attach_2_draft_eir_gp_update_may_2022 — Lathrop City Council, September 19, 2022 (part 2 of 4)

3.5 CULTURAL AND TRIBAL RESOURCES

3.5-26 Draft Environmental Impact Report – Lathrop General Plan Update This page left intentionally blank.

GEOLOGY AND SOILS 3.6
Draft Environmental Impact Report – Lathrop General Plan Update 3.6-1 This section provides a background discussion of the seismic and geologic hazards found in the City and the regional vicinity. This section is organized with an environmental setting, regulatory setting, and impact analysis.

There were no comment letters related to this environmental topic during the NOP comment period. All comments received during the NOP comment period are included in Appendix A.

3.6.1 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING

GEOMORPHIC PROVINCE
The Planning Area is located in the central portion of the Great Valley Geomorphic Province of California. The Great Valley Province is a broad structural trough bounded by the tilted block of the Sierra Nevada on the east and the complexly folded and faulted Coast Ranges on the west. The San Joaquin River is located just south and west of the City. This major river drains the Great Valley Province into the San Joaquin Delta to the north, ultimately discharging into the San Francisco Bay to the northwest.

REGIONAL GEOLOGY
The Planning Area lies in the San Joaquin Valley in central California. The San Joaquin Valley is located in the central portion of the Great Valley Geomorphic Province. The Great Valley, also known as the Central Valley, is a topographically flat, northwest‐trending, structural trough (or basin) about 50 miles wide and 450 miles long. It is bordered by the Tehachapi Mountains on the south, the Klamath Mountains on the north, the Sierra Nevada on the east, and the Coast Ranges on the west.

The San Joaquin Valley is filled with thick sedimentary rock sequences that were deposited as much as 130 million years ago. Large alluvial fans have developed on each side of the Valley. The larger and more gently sloping fans are on the east side of the San Joaquin Valley and overlie metamorphic and igneous basement rocks. These basement rocks are exposed in the Sierra Nevada foothills and consist of meta‐sedimentary, volcanic, and granitic rocks.

The Planning Area is relatively flat with natural gentle slope from east to west. The Planning Area’s topography ranges in elevation from approximately 50 to 20 feet above sea level. Figure 3.6‐1 shows the USGS Lathrop Quadrangle Topographic view.

SEISMIC HAZARDS
Seismic hazards include both rupture (surface and subsurface) along active faults and ground shaking, which can occur over wider areas. Ground shaking, produced by various tectonic phenomena, is the principal source of seismic hazards in areas devoid of active faults. All areas of the state are subject to some level of seismic ground shaking.

Several scales may be used to measure the strength or magnitude of an earthquake. Magnitude scales (ML) measure the energy released by earthquakes. The Richter scale, which represents

3.6 GEOLOGY AND SOILS

3.6-2 Draft Environmental Impact Report – Lathrop General Plan Update magnitude at the earthquake epicenter, is an example of an ML. As the Richter scale is logarithmic, each whole number represents a 10‐fold increase in magnitude over the preceding number. Table

3.6‐1 represents effects that would be commonly associated with Richter Magnitudes.

TABLE 3.6‐1: RICHTER MAGNITUDES AND EFFECTS

MAGNITUDE EFFECTS
< 3.5 Typically not felt

3.5 – 5.4 Often felt but damage is rare

5.5 – < 6 Damage is slight for well‐built buildings

6.1 – 6.9 Destructive potential over ±60 miles of occupied area

7.0 – 7.9 “Major Earthquake” with the ability to cause damage over larger areas ≥ 8 “Great Earthquake” can cause damage over several hundred miles SOURCE: USGS, EARTHQUAKE PROGRAM.

According to the California Geological Survey’s Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Assessment Program, San Joaquin County is considered to be within an area that is predicted to have a 10 percent probability that a seismic event would produce horizontal ground shaking of 10 to 20 percent within a 50‐year period.

This level of ground shaking correlates to a Modified Mercalli intensity of V to VII, light to strong.

Table 3.6‐2 below presents Modified Mercalli intensity effects at each level.

TABLE 3.6‐2: MODIFIED MERCALLI INTENSITIES AND EFFECTS

MM EFFECTS
I Movement is imperceptible
II Movement may be perceived (by those at rest or in tall buildings) III Many feel movement indoors; may not be perceptible outdoors IV Most feel movement indoors; Windows, doors, and dishes will rattle V Nearly everyone will feel movement; sleeping people may be awakened VI Difficulty walking; Many items fall from shelves, pictures fall from walls VII Difficulty standing; Vehicle shaking felt by drivers; Some furniture breaks VIII Difficulty steering vehicles; Houses may shift on foundations IX Well‐built buildings suffer considerable damage; ground may crack X Most buildings and foundations and some bridges destroyed XI Most buildings collapse; Some bridges destroyed; Large cracks in ground XII Large scale destruction; Objects can be thrown into the air SOURCE: USGS GENERAL INTEREST PUBLICATION 1989‐288‐913.

The Significant United States Earthquake data published by the USGS in the National Atlas identifies earthquakes that caused deaths, property damage, and geologic effects or were felt by populations near the epicenter. No significant earthquakes are identified within the Planning Area; however, significant earthquakes are documented in the region. Table 3.6‐3 presents the significant earthquakes in the region.

GEOLOGY AND SOILS 3.6
Draft Environmental Impact Report – Lathrop General Plan Update 3.6-3 TABLE 3.6‐3: SIGNIFICANT EARTHQUAKES IN THE REGION

MAGNITUDE INTENSITY LOCATION YEAR

7.1 N/A Ridgecrest 2019

6.5 N/A Ferndale Offshore 2016

6.0 VIII South Napa 2014

5.6 VI San Jose 2007

5.0 VII Napa 2000

6.9 IX Loma Prieta (San Andreas) 1989

5.4 N/A Santa Cruz County 1989

6.2 N/A Morgan Hill 1984

5.8 VII Livermore 1980

5.7 N/A Coyote Lake 1979

5.7 N/A Santa Rosa 1969

5.3 N/A Daly City 1957

5.4 N/A Concord 1954

6.5 N/A Calaveras fault 1911

7.9 IX San Francisco 1906

6.8 N/A Mendocino 1898

6.2 N/A Mare Island 1898

6.3 N/A Calaveras fault 1893

6.2 VIII Winters 1892

6.4 N/A Vacaville 1892

6.8 VII Hayward 1868

6.5 VIII Santa Cruz Mountains 1865

6.8 N/A San Francisco Peninsula 1838
SOURCE: UNITED STATE GEOLOGICAL SURVEY, 2020.

The 2015 Uniform California Earthquake Rupture Forecast, Version 3, or UCERF3, is the latest official earthquake rupture forecast (ERF) for the state of California. It provides estimates of the likelihood and severity of potentially damaging earthquake ruptures in the long‐ and near‐term.

Combining this with ground motion models produces estimates of the severity of ground shaking that can be expected during a given period (seismic hazard), and of the threat to the built environment (seismic risk). This information is used to inform engineering design and building codes, plan for disaster, and evaluate whether earthquake insurance premiums are sufficient for the prospective losses.

The potential for seismic ground shaking in California is expected. As a result of the foreseeable seismicity in California, the State requires special design considerations for all structural improvements in accordance with the seismic design provisions in the California Building Code.

These seismic design provisions require enhanced structural integrity based on several risk parameters.

3.6 GEOLOGY AND SOILS

3.6-4 Draft Environmental Impact Report – Lathrop General Plan Update FAULTS
Faults are classified as Historic, Holocene, Late Quaternary, Quaternary, and Pre‐Quaternary according to the age of most recent movement. These classifications are described as follows:
• Historic: faults on which surface displacement has occurred within the past 200 years; • Holocene: shows evidence of fault displacement within the past 11,000 years, but without historic record;
• Late Quaternary: shows evidence of fault displacement within the past 700,000 years, but may be younger due to a lack of overlying deposits that enable more accurate age estimates;
• Quaternary: shows evidence of displacement sometime during the past 1.6 million years; • Pre‐Quaternary: without recognized displacement during the past 1.6 million years.

Faults are further distinguished as active, potentially active, or inactive:
• Active: An active fault is a Historic or Holocene fault that has had surface displacement within the last 11,000 years;
• Potentially Active: A potentially active fault is a pre‐Holocene Quaternary fault that has evidence of surface displacement between about 1.6 million and 11,000 years ago; and • Inactive: An inactive fault is a pre‐Quaternary fault that does not have evidence of surface displacement within the past 1.6 million years. The probability of fault rupture is considered low; however, this classification does not mean that inactive faults cannot, or will not, rupture.

The U.S. Geological Survey identifies potential seismic sources within 5 miles of the Planning Area.

The closest known faults classified as active by the U.S. Geological Survey include an unnamed fault east of the City of Tracy, located approximately 3 miles to the southwest of Lathrop, and the San Joaquin fault, located approximately 12 miles to the southwest of Lathrop. The Midway fault is located approximately 15 miles to the west. Other faults that could potentially affect Lathrop include the Corral Hollow‐Carnegie fault, the Greenville fault, the Antioch fault, and the Los Positas fault. Figure 3.6‐2 provides a map of known area faults.

Fault Rupture
A fault rupture occurs when the surface of the earth breaks as a result of an earthquake, although this does not happen with all earthquakes. These ruptures generally occur in a weak area of an existing fault. Ruptures can be sudden (i.e., earthquake) or slow (i.e., fault creep). The Alquist‐ Priolo Fault Zoning Act requires active earthquake fault zones to be mapped and it provides special development considerations within these zones. Lathrop does not have surface expression of active faults and fault rupture is not anticipated. Figure 3.6‐2 shown regional faults in relation to Lathrop.

GEOLOGY AND SOILS 3.6
Draft Environmental Impact Report – Lathrop General Plan Update 3.6-5

SEISMIC HAZARD ZONES
Alquist‐Priolo Fault Zones
An active earthquake fault, per California’s Alquist‐Priolo Act, is one that has ruptured within the Holocene Epoch (≈11,000 years). Based on this criterion, the California Geological Survey identifies Earthquake Fault Zones. These Earthquake Fault Zones are identified in Special Publication 42 (SP42), which is updated as new fault data become available. The SP42 lists all counties and cities within California that are affected by designated Earthquake Fault Zones. The Fault Zones are delineated on maps within SP42 (Earthquake Fault Zone Maps).

The California legislature passed the Alquist‐Priolo Special Studies Zone Act in 1972 to address seismic hazards associated with faults and to establish criteria for developments for areas with identified seismic hazard zones. The California Geologic Survey (CGS) evaluates faults with available geologic and seismologic data and determines if a fault should be zoned as active, potentially active, or inactive. If CGS determines a fault to be active, then it is typically incorporated into a Special Studies Zone in accordance with the Alquist‐Priolo Earthquake Hazard Act. Alquist‐Priolo Special Study Zones are usually one‐quarter mile or less in width and require site‐specific evaluation of fault location and require a structure setback if the fault is found traversing a project site. The Planning Area is not within an Alquist‐Priolo Special Study Zone. The nearest Alquist‐Priolo fault zone, the Greenville fault zone, is located approximately 20 miles west of Lathrop.

LIQUEFACTION
Liquefaction, which is primarily associated with loose, saturated materials, is most common in areas of sand and silt or on reclaimed lands. Cohesion between the loose materials that comprise the soil may be jeopardized during seismic events and the ground will take on liquid properties.

Thus, specific soil characteristics and seismic shaking must exist for liquefaction to be possible.

Liquefaction susceptibility based on soil types, deposit, and age is presented below.

Liquefaction typically requires a significant sudden decrease of shearing resistance in cohesion‐less soils and a sudden increase in water pressure, which is typically associated with an earthquake of high magnitude. The potential for liquefaction is highest when groundwater levels are high, and loose, fine, sandy soils occur at depths of less than 50 feet. Soil data from the NRCS Web Soil Survey (NRCS 2017) suggests that the potential for liquefaction ranges from low to high within the Planning Area given that many soils are high in sand and the water table is moderately high.

EARTHQUAKE-INDUCED LANDSLIDES
Earthquake‐Induced Landslide Zones Areas are areas where previous occurrence of landslide movement, or local topographic, geological, geotechnical and subsurface water conditions indicate a potential for permanent ground displacements such that mitigation as defined in Public Resources Code Section 2693(c) would be required. The California Geological Survey Landslides Maps have not mapped any landslide areas in the Planning Area or its vicinity. The City is relatively

3.6 GEOLOGY AND SOILS

3.6-6 Draft Environmental Impact Report – Lathrop General Plan Update flat and areas susceptible to landslides are anticipated to be in the more sloped portions of the Planning Area.

OTHER GEOLOGIC HAZARDS
Soils
A Custom Soil Survey was completed for the Planning Area using the NRCS Web Soil Survey program. The NRCS Soils Map is provided in Figure 3.6‐3. Table 3.6‐4 below identifies the type and range of soils found in the Planning Area.

TABLE 3.6‐4: PLANNING AREA SOILS

NAME ACRES PERCENT OF AOI
Bisgani loamy coarse sand, partially drained, 0 to 2 percent slopes 162.1 1% Boggiano clay loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes 5.4 0%
Columbia fine sandy loam, channeled, partially drained, 0 to 2 percent slopes, frequently flooded 79.8 1%
Columbia fine sandy loam, clayey substratum, partially drained, 0 to 2 percent slopes 1,385.8 10%
Columbia fine sandy loam, drained, 0 to 2 percent slopes 127.0 1% Columbia fine sandy loam, partially drained, 0 to 2 percent slopes, occasionally flooded 328.7 2%
Delhi loamy sand, 0 to 2 percent slopes, MLRA 17 226.3 2% Dello clay loam, drained, 0 to 2 percent slopes, overwashed 109.3 1% Dello loamy sand, drained, 0 to 2 percent slopes 50.5 0% Dello sand, partially drained, 0 to 2 percent slopes, occasionally flooded 14.5 0% Dello sandy loam, clayey substratum, drained, 0 to 2 percent slopes 267.5 2% Egbert silty clay loam, partially drained, 0 to 2 percent slopes 2,356.8 17% Grangeville clay loam, partially drained, 0 to 2 percent slopes 330.5 2% Grangeville fine sandy loam, partially drained, 0 to 2 percent slopes 333.1 2% Guard clay loam, drained, 0 to 2 percent slopes 148.9 1% Honcut sandy loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes 17.1 0%
Manteca fine sandy loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes 653.2 5% Merritt silty clay loam, partially drained, 0 to 2 percent slopes 1,266.0 9% Merritt silty clay loam, partially drained, 0 to 2 percent slopes, occasionally flooded 307.7 2%
Scribner clay loam, partially drained, 0 to 2 percent slopes 121.0 1% Timor loamy sand, 0 to 2 percent slopes 471.9 3%
Tinnin loamy coarse sand, 0 to 2 percent slopes 1,588.5 12% Urban land 1,164.7 9%
Valdez silt loam, organic substratum, partially drained, 0 to 2 percent slopes 66.5 0%
Veritas fine sandy loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes 1,560.8 11% Water 433.7 3%
GEOLOGY AND SOILS 3.6
Draft Environmental Impact Report – Lathrop General Plan Update 3.6-7

NAME ACRES PERCENT OF AOI
Total 13,577.3 100%
SOURCE: NRCS CUSTOM SOIL SURVEY 2018.

As shown in Table 3.6‐4, the majority of soils within the Planning Area consist of course and fine sands and sandy loams. Below is a brief description of prominent soils within the Planning Area.

Columbia fine sandy loam, clayey substratum, partially drained. The Columbia series consists of deep, moderately well drained soils formed in alluvium from mixed sources. These soils are on flood plains and natural levees. The mean annual precipitation is 12 to 25 inches, (305 to 635 mm) and the mean annual temperature is about 61 degrees F, (16 degrees C). These soils are used for irrigated hay, small grain, and orchard and row crops. Vegetation consists of a fairly dense cover of oaks, cottonwoods, willows, vines, shrubs and grasses near stream channels, but more open away from the channels. These soils occur in the central valley of California. The soils are moderately extensive.

Merritt silty clay loam, partially drained. Merritt soils are on nearly level recent alluvial fans and flood plains at elevations of 5 feet below sea level to 60 feet above. The Merritt series consists of deep, poorly drained soils formed in alluvium from sedimentary rocks. Generally the soils are poorly drained; slow runoff; and have moderately slow permeability. Merritt soils are accocoated with recent alluvial fans and flood plains and have slopes of 0 to 2 percent. The mean annual precipitation is about 16 inches and the mean annual temperature is about 60 degrees F. The soils under intensive cultivation and are irrigated, producing a wide variety of field and row crops.

Egbert silty clay loam, partially drained. This very deep, poorly drained, nearly level soil formed in alluvium. Permeability is slow in this soil. Runoff is slow, and the hazard of water erosion is slight.

The shrink‐swell potential of this soil is moderate to high. The risk of corrosion is high for uncoated steel, and moderate for concrete. Soil limitations on building site development are considered moderate to severe, due to shrink‐swell and flooding potential.

Manteca fine sandy loam. This moderately well drained, nearly level soil formed in alluvium.

Permeability is moderate in this soil. Runoff is slow, and the hazard of water erosion is slight. The shrink‐swell potential of this soil is low. The risk of corrosion is high for uncoated steel, and low for concrete. Soil limitations on building site development are considered moderate to severe, due to flooding potential and the existence of cemented pan.

Tinnin loamy coarse sand. This series consists of well drained soils on low fan terraces and alluvial fans. These soils are very deep, and form in alluvium derived from granitic rock sources. Slopes range from 0 to 2 percent. This series is characterized as well draining, slow runoff, and rapid permeability. Common uses for this series are irrigated cropland growing primarily almonds, alfalfa, onions, tomatoes, small grains, grapes and pasture. Vegetation consists of red brome, filaree, soft chess, wildoats, ripgut brome and scattered valley oaks.

Veritas fine sandy loam. This series consists of deep to duripan, moderately well drained soils.

They formed in alluvium derived from mixed rock sources. Veritas soils are on low fan terraces.

3.6 GEOLOGY AND SOILS

3.6-8 Draft Environmental Impact Report – Lathrop General Plan Update They have slow runoff and moderately rapid permeability. Common uses for this series include irrigated cropland. Alfalfa, barley and corn are the principal crops. Vegetation is annual grasses, forbs and scattered valley oaks.

Faults
A fault is a fracture in the crust of the earth. A fault trace is the line on the earth's surface defining the fault. Displacement of the earth's crust along faults releases energy in the form of earthquakes and in some cases in fault creep. Most faults are the result of repeated displacements over a long period of time.

Surface rupture occurs when movement on a fault deep within the earth breaks through to the surface. Surface ruptures have been known to extend up to 50 miles with displacements of an inch to 20 feet. Fault rupture almost always follows preexisting faults, which are zones of weakness.

Rupture may occur suddenly during an earthquake or slowly in the form of fault creep. Sudden displacements are more damaging to structures because they are accompanied by shaking.

The State of California designates faults as active, potentially active, and inactive depending on how recent the movement that can be substantiated for a fault. Table 3.6‐5 presents the California fault activity rating system.

TABLE 3.6‐5: FAULT ACTIVITY RATING

FAULT ACTIVITY RATING GEOLOGIC PERIOD OF LAST RUPTURE TIME INTERVAL (YEARS) Active (A) Holocene Within last 11,000 years
Potentially Active (PA) Quaternary 11,000‐1.6 Million Years Inactive (I) Pre‐Quaternary Greater than 1.6 Million
SOURCE: CALIFORNIA GEOLOGICAL SURVEY
The 2010 Fault Activity Map provided by the California Department of Conservation identified potential seismic sources within 100 kilometers (62 miles) of the Planning Area. The closest known faults classified as active by the California Geological Survey are the Greenville fault, located approximately 20 miles to the west. The Vernalis Fault located approximately 6 miles to the southwest has had movement as recently as the Quaternary Period (Pliocene Epoch 2.588 million years ago to 11.7 thousand years ago), thus, is considered a potentially active fault. Other faults that could potentially affect the Planning Area include the Mount Diablo, Calaveras, Hayward, Ortigalita and San Andreas Faults. Figure 3.6‐2 provides a map of known area faults.

Erosion
Erosion naturally occurs on the surface of the earth as surface materials (i.e. rock, soil, debris, etc.) is loosened, dissolved, or worn away, and transported from one place to another by gravity. Two common types of soil erosion include wind erosion and water erosion. The steepness of a slope is an important factor that affects soil erosion. Erosion potential in soils is influenced primarily by loose soil texture and steep slopes. Loose soils can be eroded by water or wind forces, whereas soils with high clay content are generally susceptible only to water erosion. The potential for GEOLOGY AND SOILS 3.6
Draft Environmental Impact Report – Lathrop General Plan Update 3.6-9 erosion generally increases as a result of human activity, primarily through the development of facilities and impervious surfaces and the removal of vegetative cover.

The Custom Soils Report identified the erosion potential for the soils in the Planning Area. This report summarizes those soil attributes used by the Revised Universal Soil Loss Equation Version 2 (RUSLE2) for the map units in the selected area. Soil property data for each map unit component includes the hydrologic soil group, erosion factors K for the surface horizon, erosion factor T, and the representative percentage of sand, silt, and clay in the surface horizon.

Erosion factor K indicates the susceptibility of a soil to sheet and rill erosion by water. Values of K range from 0.02 to 0.69. Other factors being equal, the higher the value, the more susceptible the soil is to sheet and rill erosion by water. Within the Planning Area, the erosion factor K varies from

0.02 to 0.37, which is considered a low to moderate potential for erosion. Furthermore, given the drainage characteristics of the majority of the soils and the nearly level topography of the Planning Area, runoff erosion hazard is considered low. The wind erosion potential ranges from moderate‐ to‐high during the spring, summer, and fall, however this potential for wind erosion diminish during the winter.

Expansive Soils
The NRCS delineates soil units and compiles soils data as part of the National Cooperative Soil Survey. The following description of linear extensibility (also known as shrink‐swell potential or expansive potential) is provided by the NRCS Physical Properties Descriptions:
“Linear extensibility” refers to the change in length of an unconfined clod as moisture content is decreased from a moist to a dry state. It is an expression of the volume change between the water content of the clod at 1/3‐ or 1/10‐bar tension (33kPa or 10kPa tension) and oven dryness. The volume change is reported in the table as percent change for the whole soil. The amount and type of clay minerals in the soil influence volume change.

The shrink‐swell potential is low if the soil has a linear extensibility of less than 3 percent; moderate if 3 to 6 percent; high if 6 to 9 percent; and very high if more than 9 percent. If the linear extensibility is more than 3, shrinking and swelling can cause damage to buildings, roads, and other structures and to plant roots. Special design commonly is needed.

Expansive soils can undergo significant volume change with changes in moisture content. They shrink and harden when dried and expand and soften when wet. If structures are underlain by expansive soils, it is important that foundation systems be capable of tolerating or resisting any potentially damaging soil movements. In addition, it is important to limit moisture changes in the surficial soils by using positive drainage away from buildings as well as limiting landscaping watering.

According to the NRCS Web Soil Survey, the soils in the Planning Area soils vary from a low shrink‐ swell potential to a moderate shrink‐swell potential. Figure 3.6‐4 provides a map of the shrink‐ swell potential of the soils within the Planning Area.

3.6 GEOLOGY AND SOILS

3.6-10 Draft Environmental Impact Report – Lathrop General Plan Update Lateral Spreading
Lateral spreading typically results when ground shaking moves soil toward an area where the soil integrity is weak or unsupported, and it typically occurs on the surface of a slope, although it does not occur strictly on steep slopes. Oftentimes, lateral spreading is directly associated with areas of liquefaction. The potential for liquefaction is moderate to high in many areas of the city, however because the Planning Area is essentially flat lateral spreading of soils has not been observed within the Planning Area.

Landslide
The California Geological Survey classifies landslides with a two‐part designation based on Varnes (1978) and Cruden and Varnes (1996). The designation captures both the type of material that failed and the type of movement that the failed material exhibited. Material types are broadly categorized as either rock or soil, or a combination of the two for complex movements. Landslide movements are categorized as falls, topples, spreads, slides, or flows.

Landslides include rockfalls, deep slope failure, and shallow slope failure. Factors such as the geological conditions, drainage, slope, vegetation, and others directly affect the potential for landslides. One of the most common causes of landslides is construction activity that is associated with road building (i.e. cut and fill). The Planning Area is essentially flat; therefore, the potential for a landslides is generally low.

Subsidence
Land subsidence is the gradual settling or sinking of an area with little or no horizontal motion due to changes taking place underground. It is a natural process, although it can also occur (and is greatly accelerated) as a result of human activities. Common causes of land subsidence from human activity include: pumping water, oil, and gas from underground reservoirs; dissolution of limestone aquifers (sinkholes); collapse of underground mines; drainage of organic soils; and initial wetting of dry soils. Subsidence has not been identified as an issue in the Planning Area.

Collapsible Soils
Collapsible soils undergo a rearrangement of their grains and a loss of cementation, resulting in substantial and rapid settlement under relatively low loads. Collapsible soils occur predominantly at the base of mountain ranges, where Holocene‐age alluvial fan and wash sediments have been deposited during rapid run‐off events. Soils prone to collapse are commonly associated with manmade fill, wind‐laid sands and silts, and alluvial fan and mudflow sediments deposited during flash floods. During an earthquake, even slight settlement of fill materials can lead to a differentially settled structure and significant repair costs. Differential settlement of structures typically occurs when heavily irrigated landscape areas are near a building foundation. Examples of common problems associated with collapsible soils include tilting floors, cracking or separation in structures, sagging floors, and nonfunctional windows and doors. Collapsible soils have not been identified in the Planning Area as an issue. However, in areas subject to potential liquefaction, the potential for liquefaction induced settlement is present.

GEOLOGY AND SOILS 3.6
Draft Environmental Impact Report – Lathrop General Plan Update 3.6-11 Naturally Occurring Asbestos
The term “asbestos” is used to describe a variety of fibrous minerals that, when airborne, can result in serious human health effects. Naturally occurring asbestos is commonly associated with ultramafic rocks and serpentinite. Ultramafic rocks, such as dunite, peridotite, and pyroxenite are igneous rocks comprised largely of iron‐magnesium minerals. As they are intrusive in nature, these rocks often undergo metamorphosis, prior to their being exposed on the Earth’s surface. The metamorphic rock serpentinite is a common product of the alteration process. Naturally occurring asbestos is not identified within San Joaquin County, although it is all located to the east and west of the Planning Area in mountainous areas in Contra Costa and Calaveras Counties. There is no naturally occurring asbestos mapped within Lathrop.

PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Among the natural resources deserving conservation and preservation, and existing within the Planning Area, are the often‐unseen records of past life buried in the sediments and rocks below the pavement, buildings, soils, and vegetation which now cover most of the area. These records – fossils and their geologic context – undoubtedly exist in large quantities below the surface in many areas in and near the City of Lathrop, and span millions of years in age of origin. Fossils constitute a non‐renewable resource: Once lost or destroyed, the exact information they contained can never be reproduced.

Paleontology is the science that attempts to unravel the meaning of these fossils in terms of the organisms they represent, the ages and geographic distribution of those organisms, how they interacted in ancient ecosystems and responded to past climatic changes, and the changes through time of all of these aspects.

The sensitivity of a given area or body of sediment with respect to paleontological resources is a function of both the potential for the existence of fossils and the predicted significance of any fossils which may be found there. The primary consideration in the determination of paleontological sensitivity of a given area, body of sediment, or rock formation is its potential to include fossils. Information that can contribute to assessment of this potential includes: 1) direct observation of fossils within the project area; 2) the existence of known fossil localities or documented absence of fossils in the same geologic unit (e.g., “Formation” or one of its subunits); 3) descriptive nature of sedimentary deposits (such as size of included particles or clasts, color, and bedding type) in the area of interest compared with those of similar deposits known elsewhere to favor or disfavor inclusion of fossils; and 4) interpretation of sediment details and known geologic history of the sedimentary body of interest in terms of the ancient environments in which they were deposited, followed by assessment of the favorability of those environments for the preservation of fossils.

The most general paleontological information can be obtained from geologic maps, but geologic cross sections (slices of the layer cake to view the third dimension) must be reviewed for each area in question. These usually accompany geologic maps or technical reports. Once it can be determined which formations may be present in the subsurface, the question of paleontological

3.6 GEOLOGY AND SOILS

3.6-12 Draft Environmental Impact Report – Lathrop General Plan Update resources must be addressed. Even though a formation is known to contain fossils, they are not usually distributed uniformly throughout the many square miles the formation may cover. If the fossils were part of a bay environment when they died, perhaps a scattered layer of shells will be preserved over large areas. If on the other hand, a whale died in this bay, you might expect to find fossil whalebone only in one small area of less than a few hundred square feet. Other resources to be considered in the determination of paleontological potential are regional geologic reports, site records on file with paleontological repositories and site‐specific field surveys.

Paleontologists consider all vertebrate fossils to be of significance. Fossils of other types are considered significant if they represent a new record, new species, an oldest occurring species, the most complete specimen of its kind, a rare species worldwide, or a species helpful in the dating of formations. However, even a previously designated low potential site may yield significant fossils.

Regional Paleontological Setting

SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY
The following summary of the geological evolution of San Joaquin County and the potential for paleontological resources is based on the San Joaquin County General Plan Draft EIR. During the Mesozoic Era (208–65 million years ago), the Sierra Nevada formed, but the region that would become the San Joaquin Valley lay several thousand feet below the surface of the Pacific Ocean.

During the Late Cretaceous Period (75–65 million years ago [mya]), flowering plants, early dinosaurs, and the first birds and mammals appeared. The basic form of the Great Central Valley took shape during the Cenozoic period, first as islands, then as mountains. During the late Cenozoic Era (65–2 mya), the Sierra Nevada eroded to mere hills compared to their earlier appearance, the Coast Ranges rose, and the San Joaquin Valley began to form.

During the Paleocene Epoch (65–53 mya), dinosaurs became extinct and mammals gradually evolved as the dominant group of animal life. During the Eocene Epoch (53–39 mya), the western edges of the San Joaquin Valley rose above sea level. Sedimentation and tectonic uplift of geological formations continued until two million years ago. In the subsequent Oligocene Epoch (39–23 mya), sedimentation continued, and during the Miocene Epoch (23–5 mya) the Diablo Range was uplifted. The Pliocene Epoch (5–2 mya) was a time of tremendous uplift, and great quantities of sediment eroded from the nearby mountain ranges accumulated in the valley, eventually forming a deposit thousands of feet thick. In the Pleistocene Epoch (2 million to 10,000 years ago), the Sierra Nevada range was increasingly elevated and glaciated, resulting in the formation of spectacular features such as Yosemite Valley. During the Holocene Epoch (10,000 years ago to the present), the San Joaquin Valley was above sea level and achieved its present appearance, 466 miles long and 19 to 50 miles wide, enclosed by the Siskiyou, Sierra Nevada, Tehachapi, and Coast Ranges on the north, east, south, and west, respectively. The valley contained fresh water lakes and rivers attractive to herds of prehistoric grazing animals, including Columbian Mammoth, camel, bison, and native horse. The fossil remains of these creatures have been found in San Joaquin County and adjacent areas. The vast majority of paleontological specimens from San Joaquin County have been found in rock formations in the foothills of the Diablo Mountain Range. However, remains of extinct animals such as mammoth, could be found GEOLOGY AND SOILS 3.6
Draft Environmental Impact Report – Lathrop General Plan Update 3.6-13 virtually anywhere in the county, especially along watercourses such as the San Joaquin River and its tributaries.

PLANNING AREA
The Geologic Map of California, prepared by the California Department of Conservation California Geological Survey, identifies the generalized rock types in the Planning Area is Quaternary Alluvium “Q” which is younger alluvium that consists of marine and nonmarine (continental) sedimentary rocks from the Pleistocene through Holocene Epochs that are composed of alluvium, lake, playa, and terrace deposits, both unconsolidated and semi‐consolidated. This type is mostly nonmarine deposits but does include marine deposits near the coast.

According to a records search of the University of California Museum of Paleontology (UCMP) Collections Date, eighty fossils have been found and recorded within San Joaquin County. Over half of them are dated to the tertiary period, with quaternary being the second most frequent period.

These are the first and second periods of the Cenozoic Era respectively, during which modern flora, apes, large mammals, and eventually humans developed. The majority of fossils found within the Lathrop area have been vertebrate in nature. These fossils include mammoth/mastodon, horse, pocket gopher, and other unspecified rodents, and unidentified artiodactyl (hoofed mammal) bone.

3.6.2 REGULATORY SETTING

FEDERAL
Earthquake Hazards Reduction Act
The Earthquake Hazards Reduction Act of 1977 (42 USC, 7701 et seq.) requires the establishment and maintenance of an earthquake hazards reduction program by the Federal government.

Executive Order 12699
Signed in January 1990, this executive order of the President implements provisions of the Earthquake Hazards Reduction Act for “federal, federally assisted or federally regulated new building construction” and requires the development and implementation of seismic safety programs by Federal agencies.

International Building Code (IBC)
The purpose of the International Building Code (IBC) is to provide minimum standards to preserve the public peace, health, and safety by regulating the design, construction, quality of materials, certain equipment, location, grading, use, occupancy, and maintenance of all buildings and structures. IBC standards address foundation design, shear wall strength, and other structurally related conditions.

3.6 GEOLOGY AND SOILS

3.6-14 Draft Environmental Impact Report – Lathrop General Plan Update STATE
California Building Standards Code
Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations, known as the California Building Standards Code (CBSC) or simply "Title 24," contains the regulations that govern the construction of buildings in California. The CBSC includes 12 parts: California Building Standards Administrative Code, California Building Code, California Residential Building Code, California Electrical Code, California Mechanical Code, California Plumbing Code, California Energy Code, California Historical Building Code, California Fire Code, California Existing Building Code, California Green Building Standards Code (CAL Green Code), and the California Reference Standards Code. Through the CBSC, the State provides a minimum standard for building design and construction. The CBSC contains specific requirements for seismic safety, excavation, foundations, retaining walls, and site demolition. It also regulates grading activities, including drainage and erosion control.

The California Building Code, Title 24, Part 2, Chapter 16 addresses structural design, Chapter 17 addresses structural tests and special inspections, and Chapter 18 addresses soils and foundations.

Section 1610 provides structural design standards for foundation walls and retaining walls to ensure resistance to lateral soil loads. Section 1613 provides structural design standards for earthquake loads. Section 1704.7 requires special inspections for existing site soil conditions, fill placement and load‐bearing requirements during the construction as specified in Table 1704.7 of this section. Sections 1704.8 through 1704.16 provide inspection and testing requirements for various foundation types, and construction material types. Section 1803.1.1.1 requires each city and county enact an ordinance which requires a preliminary soil report and that the report be based upon adequate test borings or excavations, of every subdivision, where a tentative and final map is required pursuant to Section 66426 of the Government Code. Section 1803.5.3 defines expansive soils and specifies that in areas likely to have expansive soil, the building official shall require soil tests to determine where such soils do exist. Section 1803.5.4 specifies that a subsurface soil investigation must be performed to determine whether the existing ground‐water table is above or within 5 feet (1524 mm) below the elevation of the lowest floor level where such floor is located below the finished ground level adjacent to the foundation. Section 1803.5.8 provides specific standards where shallow foundations will bear on compacted fill material more than 12 inches (305 mm) in depth. Sections 1803.5.11 and 1803.5.12 provide requirements for geotechnical investigations for structures assigned varying Seismic Design Categories in accordance with Section 1613. Section 1804 provides standards and requirements for excavation, grading, and fill. Sections 1808, 1809, and 1810 provide standards and requirements for the construction of varying foundations.

California Health and Safety Code
Section 19100 et seq. of the California Health and Safety Code establishes the State’s regulations for earthquake protection. This section of the code requires structural designs to be capable of resisting likely stresses produced by phenomena such as strong winds and earthquakes.

GEOLOGY AND SOILS 3.6
Draft Environmental Impact Report – Lathrop General Plan Update 3.6-15 Alquist‐Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act
The Alquist‐Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act of 1972 sets forth the policies and criteria of the State Mining and Geology Board, which governs the exercise of governments’ responsibilities to prohibit the location of developments and structures for human occupancy across the trace of active faults. The policies and criteria are limited to potential hazards resulting from surface faulting or fault creep within Earthquake Fault Zones, as delineated on maps officially issued by the State Geologist. Working definitions include:
 Fault – a fracture or zone of closely associated fractures along which rocks on one side have been displaced with respect to those on the other side;  Fault Zone – a zone of related faults, which commonly are braided and sub parallel, but may be branching and divergent. A fault zone has a significant width (with respect to the scale at which the fault is being considered, portrayed, or investigated), ranging from a few feet to several miles;
 Sufficiently Active Fault – a fault that has evidence of Holocene surface displacement along one or more of its segments or branches (last 11,000 years); and  Well‐Defined Fault – a fault whose trace is clearly detectable by a trained geologist as a physical feature at or just below the ground surface. The geologist should be able to locate the fault in the field with sufficient precision and confidence to indicate that the required site‐specific investigations would meet with some success. “Sufficiently Active” and “Well Defined” are the two criteria used by the State to determine if a fault should be zoned under the Alquist‐Priolo Act.

Seismic Hazards Mapping Act
The Seismic Hazards Mapping Act, passed in 1990, addresses non‐surface fault rupture earthquake hazards, including liquefaction and seismically‐induced landslides. Under the Act, seismic hazard zones are to be mapped by the State Geologist to assist local governments in land use planning.

The program and actions mandated by the Seismic Hazards Mapping Act closely resemble those of the Alquist‐Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act (which addresses only surface fault‐rupture hazards) and are outlined below:

The State Geologist is required to delineate the various “seismic hazard zones.”  Cities and counties, or other local permitting authority, must regulate certain development “projects” within the zones. They must withhold the development permits for a site within a zone until the geologic and soil conditions of the site are investigated and appropriate mitigation measures, if any, are incorporated into development plans.  The State Mining and Geology Board provides additional regulations, policies, and criteria to guide cities and counties in their implementation of the law. The Board also provides guidelines for preparation of the Seismic Hazard Zone Maps and for evaluating and mitigating seismic hazards.
 Sellers (and their agents) of real property within a mapped hazard zone must disclose that the property lies within such a zone at the time of sale.

3.6 GEOLOGY AND SOILS

3.6-16 Draft Environmental Impact Report – Lathrop General Plan Update Caltrans Seismic Design Criteria
The California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) has Seismic Design Criteria (SDC), which is an encyclopedia of new and currently practiced seismic design and analysis methodologies for the design of new bridges in California. The SDC adopts a performance‐based approach specifying minimum levels of structural system performance, component performance, analysis, and design practices for ordinary standard bridges. The SDC has been developed with input from the Caltrans Offices of Structure Design, Earthquake Engineering and Design Support, and Materials and Foundations. Memo 20‐1 Seismic Design Methodology (Caltrans 1999) outlines the bridge category and classification, seismic performance criteria, seismic design philosophy and approach, seismic demands and capacities on structural components, and seismic design practices that collectively make up Caltrans’ seismic design.

Division of Mines and Geology
The California Division of Mines and Geology (DMG) operates within the Department of Conservation. The DMG is responsible for assisting in the utilization of mineral deposits and the identification of geological hazards.

State Geological Survey
Similar to the DMG, the California Geological Survey is responsible for assisting in the identification and proper utilization of mineral deposits, as well as the identification of fault locations and other geological hazards.

LOCAL
City of Lathrop Municipal Code
Chapter 15.04 of the Lathrop Municipal Code adopts the 2019 CBSC, with amendments to address administrative provisions, additional requirements to address connection of existing slabs to new construction, as the building code of the City. Additionally, Chapter 15.54 of the Lathrop Municipal Code describes when a geotechnical report would be required.

GEOLOGY AND SOILS 3.6
Draft Environmental Impact Report – Lathrop General Plan Update 3.6-17

3.6.3 IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES

THRESHOLDS OF SIGNIFICANCE
Consistent with Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, the proposed Project will have a significant impact on geology and soils if it will:
 Directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving:
o Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist‐ Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42;
o Strong seismic ground shaking;
o Seismic‐related ground failure, including liquefaction; or o Landslides.
 Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil;  Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the Project, and potentially result in on‐ or off‐site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse;
 Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18‐1‐B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial direct or indirect risks to life or property;  Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water; or  Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature.

IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
Impact 3.6‐1: General Plan implementation has the potential to expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving rupture of a known earthquake fault, strong seismic ground shaking, seismic‐related ground failure, including liquefaction, or landslides (Less than Significant)
There are no known active or potentially active faults, or Alquist‐Priolo Earthquake Fault Zones, located within the Planning Area. However, there are numerous faults located in the region. Figure

3.6‐2 illustrates the location of these faults. These include an unnamed fault east of the City of Tracy, the San Joaquin fault, the Midway fault, the Corral Hollow‐Carnegie fault, the Greenville fault, the Antioch fault, and the Los Positas fault. Rupture of any of these faults, or of an unknown fault in the region, could cause seismic ground shaking. As a result, future development in the City of Lathrop may expose people or structures to potential adverse effects associated with a seismic event, including strong ground shaking and seismic‐related ground failure.

3.6 GEOLOGY AND SOILS

3.6-18 Draft Environmental Impact Report – Lathrop General Plan Update While there are no known active faults located within the Planning Area, the area could experience considerable ground shaking generated by faults outside Lathrop. For example, Lathrop could experience an intensity of MM V to VII generated by seismic events. The effect of this intensity level could have structural damage. Soil data from the NRCS Web Soil Survey (NRCS 2020) suggests that the potential for liquefaction ranges from low to high within the Planning Area given that many soils are high in sand and the water table is moderately high.

All projects would be required to comply with the provisions of the CBSC, which requires development projects to: perform geotechnical investigations in accordance with State law, engineer improvements to address potential seismic and ground failure issues and use earthquake‐resistant construction techniques to address potential earthquake loads when constructing buildings and improvements. As future development and infrastructure projects are considered by the City, each project will be evaluated for conformance with the CBSC, General Plan, Zoning Ordinance, and other regulations. Subsequent development and infrastructure would also be analyzed for potential environmental impacts, consistent with the requirements of CEQA.

In addition to the requirements associated with the CBSC and the Municipal Code, the General Plan includes policies and actions to address potential impacts associated with seismic activity.

The General Plan policies and actions (listed below) require review of development proposals to ensure compliance with California Health and Safety Code Section 19100 et seq. (Earthquake Protection Law), which requires that buildings be designed to resist stresses produced by natural forces such as earthquakes and wind. Policy PS‐1.1 requires the City’s geologic and seismic hazards map be monitored in concert with updates from the California Geologic Survey and local surveys.

Policy PS‐1.2 calls for enforcement of State seismic design standards and guidelines and all relevant building codes to reduce the risk of damage associated with seismic activity. Additionally, Policy PS‐1.3 requires special site‐specific studies, generally including but not limited to, soil compaction tests and geotechnical reports, for development projects and City improvement projects to determine the nature and extent of possible liquefaction, landslides, and geologic hazards, and to identify engineering and development siting measures to permit development to occur. Furthermore, Action PS‐1a requires that development proposals are reviewed to ensure compliance with current State building standards; California Health and Safety Code Section 19100 et seq. (Earthquake Protection Law), which requires that buildings be designed to resist stresses produced by natural forces such as earthquakes and wind; and Lathrop Municipal Code drainage.

All future projects are subject to CEQA review to address seismic safety issues and provide adequate mitigation for existing and potential hazards identified. With the implementation of the policies and actions in the General Plan, as well as applicable State and City codes, potential impacts associated with a seismic event, including rupture of an earthquake fault, seismic ground shaking, liquefaction, and landslides would be less than significant.

GEOLOGY AND SOILS 3.6
Draft Environmental Impact Report – Lathrop General Plan Update 3.6-19

GENERAL PLAN GOALS, POLICIES, AND ACTIONS THAT MINIMIZE POTENTIAL IMPACTS GOALS
PS‐1 Prepare the community for natural hazards related to landslides, geologic instability, and seismic activity to minimize loss of life, injury, and property damage, and disruption of vital services.

POLICIES
PS‐1.1 Prepare the community for natural hazards related to landslides, geologic instability, and seismic activity to minimize loss of life, injury, and property damage, and disruption of vital services. Geologic Hazard Identification. Review and monitor geologic and seismic hazards maps in concert with updates from the California Geologic Survey and local surveys.

PS‐1.2 Earthquake Protection. Enforce State seismic design standards and guidelines and all relevant building codes to reduce the risk of damage associated with seismic activity.

PS‐1.3 Development. Require special site‐specific studies, generally including but not limited to, soil compaction tests and geotechnical reports, for development projects and City improvement projects to determine the nature and extent of possible liquefaction, landslides, and geologic hazards, and to identify engineering and development siting measures to permit development to occur.

PS‐1.4 Development Inspection. Require professional inspection of foundation, excavation, earthwork, and other geotechnical aspects of site development during constructions on those sites specified in geotechnical studies as being prone to seismic or geologic hazard.

PS‐1.5 Risk Inventories. Develop inventories of:

A. At‐risk public buildings and infrastructure and evaluate potential mitigation projects to address risks, as financially feasible.

B. Private buildings which are unsound under conditions of "moderate" seismic activity.

Structures determined by the City's Building Official to be structurally unsound are to be reported to the owner and recorded with the County Recorder to ensure that future owners are made aware of hazardous conditions and risks. Buildings that have questionable structural resistance should be considered for either rehabilitation or demolition.

PS‐1.6 Title 24 Compliance. Require all structures located within areas containing expansive soils to be designed and engineered to comply with the California Code of Regulations (CCR), Title 24.

PS‐1.7 Critical Facilities. Require new critical infrastructure and facilities, including but not limited to, hospitals, fire and police stations, and other public or semi‐public buildings that house critical first responders or emergency management personnel that may be built in the City to incorporate site specific seismic structural design as required by applicable building codes. This is intended to ensure that the infrastructure and facilities are designed to withstand the “maximum” probable” earthquake and remain in service.

3.6 GEOLOGY AND SOILS

3.6-20 Draft Environmental Impact Report – Lathrop General Plan Update PS‐1.8 Public Facilities. Ensure that all public facilities, including buildings, water tanks, and reservoirs, are structurally sound and able to withstand seismic shaking and the effects of seismically‐induced ground failure, consistent with the California Building Standards Codes and other applicable standards.

PS‐1.9 Public Education. Educate the public through programs and outreach materials on natural threats pertaining to the city and best practices for reducing damage and personal harm.

IMPLEMENTATION ACTIONS
PS‐1a Review development proposals to ensure compliance with:

PS‐1b Require new public and critical uses buildings to adhere to the requirements of CCR, Title 24, ensuring that the buildings are not located in areas susceptible to potential natural hazards.

PS‐1c Update building, zoning, and grading codes as needed to ensure adopted standards comply with State requirements. Require preparation of soil compaction tests and geotechnical reports by the proper certified professions for proposed development projects, public projects, and all critical structures. The reports should include, but not be limited to: evaluation of and recommendations to mitigate the effects of fault displacement, ground shaking, uncompacted fill, expansive soils, liquefaction, subsidence, and settlement. Recommendations from the report shall be incorporated into the development project to address seismic and geologic risks identified in the report.

PS‐1d Establish an inventory of potentially hazardous buildings and require any development or change in occupancy proposals to address hazards, through measures such as strengthening buildings, changing the use of the buildings to an acceptable occupancy level, or demolishing or rehabilitating the building.

PS‐1e Regularly review the structural integrity of existing City facilities, and if any facilities are found to be structurally unsatisfactory, take steps to mitigate the unsatisfactory conditions.

PS‐1f As applications for building permits are received, identify and inspect seismically unsafe buildings and structures, including unreinforced masonry buildings.

PS‐1g Consider utilizing programs and funding sources that would encourage, assist, or provide incentives to property owners to retrofit their buildings for seismic safety, such as the Unreinforced Masonry (URM) program.

PS‐1h Monitor the withdrawal of groundwater, oil, and gas, maintain land elevation records, and regulate overdraft to prevent subsidence.

GEOLOGY AND SOILS 3.6
Draft Environmental Impact Report – Lathrop General Plan Update 3.6-21 PS‐1i Ensure that all abandoned wells are permitted through the County, and regulate removal of abandoned underground irrigation and drainage systems.

PS‐1j Consider a public relations and education program to increase public awareness on potential geologic and seismic hazards in the community, their associated risks, and preparedness strategies.

Impact 3.6‐2: General Plan implementation has the potential to result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil (Less than Significant) The General Plan would allow development and improvement projects that would involve some land clearing, mass grading, and other ground‐disturbing activities that could temporarily increase soil erosion rates during and shortly after project construction. Construction‐related erosion could result in the loss of a substantial amount of nonrenewable topsoil and could adversely affect water quality in nearby surface waters.

As noted previously, soil erosion data for the City of Lathrop was obtained from the NRCS. As identified by the NRCR web soil survey, the erosion factor K within the City of Lathrop varies widely. The NRCS does not provide erosion factors for the urban land soils in the City, however, the erosion potential for the urban land soils in the City is considered to be low.

As future development and infrastructure projects are considered by the City, each project will be evaluated for conformance with the CBSC, General Plan, Zoning Ordinance, and other regulations.

In addition to compliance with City standards and policies, the Regional Water Quality Control Board will require a project specific Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) to be prepared for each project that disturbs an area of one acre or larger. The SWPPPs will include project specific best management measures that are designed to control drainage and erosion.

Subsequent development and infrastructure projects would also be analyzed for potential environmental impacts, consistent with the requirements of CEQA.

The General Plan includes a range of policies and actions related to minimizing discharge of materials (including eroded soils) into the storm drain system, which would minimize the potential impacts related to erosion or the loss of topsoil. With the implementation of the policies and actions in the General Plan, as well as applicable State and City requirements, potential impacts associated with erosion and loss of topsoil would be less than significant.

POLICIES

3.6 GEOLOGY AND SOILS

3.6-22 Draft Environmental Impact Report – Lathrop General Plan Update PS‐1.3 Development. Require special site‐specific studies, generally including but not limited to, soil compaction tests and geotechnical reports, for development projects and City improvement projects to determine the nature and extent of possible liquefaction, landslides, and geologic hazards, and to identify engineering and development siting measures to permit development to occur.

IMPLEMENTATION ACTIONS
PS‐1a Review development proposals to ensure compliance with:

A. Current State building standards;
B. California Health and Safety Code Section 19100 et seq. (Earthquake Protection Law), which requires that buildings be designed to resist stresses produced by natural forces such as earthquakes and wind; and
C. Lathrop Municipal Code drainage
PS‐1b Require new public and critical uses buildings to adhere to the requirements of CCR, Title 24, ensuring that the buildings are not located in areas susceptible to potential natural hazards.

PS‐1h Monitor the withdrawal of groundwater, oil, and gas, maintain land elevation records, and regulate overdraft to prevent subsidence.

PS‐1i Ensure that all abandoned wells are permitted through the County, and regulate removal of abandoned underground irrigation and drainage systems.

Impact 3.6‐3: General Plan implementation has the potential to result in development located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on‐ or off‐site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse (Less than Significant)
Development allowed under the General Plan could result in the exposure of people and structures to conditions that have the potential for adverse effects associated with ground GEOLOGY AND SOILS 3.6
Draft Environmental Impact Report – Lathrop General Plan Update 3.6-23 instability or failure. Soils and geologic conditions in the Lathrop Planning Area have the potential for landslides, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse. Each are discussed below:

LANDSLIDE
The Planning Area is essentially flat; therefore, the potential for a landslides is low. However, the landslide potential increases in the portions of the City for which there is increased elevation change.

LATERAL SPREADING
Lateral spreading generally is a phenomenon where blocks of intact, non‐liquefied soil move down slope on a liquefied substrate of large areal extent. The potential for lateral spreading is present where open banks and unsupported cut slopes provide a free face (unsupported vertical slope face). Ground shaking, especially when inducing liquefaction, may cause lateral spreading toward unsupported slopes. The potential for liquefaction is moderate to high in many areas of the city, however because the Planning Area is essentially flat lateral spreading of soils has not been observed within the Planning Area.

SUBSIDENCE
Drainage sufficient to create subsidence is uncommon within the City of Lathrop. Subsidence has not been identified as an issue in the Planning Area.

LIQUEFACTION
Areas along existing waterways, such as San Joaquin River, are defined as having the greatest potential for liquefaction.

COLLAPSE
Collapsible soils undergo a rearrangement of their grains and a loss of cementation, resulting in substantial and rapid settlement under relatively low loads. Collapsible soils occur predominantly at the base of mountain ranges, where Holocene‐age alluvial fan and wash sediments have been deposited during rapid run‐off events. Differential settlement of structures typically occurs when heavily irrigated landscape areas are near a building foundation. Examples of common problems associated with collapsible soils include tilting floors, cracking or separation in structures, sagging floors, and nonfunctional windows and doors. Collapsible soils have not been identified in the Planning Area as an issue. However, in areas subject to potential liquefaction, the potential for liquefaction induced settlement is present.

