial/.
______. 2023. California State Energy Profile. Available online at https://www.eia.gov/ state. Last updated April 20, 2023.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2009. Endangerment and Cause of Contribute Findings for Greenhouse Gases Under Section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act. Federal Register Vol. 74, No. 239, pp. 66496-66546. December 15, 2009. ______. 2018a. Ground-Level Ozone Pollution: Health Effects of Ozone Pollution.

Available on EPA website at https://www.epa.gov/ground-level-ozonepollution/health-effects-ozone-pollution. Last updated on October 10, 2018. ______. 2018b. Particulate Matter (PM) Pollution: Health and Environmental Effects of Particulate Matter (PM). Available on EPA website at https://www.epa.gov/pmpollution/health-and-environmental-effects-particulate-matter-pm. Last updated on June 20, 2018.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2023. National Wetlands Inventory. Available online at https://fwsprimary.wim.usgs.gov/wetlands/apps/wetlands-mapper/. Accessed September 23, 2023.

University of the Pacific. 2016. Stanislaus County Forecast Summary. Prepared by the Eberhardt School of Business. July 7, 2016.

Wagner, D. L., E. J. Bortugno, and R. D. McJunkin. 1991. Geologic Map of the San Francisco-San Jose Quadrangle, California, 1:250,000. California Division of Mines and Geology, Regional Geologic Map Series.

West Turlock Subbasin Groundwater Sustainability Agency and East Turlock Subbasin Groundwater Sustainability Agency (WTSGSA/ETSGSA). 2022. Turlock Subbasin Groundwater Sustainability Plan. Prepared by Todd Groundwater.

January 2022.

EXHIBIT B ITEM 13
Copper Trails Specific Plan and Annexation EIR 21-9 November 2024 Wood Rodgers. 2024. Copper Trails Master Plan Transportation Impact Analysis, Draft Report. March 2024.

21.3 PERSONS CONSULTED
Michael Beltran, PE. Director of Engineering/City Engineer, City of Ceres.

Josh Bridegroom. Director of Planning and Urban Design, North Star Engineering Group, Inc.

Tony de Melo, PE. Principal, North Star Engineering Group, Inc.

Teddie Hernandez. Senior Planner, City of Ceres Community Development Department.

Darin Jesberg. Deputy Fire Chief, Modesto Fire Department.

Vance Jones. Senior Planner, Wood Rodgers.

Rhonda Rose. Building Permit Technician, City of Ceres Building Division.

Sam Royal. Interim Public Works Director, City of Ceres.

John D. Silva. Supervising Appraiser, Stanislaus County Assessor’s Office.

Lea Simvoulakis. Director, City of Ceres Community Development Department.

Mario Tambellini, PE, TE. Project Engineer, Wood Rodgers.

Nolan Thompson, EIT. West Yost Engineering.

Anna-Maria Trimboli. Purchasing and Contracts Specialist, Ceres Unified School District.

Roberto Vera, PE, RCE. West Yost Engineering.

EXHIBIT B ITEM 13
APPENDIX A
NOTICE OF PREPARATION AND COMMENTS
EXHIBIT B ITEM 13

Date: September 27, 2023
To: Responsible Agencies, Trustee Agencies, Interested Parties and Organizations Subject: Notice of Preparation of a Draft Environmental Impact Report Project Title: Copper Trails Specific Plan and Annexation Lead Agency: City of Ceres
Community Development Department
2200 Magnolia Street
Ceres, CA 95307
Project Applicant: Stewart S. Fahmy and Nav Athwal
c/o NorthStar Engineering Group, Inc.
620 12th Street
Modesto, CA 95354
The City of Ceres is the Lead Agency and will prepare an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the Copper Trails Specific Plan and Annexation project. As required by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the City is soliciting the views of Responsible and Trustee Agencies as to the scope and content of the environmental information that is germane to your agency’s statutory responsibilities in connection with the proposed project. Your agency may need to use the EIR prepared by the City when considering a permit or other approval for the project. The City is also providing a copy of this Notice of Preparation to other parties and organizations that may have an interest in the Copper Trails Specific Plan and EIR.