CONCLUSION
As future development and infrastructure projects are considered by the City of Lathrop, each project will be evaluated for conformance with the CBSC, the General Plan, Zoning Ordinance, and other regulations. Subsequent development and infrastructure projects would also be analyzed for potential environmental impacts, consistent with the requirements of CEQA. Future development

3.6 GEOLOGY AND SOILS

3.6-24 Draft Environmental Impact Report – Lathrop General Plan Update and improvement projects would be required to have a specific geotechnical study prepared and incorporated into the improvement design, consistent with the requirements of the State and City codes. In addition to the requirements associated with the CBSC and the Municipal Code, the General Plan includes policies and actions to ensure that development projects address potential geologic hazards, at‐risk buildings and infrastructure is evaluated for potential risks, and site‐ specific studies are completed for area subject to liquefaction. With the implementation of the goals, policies and actions in the General Plan, as well as applicable State and City codes, potential impacts associated with ground instability or failure would be less than significant.

POLICIES
PS‐1.3 Development. Require special site‐specific studies, generally including but not limited to, soil compaction tests and geotechnical reports, for development projects and City improvement projects to determine the nature and extent of possible liquefaction, landslides, and geologic hazards, and to identify engineering and development siting measures to permit development to occur.

IMPLEMENTATION ACTIONS
PS‐1a Review development proposals to ensure compliance with:

PS‐1b Require new public and critical uses buildings to adhere to the requirements of CCR, Title 24, ensuring that the buildings are not located in areas susceptible to potential natural hazards.

GEOLOGY AND SOILS 3.6
Draft Environmental Impact Report – Lathrop General Plan Update 3.6-25 PS‐1c Update building, zoning, and grading codes as needed to ensure adopted standards comply with State requirements. Require preparation of soil compaction tests and geotechnical reports by the proper certified professions for proposed development projects, public projects, and all critical structures. The reports should include, but not be limited to: evaluation of and recommendations to mitigate the effects of fault displacement, ground shaking, uncompacted fill, expansive soils, liquefaction, subsidence, and settlement. Recommendations from the report shall be incorporated into the development project to address seismic and geologic risks identified in the report.

PS‐1h Monitor the withdrawal of groundwater, oil, and gas, maintain land elevation records, and regulate overdraft to prevent subsidence.

PS‐1i Ensure that all abandoned wells are permitted through the County, and regulate removal of abandoned underground irrigation and drainage systems.

Impact 3.6‐4: General Plan implementation has the potential to result in development on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18‐1‐B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial direct or indirect risks to life or property (Less than Significant)
Expansive soil properties can cause substantial damage to building foundations, piles, pavements, underground utilities, and/or other improvements. Structural damage, such as warping and cracking of improvements, and rupture of underground utility lines, may occur if the expansive potential of soils is not considered during the design and construction of all improvements.

Linear extensibility is a method for measuring expansion potential. The expansion potential is low if the soil has a linear extensibility of less than 3 percent; moderate if 3 to 6 percent; high if 6 to 9 percent; and very high if more than 9 percent. If the linear extensibility is more than 3, shrinking and swelling can cause damage to buildings, roads, and other structures and to plant roots. Special design commonly is needed.

The linear extensibility of the soils within Lathrop ranges from low to moderate. Figure 3.6‐4 illustrates the shrink‐swell potential of soils in the Planning Area. The majority of the Planning Area has soils with a low potential for expansion, including most of the developed land. The areas with moderate expansive soils represent only a small portion of the Planning Area, and would require special design considerations due to shrink‐swell potentials.

As future development and infrastructure projects are considered by the City, each project will be evaluated for conformance with the CBSC, General Plan, Zoning Ordinance, and other applicable regulations. Subsequent development and infrastructure projects would also be analyzed for potential environmental impacts, consistent with the requirements of CEQA.

The Public Safety Element of the General Plan establishes policies that are designed to protect from geologic hazards, including expansive soils. Consistency with the General Plan policies will require identification of geologic hazards and risk inventory of existing at‐risk buildings and infrastructure. As required by the CBSC, a site‐specific geotechnical investigation will identify the

3.6 GEOLOGY AND SOILS

3.6-26 Draft Environmental Impact Report – Lathrop General Plan Update potential for damage related to expansive soils and non‐uniformly compacted fill and engineered fill. If a risk is identified, design criteria and specification options may include removal of the problematic soils, and replacement, as needed, with properly conditioned and compacted fill material that is designed to withstand the forces exerted during the expected shrink‐swell cycles and settlements.

Design criteria and specifications set forth in the design‐level geotechnical investigation will ensure impacts from problematic soils are minimized. There are no additional significant adverse environmental impacts, apart from those disclosed in the relevant chapters of this Draft EIR, that are anticipated to occur associated with expansive soils. Therefore, this impact is considered less than significant.

IMPLEMENTATION ACTIONS
PS‐1a Review development proposals to ensure compliance with:

PS‐1b Require new public and critical uses buildings to adhere to the requirements of CCR, Title 24, ensuring that the buildings are not located in areas susceptible to potential natural hazards.

GEOLOGY AND SOILS 3.6
Draft Environmental Impact Report – Lathrop General Plan Update 3.6-27 PS‐1c Update building, zoning, and grading codes as needed to ensure adopted standards comply with State requirements. Require preparation of soil compaction tests and geotechnical reports by the proper certified professions for proposed development projects, public projects, and all critical structures. The reports should include, but not be limited to: evaluation of and recommendations to mitigate the effects of fault displacement, ground shaking, uncompacted fill, expansive soils, liquefaction, subsidence, and settlement. Recommendations from the report shall be incorporated into the development project to address seismic and geologic risks identified in the report.

PS‐1h Monitor the withdrawal of groundwater, oil, and gas, maintain land elevation records, and regulate overdraft to prevent subsidence.

PS‐1i Ensure that all abandoned wells are permitted through the County, and regulate removal of abandoned underground irrigation and drainage systems.

Impact 3.6‐5: General Plan implementation does not have the potential to have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water (Less than Significant) Wastewater service is provided by the City of Lathrop via their network of collection and treatment infrastructure. Wastewater from the City of Lathrop is currently treated at the Manteca Water Quality Control Facility (MWQCF) and the Lathrop Consolidated Treatment Facility (LCTF).

The MWQCF treats most of the City’s wastewater generated in areas east of Interstate Highway 5 (I‐5), excluding the Crossroads development area. The LCTF treats the wastewater generated west of I‐5 and in the Crossroads, Gateway, and South Lathrop development areas. In 2016, the City generated a total average annual flow of 1.46 mgd with 0.92 mgd treated at the MWQCF and 0.54 mgd treated at the LCTF as documented in the City’s IWRMP.

The City’s wastewater collection system consists of approximately 72 miles of gravity mains ranging from 6 to 36 inches, 21 miles of force mains ranging from 4 to 18 inches, and 12 pump stations. Approximately 63 percent of gravity mains are polyvinyl chloride pipes, which is the City’s current standard pipe material. The remaining 37 percent of pipes are vitrified clay pipes that are in Historic Lathrop and Crossroad Business Park areas. The City has a supervisory control and data acquisition (SCADA) system for control and monitoring of facilities. The City’s wastewater collection system service area is generally contiguous with the city limits.

The City currently provides wastewater service to approximately 6,100 residential, commercial, industrial and institutional/governmental properties. However, there are areas within the city limits that are not served by the wastewater system. Many large facilities (e.g., Simplot, and former Carpenter Company facility) have historically self‐managed their wastewater. Some of these areas have been planned to move to City service, as they are re‐developed. Some residential homes and businesses in the central portion of Lathrop (e.g. Lathrop Industrial and South Lathrop) are served by a septic system.

3.6 GEOLOGY AND SOILS

3.6-28 Draft Environmental Impact Report – Lathrop General Plan Update LCTF and MWQCF have independent sewer sheds except at the 8‐inch Mossdale Intertie. The Mossdale Intertie crosses beneath I‐5 on River Islands Parkway and Louise Avenue. The Mossdale intertie is not routinely operated, but could potentially be utilized in the future to reroute a portion of flows from the Mossdale Pump Station to the MWQCF collection system.

MANTECA WATER QUALITY CONTROL FACILITY
The City owns 14.7 percent of the MWQCF capacity by contract with the City of Manteca. The City does not participate in the operation of the facility, nor does it receive recycled water from the facility. As discussed in the City’s Municipal Service Review and Sphere of Influence Plan, the City is allocated 1.45 mgd of the total 9.87 mgd facility capacity. The MWQCF is permitted for future expansions of up to 26.97 mgd, of which the City would be allocated a maximum of 14.7 percent capacity or 3.97 mgd. Treatment at the MWQCF consists of primary sedimentation followed by roughing biotowers, conventional activated sludge, secondary clarification, tertiary filtration, and ultraviolet disinfection. Disinfected tertiary effluent is discharged to the San Joaquin River. A portion of the secondary effluent is not disinfected and is used to irrigate medians and agricultural fields.

LATHROP CONSOLIDATED TREATMENT FACILITY
The LCTF is City‐owned but operated by a private contractor, Veolia Water NA. The LCTF’s treatment capacity was expanded to 2.5 mgd, with the completion of recent recycled water disposal facilities. However, capacity is currently limited to 1.55 mgd by off‐site recycled water storage and disposal capacity. The LCTF is planned to be expanded to a future permitted capacity of 6.0 mgd.

Wastewater treatment and disposal at the LCTF is regulated under the California Regional Quality Control Board Central Valley Region Waste Discharge Requirements. LCTF applies the effluent to land rather than discharging to a water body, and is therefore not subject to the NPDES requirements. The wastewater treatment processes at the LCTF includes secondary treatment, tertiary infiltration, and disinfection prior to storage and disposal. The LCTF produces disinfected tertiary recycled water suitable for irrigation at parks, landscape strips, median islands, pond berms, and agricultural fields.

Wastewater treatment processes at the LCTF include secondary treatment, tertiary filtration, disinfection, and reuse for irrigation of agricultural and landscape use areas. The following major components make up the LCTF:
 Raw wastewater undergoes screening and grit removal prior to entering the influent pump station. A 0.95 MG steel tank provides diurnal flow equalization and short‐term emergency storage. Wastewater in the tank is automatically returned to the influent pump station as treatment capacity becomes available.
 From the influent pump station, wastewater is distributed evenly to two Membrane Bioreactor treatment trains for a combined treatment capacity of 1.0 mgd. Each Membrane Bioreactor train includes an anoxic basin, recirculation mixers, an aeration GEOLOGY AND SOILS 3.6
Draft Environmental Impact Report – Lathrop General Plan Update 3.6-29 basin, anoxic pumps, aeration and membrane blowers, membrane modules, a membrane tank, mixed liquor recycle pumps, and filtrate pumps.
 Disinfection is accomplished using sodium hypochlorite solution in a chlorine contact tank that provides more than 32 minutes of modal contact time. If disinfection fails, the effluent is rerouted back to the emergency storage basin and retreated.  Tertiary treated effluent is discharged into Pond S5 for immediate storage, and is then transferred to off‐site storage in Ponds S1, S2, S3, S6, S16, and the Crossroads Wastewater Treatment Effluent Storage Ponds A, B, and C.
 Waste activated sludge generated from LCTF is pumped to the solids handling facility located at the adjacent Crossroads Wastewater Treatment Facility. The solids handling facility includes a 0.19 MG aerobic sludge storage tank, two belt filter presses, and a concrete drying bed used for supplemental air drying of dewatered sludge when conditions permit. Air‐dried sludge is temporarily stored on the drying bed until transportation to the City of Merced for land application.  The City’s existing recycled water system is governed by State Discharge Requirements outlined in Order R5‐2018‐0023 and supports the disposal of the effluent produced by the LCTF at eight agricultural land application areas (LAAs): A23, A28, A30, A31, A35, A35b, A35c, and A36. The distribution system consists of nine storage ponds; S1, S2, S3, S5, S6, S16, S‐28, A, B, and C, their associated pump stations PMP1, PMP2, PMP3, PMP10, PMP12, and the Crossroads PMP. The City has approximately 30.3 miles of recycled water pipeline, as of 2018.
 The RWQCB approved a San Joaquin River Discharge NPDES in 2020 and expires 31 March 2025. The City is constructing the required modifications to the LCTF to add required de‐ chlorination facilities and have awarded a contract to construct an outfall pipeline from the LCTF to the San Joaquin River. Developer Funding Agreements for the NPDES facilities will, upon operation of the NPDES facilities in late 2022, return storage ponds and spray fields to the developers who funded the NPDES project, except for Ponds S5, S6, A, B and C located at the LCTF plus Pond S16 on Stewart Tract which will all be retained as part of the permanent recycled water system.

DEMANDS
The Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board and the IWRMP guide the long‐term strategy for meeting future discharge and capacity requirements. From 2009 to 2016, total per capita average dry weather flow (ADWF) varied between 60 and 69 gallons of wastewater per capita per day. It is anticipated that the City’s total ADWF in 2040 will be 5.69 mgd, and increase to

7.07 mgd at buildout in 2050. Of this total, the MWQCF is projected to treat ADWFs of 1.39 mgd from Central Lathrop in 2040 and 1.47 mgd at buildout. Areas served by the LCTF have larger increases in planned development and are projected to treat ADWFs of 4.30 mgd in 2040 and 5.61 mgd at buildout.

3.6 GEOLOGY AND SOILS

3.6-30 Draft Environmental Impact Report – Lathrop General Plan Update

CONCLUSION
All new wastewater generated from General Plan land uses will be collected and transmitted to the MWQCF and LCTF for treatment. There will be no septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems utilized for new development planned under the General Plan. Therefore, this impact is considered less than significant.

Impact 3.6‐6: General Plan implementation has the potential to directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature (Less than Significant)

DEFINITION OF SIGNIFICANCE FOR PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES Only qualified, trained paleontologists with specific expertise in the type of fossils being evaluated can determine the scientific significance of paleontological resources. Fossils are considered to be significant if one or more of the following criteria apply:

1. The fossils provide information on the evolutionary relationships and developmental trends among organisms, living or extinct;

2. The fossils provide data useful in determining the age(s) of the rock unit or sedimentary stratum, including data important in determining the depositional history of the region and the timing of geologic events therein;

3. The fossils provide data regarding the development of biological communities or interaction between paleobotanical and paleozoological biotas;

4. The fossils demonstrate unusual or spectacular circumstances in the history of life;

5. The fossils are in short supply and/or in danger of being depleted or destroyed by the elements, vandalism, or commercial exploitation, and are not found in other geographic locations.

6. All identifiable vertebrate fossils are considered significant due to the rarity of their preservation.

As so defined, significant paleontological resources are determined to be fossils or assemblages of fossils that are unique, unusual, rare, uncommon, or diagnostically important. Significant fossils can include remains of large to very small aquatic and terrestrial vertebrates or remains of plants and invertebrate animals previously not represented in certain portions of the stratigraphy.

Assemblages of fossils that might aid stratigraphic correlation, particularly those offering data for the interpretation of tectonic events, geomorphologic evolution, and paleoclimatology are also critically important.

PALEONTOLOGICAL SENSITIVITY FOR PLANNING AREA
The sensitivity of a given area or body of sediment with respect to paleontological resources is a function of both the potential for the existence of fossils and the predicted significance of any fossils which may be found there. The primary consideration in the determination of paleontological sensitivity of a given area, body of sediment, or rock formation is its potential to include fossils. Information that can contribute to assessment of this potential includes: 1) direct GEOLOGY AND SOILS 3.6
Draft Environmental Impact Report – Lathrop General Plan Update 3.6-31 observation of fossils within the project area; 2) the existence of known fossil localities or documented absence of fossils in the same geologic unit (e.g., “Formation” or one of its subunits); 3) descriptive nature of sedimentary deposits (such as size of included particles or clasts, color, and bedding type) in the area of interest compared with those of similar deposits known elsewhere to favor or disfavor inclusion of fossils; and 4) interpretation of sediment details and known geologic history of the sedimentary body of interest in terms of the ancient environments in which they were deposited, followed by assessment of the favorability of those environments for the preservation of fossils.

While no formations in the Planning Area are assigned a very high sensitivity, the Planning Area is in a region where fossils and paleontological resources have been identified.

CONCLUSION
It is possible that undiscovered paleontological resources could be encountered during ground‐ disturbing activities. Damage to or destruction of a paleontological resource would be considered a potentially significant impact under local, state, or federal criteria. Implementation of the proposed General Plan actions would ensure steps would be taken to reduce impacts to paleontological resources in the event that they are discovered during construction, and thus, would ensure impacts are a less than significant relative to this environmental topic.

GENERAL PLAN GOALS, POLICIES, AND ACTIONS THAT MINIMIZE POTENTIAL IMPACTS GOALS
RR‐3 Preserve and protect prehistoric, historic, archaeological, and paleontological resources, to bolster community identify and protect sensitive resources.

POLICIES
RR‐3.1 Preservation. Protect areas containing significant historic, archaeological, and paleontological resources, as defined by the California Public Resources Code.

IMPLEMENTING ACTIONS
RR‐3a Require a cultural and archaeological survey prior to approval of any project which would require excavation in an area that is sensitive for cultural, tribal, or archaeological resources. If significant cultural, tribal, or archaeological resources, including historic and prehistoric resources, are identified, appropriate measures shall be implemented, such as documentation and conservation, to reduce adverse impacts to the resource. If resources are known or reasonably anticipated to be encountered during construction, the City shall require a detailed mitigation plan which shall require monitoring during grading and other

3.6 GEOLOGY AND SOILS

3.6-32 Draft Environmental Impact Report – Lathrop General Plan Update earthmoving activities in undisturbed sediments, and provide a treatment plan for potential resources that may be encountered.

RR‐3b Require all new development, infrastructure, and other ground‐disturbing projects to comply with the following conditions in the event of an inadvertent discovery of cultural resources or human remains:

A. If construction or grading activities result in the discovery of significant historic or prehistoric archaeological artifacts or unique paleontological resources, all work within 100 feet of the discovery shall cease, the Community Development Director shall be notified, the resources shall be examined by a qualified archaeologist, paleontologist, or historian for appropriate protection and preservation measures; and work may only resume when appropriate protections are in place and have been approved by the Community Development Director; and B. If human remains are discovered during any ground disturbing activity, work shall stop until the Community Development Director and the San Joaquin County Coroner have been contacted. If the human remains are determined to be of Native American origin, the Native American Heritage Commission and the most likely descendants shall be consulted; and work may only resume when appropriate measures have been taken and approved by the Community Development Director.

RR‐3d Require all development, infrastructure, and other ground‐disturbing projects to comply with the following conditions in the event of an inadvertent discovery of a paleontological resource:

A. If construction or grading activities result in the discovery of significant prehistoric archaeological artifacts or unique paleontological resources, all work within 100 feet of the discovery shall cease, the Community Development Director shall be notified, the resources shall be examined by a qualified archaeologist, paleontologist, or historian for appropriate protection and preservation measures; and work may only resume when appropriate protections are in place and have been approved by the Community Development Director.

Grant Line Canal

CITY OF LATHROP GENERAL PLAN
Figure 3.6-1. USGS Topographic Map
Í 0 ¼ ½
Miles
Sources: San Joaquin County;
ArcGIS Online USGS
Topographic Map
Map date: January 19, 2018.

San Joaquin R.

HOLT STOCKTON WEST STOCKTON
EAST

UNION ISLAND LATHROP MANTECA

TRACY VERNALIS RIPON
USGS 7.5' Quadrangle Index
City Boundary
Sphere of Influence

3.6 GEOLOGY AND SOILS

3.6-34 Draft Environmental Impact Report – Lathrop General Plan Update This page left intentionally blank
!
!
!"^$
!"^$
%&f(
AßE
AÎE
S a n J o a q u i n
C o u n t y
C o n t r a C o s t a
C o u n t y
S t a n i s l a u s
C o u n t y
?òE
?ÙE

TRACY TRACY
Black Butte fault
Antioch fault
Midway fault
Verona fault
Los Positas fault
Mocho fault
Williams fault
San Joaquin fault
Unnamed fault
Modesto
Stockton

CITY OF LATHROP GENERAL PLAN
Figure 3.6-2.

Earthquake Faults and Alquist-Priolo Zones
Legend
Quaternary Faults
Well-constrained
Moderately-constrained
Inferred
Alquist-Priolo Fault Zones
Lathrop City Boundary
Lathrop Sphere of Influence
Í 0 1½ 3
Miles
Sources: San Joaquin County;
US Geologic Survey;
CalAtlas;
OpenStreet Data
Map date: January 17, 2018.

3.6 GEOLOGY AND SOILS

3.6-36 Draft Environmental Impact Report – Lathrop General Plan Update This page left intentionally blank
S an Joaqu i n R.

Paradise Cut Circle
Lake
M iddle R.

Tom Paine Slough
Old R.

Old R.

San J oaquin R.
§¨¦5
River Islands Pk
Walthall Slough
§¨¦5
§¨¦5
UV120
§¨¦205
San Joaquin R.

W Woodward Av
W Louise Av
S Mckinley Av
D Arcy Pk
E Roth Rd
W Yosemite Av
E Louise Av
E Lathrop Rd
O St
J St
Mckinley Av
Harlan Rd
S Manthey Rd S Manthey Rd
Land Park Dr
Golden Valley Pk
Nestle Wy
W Howard Rd
Howland Rd
Barbara Terry Bl
Mckee Bl
Thomsen Rd
Cambridge Dr
198
198
196
167
260
153
266
133 166
254
284
109
142
148
147
131
197
130
153
131
266
284
166
167
197
109
255
131
142
255
254 132
147
169
142
197
266
196
133
145
197
153
153
131
197
153
197
166
148
266
153
243
198
196
197
255
133
147
198 133
197
197
197
153
198
198 131
198
109
153
284
266
197
255
153
254
142
198
167
254
167
166
260
169
175
148
153
131
255
147
197
266
133
148
167
261
142
254
133
266
130
169
142
166
133
254
197
197
266
255
133
255
197
266
196
130
243 197 131
Grant Line Canal

CITY OF LATHROP GENERAL PLAN
Figure 3.6-3 Soils Map
Legend
Lathrop City Boundary
Lathrop Sphere of Influence
NRCS Soil Description
109 - Bisgani loamy coarse sand, partially
drained
110 - Boggiano clay loam
130 - Columbia fine sandy loam, drained
131 - Columbia fine sandy loam, partially drained,
occasionally flooded
132 - Columbia fine sandy loam, channeled,
partially drained, frequently flooded
133 - Columbia fine sandy loam, clayey
substratum, partially drained
142 - Delhi loamy sand, MLRA 17
144 - Dello sand, partially drained, occasionally
flooded
145 - Dello loamy sand, drained
147 - Dello sandy loam, clayey substratum,
drained
148 - Dello clay loam, drained, overwashed
153 - Egbert silty clay loam, partially drained
166 - Grangeville fine sandy loam, partially
drained
167 - Grangeville clay loam, partially drained
169 - Guard clay loam, drained
175 - Honcut sandy loam
196 - Manteca fine sandy loam
197 - Merritt silty clay loam, partially drained
198 - Merritt silty clay loam, partially drained, 0 to
2 percent slopes,
243 - Scribner clay loam, partially drained
254 - Timor loamy sand
255 - Tinnin loamy coarse sand
261 - Valdez silt loam, organic substratum,
partially drained
266 - Veritas fine sandy loam
260 - Urban land
284 - Water
Í 0 ¼ ½
Miles
Sources: NRCS Web Soil
Survey, CA077 San Joaquin
County, California; San
Joaquin County.

Map date: January 17, 2018.

3.6 GEOLOGY AND SOILS

3.6-38 Draft Environmental Impact Report – Lathrop General Plan Update This page left intentionally blank
S an Joaqu i n R.

Paradise Cut Circle
Lake
M iddle R.

Tom Paine Slough
Old R.

Old R.

San J oaquin R.
§¨¦5
River Isl an ds Pk
Walthall Slough
§¨¦5
§¨¦5
UV120
§¨¦205
San Joaquin R.

W Woodward Av
W Louise Av
S Mckinley Av
D Arcy Pk
E Roth Rd
W Yosemite Av
E Louise Av
E Lathrop Rd
O St
J St
Mckinley Av
N Airport Wy
Harlan Rd
S Manthey Rd S Manthey Rd
Land Park Dr
Golden Valley Pk
Nestle Wy
W Howard Rd
Howland Rd
Barbara Terry Bl
Mckee Bl
Thomsen Rd
Cambridge Dr
Grant Line Canal

CITY OF LATHROP GENERAL PLAN
Figure 3.6-4. Shrink-Swell Potential of Soils
Legend
Lathrop City Boundary
Lathrop Sphere of Influence
Shrink-Swell Potential of Soils*
Low
Moderate
Í 0 ¼ ½
Miles
Sources: NRCS Web Soil Survey, San Joaquin County,
California (CA077), San Joaquin County
Map date: January 17, 2018.

City Limits (ac) Sphere of Influence (ac)
Low 8,329.7 605
Moderate 4,512.1 127.1
Totals 12,841.8 732.1
*Shrink-Swell Potential is determined by linear extensibility. Linear extensibility refers to the change in length of an unconfined clod as moisture content is decreased from a moist to a dry state. Soils are considered to have low potential when the linear extensibility is less than 3%, moderate if 3-6%, high if 6-9%, and very high if greater than 9%.

3.6 GEOLOGY AND SOILS

3.6-40 Draft Environmental Impact Report – Lathrop General Plan Update This page left intentionally blank
GREENHOUSE GASES, CLIMATE CHANGE, AND ENERGY 3.7
Draft Environmental Impact Report – Lathrop General Plan Update 3.7-1 This section discusses regional greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, climate change, and energy conservation impacts that could result from implementation of the General Plan. This section provides a background discussion of greenhouse gases and climate change linkages and effects of global climate change. This section also provides background discussion on energy use in Lathrop.

This section is organized with an existing setting, regulatory setting, approach/methodology, and impact analysis.

The analysis and discussion of the GHG, climate change, and energy conservation impacts in this section focuses on the General Plan’s consistency with local, regional, statewide, and federal climate change and energy conservation planning efforts and discusses the context of these planning efforts as they relate to the proposed Project. Disclosures of the estimated energy usage and greenhouse gas emissions due to implementation of the General Plan are provided.

Emissions of GHGs have the potential to adversely affect the environment in a cumulative context.

The emissions from a single project will not cause global climate change; however, GHG emissions from multiple projects throughout the world could result in a cumulative impact with respect to global climate change. Therefore, the analysis of GHGs and climate change presented in this section is presented in terms of the proposed Project’s contribution to cumulative impacts and potential to result in cumulatively considerable impacts related to GHGs and climate change.

There was one comment letter (San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District – November 2, 2021) related to this environmental topic during the NOP comment period. All comments received during the 30‐day NOP comment period are included within Appendix A.

3.7.1 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING

GREENHOUSE GASES AND CLIMATE CHANGE LINKAGES
Various gases in the Earth’s atmosphere, classified as atmospheric GHGs, play a critical role in determining the Earth’s surface temperature. Solar radiation enters Earth’s atmosphere from space, and a portion of the radiation is absorbed by the Earth’s surface. The Earth emits this radiation back toward space, but the properties of the radiation change from high‐frequency solar radiation to lower‐frequency infrared radiation.

Naturally occurring GHGs include water vapor (H2O), carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), and ozone (O3). Several classes of halogenated substances that contain fluorine, chlorine, or bromine are also GHGs, but they are, for the most part, solely a product of industrial activities. Although the direct GHGs CO2, CH4, and N2O occur naturally in the atmosphere, human activities have changed their atmospheric concentrations. From the pre‐industrial era (i.e., ending about 1750) to 2011, concentrations of these three GHGs have increased globally by 40, 150, and 20 percent, respectively (IPCC, 2013).

GHGs, which are transparent to solar radiation, are effective in absorbing infrared radiation. As a result, this radiation that otherwise would have escaped back into space is now retained, resulting in a warming of the atmosphere. This phenomenon is known as the greenhouse effect. Among the

3.7 GREENHOUSE GASES, CLIMATE CHANGE, AND ENERGY

3.7-2 Draft Environmental Impact Report – Lathrop General Plan Update prominent GHGs contributing to the greenhouse effect are carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), ozone (O3), water vapor, nitrous oxide (N2O), and chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs).

Emissions of GHGs contributing to global climate change are attributable in large part to human activities associated with the industrial/manufacturing, utility, transportation, residential, and agricultural sectors. In California, the transportation sector is the largest emitter of GHGs, followed by the industrial and electricity generation sectors (California Energy Commission, 2020).

As the name implies, global climate change is a global problem. GHGs are global pollutants, unlike criteria air pollutants and toxic air contaminants, which are pollutants of regional and local concern, respectively. California produced 440 million gross metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalents (MMTCO2e) in 2016 (California Air Resources Board, 2018a).

Carbon dioxide equivalents are a measurement used to account for the fact that different GHGs have different potential to retain infrared radiation in the atmosphere and contribute to the greenhouse effect. This potential, known as the global warming potential of a GHG, is also dependent on the lifetime, or persistence, of the gas molecule in the atmosphere. Expressing GHG emissions in carbon dioxide equivalents takes the contribution of all GHG emissions to the greenhouse effect and converts them to a single unit equivalent to the effect that would occur if only CO2were being emitted.

Consumption of fossil fuels in the transportation sector was the single largest source of California’s GHG emissions in 2017, accounting for 41% of total GHG emissions in the state. This category was followed by the industrial sector (24%), the electricity generation sector (including both in‐state and out of‐state sources) (15%), the agriculture sector (8%), the residential energy consumption sector (7%), and the commercial energy consumption sector (5%) (California Air Resources Board, 2020c).

EFFECTS OF GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE
The effects of increasing global temperature are far‐reaching and extremely difficult to quantify.

The scientific community continues to study the effects of global climate change. In general, increases in the ambient global temperature as a result of increased GHGs are anticipated to result in rising sea levels, which could threaten coastal areas through accelerated coastal erosion, threats to levees and inland water systems and disruption to coastal wetlands and habitat.

If the temperature of the ocean warms, it is anticipated that the winter snow season would be shortened. Snowpack in the Sierra Nevada provides both water supply (runoff) and storage (within the snowpack before melting), which is a major source of supply for the State. The snowpack portion of the supply could potentially decline by 50% to 75% by the end of the 21st century (National Resources Defense Council, 2014). This phenomenon could lead to significant challenges securing an adequate water supply for a growing state population. Further, the increased ocean temperature could result in increased moisture flux into the State; however, since this would likely increasingly come in the form of rain rather than snow in the high elevations, increased precipitation could lead to increased potential and severity of flood events, placing more pressure on California’s levee/flood control system.

GREENHOUSE GASES, CLIMATE CHANGE, AND ENERGY 3.7
Draft Environmental Impact Report – Lathrop General Plan Update 3.7-3 Sea level has risen approximately seven inches during the last century and it is predicted to rise an additional 22 to 35 inches by 2100, depending on the future GHG emissions levels (California Environmental Protection Agency, 2010). If this occurs, resultant effects could include increased coastal flooding, saltwater intrusion and disruption of wetlands. As the existing climate throughout California changes over time, mass migration of species, or failure of species to migrate in time to adapt to the perturbations in climate, could also result. Under the emissions scenarios of the Climate Scenarios report (California Environmental Protection Agency, 2010), the impacts of global warming in California are anticipated to include, but are not limited to, the following.

Public Health
Higher temperatures are expected to increase the frequency, duration, and intensity of conditions conducive to air pollution formation. For example, days with weather conducive to ozone formation are projected to increase from 25% to 35% under the lower warming range and to 75% to 85% under the medium warming range. In addition, if global background ozone levels increase as predicted in some scenarios, it may become impossible to meet local air quality standards. Air quality could be further compromised by increases in wildfires, which emit fine particulate matter that can travel long distances depending on wind conditions. The Climate Scenarios report indicates that large wildfires could become up to 55% more frequent if GHG emissions are not significantly reduced.

In addition, under the higher warming scenario, there could be up to 100 more days per year with temperatures above 90o
F in Los Angeles and 95oF in Sacramento by 2100. This is a large increase over historical patterns and approximately twice the increase projected if temperatures remain within or below the lower warming range. Rising temperatures will increase the risk of death from dehydration, heat stroke/exhaustion, heart attack, stroke, and respiratory distress caused by extreme heat.

Water Resources
A vast network of man‐made reservoirs and aqueducts capture and transport water throughout the State from northern California rivers and the Colorado River. The current distribution system relies on Sierra Nevada snow pack to supply water during the dry spring and summer months.

Rising temperatures, potentially compounded by decreases in precipitation, could severely reduce spring snow pack, increasing the risk of summer water shortages.

The State’s water supplies are also at risk from rising sea levels. An influx of saltwater would degrade California’s estuaries, wetlands, and groundwater aquifers. Saltwater intrusion caused by rising sea levels is a major threat to the quality and reliability of water within the southern edge of the Sacramento/San Joaquin River Delta, a major State fresh water supply. Global warming is also projected to seriously affect agricultural areas, with California farmers projected to lose as much as 25% of the water supply they need; decrease the potential for hydropower production within the State (although the effects on hydropower are uncertain); and seriously harm winter tourism.

Under the lower warming range, the snow dependent winter recreational season at lower elevations could be reduced by as much as one month. If temperatures reach the higher warming

3.7 GREENHOUSE GASES, CLIMATE CHANGE, AND ENERGY

3.7-4 Draft Environmental Impact Report – Lathrop General Plan Update range and precipitation declines, there might be many years with insufficient snow for skiing, snowboarding, and other snow dependent recreational activities.

If GHG emissions continue unabated, more precipitation will fall as rain instead of snow, and the snow that does fall will melt earlier, reducing the Sierra Nevada spring snow pack by as much as 70% to 90%. Under the lower warming scenario, snow pack losses are expected to be only half as large as those expected if temperatures were to rise to the higher warming range. How much snow pack will be lost depends in part on future precipitation patterns, the projections for which remain uncertain. However, even under the wetter climate projections, the loss of snow pack would pose challenges to water managers, hamper hydropower generation, and nearly eliminate all skiing and other snow‐related recreational activities.

Agriculture
Increased GHG emissions are expected to cause widespread changes to the agriculture industry reducing the quantity and quality of agricultural products statewide. Although higher carbon dioxide levels can stimulate plant production and increase plant water‐use efficiency, California’s farmers will face greater water demand for crops and a less reliable water supply as temperatures rise.

Plant growth tends to be slow at low temperatures, increasing with rising temperatures up to a threshold. However, faster growth can result in less‐than‐optimal development for many crops, so rising temperatures are likely to worsen the quantity and quality of yield for a number of California’s agricultural products. Products likely to be most affected include wine grapes, fruits and nuts, and milk.

Crop growth and development will be affected, as will the intensity and frequency of pest and disease outbreaks. Rising temperatures will likely aggravate ozone pollution, which makes plants more susceptible to disease and pests and interferes with plant growth.

In addition, continued global warming will likely shift the ranges of existing invasive plants and weeds and alter competition patterns with native plants. Range expansion is expected in many species while range contractions are less likely in rapidly evolving species with significant populations already established. Should range contractions occur, it is likely that new or different weed species will fill the emerging gaps. Continued global warming is also likely to alter the abundance and types of many pests, lengthen pests’ breeding season, and increase pathogen growth rates.

Forests and Landscapes
Global warming is expected to alter the distribution and character of natural vegetation thereby resulting in a possible increased risk of large of wildfires. If temperatures rise into the medium warming range, the risk of large wildfires in California could increase by as much as 55%, which is almost twice the increase expected if temperatures stay in the lower warming range. However, since wildfire risk is determined by a combination of factors, including precipitation, winds, temperature, and landscape and vegetation conditions, future risks will not be uniform throughout GREENHOUSE GASES, CLIMATE CHANGE, AND ENERGY 3.7
Draft Environmental Impact Report – Lathrop General Plan Update 3.7-5 the State. For example, if precipitation increases as temperatures rise, wildfires in southern California are expected to increase by approximately 30% toward the end of the century. In contrast, precipitation decreases could increase wildfires in northern California by up to 90%.

Moreover, continued global warming will alter natural ecosystems and biological diversity within the State. For example, alpine and sub‐alpine ecosystems are expected to decline by as much as 60% to 80% by the end of the century as a result of increasing temperatures. The productivity of the State’s forests is also expected to decrease as a result of global warming.

Rising Sea Levels
Rising sea levels, more intense coastal storms, and warmer water temperatures will increasingly threaten the State’s coastal regions. Under the higher warming scenario, sea level is anticipated to rise 22 to 35 inches by 2100. Elevations of this magnitude would inundate coastal areas with saltwater, accelerate coastal erosion, threaten vital levees and inland water systems, and disrupt wetlands and natural habitats.

ENERGY CONSUMPTION
Energy in California is consumed from a wide variety of sources. Fossil fuels (including gasoline and diesel fuel, natural gas, and energy used to generate electricity) are most widely used form of energy in the State. However, renewable sources of energy (such as solar and wind) are growing in proportion to California’s overall energy mix. A large driver of renewable sources of energy in California is the State’s current Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS), which requires the State to derive at least 33% of electricity generated from renewable resources by 2020, 60 percent by 2030, and to achieve zero‐carbon emissions by 2045 (as passed in September 2018, under AB 100).

Overall, in 2018, California’s per capita energy usage was ranked fourth‐lowest in the nation (U.S.

EIA, 2020b). California’s per capita rate of energy usage has remained relatively constant since the 1970’s. Many State regulations since the 1970’s, including new building energy efficiency standards, vehicle fleet efficiency measures, as well as growing public awareness, have helped to keep per capita energy usage in the State in check.

The consumption of non‐renewable energy (i.e. fossil fuels) associated with the operation of passenger, public transit, and commercial vehicles, results in GHG emissions that contribute to global climate change. Alternative fuels such as natural gas, ethanol, and electricity (unless derived from solar, wind, nuclear, or other energy sources that do not produce carbon emissions) also result in GHG emissions and contribute to global climate change.

Electricity Consumption
California relies on a regional power system composed of a diverse mix of natural gas, renewable, hydroelectric, and nuclear generation resources. In 2016, more than one‐fourth of the electricity supply comes from facilities outside of the State. Much of the power delivered to California from states in the Pacific Northwest was generated by wind. States in the Southwest delivered power generated at coal‐fired power plants, at natural gas‐fired power plants, and from nuclear

3.7 GREENHOUSE GASES, CLIMATE CHANGE, AND ENERGY

3.7-6 Draft Environmental Impact Report – Lathrop General Plan Update generating stations (U.S. EIA, 2020a). In 2016, approximately 50 percent of California’s utility‐scale net electricity generation was fueled by natural gas. In addition, about 25 percent of the State’s utility‐scale net electricity generation came from non‐hydroelectric renewable technologies, such as solar, wind, geothermal, and biomass. Another 14 percent of the State’s utility‐scale net electricity generation came from hydroelectric generation, and nuclear energy powered an additional 11 percent. The amount of electricity generated from coal negligible (approximately 0.2 percent) (U.S. EIA, 2020a). The percentage of renewable resources as a proportion of California’s overall energy portfolio is increasing over time, as directed the State’s Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS).

According to the California Energy Commission (CEC), total statewide electricity consumption increased from 166,979 gigawatt‐hours (GWh) in 1980 to 228,038 GWh in 1990, which is an estimated annual growth rate of 3.66 percent. The statewide electricity consumption in 1997 was 246,225 GWh, reflecting an annual growth rate of 1.14 percent between 1990 and 1997 (U.S. EIA, 2020b). Statewide consumption was 274,985 GWh in 2010, an annual growth rate of 0.9 percent between 1997 and 2010. In 2019, electricity consumption in San Joaquin County was 5,583 GWh (California Energy Commission, 2020).

Oil
The primary energy source for the United States is oil, which is refined to produce fuels like gasoline, diesel, and jet fuel. Oil is a finite, nonrenewable energy source. World consumption of petroleum products has grown steadily in the last several decades. As of 2016, world consumption of oil had reached 96 million barrels per day. The United States, with approximately five percent of the world’s population, accounts for approximately 19 percent of world oil consumption, or approximately 18.6 million barrels per day (U.S. EIA, 2020c). The transportation sector relies heavily on oil. In California, petroleum‐based fuels currently provide approximately 96 percent of the State’s transportation energy needs.

Natural Gas/Propane
The State produces approximately 12 percent of its natural gas, while obtaining 22 percent from Canada and 65 percent from the Rockies and the Southwest (California Energy Commission, 2012).

In 2006, California produced 325.6 billion cubic feet of natural gas (California Energy Commission, 2012). PG&E is the largest publicly‐owned utility in California and provides natural gas for residential, industrial, and agency consumers within the San Joaquin County area, including the City of Lathrop. In 2018, natural gas consumption in San Joaquin County was 259 million therms (California Energy Commission, 2020).

GREENHOUSE GASES, CLIMATE CHANGE, AND ENERGY 3.7
Draft Environmental Impact Report – Lathrop General Plan Update 3.7-7

3.7.2 REGULATORY SETTING

FEDERAL
Clean Air Act
The Federal Clean Air Act (FCAA) was first signed into law in 1970. In 1977, and again in 1990, the law was substantially amended. The FCAA is the foundation for a national air pollution control effort, and it is composed of the following basic elements: NAAQS for criteria air pollutants, hazardous air pollutant standards, State attainment plans, motor National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) vehicle emissions standards, stationary source emissions standards and permits, acid rain control measures, stratospheric ozone protection, and enforcement provisions.

The EPA is responsible for administering the FCAA. The FCAA requires the EPA to set NAAQS for several problem air pollutants based on human health and welfare criteria. Two types of NAAQS were established: primary standards, which protect public health, and secondary standards, which protect the public welfare from non‐health‐related adverse effects such as visibility reduction.

On April 2, 2007, in the court case of Massachusetts et al. vs. the USEPA et al. (549 U.S. 497), the U.S. Supreme Court found that GHGs are air pollutants covered by the federal Clean Air Act (42 USC Sections 7401‐7671q). The Supreme Court held that the Administrator of the United States Environmental Protection Agency must determine whether or not emissions of GHGs from new motor vehicles cause or contribute to air pollution, which may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare, or whether the science is too uncertain to make a reasoned decision. In making these decisions, the Administrator is required to follow the language of Section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act. On December 7, 2009, the Administrator signed two distinct findings regarding GHGs under Section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act:
• Endangerment Finding: The Administrator finds that the current and projected concentrations of the six key well‐mixed GHGs (carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons, and sulfur hexafluoride) in the atmosphere threaten the public health and welfare of current and future generations. • Cause or Contribute Finding: The Administrator finds that the combined emissions of these well‐mixed GHGs from new motor vehicles and new motor vehicle engines contribute to the GHG pollution, which threatens public health and welfare.

These findings do not themselves impose any requirements on industry or other entities. However, this action was a prerequisite for implementing GHG emission standards for vehicles. In collaboration with the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) and CARB, the USEPA developed emission standards for light‐duty vehicles (2012‐2025 model years), and heavy‐ duty vehicles (2014‐2027 model years).

3.7 GREENHOUSE GASES, CLIMATE CHANGE, AND ENERGY

3.7-8 Draft Environmental Impact Report – Lathrop General Plan Update Energy Policy and Conservation Act
The Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975 sought to ensure that all vehicles sold in the U.S. would meet certain fuel economy goals. Through this Act, Congress established the first fuel economy standards for on‐road motor vehicles in the United States. Pursuant to the Act, the National Highway Traffic and Safety Administration, which is part of the U.S. Department of Transportation (USDOT), is responsible for establishing additional vehicle standards and for revising existing standards.

Since 1990, the fuel economy standard for new passenger cars has been 27.5 mpg. Since 1996, the fuel economy standard for new light trucks (gross vehicle weight of 8,500 pounds or less) has been

20.7 mpg. Heavy‐duty vehicles (i.e., vehicles and trucks over 8,500 pounds gross vehicle weight) are not currently subject to fuel economy standards. Compliance with federal fuel economy standards is determined on the basis of each manufacturer’s average fuel economy for the portion of its vehicles produced for sale in the U.S. The Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) program, which is administered by the EPA, was created to determine vehicle manufacturers’ compliance with the fuel economy standards. The EPA calculates a CAFE value for each manufacturer based on city and highway fuel economy test results and vehicle sales. Based on the information generated under the CAFE program, the USDOT is authorized to assess penalties for noncompliance.

Energy Policy Act of 1992 (EPAct)
The Energy Policy Act of 1992 (EPAct) was passed to reduce the country’s dependence on foreign petroleum and improve air quality. EPAct includes several parts intended to build an inventory of alternative fuel vehicles (AFVs) in large, centrally fueled fleets in metropolitan areas. EPAct requires certain federal, State, and local government and private fleets to purchase a percentage of light duty AFVs capable of running on alternative fuels each year. In addition, financial incentives are included in EPAct. Federal tax deductions will be allowed for businesses and individuals to cover the incremental cost of AFVs. States are also required by the act to consider a variety of incentive programs to help promote AFVs.

Energy Policy Act of 2005
The Energy Policy Act of 2005 was signed into law on August 8, 2005. Generally, the act provides for renewed and expanded tax credits for electricity generated by qualified energy sources, such as landfill gas; provides bond financing, tax incentives, grants, and loan guarantees for a clean renewable energy and rural community electrification; and establishes a federal purchase requirement for renewable energy.

Federal Climate Change Policy
According to the EPA, “the United States government has established a comprehensive policy to address climate change” that includes slowing the growth of emissions; strengthening science, technology, and institutions; and enhancing international cooperation. To implement this policy, “the Federal government is using voluntary and incentive‐based programs to reduce emissions and has established programs to promote climate technology and science.” The EPA administers multiple programs that encourage voluntary GHG reductions, including “ENERGY STAR”, “Climate GREENHOUSE GASES, CLIMATE CHANGE, AND ENERGY 3.7
Draft Environmental Impact Report – Lathrop General Plan Update 3.7-9 Leaders”, and Methane Voluntary Programs. However, as of this writing, there are no adopted federal plans, policies, regulations, or laws directly regulating GHG emissions.

Mandatory Greenhouse Gas Reporting Rule
In 2009, EPA issued a final rule for mandatory reporting of GHGs from large GHG emissions sources in the United States. In general, this national reporting requirement will provide EPA with accurate and timely GHG emissions data from facilities that emit 25,000 metric tons or more of CO2 per year. This publicly available data will allow the reporters to track their own emissions, compare them to similar facilities, and aid in identifying cost effective opportunities to reduce emissions in the future. Reporting is at the facility level, except that certain suppliers of fossil fuels and industrial GHGs along with vehicle and engine manufacturers will report at the corporate level. An estimated 85% of the total U.S. GHG emissions, from approximately 10,000 facilities, are covered by this final rule.

STATE
The California Legislature has enacted a series of statutes in recent years addressing the need to reduce GHG emissions all across the State. These statutes can be categorized into four broad categories: (i) statutes setting numerical statewide targets for GHG reductions, and authorizing CARB to enact regulations to achieve such targets; (ii) statutes setting separate targets for increasing the use of renewable energy for the generation of electricity throughout the State; (iii) statutes addressing the carbon intensity of vehicle fuels, which prompted the adoption of regulations by CARB; and (iv) statutes intended to facilitate land use planning consistent with statewide climate objectives. The discussion below will address each of these key sets of statutes, as well as CARB “Scoping Plans” intended to achieve GHG reductions under the first set of statutes and recent building code requirements intended to reduce energy consumption.

Statutes Setting Statewide GHG Reduction Targets
ASSEMBLY BILL 32 (GLOBAL WARMING SOLUTIONS ACT)
In 2006, the California State Legislature enacted the California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 (Health & Safety Code Section 38500 et seq.), also known as Assembly Bill (AB) 32 (Stats. 2006, ch. 488). AB 32 establishes regulatory, reporting, and market mechanisms to achieve quantifiable reductions in GHG emissions and a cap on statewide GHG emissions. AB 32 requires that statewide GHG emissions be reduced to 1990 levels by 2020. This reduction will be accomplished through an enforceable statewide cap on GHG emissions that was phased in starting in 2012. To effectively implement the cap, AB 32 directs the California Air Resources Board (CARB) to develop and implement regulations to reduce statewide GHG emissions from stationary sources.

SENATE BILL 32
SB 32 (Stats. 2016, ch. 249) added Section 38566 to the Health and Safety Code. It provides that “[i]n adopting rules and regulations to achieve the maximum technologically feasible and cost‐ effective greenhouse gas emissions reductions authorized by [Division 25.5 of the Health and Safety Code], [CARB] shall ensure that statewide greenhouse gas emissions are reduced to at least

3.7 GREENHOUSE GASES, CLIMATE CHANGE, AND ENERGY

3.7-10 Draft Environmental Impact Report – Lathrop General Plan Update 40 percent below the statewide greenhouse gas emissions limit no later than December 31, 2030.” In other words, SB 32 requires California, by 2030, to reduce its statewide GHG emissions so that they are 40 percent below those that occurred in 1990.

Between AB 32 (2006) and SB 32 (2016), the Legislature has codified some of the ambitious GHG reduction targets included within certain high‐profile Executive Orders issued by the last two Governors. The 2020 statewide GHG reduction target in AB 32 was consistent with the second of three statewide emissions reduction targets set forth in former Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger’s 2005 Executive Order known as S‐3‐05, which is expressly mentioned in AB 32. (See Health & Safety Code Section 38501, subd. (i).) That Executive Branch document included the following GHG emission reduction targets: by 2010, reduce GHG emissions to 2000 levels; by 2020, reduce GHG emissions to 1990 levels; by 2050, reduce GHG emissions to 80 percent below 1990 levels. To meet the targets, the Governor directed several State agencies to cooperate in the development of a climate action plan. The Secretary of Cal‐EPA leads the Climate Action Team, whose goal is to implement global warming emission reduction programs identified in the Climate Action Plan and to report on the progress made toward meeting the emission reduction targets established in the executive order.

In 2015, Governor Brown issued Executive Order, B‐30‐15, which created a “new interim statewide GHG emission reduction target to reduce GHG emissions to 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030 is established in order to ensure California meets its target of reducing GHG emissions to 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050.” SB 32 codified this target.

In 2018, the Governor issued Executive Order B‐55‐18, which established a statewide goal to “achieve carbon neutrality as soon as possible, and no later than 2045, and maintain and achieve negative emissions thereafter.” The order directs the CARB to work with other State agencies to identify and recommend measures to achieve those goals.

Notably, the Legislature has not yet set a 2045 or 2050 target in the manner done for 2020 and 2030 through AB 32 and SB 32, though references to a 2050 target can be found in statutes outside the Health and Safety Code. Senate Bill 350 (SB 350) (Stats. 2015, ch. 547) added to the Public Utilities Code language that essentially puts into statute the 2050 GHG reduction target already identified in Executive Order S‐3‐05, albeit in the limited context of new state policies (i) increasing the overall share of electricity that must be produced through renewable energy sources and (ii) directing certain State agencies to begin planning for the widespread electrification of the California vehicle fleet. Section 740.12(a)(1)(D) of the Public Utilities Code now states that “[t]he Legislature finds and declares [that] … [r]educing emissions of [GHGs] to 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030 and to 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050 will require widespread transportation electrification.” Furthermore, Section 740.12(b) now states that the California Public Utilities Commission (PUC), in consultation with CARB and the California Energy Commission (CEC), must “direct electrical corporations to file applications for programs and investments to accelerate widespread transportation electrification to reduce dependence on petroleum, meet air quality standards, … and reduce emissions of greenhouse gases to 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030 and to 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050.”
GREENHOUSE GASES, CLIMATE CHANGE, AND ENERGY 3.7
Draft Environmental Impact Report – Lathrop General Plan Update 3.7-11 Statute Setting Target for the Use of Renewable Energy for the Generation of Electricity

CALIFORNIA RENEWABLES PORTFOLIO STANDARD
In 2002, the Legislature enacted Senate Bill 1078 (Stats. 2002, ch. 516), which established the Renewables Portfolio Standard program, requiring retail sellers of electricity, including electrical corporations, community choice aggregators, and electric service providers, to purchase a specified minimum percentage of electricity generated by eligible renewable energy resources such as wind, solar, geothermal, small hydroelectric, biomass, anaerobic digestion, and landfill gas. (See Pub. Utilities Code, Section 399.11 et seq. [subsequently amended].) The legislation set a target by which 20 percent of the State’s electricity would be generated by renewable sources. (Pub. Utility Code, Section 399.11, subd. (a) [subsequently amended].) As described in the Legislative Counsel’s Digest, Senate Bill 1078 required “[e]ach electrical corporation … to increase its total procurement of eligible renewable energy resources by at least one percent per year so that 20 percent of its retail sales are procured from eligible renewable energy resources. If an electrical corporation fails to procure sufficient eligible renewable energy resources in a given year to meet an annual target, the electrical corporation would be required to procure additional eligible renewable resources in subsequent years to compensate for the shortfall, if funds are made available as described. An electrical corporation with at least 20 percent of retail sales procured from eligible renewable energy resources in any year would not be required to increase its procurement in the following year.”
In 2006, the Legislature enacted Senate Bill 107 (Stats. 2006, ch. 464), which modified the Renewables Portfolio Standard to require that at least 20 percent of electricity retail sales be served by renewable energy resources by year 2010. (Pub. Utility Code, Section 399.11, subd (a) [subsequently amended].)
Senate Bill X1‐2 (Stats. 2011, 1st Ex. Sess., ch. 1) set even more aggressive statutory targets for renewable electricity, culminating in the requirement that 33 percent of the State’s electricity come from renewables by 2020. This legislation applies to all electricity retailers in the State, including publicly owned utilities, investor‐owned utilities, electricity service providers, and community choice aggregators. All of these entities must meet renewable energy goals of 20 percent of retail sales from renewables by the end of 2013, 25 percent by the end of 2016, and 33 percent by the end of 2020. (See Pub. Utility Code, Section 399.11 et seq. [subsequently amended].)
SB 350, discussed above, increases the Renewable Portfolio Standard to require 50 percent of electricity generated to be from renewables by 2030. (Pub. Utility Code, Section 399.11, subd (a); see also Section 399.30, subd. (c)(2).) Of equal significance, Senate Bill 350 also embodies a policy encouraging a substantial increase in the use of electric vehicles. As noted earlier, Section 740.12(b) of the Public Utilities Code now states that the PUC, in consultation with CARB and the CEC, must “direct electrical corporations to file applications for programs and investments to accelerate widespread transportation electrification to reduce dependence on petroleum, meet air quality standards, … and reduce emissions of greenhouse gases to 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030 and to 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050.”