The Copper Trails Specific Plan and Annexation project and its probable environmental effects are described in the full version of the NOP, which is available for review. The City of Ceres has determined that an EIR will be prepared without preparation of an Initial Study as permitted in Section 15060(d) of the State CEQA Guidelines.

Due to the time limits mandated by State law, your response to this notice must be sent at the earliest possible date but not later than 30 days after receipt of this notice.

If you would like to discuss the project or the environmental impacts that should be addressed in the EIR, the Ceres Planning Commission will conduct a public scoping meeting on October 16, 2023 at 6:00 p.m. at the Ceres Community Center, 2701 4th Street, Ceres, CA

CITY COUNCIL
Javier Lopez, Mayor
James Casey Dist. 1 Rosalinda L. Vierra, Dist. 2
Bret Silveira, Dist. 3 Daniel A. Martinez, Dist. 4
Planning and Building Division
2220 Magnolia Street
Ceres, CA 95307
209-538-5774
Fax 209-538-5675
EXHIBIT B ITEM 13
Please send your comments by mail or email to Christopher Hoem, Director of the Ceres Community Development Department as shown below. Please provide the contact person’s name and associated contact information for your agency or organization.
_________________________________________ ______________________ Christopher Hoem, AICP Date
Community Development Director, City of Ceres
[email protected]
(209) 538-5778
EXHIBIT B ITEM 13

PROJECT DESCRIPTION

COPPER TRAILS SPECIFIC PLAN AND ANNEXATION PROJECT
Project Location
The project site is in unincorporated Stanislaus County south of and adjacent to the City of Ceres (Figure 1). The Copper Trails Specific Plan (CTSP) area is bounded by SR 99 and Mitchell Road on the east, Service Road on the north, Blaker Road on the west, and TID Lower Lateral 2 on the south. The non-CTSP annexation area is located north and east of the CTSP and south of the existing City boundary. Much of the non-CTSP area is located west of SR 99 and is bounded by Service Road to the south, Central Avenue to the west, Industrial Way to the north, and SR 99 to the east. The eastern portion of the non-CTSP annexation area consists primarily of the mainline SR 99 and associated State Highway right-of-way between 9th Street on the northwest and Moore Road to the southeast. An additional area to be annexed is located between the SR 99 right-of-way and the existing City of Ceres boundary to the northeast.

Project Description
The proposed project consists of the approval, annexation, and subsequent development of the CTSP area, including related permits and approvals. The CTSP establishes a plan for, and would result in, development of residential, commercial, and other urban land uses within the approximately 534.6-acre CTSP area (Figure 2). Proposed urban development within the CTSP would require City approvals of the CTSP, the proposed annexation, amendments of the Ceres General Plan, pre-zoning of the annexation area, one or more development agreements, and future Tentative Map application submittals. Othe required permits and approvals would include cancellation of Williamson Act contracts, adjustment of the boundaries of the Ceres Fire Protection District, and encroachment permits from the Turlock Irrigation District.

CTSP approval and annexation would result in the potential development of approximately 260.3 acres of low-, medium-, medium high-, and high-density residential units within the CTSP area. The total dwelling units that would be potentially developed is 2,392. Approximately 107.4 acres is proposed for Regional Commercial development, which is estimated at 1,169,586 square feet of floor area. The CTSP also proposes approximately 42.3 acres of parks and open space, including street landscapes, and 3.4 acres for new public uses that would be in addition to the 74.1 acres already occupied by the Central Valley High School and Hidahl Elementary School, both operated by the Ceres Unified School District. The CTSP planned circulation system would utilize and improve existing roads and add new roads and streets and provide for development of new bicycle and pedestrian trails and open space linkages to provide access to and between the residential neighborhoods, commercial areas, schools, and parks of the developed CTSP area.