3.7 GREENHOUSE GASES, CLIMATE CHANGE, AND ENERGY

3.7-12 Draft Environmental Impact Report – Lathrop General Plan Update Executive Order, B‐16‐12, issued in 2012, embodied a similar vision of a future in which zero‐ emission vehicles (ZEV) will play a big part in helping the State meet its GHG reduction targets.

Executive Order B‐16‐12 directed State government to accelerate the market for in California through fleet replacement and electric vehicle infrastructure. The Executive Order set the following targets:
 By 2015, all major cities in California will have adequate infrastructure and be “ZEV ready”;  By 2020, the State will have established adequate infrastructure to support 1 million ZEVs in California;
 By 2025, there will be 1.5 million ZEVs on the road in California; and  By 2050, virtually all personal transportation in the State will be based on ZEVs, and GHG emissions from the transportation sector will be reduced by 80 percent below 1990 levels.

In 2018, Senate Bill 100 (Stats. 2018, ch. 312) revised the above‐described deadlines and targets so that the State will have to achieve a 50% renewable resources target by December 31, 2026 (instead of by 2030) and achieve a 60% target by December 31, 2030. The legislation also establishes a State policy that eligible renewable energy resources and zero‐carbon resources supply 100% of retail sales of electricity to California end‐use customers and 100% of electricity procured to serve all State agencies by December 31, 2045.

In summary, California has set a statutory goal of requiring that, by 2030, 60 percent of the electricity generated in California should be from renewable sources, with increased generation capacity sufficient to allow the mass conversion of the statewide vehicle fleet from petroleum‐ fueled vehicles to electrical vehicles and/or other ZEVs. By 2045, all electricity must come from renewable resources and other carbon‐free resources. Former Governor Brown had an even more ambitious goal for the State of achieving carbon neutrality as soon as possible and by no later than 2045. The Legislature is thus looking to California drivers to buy electric cars, powered by green energy, to help the State meet its aggressive statutory goal, created by SB 32, of reducing statewide GHG emissions by 2030 to 40 percent below 1990 levels. Another key prong to this strategy is to make petroleum‐based fuels less carbon‐intensive. A number of statutes in recent years have addressed that strategy. These are discussed immediately below.

Statutes and CARB Regulations Addressing the Carbon Intensity of Petroleum‐based Transportation Fuels
ASSEMBLY BILL 1493, PAVLEY CLEAN CARS STANDARDS
In 2002, the Legislature enacted Assembly Bill 1493 (“Pavley Bill”) (Stats. 2002, ch. 200), which directed the CARB to develop and adopt regulations that achieve the maximum feasible reduction of GHGs emitted by passenger vehicles and light‐duty trucks beginning with model year 2009. (See Health and Safety Code Section 43018.5.) In September 2004, pursuant to this directive, CARB approved regulations to reduce GHG emissions from new motor vehicles beginning with the 2009 model year. These regulations created what are commonly known as the “Pavley standards.” In September 2009, CARB adopted amendments to the Pavley standards to reduce GHG emissions from new motor vehicles through the 2016 model year. These regulations created what are GREENHOUSE GASES, CLIMATE CHANGE, AND ENERGY 3.7
Draft Environmental Impact Report – Lathrop General Plan Update 3.7-13 commonly known as the “Pavley II standards.” (See California Code of Regulations, Title 13, Sections 1900, 1961, and 1961.1 et seq.)
In 2012, CARB adopted an Advanced Clean Cars (ACC) program aimed at reducing both smog‐ causing pollutants and GHG emissions for vehicles model years 2017‐2025. This historic program, developed in coordination with the USEPA and NHTSA, combined the control of smog‐causing (criteria) pollutants and GHG emissions into a single coordinated set of requirements for model years 2015 through 2025. The regulations focus on substantially increasing the number of plug‐in hybrid cars and zero‐emission vehicles in the vehicle fleet and on making fuels such as electricity and hydrogen readily available for these vehicle technologies. The components of the ACC program are the Low‐Emission Vehicle (LEV) regulations that reduce criteria pollutants and GHG emissions from light‐ and medium‐duty vehicles, and the Zero‐Emission Vehicle (ZEV) regulation, which requires manufacturers to produce an increasing number of pure ZEVs (meaning battery electric and fuel cell electric vehicles), with provisions to also produce plug‐in hybrid electric vehicles in the 2018 through 2025 model years. (See California Code of Regulations, Title 13, Sections 1900, 1961, 1961.1, 1961.2, 1961.3, 1965, 1968.2, 1968.5, 1976, 1978, 2037, 2038, 2062, 2112, 2139, 2140, 2145, 2147, 2235, and 2317 et seq.)
It is expected that the Pavley regulations will reduce GHG emissions from California passenger vehicles by about 34 percent below 2016 levels by 2025, all while improving fuel efficiency and reducing motorists’ costs.

Cap and Trade Program
In 2011, CARB adopted the final cap‐and‐trade program for California (See California Code of Regulations, Title 17, Sections 95801‐96022.) The California cap‐and‐trade program creates a market‐based system with an overall emissions limit for affected sectors. The program is intended to regulate more than 85 percent of California’s emissions and staggers compliance requirements according to the following schedule: (1) electricity generation and large industrial sources (2012); (2) fuel combustion and transportation (2015).

According to 2012 CARB guidance, “[t]he Cap‐and‐Trade Program will reduce GHG emissions from major sources (covered entities) by setting a firm cap on statewide GHG emissions while employing market mechanisms to cost‐effectively achieve the emission‐reduction goals. The statewide cap for GHG emissions from major sources, which is measured in metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent (MTCO2e), will commence in 2013 and decline over time, achieving GHG emission reductions throughout the program’s duration. Each covered entity will be required to surrender one permit to emit (the majority of which will be allowances, entities are also allowed to use a limited number of CARB offset credits) for each ton of GHG emissions they emit. Some covered entities will be allocated some allowances and will be able to buy additional allowances at auction, purchase allowances from others, or purchase offset credits.” The guidance goes on to say that “[s]tarting in 2012, major GHG‐emitting sources, such as electricity generation (including imports), and large stationary sources (e.g., refineries, cement production facilities, oil and gas production facilities, glass manufacturing facilities, and food

3.7 GREENHOUSE GASES, CLIMATE CHANGE, AND ENERGY

3.7-14 Draft Environmental Impact Report – Lathrop General Plan Update processing plants) that emit more than 25,000 MTCO2e per year will have to comply with the Cap‐ and‐Trade Program. The program expands in 2015 to include fuel distributors (natural gas and propane fuel providers and transportation fuel providers) to address emissions from transportation fuels, and from combustion of other fossil fuels not directly covered at large sources in the program’s initial phase.” In early April 2017, the Third District Court of Appeal upheld the lawfulness of the cap‐and‐trade program as a “fee” rather than a “tax.” (See California Chamber of Commerce et al. v. State Air Resources Board et al. (2017) 10 Cal.App.5th 604.) AB 398 (Stats. 2017, ch. 135) extended the life of the existing Cap and Trade Program through December 2030.

Statute Intended to Facilitate Land Use Planning Consistent with Statewide Climate Objectives
CALIFORNIA SENATE BILL 375 (SUSTAINABLE COMMUNITIES STRATEGY) This 2008 legislation built on AB 32 by setting forth a mechanism for coordinating land use and transportation on a regional level for the purpose of reducing GHGs. The focus is to reduce miles traveled by passenger vehicles and light trucks. CARB is required to set GHG reduction targets for each metropolitan region for 2020 and 2035. Each of California’s metropolitan planning organizations then prepares a sustainable communities strategy that demonstrates how the region will meet its GHG reduction target through integrated land use, housing, and transportation planning. Once adopted by the metropolitan planning organizations, the sustainable communities strategy is to be incorporated into that region’s federally enforceable regional transportation plan.

If a metropolitan planning organization is unable to meet the targets through the sustainable communities strategy, then an alternative planning strategy must be developed which demonstrates how targets could be achieved, even if meeting the targets is deemed to be infeasible.

Climate Change Scoping Plans
AB 32 SCOPING PLAN
In 2008, CARB adopted the Climate Change Scoping Plan, which contains the main strategies California will implement to achieve reduction of approximately 118 million metric tons (MMT) CO2e, or approximately 22 percent from the State’s projected 2020 emission level of 545 MMT of CO2e under a business‐as‐usual scenario This is a reduction of 47 MMT CO2e, or almost 10 percent, from 2008 emissions. CARB’s original 2020 projection was 596 MMT CO2e, but this revised 2020 projection takes into account the economic downturn that occurred in 2008. The Scoping Plan also includes CARB recommended GHG reductions for each emissions sector of the State GHG inventory. CARB estimates the largest reductions in GHG emissions would be by implementing the following measures and standards:
 improved emissions standards for light‐duty vehicles (26.1 MMT CO2e);  the Low Carbon Fuel Standard (15.0 MMT CO2e);
 energy efficiency measures in buildings and appliances (11.9 MMT CO2e); and  renewable portfolio and electricity standards for electricity production (23.4 MMT CO2e).

GREENHOUSE GASES, CLIMATE CHANGE, AND ENERGY 3.7
Draft Environmental Impact Report – Lathrop General Plan Update 3.7-15 In 2011, CARB adopted a cap‐and‐trade regulation. The cap‐and‐trade program covers major sources of GHG emissions in the State such as refineries, power plants, industrial facilities, and transportation fuels. The cap‐and‐trade program includes an enforceable emissions cap that will decline over time. The State distributes allowances, which are tradable permits, equal to the emissions allowed under the cap. Sources under the cap are required to surrender allowances and offsets equal to their emissions at the end of each compliance period. Enforceable compliance obligations started in 2013. The program applies to facilities that comprise 85 percent of the State’s GHG emissions.

With regard to land use planning, the Scoping Plan expects that reductions of approximately 3.0 MMT CO2e will be achieved through implementation of Senate Bill (SB) 375, which is discussed further below.
2014 SCOPING PLAN UPDATE
CARB revised and reapproved the Scoping Plan, and prepared the First Update to the 2008 Scoping Plan in 2014 (2014 Scoping Plan). The 2014 Scoping Plan contains the main strategies California will implement to achieve a reduction of 80 MMT of CO2e emissions, or approximately 16 percent, from the State’s projected 2020 emission level of 507 MMT of CO2e under the business‐as‐usual scenario defined in the 2014 Scoping Plan. The 2014 Scoping Plan also includes a breakdown of the amount of GHG reductions CARB recommends for each emissions sector of the State’s GHG inventory. Several strategies to reduce GHG emissions are included: the Low Carbon Fuel Standard, the Pavley Rule, the ACC program, the Renewable Portfolio Standard, and the Sustainable Communities Strategy.
2017 SB 32 SCOPING PLAN
With the passage of SB 32, the Legislature also passed companion legislation AB 197, which provides additional direction for developing the scoping plan. In response, CARB adopted an updated Scoping Plan in December 2017. The document reflects the 2030 target of reducing statewide GHG emissions by 40 percent below 1990 levels codified by SB 32. The GHG reduction strategies in the plan that CARB will implement to meet the target include:
 SB 350 ‐ achieve 50 percent Renewables Portfolio Standard (RPS) by 2030 and doubling of energy efficiency savings by 2030;
 Low Carbon Fuel Standard ‐ increased stringency (reducing carbon intensity 18 percent by 2030, up from 10 percent in 2020);
 Mobile Source Strategy (Cleaner Technology and Fuels Scenario) ‐ maintaining existing GHG standards for light‐ and heavy‐duty vehicles, put 4.2 million zero‐emission vehicles on the roads, and increase zero‐emission buses, delivery and other trucks.  Sustainable Freight Action Plan ‐ improve freight system efficiency, maximize use of near‐ zero emission vehicles and equipment powered by renewable energy, and deploy over 100,000 zero‐emission trucks and equipment by 2030;
 Short‐Lived Climate Pollutant Reduction Strategy ‐ reduce emissions of methane and hydrofluorocarbons 40 percent below 2013 levels by 2030 and reduce emissions of black carbon 50 percent below 2013 levels by 2030;

3.7 GREENHOUSE GASES, CLIMATE CHANGE, AND ENERGY

3.7-16 Draft Environmental Impact Report – Lathrop General Plan Update  SB 375 Sustainable Communities Strategies ‐ increased stringency of 2035 targets;  Post‐2020 Cap‐and‐Trade Program ‐ declining caps, continued linkage with Québec, and linkage to Ontario, Canada;
 20 percent reduction in GHG emissions from the refinery sector; and  By 2018, develop an Integrated Natural and Working Lands Action Plan to secure California’s land base as a net carbon sink.

Building Code Requirements Intended to Reduce GHG Emissions

CALIFORNIA ENERGY CODE
The California Energy Code (California Code of Regulations, Title 24, Part 6), which is incorporated into the Building Energy Efficiency Standards, was first established in 1978 in response to a legislative mandate to reduce California's energy consumption. Although these standards were not originally intended to reduce GHG emissions, increased energy efficiency results in decreased GHG emissions because energy efficient buildings require less electricity and thus less consumption of fossil fuels, which emit GHGs. The standards are updated periodically to allow consideration and possible incorporation of new energy efficiency technologies and methods. The current 2019 Building Energy Efficiency Standards, commonly referred to as the “Title 24” standards, include changes from the previous standards that were adopted, to do the following:
 Provide California with an adequate, reasonably priced, and environmentally sound supply of energy.
 Respond to Assembly Bill 32, the Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006, which mandates that California must reduce its GHG emissions to 1990 levels by 2020.  Pursue California energy policy that energy efficiency is the resource of first choice for meeting California's energy needs.
 Act on the California Energy Commission’s Integrated Energy Policy Report, which finds that standards are the most cost effective means to achieve energy efficiency, states an expectation that the Building Energy Efficiency Standards will continue to be upgraded over time to reduce electricity and peak demand, and recognizes the role of the Building Energy Efficiency Standards in reducing energy related to meeting California's water needs and in reducing GHG emissions.
 Meet the West Coast Governors' Global Warming Initiative commitment to include aggressive energy efficiency measures into updates of State building codes.  Meet Executive Order S‐20‐04, the Green Building Initiative, to improve the energy efficiency of non‐residential buildings through aggressive standards.

The most recent Title 24 standards are the 2019 Title 24 standards. The 2019 Building Energy Efficiency Standards improve upon the 2016 Energy Standards for new construction of, and additions and alterations to, residential and nonresidential buildings. Buildings permitted on or after January 1, 2020, must comply with the 2019 Standards. The California Energy Commission updates the standards every three years.

Single‐family homes built with the 2019 standards will use about 7 percent less energy due to energy efficiency measures versus those built under the 2016 standards. Once rooftop solar GREENHOUSE GASES, CLIMATE CHANGE, AND ENERGY 3.7
Draft Environmental Impact Report – Lathrop General Plan Update 3.7-17 electricity generation is factored in, homes built under the 2019 standards will use about 53 percent less energy than those under the 2016 standards. This will reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 700,000 metric tons over three years, equivalent to taking 115,000 fossil fuel cars off the road. Nonresidential buildings will use about 30 percent less energy due mainly to lighting upgrades.

CALIFORNIA GREEN BUILDING STANDARDS CODE
The purpose of the California Green Building Standards Code (California Code of Regulations Title 24, Part 11) is to improve public health and safety and to promote the general welfare by enhancing the design and construction of buildings through the use of building concepts having a reduced negative impact or positive environmental impact and encouraging sustainable construction practices in the following categories: 1) planning and design; 2) energy efficiency; 3) water efficiency and conservation; 4) material conservation and resource efficiency; and 5) environmental quality. The California Green Building Standards, which became effective on January 1, 2011, instituted mandatory minimum environmental performance standards for all ground‐up new construction of commercial, low‐rise residential uses, and State‐owned buildings, as well as schools and hospitals. The mandatory standards require the following:
 20 percent mandatory reduction in indoor water use relative to baseline levels;  50 percent construction/demolition waste must be diverted from landfills;  Mandatory inspections of energy systems to ensure optimal working efficiency; and  Low‐pollutant emitting exterior and interior finish materials such as paints, carpets, vinyl flooring, and particle boards.

The voluntary standards require the following:
 Tier I: 15 percent improvement in energy requirements, stricter water conservation requirements for specific fixtures, 65 percent reduction in construction waste, 10 percent recycled content, 20 percent permeable paving, 20 percent cement reduction, and cool/solar reflective roof.
 Tier II: 30 percent improvement in energy requirements, stricter water conservation requirements for specific fixtures, 75 percent reduction in construction waste, 15 percent recycled content, 30 percent permeable paving, 30 percent cement reduction, and cool/solar reflective roof.

CEQA Direction
In 2008, the Office of Planning and Research (OPR), issued Guidance regarding assessing significance of GHGs in California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) documents; that Guidance stated that the adoption of appropriate significance thresholds was a matter of discretion for the lead agency. The OPR Guidance states:
“[T]he global nature of climate change warrants investigation of a statewide threshold of significance for GHG emissions. To this end, OPR has asked the CARB technical staff to recommend a method for setting thresholds which will

3.7 GREENHOUSE GASES, CLIMATE CHANGE, AND ENERGY

3.7-18 Draft Environmental Impact Report – Lathrop General Plan Update encourage consistency and uniformity in the CEQA analysis of GHG emissions throughout the state. Until such time as state guidance is available on thresholds of significance for GHG emissions, we recommend the following approach to your CEQA analysis.”
Determine Significance
 When assessing a project’s GHG emissions, lead agencies must describe the existing environmental conditions or setting, without the project, which normally constitutes the baseline physical conditions for determining whether a project’s impacts are significant.  As with any environmental impact, lead agencies must determine what constitutes a significant impact. In the absence of regulatory standards for GHG emissions or other scientific data to clearly define what constitutes a “significant impact,” individual lead agencies may undertake a project‐by‐project analysis, consistent with available guidance and current CEQA practice.
 The potential effects of a project may be individually limited but cumulatively considerable. Lead agencies should not dismiss a proposed project’s direct and/or indirect climate change impacts without careful consideration, supported by substantial evidence. Documentation of available information and analysis should be provided for any project that may significantly contribute new GHG emissions, either individually or cumulatively, directly or indirectly (e.g., transportation impacts).  Although climate change is ultimately a cumulative impact, not every individual project that emits GHGs must necessarily be found to contribute to a significant cumulative impact on the environment. CEQA authorizes reliance on previously approved plans and mitigation programs that have adequately analyzed and mitigated GHG emissions to a less than significant level as a means to avoid or substantially reduce the cumulative impact of a project.

The OPR Guidance did not require Executive Order S‐3‐05 to be used as a significance threshold under CEQA. Rather, OPR recognized that, until the CARB establishes a statewide standard, selecting an appropriate threshold was within the discretion of the lead agency.

In 2010, the California Natural Resources Agency added Section 15064.4 to the CEQA Guidelines, providing new legal requirements for how agencies should address GHG‐related impacts in their CEQA documents. As amended in 2019, Section 15064.4 provides as follows:
(a) The determination of the significance of greenhouse gas emissions calls for a careful judgment by the lead agency consistent with the provisions in section 15064. A lead agency shall make a good‐faith effort, based to the extent possible on scientific and factual data, to describe, calculate or estimate the amount of greenhouse gas emissions resulting from a project. A lead agency GREENHOUSE GASES, CLIMATE CHANGE, AND ENERGY 3.7
Draft Environmental Impact Report – Lathrop General Plan Update 3.7-19 shall have discretion to determine, in the context of a particular project, whether to:
(1) Quantify greenhouse gas emissions resulting from a project; and/or (2) Rely on a qualitative analysis or performance‐based standards. (b) In determining the significance of a project's greenhouse gas emissions, the lead agency should focus its analysis on the reasonably foreseeable incremental contribution of the project's emissions to the effects of climate change. A project's incremental contribution may be cumulatively considerable even if it appears relatively small compared to statewide, national or global emissions.

The agency's analysis should consider a timeframe that is appropriate for the project. The agency's analysis also must reasonably reflect evolving scientific knowledge and state regulatory schemes. A lead agency should consider the following factors, among others, when determining the significance of impacts from greenhouse gas emissions on the environment:
(1) The extent to which the project may increase or reduce greenhouse gas emissions as compared to the existing environmental setting; (2) Whether the project emissions exceed a threshold of significance that the lead agency determines applies to the project.
(3) The extent to which the project complies with regulations or requirements adopted to implement a statewide, regional, or local plan for the reduction or mitigation of greenhouse gas emissions (see, e.g., section 15183.5(b)). Such requirements must be adopted by the relevant public agency through a public review process and must reduce or mitigate the project's incremental contribution of greenhouse gas emissions. If there is substantial evidence that the possible effects of a particular project are still cumulatively considerable notwithstanding compliance with the adopted regulations or requirements, an EIR must be prepared for the project. In determining the significance of impacts, the lead agency may consider a project's consistency with the State's long‐term climate goals or strategies, provided that substantial evidence supports the agency's analysis of how those goals or strategies address the project's incremental contribution to climate change and its conclusion that the project's incremental contribution is not cumulatively considerable. (c) A lead agency may use a model or methodology to estimate greenhouse gas emissions resulting from a project. The lead agency has discretion to select the model or methodology it considers most appropriate to enable decision makers to intelligently take into account the project's incremental contribution to climate change. The lead agency must support its selection of a model or

3.7 GREENHOUSE GASES, CLIMATE CHANGE, AND ENERGY

3.7-20 Draft Environmental Impact Report – Lathrop General Plan Update methodology with substantial evidence. The lead agency should explain the limitations of the particular model or methodology selected for use.

Section 15126.4, subdivision (c), provides guidance on how to formulate mitigation measures addressing GHG‐related impacts:

Consistent with section 15126.4(a), lead agencies shall consider feasible means, supported by substantial evidence and subject to monitoring or reporting, of mitigating the significant effects of greenhouse gas emissions. Measures to mitigate the significant effects of greenhouse gas emissions may include, among others:
(1) Measures in an existing plan or mitigation program for the reduction of emissions that are required as part of the lead agency's decision; (2) Reductions in emissions resulting from a project through implementation of project features, project design, or other measures, such as those described in Appendix F;
(3) Off‐site measures, including offsets that are not otherwise required, to mitigate a project's emissions;
(4) Measures that sequester greenhouse gases;
(5) In the case of the adoption of a plan, such as a general plan, long range development plan, or plans for the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions, mitigation may include the identification of specific measures that may be implemented on a project‐by‐project basis. Mitigation may also include the incorporation of specific measures or policies found in an adopted ordinance or regulation that reduces the cumulative effect of emissions.

California Supreme Court Decisions
THE “NEWHALL RANCH” CASE
On November 30, 2015, the California Supreme Court released its opinion on Center for Biological Diversity v. California Department of Fish and Wildlife (2015) 62 Cal.4th 204 (hereafter referred to as the Newhall Ranch Case).

Because of the importance of the Supreme Court as the top body within the California Judiciary, and because of the relative lack of judicial guidance regarding how GHG issues should be addressed in CEQA documents, the opinion provides very important legal guidance to agencies charged with preparing EIRs.

The case involved a challenge to an EIR prepared by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) for the Newhall Ranch development project in Los Angeles County, which consists of approximately 20,000 dwelling units as well as commercial and business uses, schools, golf courses, parks and other community facilities in the City of Santa Clarita.

GREENHOUSE GASES, CLIMATE CHANGE, AND ENERGY 3.7
Draft Environmental Impact Report – Lathrop General Plan Update 3.7-21 In relation to GHG analysis, the Newhall Ranch Case illustrates the difficulty of complying with statewide GHG reduction targets at the local level using CEQA to determine whether an individual project’s GHG emissions will create a significant environmental impact triggering an EIR, mitigation, and/or statement of overriding consideration. The EIR utilized compliance with AB 32’s GHG reduction goals as a threshold of significance and modelled its analysis on the CARB’s business‐as‐usual (BAU) emissions projections from the 2008 Scoping Plan. The EIR quantified the project’s annual emissions at buildout and projected emissions in 2020 under a BAU scenario, in which no additional regulatory actions were taken to reduce emissions. Since the Scoping Plan determined a reduction of 29 percent from BAU was needed to meet AB 32’s 2020 reduction goal, the EIR concluded that the project would have a less‐than‐significant impact because the project’s annual GHG emissions were projected to be 31 percent below its BAU estimate.

The Supreme Court concluded that the threshold of significance used by the EIR was permissible; however, the BAU analysis lacked substantial evidence to demonstrate that the required percentage reduction from BAU is the same for an individual project as for the entire State. The court expressed skepticism that a percentage reduction goal applicable to the State as a whole would apply without change to an individual development project, regardless of its size or location. Therefore, the Supreme Court determined that the EIR’s GHG analysis was not sufficient to support the conclusion that GHG impacts would be less than significant.

In addition, the Supreme Court provided the following guidance regarding potential alternative approaches to GHG impact assessment at the project level for lead agencies:

1. The lead agency determination of what level of GHG emission reduction from business‐as‐ usual projection that a new land development at the proposed location would need to achieve to comply with statewide goals upon examination of data behind the Scoping Plan’s business‐as‐usual emission projections. The lead agency must provide substantial evidence and account for the disconnect between the Scoping Plan, which dealt with the State as a whole, and an analysis of an individual project’s land use emissions (the same issues with CEQA compliance addressed in this case);

2. The lead agency may use a project’s compliance with performance based standards – such as high building energy efficiency – adopted to fulfill a statewide plan to reduce or mitigate GHG emissions to assess consistency with AB 32 to the extent that the project features comply with or exceed the regulation (See Guidelines Section 15064.4(a)(2), (b)(3); see also Guidelines Section 15064(h)(3)). A significance analysis would then need to account for the additional GHG emissions – such as transportation emissions – beyond the regulated activity. Transportation emissions are in part a function of the location, size, and density or intensity of a project, and thus can be affected by local governments’ land use decision making. Additionally, the lead agency may use a programmatic effort including a general plan, long range development plan, or a separate plan to reduce GHG emissions (such as Climate Action Plan or a SB 375 metropolitan regional transportation impact Sustainable Communities Strategy) that accounts for specific geographical GHG emission reductions to streamline or tier project level CEQA analysis pursuant to Guidelines

3.7 GREENHOUSE GASES, CLIMATE CHANGE, AND ENERGY

3.7-22 Draft Environmental Impact Report – Lathrop General Plan Update 15183.5(a)‐(b) for land use and Public Resources Code Section 21155.2 and 21159.28 and Guidelines Section 15183.5(c) for transportation.

3. The lead agency may rely on existing numerical thresholds of significance for GHG emissions (such as the Bay Area Air Quality Management District’s proposed threshold of significance of 1,100 MT CO2E in annual emission for CEQA GHG emission analysis on new land use projects). The use of a numerical value provides what is “normally” considered significant but does not relieve a lead agency from independently determining the significance of the impact for the individual project (See Guidelines Section 15064.7).

THE SANDAG CASE
In Cleveland National Forest Foundation v. San Diego Association of Governments (2017) 3 Cal.5th 497 (SANDAG), the Supreme Court addressed the extent to which, if any, an EIR for a Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) with a Sustainable Communities Strategy (SCS) must address the proposed project’s consistency with the 2050 target set forth in Executive Order S‐03‐05 (i.e., 80 percent below 1990 levels). The Court held that SANDAG did not abuse its discretion by failing to treat the 2050 GHG emissions target as a threshold of significance. The Court cautioned, however, that its decision applies narrowly to the facts of the case and that the analysis in the challenged EIR should not be used as an example for other lead agencies to follow going forward. Notably, the RTP itself covered a planning period that extended all the way to 2050.

The Court acknowledged the parties’ agreement that “the Executive Order lacks the force of a legal mandate binding on SANDAG[.]” (Id. at p. 513.) This conclusion was consistent with the Court’s earlier decision in Professional Engineers in California Government v. Schwarzenegger (2010) 50 Cal.4th 989, 1015, which held the Governor had acted in excess of his executive authority in ordering the furloughing of State employees as a money‐saving strategy. In that earlier case, which is not mentioned in the SANDAG decision, the Court held that the decision to furlough employees was legislative in character, and thus could only be ordered by the Legislature, and not the Governor, who, under the State constitution, may only exercise executive authority. In SANDAG, the Court thus impliedly recognized that Governors do not have authority to set statewide legislative policy, particularly for decades into the future. Even so, however, the Court noted, and did not question, the parties’ agreement that “the Executive Order's 2050 emissions reduction target is grounded in sound science.” (3 Cal.5th at p. 513.) Indeed, the Court emphasized that, although “the Executive Order ‘is not an adopted GHG reduction plan’ and that ‘there is no legal requirement to use it as a threshold of significance,’” the 2050 goal nevertheless “expresses the pace and magnitude of reduction efforts that the scientific community believes necessary to stabilize the climate.

This scientific information has important value to policymakers and citizens in considering the emission impacts of a project like SANDAG's regional transportation plan.” (Id. at p. 515.) Towards the end of the decision, the Court even referred to “the state’s 2050 climate goals” as though the 2050 target from E.O. S‐03‐05 had some sort of standing under California law. (Id. at p. 519.) The Court seemed to reason that, because the Legislature had enacted both AB 32 and SB 32, which followed the downward GHG emissions trajectory recommended in the Executive Order, the GREENHOUSE GASES, CLIMATE CHANGE, AND ENERGY 3.7
Draft Environmental Impact Report – Lathrop General Plan Update 3.7-23 Legislature, at some point, was also likely to adopt the 2050 target as well: “SB 32 … reaffirms California's commitment to being on the forefront of the dramatic greenhouse gas emission reductions needed to stabilize the global climate.” (Id. at p. 519.) Finally, the Court explained that “planning agencies like SANDAG must ensure that CEQA analysis stays in step with evolving scientific knowledge and state regulatory schemes.” (Ibid.) In sum, the Court recognized that the Executive Order did not carry the force of law, but nevertheless considered it to be part of “state climate policy” because the Legislature, in enacting both AB 32 and SB 32, seems to be following both the IPCC recommendations for reducing GHG emissions worldwide and evolving science. Nothing in the decision, however, suggests that all projects, regardless of their buildout period, must address the 2050 target or treat it as a significance threshold.

LOCAL
San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District Climate Change Action Plan
In August 2008, the SJVAPCD adopted its Climate Change Action Plan. The Climate Change Action Plan directed the SJVAPCD's Air Pollution Control Officer to develop guidance to assist APCD staff, Valley businesses, land use agencies and other permitting agencies in addressing GHG emissions as part of the CEQA process. Regarding CEQA guidance, some of the goals of the Climate Change Action Plan are to assist local land use agencies, developers and the public by identifying and quantifying GHG emission reduction measures for development projects and by providing tools to streamline evaluation of project‐specific GHG effects, and to assist Valley businesses in complying with State law related to GHG emissions.

A product of this direction to provide CEQA guidance is the Final Staff Report – Climate Change Action Plan: Addressing GHG Emissions Impacts, presented to the APCD Board in December 2009.

A central component of the Final Staff Report is the establishment of Best Performance Standards, which are specifications or project design elements that identify effective, feasible GHG emission reduction measures. Emission reductions achieved through Best Performance Standards implementation would be pre‐quantified, thus negating the need for project‐specific quantification of GHG emissions.

For projects not implementing Best Performance Standards, demonstration of a 29% reduction in GHG emissions from business‐as‐usual conditions is required to determine that a project would have a less than cumulatively significant impact. Appendix J of the Final Staff Report provides a table of GHG emission reduction measures for development projects, along with a point value that corresponds to a percentage decrease in GHG emissions when available.

3.7 GREENHOUSE GASES, CLIMATE CHANGE, AND ENERGY

3.7-24 Draft Environmental Impact Report – Lathrop General Plan Update San Joaquin County Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (SCS/RTP)
The 2014 San Joaquin County Regional Transportation Plan, which has been named “Valley Visions San Joaquin,” was the first RTP in San Joaquin County to contain a SCS, the result of the Sustainable Communities and Climate Protection Act of 2008 (i.e., SB 375). The SCS coordinates future transportation investments and land use strategies to prioritize a multi‐modal investment plan covering a 27‐year period extending out to 2040. An update to the 2014 RTP/SCS was adopted in June 2018 (the 2018 RTP/SCS).

The RTP is a long‐range transportation plan that guides the region’s transportation improvements over a minimum of 20‐years and is updated every four. Using growth forecasts and economic trends projected out over study timeframe, the RTP considers the role of transportation in the broader context of economic, environmental, and quality‐of‐life goals for the future, identifying regional transportation strategies to address our mobility needs. The RTP addresses all transportation modes including motor vehicles, transit (commuter and local), rail (commuter and inter‐regional), goods movement (rail, truck, and water), bicycle and pedestrian facilities, aviation systems, transportation systems management (TSM) and transportation demand management (TDM) programs, and other projects considered over the planning horizon of 2042. Regional transportation improvement projects proposed to be funded, in whole or in part, in the state transportation improvement program must be included in the adopted RTP.

The eight counties of the San Joaquin Valley are coordinating on some aspects of these planning efforts to maximize resources, with each area’s Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) developing a separate plan. MPOs are responsible for setting transportation policy and priorities for a region and documenting how transportation funds will be spent in a Regional Transportation Plan. The policies contained in the 2018 RTP/SCS are as follows:
 Enhance the Environment for Existing and Future Generations and Conserve Energy  Maximum Mobility and Accessibility
 Increase Safety and Security
 Preserve the Efficiency of the Existing Transportation System  Support Economic Vitality
 Promote Interagency Coordination and Public Participation for Transportation Decision‐ Making and Planning Efforts
 Maximize Cost‐Effectiveness
 Improve the Quality of Life for Residents
The Greenhouse Gas Reduction Targets for the 2018 San Joaquin County RTP are as follows:
 5% per capita reduction from 2005 levels by 2020
 10% per capita reduction from 2005 levels by 2035
GREENHOUSE GASES, CLIMATE CHANGE, AND ENERGY 3.7
Draft Environmental Impact Report – Lathrop General Plan Update 3.7-25

3.7.3 IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
Thresholds of Significance

GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS/CLIMATE CHANGE
Climate change‐related impacts are considered significant if implementation of the proposed Project would do any of the following:
 Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment.
 Conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases.

The vast majority of individual projects do not generate sufficient GHG emissions to create a project‐specific impact through a direct influence on climate change; therefore, the issue of climate change typically involves an analysis of whether a project’s contribution towards an impact is cumulatively considerable. “Cumulatively considerable” 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 (CEQA Guidelines, Section 15355).

The SJVAPCD’s has evaluated different approaches for estimating impacts and summarizing potential GHG emission reduction measures. The SJVAPCD staff has concluded that “existing science is inadequate to support quantification of impacts that project specific GHG emissions have on global climatic change.” This is readily understood when one considers that global climatic change is the result of the sum total of GHG emissions, both man‐made and natural that occurred in the past; that is occurring now; and will occur in the future. The effects of project specific GHG emissions are cumulative, and unless reduced or mitigated, their incremental contribution to global climatic change could be considered significant.

The Final Draft Guidance for Assessing and Mitigating Air Quality Impacts (SJVAPCD, 2015) provides an approach to assessing a Project’s impacts on greenhouse gas emissions by evaluating the Project’s emissions to the “reduction targets” established in ARB’s AB 32 Scoping Plan. For instance, the SJVACD’s guidance recommends that projects should demonstrate that “project specific GHG emissions would be reduced or mitigated by at least 29%, compared to Business as Usual (BAU), including GHG emission reductions achieved since the 2002‐2004 baseline period, consistent with GHG emission reduction targets established in ARB’s AB 32 Scoping Plan. Projects achieving at least a 29% GHG emission reduction compared to BAU would be determined to have a less than significant individual and cumulative impact for GHG.” Subsequent to the SJVAPCD’s approval of the Final Draft Guidance for Assessing and Mitigating Air Quality Impacts (SJVAPCD 2015), the California Supreme Court issued an opinion that affects the conclusions that should/should not be drawn from a GHG emissions analysis that is based on consistency with the AB 32 Scoping Plan. More specifically, in Center for Biological Diversity v.

California Department of Fish and Wildlife, the Court ruled that showing a “project‐level reduction” that meets or exceeds the Scoping Plan’s overall statewide GHG reduction goal is not necessarily

3.7 GREENHOUSE GASES, CLIMATE CHANGE, AND ENERGY

3.7-26 Draft Environmental Impact Report – Lathrop General Plan Update sufficient to show that the project’s GHG impacts will be adequately mitigated: “the Scoping Plan nowhere related that statewide level of reduction effort to the percentage of reduction that would or should be required from individual projects...” According to the Court, the lead agency cannot simply assume that the overall level of effort required to achieve the statewide goal for emissions reductions will suffice for a specific project.

Given this Court decision, reliance on a 29 percent GHG emissions reduction from projected BAU levels compared to the Project’s estimated 2020 levels as recommended in the SJVAPCD’s guidance documents will not be the basis for an impact conclusion in this EIR. Given that the SJVAPCD staff has concluded that “existing science is inadequate to support quantification of impacts that project specific GHG emissions have on global climatic change,” this EIR will instead rely on a qualitative approach for this analysis.

ENERGY CONSERVATION
The proposed Project would result in a significant impact on energy use if it would:
 Result in potentially significant environmental impact 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.

IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
Impact 3.7‐1: General Plan implementation has the potential to generate GHG emissions that could have a significant impact on the environment and/or conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases (Significant and Unavoidable)
Emissions of GHGs contributing to global climate change are attributable in large part to human activities associated with the industrial/manufacturing, utility, transportation, residential, and agricultural sectors. Therefore, the cumulative global emissions of GHGs contributing to global climate change can be attributed to every nation, region, and city, and virtually every individual on Earth. A project’s GHG emissions are at a micro‐scale relative to global emissions but could result in a cumulatively considerable incremental contribution to a significant cumulative macro‐scale impact. Implementation of the proposed Project would contribute to increases of GHG emissions that are associated with global climate change. Estimated GHG emissions attributable to future development would be primarily associated with increases of CO2 and other GHG pollutants, such as methane (CH4) and nitrous oxide (N2O), from mobile sources and utility usage.

Development that occurs because of implementation of the proposed Project would include activities that emit greenhouse gas emissions over the short and long term. A summary of short‐ and long‐term emissions and the analysis for each are included below.

GREENHOUSE GASES, CLIMATE CHANGE, AND ENERGY 3.7
Draft Environmental Impact Report – Lathrop General Plan Update 3.7-27 The major projected impacts of climate change in Lathrop are expected to be more days of extreme heat over longer periods, as well as potential for flooding. Short‐term and long‐term emissions typically associated with construction and operations of future development projects, which may occur because of implementation of the proposed Project, are further described below.

SHORT-TERM EMISSIONS
Short‐term greenhouse gas emissions would occur because of construction equipment used for the following: demolition, grading, paving, and building construction activities associated with future development and infrastructure projects that will be undertaken in Lathrop over the next 20 years. GHG emissions would also result from worker and vendor trips to and from project sites and from demolition and soil hauling trips. Construction activities are short‐term and cease to emit greenhouse gases upon completion, unlike operational emissions that are continuous year after year until operation of the use ceases. As such, SJVAPCD recommends in its draft threshold to amortize project‐specific construction emissions over a 30‐year operational lifetime of a project.

This normalizes construction emissions so that they can be grouped with operational emissions to generate a precise project GHG inventory. However, the SJVAPCD does not have a current threshold of significance for construction‐related GHG emissions for plan‐level impacts (including general plans).

Adoption of the proposed General Plan does not directly approve or otherwise entitle any new development projects or infrastructure improvement projects in Lathrop. As such, the construction‐related GHG emissions of future projects cannot be known or quantified at this time, as it would be highly speculative. Typically, construction‐related GHG emissions contribute unsubstantially (less than one percent) to a project’s annual greenhouse gas emissions inventory and mitigation for construction‐related emissions is not effective in reducing a project’s overall contribution to climate change, given how small of a piece of the total emissions construction emissions are. Short‐term climate change impacts due to future construction‐related activities would be subject to State requirements for GHG emissions and would be assessed on project‐by‐ project basis, as required by the SJVAPCD.

LONG-TERM EMISSIONS
Future development projects will result in continuous GHG emissions from mobile, area, and operational sources. Mobile sources, including vehicle trips to and from development projects, will result primarily in emissions of CO2, with minor emissions of CH4 and N2O. The most significant GHG emission from natural gas usage will be methane. Electricity usage by future development and indirect usage of electricity for water and wastewater conveyance will result primarily in emissions of carbon dioxide. Disposal of solid waste will result in emissions of methane from the decomposition of waste at landfills coupled with CO2 emission from the handling and transport of solid waste. These sources combine to define the long‐term greenhouse gas inventory for typical development projects.

As shown in Table 2.0‐2 in Chapter 2.0 of this Draft EIR, buildout of the City’s existing General Plan would result in a projected population increase of 66,562 new residents, and an increase of 49,250

3.7 GREENHOUSE GASES, CLIMATE CHANGE, AND ENERGY

3.7-28 Draft Environmental Impact Report – Lathrop General Plan Update new jobs. The population growth is an approximately 233.5% increase compared to the city’s existing population.

Table 3.7‐1 summarizes VMT per dwelling unit, VMT per resident (per capita), VMT per employee, and VMT per service population (which includes both residents and employees). As shown in the table, upon full buildout of the proposed General Plan, VMT levels per dwelling unit and per capita would decrease under the proposed General Plan compared to baseline conditions, while VMT per employee and per service population would increase.

TABLE 3.7‐1: VMT PER DWELLING UNIT, PER CAPITA, AND PER EMPLOYEE FOR EXISTING CONDITION AND

PROPOSED GENERAL PLAN

LAND USE UNITS

EXISTING

CONDITION
(2020 BASELINE)

PROPOSED

GENERAL PLAN
Single family VMT per dwelling unit 111.5 64.5
Multi family VMT per dwelling unit 86.0 54.6
Age restricted VMT per dwelling unit 47.5 27.3
Restaurant VMT per employee1 215.2 248.9
Industrial VMT per employee 77.8 79.1
Office VMT per employee 36.5 47.3
Retail VMT per employee 135.3 211.5
All residential VMT per dwelling unit 108.3 58.9
All residential VMT per resident2 27.9 15.2
All employment VMT per employee 85.8 101.6
All land uses VMT per service population2,3 42.9 47.4
Total VMT VMT 1,497,700 7,503,700
NOTES: 1VMT PER EMPLOYEE RATIOS INCLUDE ALL TRIPS BY EMPLOYEES, CUSTOMERS, AND DELIVERIES 2BASED ON 3.88 RESIDENTS/DWELLING UNIT (CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE, E‐5 CITY/COUNTY POPULATION AND HOUSING ESTIMATES, 1/1/2020) 3SERVICE POPULATION INCLUDES RESIDENTS AND EMPLOYEES 4VMT INCLUDES FULL LENGTH OF ALL TRIPS WITH EITHER AN ORIGIN OR DESTINATION WITHIN THE PLANNING AREA 5NA = NOT APPLICABLE, METRIC FOR INFORMATIONAL PURPOSES ONLY SOURCE: FEHR & PEERS, 2021
The “per service population” metric, which accounts for both population and employment, is a common way to analyze the GHG efficiency of new development in comparison to an existing baseline. The land use modifications and policies proposed as part of the proposed General Plan would result in an overall approximately 22.9% increase in per service population vehicle miles traveled compared to the existing baseline condition, upon full buildout.

Separately, it is noted that upon full buildout of the existing Lathrop General Plan Land Use Map, there would be an approximately 10.4% increase in per service population vehicle miles traveled compared to the existing baseline condition.

As discussed in Chapter 2.0, growth projections for the General Plan should not be considered a prediction for growth, as the actual amount of development that will occur throughout the 20‐year GREENHOUSE GASES, CLIMATE CHANGE, AND ENERGY 3.7
Draft Environmental Impact Report – Lathrop General Plan Update 3.7-29 planning horizon of the General Plan is based on many factors outside of the City’s control. Actual future development would depend on future real estate and labor market conditions, property owner preferences and decisions, site‐specific constraints, and other factors. As such, the total population and growth numbers presented in this EIR are likely an overstatement of the level of growth that will occur in Lathrop over the next 20 years.

The City of Lathrop has not developed or adopted a Climate Action Plan (CAP). However, in order to reduce community‐wide GHG emissions, the proposed General Plan includes policies and programs that would limit increases to greenhouse gas emissions within the city. These policies and actions are included within various elements of the General Plan. For example, Goal CIR‐2 encourages the creation of a system of pedestrian, bicycle, and transit facilities that enables non‐ automotive accessibility, thereby limiting greenhouse gas emissions. Additionally, Policy LU‐3.3 requires that climate change and adaptation planning principles are integrated into future updates of the Zoning Code, and other related long‐range utilities and facilities planning documents.

Additionally, Policy LU‐4.2 emphasizes efforts to reduce regional vehicle miles traveled (VMT) by supporting land use patterns and site designs that promote active modes of transportation, and public transit. Policy CIR‐2.1 requires consideration of all modes of travel in design (i.e. complete streets). Furthermore, Policy RR‐6.9 requires consideration and implementation as feasible of new policies and programs that will help to provide energy efficient alternatives to fossil fuel use and reduce consumption in order to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Moreover, Policy RR‐6.8 establishes the following per capita GHG reduction targets, in order to meet the requirements established by the state under AB 32 and SB 32, consistent with the CARB’s 2017 Scoping Plan.  3.99 MT CO2e per capita by 2030
 2.66 MT CO2e per capita by 2040; and
 1.33 MT CO2e per capita by 2050
General Plan Action RR‐6e requires the City to monitor GHG emissions generated by the community over time for consistency with the established GHG reduction targets, and to update the City’s GHG inventory every five years. In the event the City determines that ongoing efforts to reduce GHG emissions are not on track to reach the City’s adopted per capita GHG reduction targets, the City shall establish and adopt new and/or revised GHG reduction measures that will effectively meet the established GHG reduction targets.

These General Plan policies and implementing actions would minimize potential impacts associated with GHG emissions in the Planning Area, and would comply with state requirements under AB 32 and SB 375. Subsequent development projects will be required to comply with the General Plan and adopted federal, state, and local regulations for the reduction of GHG emissions.

The City of Lathrop has prepared the General Plan to include numerous goals, policies and implementing actions intended to reduce GHG emissions associated with future development and improvement projects. GHG emissions would be minimized through the implementation of the goals, policies, and actions listed below.

3.7 GREENHOUSE GASES, CLIMATE CHANGE, AND ENERGY

3.7-30 Draft Environmental Impact Report – Lathrop General Plan Update In addition, the General Plan will not conflict with the implementation of the policies and supportive strategies in San Joaquin Council of Governments’ (SJCOG) 2018 Regional Transportation Plan and Sustainable Communities Strategy (2018 RTP/SCS). The 2018 RTP/SCS policies and supportive strategies are identified in Table ES.2 of the RTP/SCS. The policies include:
 Enhance the environment for existing and future generations and conserve energy  Maximize mobility and accessibility
 Increase safety and security
 Preserve the efficiency of the existing transportation system  Support economic vitality
 Promote interagency coordination and public participation for transportation decision‐ making and planning efforts
 Maximize cost effectiveness
 Improve quality of life for residents
As demonstrated in the list of General Plan goals, policies, and actions listed below, the proposed Lathrop General Plan is supportive and complimentary of the policies and strategies included in the 2018 RTP/SCS, and would not conflict with implementation of this plan.

The 2018 RTP/SCS relied upon the existing Lathrop General Plan to determine population, employment, and VMT increases associated with General Plan buildout in Lathrop as part of the RTP/SCS’s overall analysis of per capita GHG emissions throughout the region. As noted on page 5‐ 5 of the 2018 RTP/SCS, the Plan meets and exceeds the GHG targets established by the CARB. As further noted on page 5‐5 of the RTP/SCS, the SJCOG Plan Area is projected to have a VMT per capita of 21.98 in year 2042, compared to the 2015 baseline per capita VMT of 24.61.

As noted above, under Table 3.7‐1, Lathrop’s baseline per capita VMT is 27.9, and the projected future per capita VMT from the proposed General Plan is 15.2, which is a 46% reduction in per capita VMT for Lathrop residents.

Separately, the proposed General Plan would not conflict with any of the other provisions of the CARB Scoping Plan or applicable regulations related to GHG reductions because the General Plan includes a comprehensive approach to expanding transit access, increasing mobility options, promoting a pedestrian‐ and bicycle‐oriented urban development pattern, developing complete neighborhoods that accommodate a variety of housing types and are proximate to shopping, services, and jobs, and encourages development of infill sites. All of these comprehensive policy approaches serve to support regional and statewide efforts to reduce GHG emissions, including CARB’s Scoping Plan and SJCOG’s 2018 RTP/SCS through energy efficiency, green building, land use development, and the other policies and actions listed below.

GREENHOUSE GASES, CLIMATE CHANGE, AND ENERGY 3.7
Draft Environmental Impact Report – Lathrop General Plan Update 3.7-31 However, even with implementation of the goals, policies, and actions contained in the proposed General Plan, there is no guarantee that the General Plan alone would be sufficient to limit GHGs to the extent required by AB 32 and SB 375, and other federal and state regulations. Therefore, out of an abundance of caution, General Plan implementation is considered to have the potential to generate GHG emissions that could have a significant impact on the environment and/or conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases. This impact is considered significant and unavoidable.

GENERAL PLAN GOALS, POLICIES, AND ACTIONS THAT MINIMIZE POTENTIAL IMPACTS GOALS
LU‐1 Accommodate a mix of land uses that meet the needs of residents, businesses, and visitors with places to live, work, shop, be entertained and culturally engaged.

LU‐2 Promote objectives and development in special planning areas consistent with adopted specific plans, overlay districts, Master Plans and density bonus provisions.

LU‐3 Participate in coordinated local and regional land use planning activities.

LU‐4 Coordinate and integrate land use planning and transportation objectives.

LU‐5 Ensure that new development is compatible with existing development.

CIR‐1 Develop and maintain a roadway system that accommodates all users.

CIR‐2 Create a system of pedestrian, bicycle, and transit facilities that enables non‐automotive accessibility and increases the health and livability of the community.

CIR‐4 Plan for the future of transportation to ensure accessibility for all, reduce the environmental impacts of Transportation, and improve the quality of life.

RR‐6 Provide the community with optimal air quality.

POLICIES
LU‐1.1 Support a full spectrum of conveniently located residential, commercial, industrial, public, and quasi‐public uses that support business development, regional transportation objectives and the livability of residential neighborhoods.

LU‐1.3 Maintain a supply of developable lands sufficient to meet desired levels of housing, jobs, economic, educational, and recreational needs of the city over the planning horizon.

LU‐1.4 Continue to support the development of a variety of housing types and densities that meet the needs of individuals and families, and offers residents of all income levels, age groups and special needs sufficient housing opportunities and choices. (Additional policies specifically related to Housing are included in the General Plan’s Housing Element) LU‐1.8 Recognize that the General Plan and Land Use Map may be amended in accordance with State law in order to ensure that there is an adequate supply of commercial, industrial, public facility, parks, residential, and other desired land uses to serve the City’s needs.

3.7 GREENHOUSE GASES, CLIMATE CHANGE, AND ENERGY

3.7-32 Draft Environmental Impact Report – Lathrop General Plan Update LU‐3.1 Support regional efforts that promote higher densities and intensities near major transit and travel facilities, and reduce regional vehicle miles traveled by supporting active modes of transportation including walking, biking, and public transit.

LU‐3.2 Utilize planning tools and objectives that promote transit‐oriented and mixed‐use development objectives near future ACE and Valley Link Transit Facilities. Land use plans for these areas should complement transit facilities to accommodate transit oriented development (TOD) developments and/or park‐and‐ride facilities near ACE stations and future Valley Link station.

LU‐3.3 Integrate climate change and adaptation planning principles into future updates of the Zoning Code, and other related long‐range utilities and facilities planning documents. (See the Safety Element for additional policies related to climate change and resiliency planning).