Along with annexation of the CTSP area, the project proposes the annexation of 146.1 acres of currently unincorporated land outside the CTSP area to the City of Ceres (Figure 3). The non-CTSP annexation area is located between the existing City boundary and the CTSP area (Figure 3). This annexation would avoid the creation of unincorporated “islands,” which are contrary to State and local annexation statutes and policies.

All annexations would require approval from the Stanislaus LAFCo. City approvals would also be required for the annexation of the non-CTSP lands. Annexation of the non-CTSP area would include pre-zoning of the area consistent with the Ceres General Plan and potentially extending the availability of City utilities and services to this largely developed unincorporated area. The non-CTSP area includes discontiguous tracts of undeveloped land with some new development potential, which is quantified in other parts of the Project Description.

EXHIBIT B ITEM 13

PROBABLE ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS OF THE

COPPER TRAILS SPECIFIC PLAN AND ANNEXATION PROJECT
The CTSP EIR will consider the potential environmental effects of urban development that could result from adoption and implementation of the Copper Trails Specific Plan, referred to as “CTSP development”, as well as of the annexation of the CTSP area and the non-CTSP area. The anticipated scope of the analysis and issues to be addressed are described in the following sections. The EIR will be a programmatic analysis of the potential environmental effects of urban development facilitated by the CTSP and will focus on mitigation measures that can be used to guide future development by incorporation into the goals, policies, standards, and implementation measures of the CTSP wherever feasible.

Many of the potential environmental effects of urban development of the CTSP area have already been addressed in the certified Ceres General Plan EIR (the “GPEIR”) at a programmatic level. The General Plan EIR analysis is consistent with the anticipated level of detail of the CTSP EIR, but the relationship between the two documents will be considered in detail in the CTSP EIR. Both the General Plan EIR analysis and the CTSP EIR will address all of the potential environmental effects listed in the current Environmental Checklist in CEQA Guidelines Appendix G.

The Specific Plan and EIR documents will be prepared concurrently. This process will provide the opportunity for the specific plan and environmental consultants to collaborate in identifying mitigation measures for potentially significant impacts that can be incorporated directly into the Specific Plan.

Aesthetics
Planned development of the CTSP and potential development of the non-CTSP areas would result in conversion of existing vacant land and land in agricultural uses to urban use. CTSP development will proceed in accordance with the Ceres General Plan, and the Municipal Code, as modified by the goals, policies, and urban design standards prescribed n the CTSP. The GPEIR considered the potential aesthetic effects of urban development and found that implementation of General Plan policies would reduce effects to a less-than-significant level. Additional community planning and design requirements in the CTSP would be expected to further reduce any potential aesthetic effects associated with urban development.

Agricultural and Forestry Resources
Urban development envisioned by the CTSP will result in the conversion of Farmland, as defined in CEQA Guidelines Appendix G, to non-agricultural uses. The amount of potential Farmland conversion will be quantified in the EIR. Project construction will be related to the conversion of agricultural land and loss of soil productivity. CTSP development will contribute to agricultural land conversion envisioned in the Ceres General Plan and addressed in the GPEIR, which were determined to be significant and unavoidable even with implementation of General Plan policies. The potential effects of planned urban development in the CTSP area were considered in the City’s CEQA findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations adopted in conjunction with approval of the Ceres General Plan.

Development proposed under the CTSP may include lands currently under Williamson Act contracts that are intended to encourage continued use of these lands for agriculture. Prior to development on any of these lands, the Williamson Act contracts will need to be cancelled. The GPEIR considered the potential impacts of urban development on lands under Williamson Act contracts and found them to be significant and unavoidable. These potential effects of planned urban development in the CTSP area will be described in the CTSP EIR, noting that these effects were addressed in the City’s CEQA findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations adopted in conjunction with approval of the Ceres General Plan.

There are no forest lands located in or near the project area; the project would have no impact on forest lands, and these concerns would not be addressed in the EIR.

EXHIBIT B ITEM 13
Air Quality
Development pursuant to adoption of the CTSP as well as further development in vacant portions of the non-CTSP annexation area will result in new ozone precursor and particulate matter emissions from diesel and other construction equipment, as well as dust generated by construction activity on exposed soils. New development envisioned by the CTSP will result in substantial new vehicle trip generation and associated emissions of ozone precursors, carbon monoxide, and particulate matter, and contributions to attainment or non-attainment levels of criteria air pollutant standards. Potential air emissions from urban development in the project area were analyzed in the GPEIR and were determined to be significant and unavoidable even with implementation of applicable General Plan policies. These potential effects will be described in the CTSP EIR, noting that emissions from planned urban development in the CTSP area were addressed in the City’s CEQA findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations adopted in conjunction with approval of the Ceres General Plan.

Construction and operational emission impacts from new development will be quantified in the EIR and compared to current SJVAPCD CEQA significance thresholds, using the CalEEMod program and other air quality models as necessary. Likewise, potential mitigation measures for air quality impacts will be reexamined, including measures that can be incorporated into the CTSP. The EIR will consider whether projected future traffic congestion would result in elevated local concentrations of carbon monoxide.

Construction, vehicle traffic, and other aspects of new development in the CTSP and non-CTSP areas would involve new generation of air toxics, including diesel particulate matter. Potential generation of diesel particulate matter and other air toxics, and their potential effects on sensitive land uses, will be considered in the EIR. A Health Risk Assessment of the project will be conducted if project activities could potentially exceed applicable SJVAPCD cancer and non-cancer risk thresholds.

Biological Resources
The CTSP area was historically in intensive agriculture, primarily almond orchards, and has since been partially developed with urban infrastructure and land uses. There are few areas of native vegetation with wildlife habitat values; these are primarily ruderal areas in underutilized lands, lands along the TID canal alignment, and areas adjacent to existing roads. The GPEIR described the potential biological effects of urban development, which were potentially significant but would be reduced to a less-than-significant level with implementation of General Plan policies.

The EIR will reconsider the potential biological effects of new development on the project area based on an updated biological database check, selected field reviews of the project area, and review of the potential biological effects identified in the GPEIR. Issues to be analyzed will include potential effects on specialstatus species, potential Waters of the U.S., and migratory bird species. Any applicable habitat conservation plans and local biological requirements will be evaluated.

Cultural Resources and Tribal Cultural Resources
Development of CTSP and non-CTSP lands may affect cultural, archaeological, or historical resources that may be present, including those of value to local Native American tribes. The GPEIR indicated that development could affect cultural resources, but the General Plan includes goals and policies that would reduce or avoid adverse cultural resource effects. The CTSP EIR will report on cultural resource outreach efforts and a new cultural resource record search for the project area; the EIR will describe the sensitivity of the area in more detail, and identify potential cultural resources that may require additional investigation in conjunction with specific site development.

Geology and Soils
The GPEIR considered the potential geology and soil effects of urban development and found that implementation of Ceres General Plan policies would reduce effects to a less-than-significant level. Future urban development in the CTSP area will occur on soils in the Ceres area that are generally sandy loam or EXHIBIT B ITEM 13
loamy sand. The project area is not subject to any known geologic hazards and does not contain designated mineral resources. The CTSP EIR will identify the nature and location of geologic hazards in the region and the character of soils in the CTSP area, including expansiveness of soils and potential for liquefaction. The potential for soil erosion and sedimentation in conjunction with urban development and the effectiveness of the City’s required storm water pollution controls in avoiding significant effects will be analyzed. If required, additional mitigation measures will be identified.