LU‐3.4 Promote logical City boundaries and work with surrounding jurisdictions to encourage complementary uses. Specifically, work with the City of Manteca and San Joaquin County to ensure development of complementary and compatible uses adjacent to Lathrop.

LU‐4.2 Emphasize efforts to reduce regional vehicle miles traveled (VMT) by supporting land use patterns and site designs that promote active modes of transportation, and public transit.

LU‐4.3 Encourage the development of new industrial and business park which facilitate efficient circulation patterns that reduce truck traffic near residential uses.

LU‐5.1 Require new development to be compatible and complementary to existing development.

Where appropriate and feasible, promote connections between neighborhoods and services and facilities.

LU‐5.2 Prohibit the establishment or encroachment of incompatible uses into industrial‐ designated lands. Examples include, but are not limited to, new residential uses in areas designated for industrial development, which may be subject to existing and future nuisance impacts associated with industrial operations and associated activities.

LU‐5.3 Require that new residential development be designed to protect residents from potential conflicts with adjacent land uses, and other features including rail corridors, and high‐ volume roadways.

LU‐5.4 In industrial areas located within 1,000 feet of existing and planned sensitive receptors, promote industrial uses that are environmentally sustainable with limited potential to create nuisances such as noise and odors.

LU‐5.5 Ensure that industrial development projects, including warehouse, distribution, logistics, and fulfillment projects, mitigate adverse impacts (including health risks and nuisances) to nearby residential land uses and other existing and planned sensitive receptors.

CIR‐1.2 Complete Streets. Consider all modes of travel in planning, design, and construction of all transportation projects to create safer, more livable, and more inviting environments for pedestrians, bicyclists, motorists and public transit users of all ages and capabilities.

GREENHOUSE GASES, CLIMATE CHANGE, AND ENERGY 3.7
Draft Environmental Impact Report – Lathrop General Plan Update 3.7-33 CIR‐2.1 Bicycle and Pedestrian Networks. Establish a network of identified bicycle and pedestrian routes connecting residential areas with schools, recreation, shopping, and employment areas within the City.

CIR‐2.3 Safe Routes to School. Consider walking and bicycling school access as a priority over vehicular movements when any such conflicts occur.

CIR‐2.4 Transit Access. Provide safer, more convenient access to transit service including rail, bus, and paratransit.

CIR‐2.5 Amenities. To support bicycle, pedestrian, and transit usage, provide amenities including pedestrian‐scale lighting, bicycle parking, shade trees and landscaping, and bus shelters and benches.

CIR‐4.1 Land Use Supporting Reduced VMT. Support land use with increased land use densities and mixed uses, consistent with the Land Use Element, to reduce vehicle miles traveled and promote the use of walking, biking, and transit.

CIR‐4.2 Demand Management. Encourage employers to provide programs for carpooling/transit/biking/walking, transit ridership subsidies, bicycle facilities, alternative work schedules, ridesharing, telecommuting, working at home, employee education, and preferential parking for carpools/vanpools.

CIR‐4.3 New Technologies. Monitor deployment of new transportation technologies and services and develop policies that implement best practices to ensure these technologies and services benefit the public and the multimodal transportation system.

CIR‐4.4 Electric Vehicle Charging. Support the creation of electric vehicle charging stations at multifamily residential, commercial, government, and other employment and community destinations.

RR‐6.1 Regional Standards. Coordinate planning efforts with the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (SJVAPCD), San Joaquin Council of Governments, and the California Air Resource Board to meet local and regional air quality standards and ensure attainment of established goals.

RR‐6.2 Sensitive Receptors. Minimize the community’s exposure to toxic and harmful air emissions and odors by requiring an adequate buffer or distance between residential and other sensitive receptors and industrial‐type uses that typically generate air pollutants, toxic air contaminants, and/or obnoxious fumes or odors.

RR‐6.3 Construction Activities. Require new construction to minimize fugitive dust and construction vehicle emissions.

RR‐6.4 Development. Encourage the development of mixed‐use residential opportunities and live‐ work environments within the City to lessen the impacts of traffic congestion on local air quality.

3.7 GREENHOUSE GASES, CLIMATE CHANGE, AND ENERGY

3.7-34 Draft Environmental Impact Report – Lathrop General Plan Update RR‐6.5 Appliances and Equipment. Require appliances and equipment, including wood‐burning devices, in development projects to meet current standards for controlling air pollution, including particulate matter and toxic air contaminants.

RR‐6.6 Combustible Materials. Cooperate with the Air District to ensure that burning of any combustible material within the City is consistent with Air District regulations to minimize particulate air pollution.

RR‐6.7 Mitigation. Require the implementation of relevant mitigation measures for all future development upon identification of potential air quality impacts.

RR‐6.8 Local Reduction Targets. The City of Lathrop establishes the following per capita GHG reduction targets, in order to meet the requirements established by the state under AB 32 and SB 32, consistent with the CARB’s 2017 Scoping Plan:

A. 3.99 MT CO2e per capita by 2030
B. 2.66 MT CO2e per capita by 2040; and
C. 1.33 MT CO2e per capita by 2050.

RR‐6.9 GHG Reduction. Consider, and implement as feasible, new policies and programs that will help to provide energy efficient alternatives to fossil fuel use and reduce consumption in order to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

RR‐6.10Public Engagement. Promote regional air quality programs to inform the public on regional air quality concerns and encourage the engagement of all Lathrop residents in future planning decisions related to air quality.

IMPLEMENTATION ACTIONS
LU‐3.b Work with adjacent jurisdictions to facilitate increased compatibility and access across barriers to travel such as discontinuous streets, bike lanes, sidewalks, and paths.

LU‐3.c Work with developers, reclamation districts and utility providers to create or expand linear parks, trails, and publicly‐accessible greenways along levees, drainage and utility rights‐of‐ way that provide opportunities for greenway connections and passive recreational opportunities.

LU‐5b Through the development review process, analyze land use compatibility and require adequate buffers and/or architectural enhancements to protect sensitive receptors from intrusion of development activities that may cause unwanted nuisances and health risks.

GREENHOUSE GASES, CLIMATE CHANGE, AND ENERGY 3.7
Draft Environmental Impact Report – Lathrop General Plan Update 3.7-35 LU‐5c When industrial projects, including warehouse projects, fulfillment centers, and other projects that may generate high volumes of truck trips and/or air quality emissions are proposed within 1,000 feet of existing or planned residential uses or other sensitive receptors, the City shall require the preparation of a Health Risk Assessment (HRA) that meets the standards established by the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA), and the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (SJVAPCD). Projects shall not be approved until it can be demonstrated that the project would not result in an exceedance of the established thresholds of significance for public health risks at nearby sensitive receptors.

LU‐5d When industrial projects, including warehouse projects, fulfillment centers, and other projects that may generate high volumes of truck trips and/or air quality emissions are proposed within 1,000 feet of existing or planned residential uses or other sensitive receptors, the City shall require the implementation of best management practices (BMPs) to reduce pollution exposure to sensitive receptors, particularly diesel particulate matter (DPM). The appropriate BMPs shall be established on a case‐by‐case basis, and should consider the following tools, methods, and approaches:
 Creating physical, structural, and/or vegetative buffers that adequately prevent or substantially reduce pollutant dispersal between warehouses and any areas where sensitive receptors are likely to be present, such as homes, schools, daycare centers, hospitals, community centers, and parks.
 Providing adequate areas for on‐site parking, on‐site queuing, and truck check‐in that prevent trucks and other vehicles from parking or idling on public streets.  Placing facility entry and exit points from the public street away from sensitive receptors, e.g., placing these points on the north side of the facility if sensitive receptors are adjacent to the south side of the facility. Exceptions can be made for emergency vehicle access (EVA) points.
 Locating warehouse dock doors and other onsite areas with significant truck traffic and noise away from sensitive receptors.
 Screening dock doors and onsite areas with significant truck traffic and noise with physical, structural, and/or vegetative barriers that adequately prevent or substantially reduce pollutant dispersal from the facility towards sensitive receptors.  Posting signs clearly showing the designated entry and exit points from the public street for trucks and service vehicles.
 Posting signs indicating that all parking and maintenance of trucks must be conducted within designated on‐site areas and not within the surrounding community or public streets.

LU‐5e Update the Lathrop Municipal Code to include Good Neighbor Guidelines for Warehouse Distribution Facilities. The new Good Neighbor Guidelines should include:

3.7 GREENHOUSE GASES, CLIMATE CHANGE, AND ENERGY

3.7-36 Draft Environmental Impact Report – Lathrop General Plan Update a. A definition of the type and size of facility that is subject to the Guidelines; b. Standards to minimize exposure to diesel emissions to sensitive receptors that are situated in close proximity to the proposed facility;
c. Standards and practices that eliminate diesel trucks from unnecessarily traversing through residential neighborhoods;
d. Standards and practices that eliminate trucks from using residential areas and repairing vehicles on the streets;
e. Strategies to reduce and/or eliminate diesel idling within the facility’s site; CIR‐1a Review and revise roadway standards to establish complete streets standards addressing the following factors as applicable: number of travel lanes, lane width, medians, drainage control, shoulder width, parking lanes, bike lanes, fire and emergency response standards, curb and gutter design, landscaped strips, and sidewalk width.

CIR‐1b Require development projects to arrange streets in an interconnected pattern, so that pedestrians, bicyclists, and drivers are not forced onto arterial streets for inter‐ or intra‐ neighborhood travel. This approach will also increase the safety and efficiency of movement of emergency responders and reduce vehicle miles traveled within the community..

IR‐1c Apply signals, roundabouts, traffic circles and other traffic management techniques appropriately at residential and collector street intersections with collector and arterial streets in order to allow bicyclists and pedestrians to travel more conveniently and more safely from one neighborhood to another.

CIR‐1d Use traffic calming tools to assist in implementing complete street principles; possible tools include roundabouts, raised intersections, curb extensions, reduced roadway width, and high visibility crosswalks.

CIR‐2a Create an active transportation plan supporting the development of bicycle and pedestrian networks across the City and funding applications for bicycle and pedestrian improvements.

CIR‐2b Add planned bicycle and pedestrian facilities in conjunction with road rehabilitation, reconstruction, or re‐striping projects whenever feasible.

CIR‐2c Enhance sidewalks to create a high‐quality pedestrian environment, including wider sidewalks and improved pedestrian crossings, landscaping, buffers between sidewalks and vehicle travel lanes, enhanced pedestrian lighting, wayfinding signage, shade trees, and canopies, increased availability of benches, and other features.

CIR‐2d Improve bicycle facilities to include attractive and secure bicycle parking, bicycle lanes, bike paths, and wayfinding signage along appropriate roadways.

CIR‐2e Encourage and support the enhancement of transit stops with high quality, well‐maintained shelters, and provision of wayfinding signage and transit timetables.

GREENHOUSE GASES, CLIMATE CHANGE, AND ENERGY 3.7
Draft Environmental Impact Report – Lathrop General Plan Update 3.7-37 CIR‐2f Provide access for bicycles and pedestrians at the ends of cul‐de‐sacs and through walls and berms, where right‐of‐way is available, to provide convenient access within and between neighborhoods and to encourage walking and bicycling to neighborhood destinations.

CIR‐2g Ensure that development and infrastructure projects are designed to provide pedestrian and bicycle access and leave no gaps in the bicycle and pedestrian networks.

CIR‐2h Require new development to provide bicycle parking and shower and locker facilities at commercial, business/professional and light industrial uses in accordance with the California Green Building Standards Code. Encourage existing uses to provide such facilities.

CIR‐2i Require new multifamily developments to provide bicycle parking facilities in accordance with the California Green Building Standards Code. Encourage existing multifamily developments to provide such facilities.

CIR‐2j Create an off‐street shared‐use path system for use by pedestrians and bicyclists for transportation and recreation.

CIR‐2k Create bicycle and pedestrian connections to adjacent jurisdictions via shared use paths, bikeways, and sidewalks.

CIR‐2l Create bicycle and pedestrian connections to the ACE station, planned Valley Link stations, and other transit stops.

CIR‐2m Encourage transit providers to improve passenger pick‐up and drop‐off areas at the ACE and planned Valley Link stations to provide more convenient access.

CIR‐2n Partner with neighboring jurisdictions and regional transit providers (including San Joaquin Regional Transit District, Manteca Transit, and Tracy TRACER Bus Services) to expand transit service between Lathrop and destinations in other jurisdictions.

CIR‐2o Coordinate with transit providers and encourage them to enhance transit amenities for safe and comfortable access to transit including waiting areas, seating, landscaping, lighting, shade and rain cover, trash receptacles, and passenger loading zones.

CIR‐4a Refine and update the City of Lathrop interim VMT thresholds and screening criteria to reflect the updated VMT analysis completed for the General Plan update if such updates are deemed necessary or warranted.

CIR‐4b Evaluate the feasibility of a local or regional VMT impact fee program, bank, or exchange.

Such an offset program, if determined feasible, would be administered by the City or a City‐approved agency, and would offer demonstrated VMT reduction strategies through transportation demand management programs, impact fee programs, mitigation banks or exchange programs, in‐lieu fee programs, or other land use project conditions that reduce VMT in a manner consistent with state guidance on VMT reduction. If, through on‐site changes, a subject project cannot eliminate VMT impacts, the project could contribute on a pro‐rata basis to a local or regional VMT reduction bank or exchange, as necessary, to reduce net VMT impacts.

3.7 GREENHOUSE GASES, CLIMATE CHANGE, AND ENERGY

3.7-38 Draft Environmental Impact Report – Lathrop General Plan Update CIR‐4c Require proposed development projects that could have a potentially significant VMT impact to consider reasonable and feasible project modifications and other measures during the project design and environmental review stage of project development that would reduce VMT effects in a manner consistent with state guidance on VMT reduction.

CIR‐4d Require development projects that employ 100 or more full‐time equivalent employees to establish transportation demand management (TDM) programs consistent with San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District requirements.

CIR‐4e Partner with SJCOG on the Dibs program, which is the regional smart travel program, including rideshare, transit, walking, and biking.

CIR‐4f As new transportation technologies and mobility services, including autonomous vehicles, electric vehicles, electric bicycles and scooters, and transportation network companies (e.g., Uber and Lyft) are implemented and used by the public, review and update City policies and plans to maximize the benefit to the public of such technologies and services without adversely affecting the City’s transportation network. Updates to the City’s policies and plans may cover topics such as electric vehicle charging stations, curb space management, changes in parking supply requirements, policies regarding electric scooter use, etc.

CIR‐4g Encourage open data sharing. Anonymized data can improve the City’s decision‐making and help to develop more informed policies and plans while preserving people’s privacy.

CIR‐4i As part of the development of or participation in any ridesharing program, including for shared automated vehicle fleets, ensure that the program considers the safety needs of vulnerable populations and loading needs of seniors, families with children, and individuals with mobility impairments.

CIR‐4j As need for transit grows, review and consider alternatives to conventional bus systems, such as smaller shuttle buses (micro‐transit), on‐demand transit services, or transportation networking company services that connect neighborhood centers to local activity centers with greater cost efficiency.

CIR‐4k Require new development to incorporate electric vehicle charging in accordance with the California Green Building Standards Code. Encourage installation of electric vehicle charging stations at existing development.

RR‐6a Review development, infrastructure, and planning projects for consistency with SJVAPCD requirements during the CEQA review process. Require project applicants to prepare air quality analyses to address SJVAPCD and General Plan requirements, which include analysis and identification of:

A. Air pollutant emissions associated with the project during construction, project operation, and cumulative conditions.

B. Potential exposure of sensitive receptors to toxic air contaminants.

GREENHOUSE GASES, CLIMATE CHANGE, AND ENERGY 3.7
Draft Environmental Impact Report – Lathrop General Plan Update 3.7-39 C. Significant air quality impacts associated with the project for construction, project operation, and cumulative conditions.

D. Mitigation measures to reduce significant impacts to less than significant or the maximum extent feasible where impacts cannot be mitigated to less than significant.

RR‐6b Review all new industrial and commercial development projects for potential air quality impacts to residences and other sensitive receptors. Ensure that mitigation measures and best management practices are implemented to reduce significant emissions of criteria pollutants.

RR‐6c Work with SJCOG and the SJVAPCD to implement plans and programs aimed at improving regional air quality.

RR‐6d Continue to review development projects to ensure that all new public and private development complies with the California Code of Regulations (CCR), Title 24 standards as well as the energy efficiency standards established by the Lathrop Municipal Code.

RR‐6e Monitor GHG emissions generated by the community over time for consistency with the established GHG reduction targets, and update the City’s community GHG Inventory every five years. In the event that the City determines that ongoing efforts to reduce GHG emissions are not on track to meet the City’s adopted GHG reduction targets, the City shall establish and adopt new and/or revised GHG reductions measures that will effectively meet the established GHG reduction targets.

RR‐6f Continue the expansion of infrastructure to facilitate the use of City‐owned low or zero emission vehicles such as electric vehicle charging facilities and conveniently located alternative fueling stations at key City facilities as operations necessitate and/or as funding becomes available.

RR‐6g Evaluate and consider multi‐modal transportation benefits to all City employees, such as free or low‐cost monthly transit passes. Encourage employer participation in similar programs. Encourage new transit/shuttle services and use.

RR‐6h Encourage community car‐sharing and carpooling.

RR‐6i Support the establishment and expansion of a regional network of electric vehicle charging stations and encourage the expanded use of electric vehicles.

RR‐6j Establish and adopt standards and requirements for electric vehicle parking, including minimum requirements for the installation of electric vehicle charging stations in new multi‐family residential and commercial, office, and light industrial development.

RR‐6k Consider instituting a Green Building Program to reflect best practices, such as encouraging the use of cement substitutes and recycled building materials for new construction.

3.7 GREENHOUSE GASES, CLIMATE CHANGE, AND ENERGY

3.7-40 Draft Environmental Impact Report – Lathrop General Plan Update RR‐6l Continue cooperating with the SJVAPCD by requiring a dust management plan to prevent fugitive dust from leaving the property boundaries and causing a public nuisance or a violation of an ambient air standard prior to construction and grading.

Impact 3.7‐2: General Plan implementation has the potential to result in a significant impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, or conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency (Less than Significant)
The State CEQA Guidelines require consideration of the potentially significant energy implications of a project. CEQA requires mitigation measures to reduce “wasteful, inefficient and unnecessary” energy usage (Public Resources Code Section 21100, subdivision [b][3]). According to Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, the means to achieve the goal of conserving energy include decreasing overall energy consumption, decreasing reliance on natural gas and oil, and increasing reliance on renewable energy sources. In particular, a project would be considered “wasteful, inefficient, and unnecessary” if it were to violate state and federal energy standards and/or result in significant adverse impacts related to project energy requirements, energy inefficiencies, energy intensiveness of materials, cause significant impacts on local and regional energy supplies or generate requirements for additional capacity, fail to comply with existing energy standards, otherwise result in significant adverse impacts on energy resources, or conflict or create an inconsistency with applicable plan, policy, or regulation.

The proposed Project is the updated Lathrop General Plan, with a horizon year of 2040. Buildout of the General Plan includes residential, commercial, office, industrial, mixed‐use, open space, and other land uses (see Chapter 2.0: Project Description for further detail). As previously discussed, the buildout growth projections are not a prediction for growth as the actual amount of development that will occur through the planning horizon of the General Plan is based on many factors outside of the City’s control, including future real estate and labor market conditions, property owner preferences and decisions, and site‐specific constraints. The amount of energy used in the Planning Area at buildout would directly correlate to the type and size of development, the energy consumption associated with unit appliances, outdoor lighting, and energy use associated with other buildings and activities. Other major sources of Planning Area energy consumption include fuel used by vehicle trips generated during construction and operational activities, and fuel used by off‐road and on‐road construction vehicles during construction. The following discussion provides a breakdown of the energy uses in the Planning Area upon buildout of the proposed Project.

ELECTRICITY AND NATURAL GAS
At buildout, the electricity and natural gas consumption would be used primarily to power buildings (all types of buildings, including residential, commercial, office, industrial, public, etc.).

Electricity would primarily come from the electricity utility provider (PG&E), though on‐site solar generation would generate a substantial source of energy for the community at General Plan GREENHOUSE GASES, CLIMATE CHANGE, AND ENERGY 3.7
Draft Environmental Impact Report – Lathrop General Plan Update 3.7-41 buildout.

FUEL CONSUMPTION - ON-ROAD VEHICLES (OPERATION)
Buildout of the General Plan would generate vehicle trips during its operational phase. As shown in Table 3.7‐1, the proposed Project would generate approximately 7,503,700 daily VMT in the Planning Area. Fuel consumption is anticipated to represent the largest sector of GHG emissions at General Plan buildout. Energy for on‐road vehicles would derive from gasoline, diesel, as well as electricity from PG&E and from on‐site solar generation.

FUEL CONSUMPTION - ON-ROAD VEHICLES (CONSTRUCTION)
The proposed Project would also generate on‐road vehicle trips during construction activities (from construction workers, vendors, and haulers). The vast majority of on‐road mobile vehicle fuel used during the construction activities during buildout of the General Plan would occur during building construction.

OFF-ROAD VEHICLES (CONSTRUCTION)
Off‐road construction vehicles would use diesel fuel during construction activities. A non‐ exhaustive list of off‐road constructive vehicles expected to be used during construction activities includes: cranes, forklifts, generator sets, tractors, excavators, and dozers.

CONCLUSION
Buildout of the General Plan would use energy resources for the operation of buildings (electricity and natural gas), for on‐road vehicle trips (e.g., gasoline and diesel fuel), and from off‐road construction activities (e.g., diesel fuel) associated with buildout of the General Plan. Each of these activities would require the use of energy resources. Developers of individual projects within the Planning Area would be responsible for conserving energy, to the extent feasible, and would rely heavily on reducing per capita energy consumption to achieve this goal, including through Statewide and local measures. For example, developers would be required to comply with the latest version of the 2019 Building Energy Efficiency Standards (CalGreen), which became effective on January 1, 2020. CalGreen requires developers to implement stringent requirements for home insulation, energy efficiency of appliances, renewable energy, electric vehicle charging, water efficiency and conservation, construction waste reduction, indoor and outdoor air quality, material conservation and resource efficiency, and efficiency of building maintenance and operation.

Additionally, developers would have to comply with proposed General Plan goals, policies and implementing actions that reduce energy usage, promote renewable and/or alternative energy sources, and encourage pedestrian/bicycle modes of transportation, as identified under Impact

3.7‐1. For example, Policy LU‐4.2 emphasizes efforts to reduce regional vehicle miles traveled (VMT) by supporting land use patterns and site designs that promote active modes of transportation, and public transit. Policy CIR‐2.1 requires consideration of all modes of travel in design (i.e. complete streets). Furthermore, Policy RR‐6.9 requires consideration and adoption of new policies and programs that will help to provide energy efficient alternatives to fossil fuel use

3.7 GREENHOUSE GASES, CLIMATE CHANGE, AND ENERGY

3.7-42 Draft Environmental Impact Report – Lathrop General Plan Update and reduce consumption in order to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Other General Plan policies and implementation actions would further reduce energy consumption.

Buildout of the General Plan would be in compliance with all applicable federal, state, and local regulations regulating energy usage. For example, PG&E is responsible for the mix of energy resources used to provide electricity for its customers, and it is in the process of implementing the Statewide RPS to increase the proportion of renewable energy (e.g., solar and wind) within its energy portfolio.

PG&E is expected to achieve at least 60% renewables by 2030, and 100 percent zero‐carbon electricity by 2045 (in compliance with SB 100). Additionally, energy‐saving regulations, including the latest State Title 24 building energy efficiency standards (“part 6”), would be applicable to the proposed Project. Other Statewide measures, including those intended to improve the energy efficiency of the statewide passenger and heavy‐duty truck vehicle fleet (e.g., the Pavley Bill and the Low Carbon Fuel Standard), would improve vehicle fuel economies, thereby conserving gasoline and diesel fuel. These energy savings would continue to accrue over time. Furthermore, additional project‐specific the sustainability features individual development projects could further energy consumption of individual projects. The proposed Project would also be in compliance with the planning documents described previously within this section.

As a result, the proposed Project would not result in any significant adverse impacts related to Project energy requirements, energy use inefficiencies, and/or the energy intensiveness of materials by amount and fuel type for during General Plan buildout, including during construction, operations, maintenance, and/or removal. PG&E, the electricity and natural gas provider to the city, maintains sufficient capacity to serve the Planning Area. The City of Lathrop would comply with all existing energy standards in implementing the General Plan project, and would not result in significant adverse impacts on energy resources. Furthermore, General Plan policies would ensure enhanced access to transit, as described by Policy CIR‐2.4, which ensures the City would provide safe, convenient access to transit service including rail, bus, and paratransit. Moreover, Policy CIR‐4.4 supports the creation of electric vehicle charging stations at multifamily residential, commercial, government, and other employment and community destinations. Additionally, implementing action CIR‐1c requires the City to apply signals, roundabouts, traffic circles and other traffic management techniques appropriately at residential and collector street intersections with collector and arterial streets in order to allow bicyclists and pedestrians to travel conveniently and safely from one neighborhood to another. Numerous other policies and implementing actions would further reduce community energy usage, via improvements to land use, reductions in fossil fuel usage, energy efficiency, infrastructure development, more efficient use of available resources, and encouragement of green building practices.

For the reasons stated above, buildout of the General Plan would not be expected cause an inefficient, wasteful, or unnecessary use of energy resources nor conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency. This is a less than significant impact.

GREENHOUSE GASES, CLIMATE CHANGE, AND ENERGY 3.7
Draft Environmental Impact Report – Lathrop General Plan Update 3.7-43

LU‐2 Promote objectives and development in special planning areas consistent with adopted specific plans, overlay districts, Master Plans and density bonus provisions.

LU‐3 Participate in coordinated local and regional land use planning activities.

LU‐4 Coordinate and integrate land use planning and transportation objectives.

LU‐5 Ensure that new development is compatible with existing development.

CIR‐1 Develop and maintain a roadway system that accommodates all users.

CIR‐2 Create a system of pedestrian, bicycle, and transit facilities that enables non‐automotive accessibility and increases the health and livability of the community.

CIR‐4 Plan for the future of transportation to ensure accessibility for all, reduce the environmental impacts of Transportation, and improve the quality of life.

RR‐6 Provide the community with optimal air quality.

LU‐1.3 Maintain a supply of developable lands sufficient to meet desired levels of housing, jobs, economic, educational, and recreational needs of the city over the planning horizon.

LU‐3.1 Support regional efforts that promote higher densities and intensities near major transit and travel facilities, and reduce regional vehicle miles traveled by supporting active modes of transportation including walking, biking, and public transit.