Greenhouse Gas Emissions
New development in the CTSP and non-CTSP areas will result in potentially significant amounts of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions generated by increased motor vehicle traffic, with lesser emissions from fuel combustion and energy usage in residences and businesses. The GPEIR considered the potential effects of urban development on GHG emissions and found that implementation of General Plan policies would reduce effects of development on GHG emissions to a less-than-significant level.

The CTSP will include land planning and urban design requirements intended to provide a more integrated and energy-efficient land development, to facilitate pedestrian and bicycle usage, and to reduce indirectly out-of-area trips and vehicle miles traveled (VMT). The CTSP EIR will quantify potential GHG emissions associated with new development within the CTSP area and consider the effectiveness of elements of the CTSP that would tend to reduce future GHG emissions vs. future “business-as-usual” emissions, based on applicable significance thresholds and GHG reduction plans.

Hazardous Materials
Construction activity and future land uses will involve the use of hazardous materials and risk of new environmental contamination, as well as potentially involve exposure of workers and residents to existing and potential future environmental contamination in the project area, such as residual agricultural chemicals and aerial lead deposits. The GPEIR considered the potential effects of urban development related to hazards and hazardous materials and found that implementation of General Plan policies would reduce effects to a less-than-significant level, except for emissions of hazardous materials near schools. These emissions were determined by the GPEIR to be significant and unavoidable.

The CTSP EIR will report the results of a detailed hazardous material database search as well as State database checks. The EIR will describe the potential for human exposure to or for further environmental contamination in areas with existing environmental hazards, with particular attention to emissions near the existing elementary school and high school. The EIR will also assess the potential hazards the project site would be subject to from Modesto City-County Airport operations and from wildland fires.

EXHIBIT B ITEM 13
Hydrology and Water Quality
The GPEIR considered the potential hydrology and water quality effects of urban development and found that implementation of Ceres General Plan policies would reduce effects to a less-than-significant level.

The existing City water supply is currently from groundwater only. New development will involve increased demand on the City’s groundwater supply; potential effects on groundwater and the availability of potable water will be addressed in a Water Supply Assessment or equivalent document, as required. The CTSP EIR will also discuss applicable groundwater management plans, including plans required by the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act.

There are no existing natural surface waters in or adjacent to the project site. Drainage from the area is collected by existing ditches alongside roads or percolates into the ground. New development will involve the generation of additional urban runoff and need for treatment and disposal. The CTSP EIR will identify the applicable NPDES Permit and other applicable storm water requirements that are in place reduce potential urban runoff effects. If required, additional water quality mitigation measures will be specified in the EIR.

Land Use
The CTSP is intended to modify the existing adopted land use plans, designations, and development standards applicable to the CTSP area. The intended result is more specific planning guidance and a regulatory tool that will produce a more attractive, accessible, and integrated development that will complement existing and planned development in the City of Ceres. The CTSP EIR will identify land use changes that will result from CTSP adoption, potential conflicts between the proposed land uses and existing adjacent uses. The CTSP EIR will evaluate the consistency of planned development with the Ceres General Plan and the Subdivision and Zoning titles in the Ceres Municipal Code. These and other potential land use effects are, however, expected to be generally beneficial.

Noise
Existing noise sources in the CTSP area include the SR 99 freeway, the railway adjacent to the freeway, and local traffic on Service Road, Redwood Road, Central Avenue, and other existing roadways in the area.

Future CTSP development will generate new vehicular traffic and commercial activities, which will add to existing noise and contribute to anticipated future noise levels. CTSP development will include residential and other uses that could be exposed to noise levels in excess of City standards. Potential noise effects of urban development were analyzed in the GPEIR and were determined to be significant and unavoidable even with implementation of applicable General Plan policies. The potential effects of urbanization of the CTSP area were addressed in the GPEIR and in the City’s CEQA findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations adopted in conjunction with approval of the Ceres General Plan.

Project-related potential increases in roadway noise and potentially significant exposure of noise-sensitive uses to existing and future noise levels will be specifically identified and discussed in the CTSP EIR. Noise levels would be compared to applicable City standards established in the Ceres General Plan and Ceres Municipal Code. Feasible mitigation measures with potential to reduce noise effects will be identified.

Potential exposure of land uses to groundborne vibrations will also be analyzed.

Population and Housing
Land use designations in the CTSP will replace other designations in the existing Ceres General Plan, and the population growth and housing capacity inherent in those designations. The CTSP includes land use designations that would permit some higher-density residential development. The CTSP EIR will analyze potential population growth and its consistency with growth anticipated in the Ceres General Plan. It also will analyze potential housing and its consistency with applicable housing plans, especially the Housing Element of the Ceres General Plan.

Public Services
EXHIBIT B ITEM 13
New development under the CTSP and in the non-CTSP areas will place potentially significant additional demands on the City of Ceres and other public service entities with responsibility in the project area for public services such as fire protection, police protection, schools, and parks and recreation. The GPEIR considered the potential effects of urban development on public services and found that implementation of General Plan policies would reduce effects to a less-than-significant level. The CTSP EIR will, however, report on project-related contacts made with each service entity as to potential environmental effects that may be associated with the construction or operation of proposed land uses, including the potential need for new or expanded service facilities.

Transportation
New development within the CTSP and non-CTSP areas will generate additional motor vehicle use and transportation demand on the freeway, arterial, collector and local road systems serving the project area.

Additional residential development will increase the need for pedestrian and bicycle access in the area, particularly to the existing schools. Potential transportation effects of urban development were analyzed in the GPEIR and were determined to be significant and unavoidable even with implementation of applicable General Plan policies. The potential effects of planned urban development in the CTSP area considered in the GPEIR and addressed in the City’s CEQA findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations adopted in conjunction with approval of the Ceres General Plan.

The CTSP EIR will analyze the impacts of the proposed specific plan land use designations and development standards on traffic, both on existing and proposed roadways. The CTSP EIR will consider the potential effects of CTSP development in terms of vehicle miles traveled (VMT) as provided in SB 743, as well as the magnitude of potential future traffic and its consistency with planned urban street infrastructure. The transportation analysis will extend to potential effects on pedestrian, bicycle, transit, and other relevant transportation modes.

Utilities and Services
New development within the CTSP and non-CTSP areas will place increasing demands on City potable water, wastewater, and storm drainage systems. Future development will also increase demands for electrical, gas, and communication facilities. The GPEIR considered the potential effects of urban development on utilities and found that implementation of General Plan policies would reduce effects to a less-than-significant level. The CTSP EIR will consider the area-specific utility effects of potential new development and report on contacts with the regulated utilities as to their ability to accommodate new development. As noted above, a Water Supply Assessment or equivalent document will be prepared for the project. Also, potential impacts related to the extension of infrastructure will be analyzed, as well as impacts on existing infrastructure such as Turlock Irrigation District Lower Lateral 2.

Cumulative Impacts
The cumulative impacts of planned urban development in the City of Ceres are described in the certified GPEIR, which will form the basis of the cumulative impact analysis for the CTSP EIR. The CTSP EIR will assess the potential cumulative impacts of the project by issue area and compare them to the analysis in the GPEIR. Should impacts substantially differ between the CTSP EIR and the GPEIR, feasible mitigation measures to reduce CTSP impacts will be identified.

Other CEQA Issues
State law defines “environmental justice” as “the fair treatment of all races, cultures, and incomes with respect to the development, adoption, implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations, and policies.” Environmental justice is not an issue that CEQA explicitly requires to be addressed, as it is more of a socioeconomic issue than one concerning the physical environment. However, the State of California has recently emphasized the incorporation of environmental justice concerns in land use and environmental planning, particularly in relation to “disadvantaged communities” as defined by SB 535. The EXHIBIT B ITEM 13
GPEIR did not discuss environmental justice. The CTSP EIR will identify any disadvantaged communities in the project area. If any are determined to exist, the EIR will analyze potential adverse environmental impacts of the project on these communities.

EXHIBIT B ITEM 13
BaseCamp
Figure 1-1
BaseCamp Environmental REGIONAL LOCATION MAP
San Diego Imperial
Orange
Riverside
San Bernardino
Ventura Los Angeles
Santa Barbara
Kern San Luis
Obispo
Inyo
Tulare
Kings Monterey
Fresno
San
Benito
Mono
Madera
Mariposa
Tuolumne
Calaveras
Amador
El Dorado
Sacramento
Alpine
Santa
Clara
San
Joaquin
Contra
Costa
Merced
Marin
Napa
Yolo
Solano
Sutter
Placer
Nevada
Sierra Glenn Butte
Lake
Mendocino
Colusa Yuba
Sonoma
Stanislaus Alameda
Santa Cruz
San Mateo
San Francisco
www.csac.counties.org

PROJECT AREA
EXHIBIT B ITEM 13
BaseCamp
Figure 1-2
BaseCamp Environmental STREET MAP

PROJECT SITE
EXHIBIT B ITEM 13
BaseCamp
Figure 1-3
BaseCamp Environmental USGS MAP

PROJECT SITE
SOURCE: USGS Quadrangle Map, Ceres, CA 2021.

EXHIBIT B ITEM 13
BaseCamp
Figure 1-4
BaseCamp Environmental AERIAL PHOTO
SOURCE: Google Earth

PROJECT SITE
EXHIBIT B ITEM 13
Figure 3-1
BaseCamp Environmental PROPOSED SPECIFIC PLAN LAND USES EXHIBIT B ITEM 13
Figure 3-2
BaseCamp Environmental COPPER TRAILS SPECIFIC PLAN AREA EXHIBIT B ITEM 13
FIGURE 3-3
BaseCamp Environmental PROPOSED STREET IMPROVEMENT STANDARDS EXHIBIT B ITEM 13
State of California – Natural Resources Agency GAVIN NEWSOM, Governor DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND WILDLIFE CHARLTON H. BONHAM, Director Central Region
1234 East Shaw Avenue
Fresno, California 93710
(559) 243-4005
www.wildlife.ca.gov
Conserving California’s Wildlife Since 1870
October 30, 2023
Christopher Hoem, Director
City of Ceres Community Development Department
2200 Magnolia Street
Ceres, California 95307
[email protected]
Subject: Copper Trails Specific Plan and Annexation Project (Project) Notice of Preparation (NOP) of an Environmental Impact Report State Clearinghouse No. 2023090637
Dear Christopher Hoem:

The California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) received a NOP from the City of Ceres Community Development Department for the above-referenced Project pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and CEQA Guidelines.1 Thank you for the opportunity to provide comments and recommendations regarding those activities involved in the Project that may affect California fish and wildlife.

Likewise, CDFW appreciates the opportunity to provide comments regarding those aspects of the Project that CDFW, by law, may be required to carry out or approve through the exercise of its own regulatory authority under Fish and Game Code. While the comment period may have ended, CDFW would appreciate it if you would still consider our comments.

CDFW ROLE
CDFW is California’s Trustee Agency for fish and wildlife resources and holds those resources in trust by statute for all the people of the State (Fish & G. Code, §§ 711.7, subd. (a) & 1802; Pub. Resources Code, § 21070; CEQA Guidelines § 15386, subd. (a)). CDFW, in its trustee capacity, has jurisdiction over the conservation, protection, and management of fish, wildlife, native plants, and habitat necessary for biologically

1 CEQA is codified in the California Public Resources Code in section 21000 et seq. The “CEQA Guidelines” are found in Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations, commencing with section 15000.

DocuSign Envelope ID: 03308D46-639D-45B4-B152-BC17780542E1 EXHIBIT B ITEM 13
Christopher Hoem, Director
City of Ceres Community Development Department
October 30, 2023