3.7 GREENHOUSE GASES, CLIMATE CHANGE, AND ENERGY

3.7-44 Draft Environmental Impact Report – Lathrop General Plan Update LU‐3.3 Integrate climate change and adaptation planning principles into future updates of the Zoning Code, and other related long‐range utilities and facilities planning documents. (See the Safety Element for additional policies related to climate change and resiliency planning).

LU‐4.2 Emphasize efforts to reduce regional vehicle miles traveled (VMT) by supporting land use patterns and site designs that promote active modes of transportation, and public transit.

LU‐4.3 Encourage the development of new industrial and business park which facilitate efficient circulation patterns that reduce truck traffic near residential uses.

LU‐5.1 Require new development to be compatible and complementary to existing development.

Where appropriate and feasible, promote connections between neighborhoods and services and facilities.

IR‐1.2 Complete Streets. Consider all modes of travel in planning, design, and construction of all transportation projects to create safer, more livable, and more inviting environments for pedestrians, bicyclists, motorists and public transit users of all ages and capabilities.

CIR‐2.1 Bicycle and Pedestrian Networks. Establish a network of identified bicycle and pedestrian routes connecting residential areas with schools, recreation, shopping, and employment areas within the City.

CIR‐2.3 Safe Routes to School. Consider walking and bicycling school access as a priority over vehicular movements when any such conflicts occur.

CIR‐2.4 Transit Access. Provide safer, more convenient access to transit service including rail, bus, and paratransit.

GREENHOUSE GASES, CLIMATE CHANGE, AND ENERGY 3.7
Draft Environmental Impact Report – Lathrop General Plan Update 3.7-45 CIR‐4.2 Demand Management. Encourage employers to provide programs for carpooling/transit/biking/walking, transit ridership subsidies, bicycle facilities, alternative work schedules, ridesharing, telecommuting, working at home, employee education, and preferential parking for carpools/vanpools.

CIR‐4.4 Electric Vehicle Charging. Support the creation of electric vehicle charging stations at multifamily residential, commercial, government, and other employment and community destinations.

R‐6.2 Sensitive Receptors. Minimize the community’s exposure to toxic and harmful air emissions and odors by requiring an adequate buffer or distance between residential and other sensitive receptors and industrial‐type uses that typically generate air pollutants, toxic air contaminants, and/or obnoxious fumes or odors.

RR‐6.3 Construction Activities. Require new construction to minimize fugitive dust and construction vehicle emissions.

RR‐6.5 Appliances and Equipment. Require appliances and equipment, including wood‐burning devices, in development projects to meet current standards for controlling air pollution, including particulate matter and toxic air contaminants.

RR‐6.7 Mitigation. Require the implementation of relevant mitigation measures for all future development upon identification of potential air quality impacts.

A. MT CO2e per capita by 2030
B. 2.66 MT CO2e per capita by 2040; and

3.7 GREENHOUSE GASES, CLIMATE CHANGE, AND ENERGY

3.7-46 Draft Environmental Impact Report – Lathrop General Plan Update C. 1.33 MT CO2e per capita by 2050.

U‐5b Through the development review process, analyze land use compatibility and require adequate buffers and/or architectural enhancements to protect sensitive receptors from intrusion of development activities that may cause unwanted nuisances and health risks.

LU‐5c When industrial projects, including warehouse projects, fulfillment centers, and other projects that may generate high volumes of truck trips and/or air quality emissions are proposed within 1,000 feet of existing or planned residential uses or other sensitive receptors, the City shall require the preparation of a Health Risk Assessment (HRA) that meets the standards established by the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA), and the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (SJVAPCD). Projects shall not be approved until it can be demonstrated that the project would not result in an exceedance of the established thresholds of significance for public health risks at nearby sensitive receptors.

GREENHOUSE GASES, CLIMATE CHANGE, AND ENERGY 3.7
Draft Environmental Impact Report – Lathrop General Plan Update 3.7-47  Placing facility entry and exit points from the public street away from sensitive receptors, e.g., placing these points on the north side of the facility if sensitive receptors are adjacent to the south side of the facility. Exceptions can be made for emergency vehicle access (EVA) points.
 Locating warehouse dock doors and other onsite areas with significant truck traffic and noise away from sensitive receptors.
 Screening dock doors and onsite areas with significant truck traffic and noise with physical, structural, and/or vegetative barriers that adequately prevent or substantially reduce pollutant dispersal from the facility towards sensitive receptors.  Posting signs clearly showing the designated entry and exit points from the public street for trucks and service vehicles.
 Posting signs indicating that all parking and maintenance of trucks must be conducted within designated on‐site areas and not within the surrounding community or public streets.

LU‐5e Update the Lathrop Municipal Code to include Good Neighbor Guidelines for Warehouse Distribution Facilities. The new Good Neighbor Guidelines should include:
a. A definition of the type and size of facility that is subject to the Guidelines; b. Standards to minimize exposure to diesel emissions to sensitive receptors that are situated in close proximity to the proposed facility;
c. Standards and practices that eliminate diesel trucks from unnecessarily traversing through residential neighborhoods;
d. Standards and practices that eliminate trucks from using residential areas and repairing vehicles on the streets;
e. Strategies to reduce and/or eliminate diesel idling within the facility’s site; IR‐1a Review and revise roadway standards to establish complete streets standards addressing the following factors as applicable: number of travel lanes, lane width, medians, drainage control, shoulder width, parking lanes, bike lanes, fire and emergency response standards, curb and gutter design, landscaped strips, and sidewalk width.

IR‐1b Require development projects to arrange streets in an interconnected pattern, so that pedestrians, bicyclists, and drivers are not forced onto arterial streets for inter‐ or intra‐ neighborhood travel. This approach will also increase the safety and efficiency of movement of emergency responders and reduce vehicle miles traveled within the community..

3.7 GREENHOUSE GASES, CLIMATE CHANGE, AND ENERGY

3.7-48 Draft Environmental Impact Report – Lathrop General Plan Update CIR‐1d Use traffic calming tools to assist in implementing complete street principles; possible tools include roundabouts, raised intersections, curb extensions, reduced roadway width, and high visibility crosswalks.

CIR‐2a Create an active transportation plan supporting the development of bicycle and pedestrian networks across the City and funding applications for bicycle and pedestrian improvements.

CIR‐2b Add planned bicycle and pedestrian facilities in conjunction with road rehabilitation, reconstruction, or re‐striping projects whenever feasible.

CIR‐2d Improve bicycle facilities to include attractive and secure bicycle parking, bicycle lanes, bike paths, and wayfinding signage along appropriate roadways.

CIR‐2e Encourage and support the enhancement of transit stops with high quality, well‐maintained shelters, and provision of wayfinding signage and transit timetables.

CIR‐2f Provide access for bicycles and pedestrians at the ends of cul‐de‐sacs and through walls and berms, where right‐of‐way is available, to provide convenient access within and between neighborhoods and to encourage walking and bicycling to neighborhood destinations.

CIR‐2g Ensure that development and infrastructure projects are designed to provide pedestrian and bicycle access and leave no gaps in the bicycle and pedestrian networks.

CIR‐2j Create an off‐street shared‐use path system for use by pedestrians and bicyclists for transportation and recreation.

CIR‐2k Create bicycle and pedestrian connections to adjacent jurisdictions via shared use paths, bikeways, and sidewalks.

CIR‐2l Create bicycle and pedestrian connections to the ACE station, planned Valley Link stations, and other transit stops.

CIR‐2m Encourage transit providers to improve passenger pick‐up and drop‐off areas at the ACE and planned Valley Link stations to provide more convenient access.

GREENHOUSE GASES, CLIMATE CHANGE, AND ENERGY 3.7
Draft Environmental Impact Report – Lathrop General Plan Update 3.7-49 CIR‐2n Partner with neighboring jurisdictions and regional transit providers (including San Joaquin Regional Transit District, Manteca Transit, and Tracy TRACER Bus Services) to expand transit service between Lathrop and destinations in other jurisdictions.

CIR‐4b Evaluate the feasibility of a local or regional VMT impact fee program, bank, or exchange.

CIR‐4c Require proposed development projects that could have a potentially significant VMT impact to consider reasonable and feasible project modifications and other measures during the project design and environmental review stage of project development that would reduce VMT effects in a manner consistent with state guidance on VMT reduction.

CIR‐4e Partner with SJCOG on the Dibs program, which is the regional smart travel program, including rideshare, transit, walking, and biking.

CIR‐4g Encourage open data sharing. Anonymized data can improve the City’s decision‐making and help to develop more informed policies and plans while preserving people’s privacy.

3.7 GREENHOUSE GASES, CLIMATE CHANGE, AND ENERGY

3.7-50 Draft Environmental Impact Report – Lathrop General Plan Update CIR‐4i As part of the development of or participation in any ridesharing program, including for shared automated vehicle fleets, ensure that the program considers the safety needs of vulnerable populations and loading needs of seniors, families with children, and individuals with mobility impairments.

A. Air pollutant emissions associated with the project during construction, project operation, and cumulative conditions.

B. Potential exposure of sensitive receptors to toxic air contaminants.

C. Significant air quality impacts associated with the project for construction, project operation, and cumulative conditions.

D. Mitigation measures to reduce significant impacts to less than significant or the maximum extent feasible where impacts cannot be mitigated to less than significant.

RR‐6c Work with SJCOG and the SJVAPCD to implement plans and programs aimed at improving regional air quality.

GREENHOUSE GASES, CLIMATE CHANGE, AND ENERGY 3.7
Draft Environmental Impact Report – Lathrop General Plan Update 3.7-51 RR‐6f Continue the expansion of infrastructure to facilitate the use of City‐owned low or zero emission vehicles such as electric vehicle charging facilities and conveniently located alternative fueling stations at key City facilities as operations necessitate and/or as funding becomes available.

RR‐6h Encourage community car‐sharing and carpooling.

RR‐6i Support the establishment and expansion of a regional network of electric vehicle charging stations and encourage the expanded use of electric vehicles.

RR‐6k Consider instituting a Green Building Program to reflect best practices, such as encouraging the use of cement substitutes and recycled building materials for new construction.

RR‐6l Continue cooperating with the SJVAPCD by requiring a dust management plan to prevent fugitive dust from leaving the property boundaries and causing a public nuisance or a violation of an ambient air standard prior to construction and grading.

3.7 GREENHOUSE GASES, CLIMATE CHANGE, AND ENERGY

3.7-52 Draft Environmental Impact Report – Lathrop General Plan Update This page left intentionally blank.

HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS 3.8
Draft Environmental Impact Report – Lathrop General Plan Update 3.8-1 Hazards include man‐made or natural materials or man‐made or natural conditions that may pose a threat to human health, life, property, or the environment. Hazardous materials and waste present health hazards for humans and the environment. These health hazards can result during the manufacture, transportation, use, or disposal of such materials if not handled properly. In Lathrop, hazards to humans can also occur from natural or human induced wildfire and air traffic accidents.

This section provides a background discussion of the hazardous materials and waste, fire hazards, and hazards from air traffic related to the Planning Area. This section is organized with an existing setting, regulatory setting, and impact analysis. Additional analysis related to wildfire hazards is contained in Section 3.16, Wildfire, of this EIR.

No comments were received during the NOP comment period regarding this environmental topic.

Information related to toxic air pollutants including air quality hazards can be found in Chapter 3.3 (Air Quality).

3.8.1 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING

HAZARDOUS MATERIALS AND WASTE
Hazardous Materials
A hazardous material is a substance or combination of substances which, because of its quantity, concentration, or physical, chemical, or infectious characteristics, may either (1) cause or significantly contribute to an increase in mortality or an increase in serious, irreversible, or incapacitating irreversible illness; or (2) pose a substantial present or potential hazard to human health and safety, or the environment when improperly treated, stored, transported, or disposed of. Hazardous materials are mainly present because of industries involving chemical byproducts from manufacturing, petrochemicals, and hazardous building materials.

Hazardous Waste
Hazardous waste is the subset of hazardous materials that has been abandoned, discarded, or recycled and is not properly contained, including soil or groundwater that is contaminated with concentrations of chemicals, infectious agents, or toxic elements sufficiently high to increase human mortality or to destroy the ecological environment. If a hazardous material is spilled and cannot be effectively picked up and used as a product, it is considered to be hazardous waste. If a hazardous material site is unused, and it is obvious there is no realistic intent to use the material, it is also considered to be a hazardous waste. Examples of hazardous materials include flammable and combustible materials, corrosives, explosives, oxidizers, poisons, materials that react violently with water, radioactive materials, and chemicals.

3.8 HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS

3.8-2 Draft Environmental Impact Report – Lathrop General Plan Update Transportation of Hazardous Materials
The transportation of hazardous materials within California is subject to various Federal, State, and local regulations. It is illegal to transport explosives or inhalation hazards on any public highway not designated for that purpose, unless the use of the highway is required to permit delivery, or the loading of such materials (California Vehicle Code §§ 31602(b), 32104(a)). The California Highway Patrol (CHP) designates through routes to be used for the transportation of hazardous materials. Transportation of hazardous materials is restricted to these routes except in cases where additional travel is required from that route to deliver or receive hazardous materials to and from users.

HAZARDOUS SITES
Envirostor Data Management System
The California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) maintains the Envirostor Data Management System, which provides information on hazardous waste facilities (both permitted and corrective action) as well as any available site cleanup information. This site cleanup information includes: Federal Superfund Sites (NPL), State Response Sites, Voluntary Cleanup Sites, School Cleanup Sites, Corrective Action Sites, Tiered Permit Sites, and Evaluation/Investigation Sites. The hazardous waste facilities include: Permitted–Operating, Post‐Closure Permitted, and Historical Non‐Operating.

There are 18 locations with a Lathrop address that are listed in the Envirostor database. Seven sites are listed as school investigation sites with no action required, three sites are listed as certified (two State Response and one corrective action), two sites are listed as active (one is listed as a corrective action and one is listed as a Federal Superfund), two sites are referred to the RWQCB (one evaluation and one State Response), one site is referred to the Site Mitigation and Brownfields Reuse Program (SMBRP) (corrective action), and one site is listed as a military evaluation with no further action. Table 3.8‐1 lists the Envirostor sites within Lathrop. Following the table is a background discussion of these sites.

TABLE 3.8‐1: LATHROP SITE CLEANUP AND HAZARDOUS FACILITIES LIST (ENVIROSTOR)

NAME STATUS DATE LOCATION
ACTIVE – FEDERAL SUPERFUND
Sharpe Army Depot 5/1/1986 61 mi. East of San Francisco ACTIVE – CORRECTIVE ACTION
J R Simplot Co. 6/14/2011 16777 Howland Ave.

NO FURTHER ACTION –MILITARY INVESTIGATION
Lathrop Quinones Armed Forces Reserve Cente 12/19/2001 400 E. Roth Rd.

NO FURTHER ACTION –SCHOOL INVESTIGATION
East Union HS District Farm Project 12/10/2010 2901 E. Louise Ave.

Joe Widmer Elementary School 6/23/2000 Stonebridge Lane/I‐5 Lathrop High School 1/30/2006 526 and 600 W. Dos Reis Rd. & 15225 Manthey Rd.

HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS 3.8
Draft Environmental Impact Report – Lathrop General Plan Update 3.8-3

NAME STATUS DATE LOCATION
Louise Avenue Community School 10/19/2001 245 Louise Ave.

Mossdale School Site 7/3/2003 500 W. Louise Ave./17599 S. Manthey Rd.

Proposed River Islands MS/ES 1/22/2007 San Joaquin Rd. and north of Stewart Rd.

Terry School 6/10/2003 401/801 W. Louise Ave.

CERTIFIED – CORRECTIVE ACTION
Defense Dist Depot/San Joaquin/Sharpe 2/25//2009 Roth Rd. Buildings S‐4 CERTIFIED – STATE RESPONSE
J. R. Simplot, Lathrop – Soil Removal 6/1/1983 16777 Howland Ave.

Lague Sales 3/1/1990 2112 E. Louise Ave.

UNDERGOING CLOSURE – NON‐OPERATING
Defense Dist Depot/San Joaquin/Sharpe N/A Roth Rd. Buildings S‐4 J R Simplot Co. N/A 16777 Howland Ave.

REFER – OTHER AGENCY
Occidental Chemical Corp 6/19/2013 16777 Howland Rd.

Oxychem‐Lathrop 1/1/1984 2715 E. Louise Ave.

Libbey‐Owens‐Ford Glass Co. 11/15/1982 500 E. Louise Ave.

SOURCE: CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF TOXIC SUBSTANCES CONTROL, ENVIROSTOR DATABASE, 2020.

ACTIVE SITES
There are two active sites with a Lathrop address that are listed in the Envirostor database: The J R Simplot Co Corrective Action site, and the Sharpe Army Depot Federal Superfund site.

The J R Simplot Co. Corrective Action site has an active cleanup status as of June 14, 2011. This approximately one‐acre site is located at 16777 Howland Avenue. The site has been used for many years for formulating and storing agricultural fertilizers. Previous operations also included pesticide formulation in the Ag Chem area near the west side of the site. The soil at this site may be contaminated with 1,2‐Dribomo‐3‐Chloropropane (DBCP).

In 1981, the California Department of Health Services (DHS, the predecessor agency to the DTSC) issued OxyChem the Interim Status Document (ISD) to regulate the storage of hazardous wastes at the plant. OxyChem continued operation of the plant through 1982, including storage of wastewater in aboveground storage tank (AST) 128 and storage of stormwater in AST 127. In 1982, OxyChem initiated a groundwater remediation program that continues to this date. Groundwater containing DBCP and ethylene dibromide (EDB) is extracted from shallow wells, treated, and re‐ injected into deeper wells under the direction of the California RWQCB. This groundwater remediation program is not a part of the Ag Chem Area closure plan. In 1983, Simplot purchased the Lathrop Plant from OxyChem and requested that the DHS rescind the ISD because wastewater storage would be limited to less than 90 days in duration. The ISD was rescinded by DHS in 1983.

AST 127 and AST 128 continued to be used for short‐term storage of wastewater. In 1988, after pesticide formulation ceased, Simplot discontinued wastewater storage and cleaned AST 127, AST 128, and associated piping. Stormwater was stored in AST 127 from 1988 until 1991, when it was converted for use in storing fertilizer. AST 128 remained in place and unused since 1988.

3.8 HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS

3.8-4 Draft Environmental Impact Report – Lathrop General Plan Update In 1993, the DTSC issued Simplot a Report of Violation (ROV) indicating that the former hazardous waste storage tanks had not been closed in accordance with current requirements. Simplot responded to the ROV by transmitting documentation concerning the 1988 tank/piping cleanout to the DTSC. Subsequently, Simplot and DTSC entered into a Consent Agreement to complete closure of the Ag Chem Area. In 1995, and on behalf of Simplot, Geomatrix prepared the closure plan, which was approved by the DTSC in 1996.

The DTSC met with facility representatives and the Human and Ecological Risk Division (HERD) to discuss the future work. Based on this meeting, J R Simplot submitted a Closure/Risk Assessment which has been reviewed by DTSC. A letter will be mailed to the facility with comments regarding the Health Risk Assessment (HRA) portion. Occidental Chemical Corp. has signed a Voluntary Cleanup Agreement (VRA) with DTSC to provide for the completion of a Removal Action Workplan to remove contaminants from the site area.

The Sharpe Army Depot Federal Superfund site has an active cleanup status as of May 1, 1986. This site is discussed in further detail below.

Cortese List
The Hazardous Waste and Substances Sites (Cortese) List is a planning document used by the State, local agencies, and developers to comply with the California Environmental Quality Act requirements in providing information about the location of hazardous materials release sites.

Government Code Section 65962.5 requires the California Environmental Protection Agency to develop at least annually an updated Cortese List. California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) is responsible for a portion of the information contained in the Cortese List. Other State and local government agencies are required to provide additional hazardous material release information for the Cortese List. There is one site within Lathrop that is listed on the Cortese List.

This site, the Sharpe Army Depot (site 39970002), was previously known as Sharpe Army Depot and was operated by the U.S. Army. Defense Distribution Depot San Joaquin California (DDJC)‐ Sharpe was established in 1941 and consists of 727 acres. As of July 1990, the Defense Logistics Agency (DLA) took over operation of Sharpe and is now known as the DDJC‐Sharpe. The repair and reconditioning of heavy equipment and aircraft was conducted onsite until 1976. Storage, handling, preservation, and shipment of general supplies and equipment is the remaining base mission.

The Sharpe facility is divided into three general contamination areas: North Balloon, South Balloon, and Central areas. Groundwater treatment removal actions were initiated in the North and South Balloon areas in November 1990, and April 1987, respectively. The Sharpe facility was listed on the federal National Priorities List in July 1987. On July 19, 1989, the U.S. Army, U.S.EPA, the RWQCB, and DTSC entered into a Federal Facility Agreement (FFA) for Sharpe.

Past disposal sites include burial areas, burn pits, fire training areas, and leaking underground storage tanks. Soil and groundwater contamination by volatile organic compounds (VOCs), primarily trichloroethylene (TCE) and perchloroethylene (PCE), has been found at the site.

Presently, two offsite TCE plumes can be found west of the Central Area as well as in the North Balloon. Elevated arsenic concentrations have also been detected in the soils and groundwater at Sharpe. Lead and chromium contamination have also been found in the soil.

HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS 3.8
Draft Environmental Impact Report – Lathrop General Plan Update 3.8-5 The long‐term remedy for contaminated soil included excavation and disposal of metals‐ contaminated soils, soil vapor extraction for VOC‐contaminated soils and backfill of excavated areas with clean soil. EPA later updated the remedy to add land use controls and monitoring. The Army also completed a removal action for pesticides in soil and soil vapor extraction treated contaminated soil in phases between 1998 and 2001.

The long‐term remedy for contaminated groundwater included air stripping, a gas‐phase carbon adsorber for treatment of off gas and disposition of treated groundwater. Extraction and treatment of groundwater to remove VOCs began in early 1987. A second interim groundwater treatment system started operating in the North Balloon area in late 1990.

EPA has conducted several five‐year reviews of the site’s remedy. These reviews ensure that the remedies put in place protect public health and the environment, and function as intended by site decision documents.

The Army continues ongoing operation of the groundwater and soil vapor treatment systems. The Army submits routine sampling reports, including an annual report summarizing the cleanup progress. The Army completed the 4th Five‐Year Review Report (Report) in August 2020. EPA's evaluation of the Army's Report concluded that response actions at the site are in accordance with the remedy selected by EPA and that the remedy continues to be protective of human health and the environment in the short term. Continued protectiveness of the remedy requires additional monitoring wells to establish the boundaries of some of the groundwater plumes, optimization of the groundwater extraction remedies by installing new extraction wells, and additional evaluation of extent of lead and hexavalent chromium at some of the soil sites. The Army will also evaluate if soil gas action levels should be revised to ensure protection of future indoor occupants to vapor intrusion.

GeoTracker
GeoTracker is the California Water Resources Control Board’s data management system for managing sites that impact groundwater, especially those that require groundwater cleanup (Underground Storage Tanks, Department of Defense, Site Cleanup Program) as well as permitted facilities such as operating USTs and land disposal sites.

LEAKING UNDERGROUND STORAGE TANKS (LUST)
There are 14 locations with a Lathrop address that are listed in the GeoTracker database for Leaking Underground Storage Tanks (LUST). All of the locations have undergone LUST cleanup and the State has closed the case. Table 3.8‐2 lists the location of open and closed cases for LUSTs in Lathrop.

3.8 HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS

3.8-6 Draft Environmental Impact Report – Lathrop General Plan Update TABLE 3.8‐2: LATHROP LUST CLEANUP SITES

NAME ACTIVITY LOCATION

CLOSED CASES (CLEANUP COMPLETED)
ARCO #6080 Case #1 Completed ‐ Case Closed 85 Louise Ave. E.

ARCO #6080 Case #2 Completed ‐ Case Closed 85 Louise Ave. E.

Central Valley Construction Completed ‐ Case Closed 146 Klo Rd.

Circle‐K #1205 Completed ‐ Case Closed 16470 Cambridge Rd.

City of Lathrop Completed ‐ Case Closed 15688 Harlan Rd.

DiSalvo Trucking Completed ‐ Case Closed 1444 Lathrop Rd.

Fuller Mobile Home Park Completed ‐ Case Closed 365 Louise Ave. E.

Joe’s Texaco Completed ‐ Case Closed 15600 Harlan Rd. S.

Langston’s Market ARCO Completed ‐ Case Closed 15615 7th St. S Libbey Owens Ford Company Completed ‐ Case Closed 500 Louise Ave. E.

MBP Mossdale Completed ‐ Case Closed 444 Mossdale St.

Phillips 66 Completed ‐ Case Closed 16500 Harlan Rd. S.

Quaresma Property Completed ‐ Case Closed 91 Thomsen Rd. E.

Segura & Sons Transportation Completed ‐ Case Closed 12796 Harlan Rd. S.

SOURCE: CALIFORNIA WATER RESOURCES CONTROL BOARD GEOTRACKER DATABASE, 2017.

PERMITTED UNDERGROUND STORAGE TANK (UST)
There are 12 locations with a Lathrop address that have Underground Storage Tanks (UST) that are permitted through the California Water Resources Control Board. Table 3.8‐3 lists the location of the permitted USTs in Lathrop.

TABLE 3.8‐3: LATHROP PERMITTED UST SITES

NAME LOCATION
A & W Farms 12965 Manthey Rd. S.

ARCO 06080 85 Louise Ave. E.

Brown Sand Inc. 800 Mossdale Ave. W.

Colonial Energy CE 40135 (DBA Power Mart) 192 Lathrop Rd.

Fast Lane Central Valley 116 Roth Rd.

Joes Travel Plaza 15600 Harlan Rd. S.

Lathrop Gas & Food Inc. 140 Lathrop Rd. E.

Lathrop Shell 16500 Harlan Rd. S.

Mossdale Chevron 444 Mossdale Ave. W.

Pilot Travel Center Lathrop – 1017 345 Roth Rd.

Super Store Industries – Grocery Division 16888 McKinley Ave.

Two Guys Food & Fuel 147 Lathrop Rd. E.

SOURCE: CALIFORNIA WATER RESOURCES CONTROL BOARD GEOTRACKER DATABASE, 2017.

WATER BOARD PROGRAM CLEANUP SITES
There are 12 locations with a Lathrop address that are listed in the GeoTracker database for Water Board Cleanup Sites. Five of the locations have undergone cleanup and the State has closed the case. There are seven locations in Lathrop with an open case. Table 3.8‐4 lists the location of open and closed cases for Water Board Program Cleanup Sites in Lathrop.

HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS 3.8
Draft Environmental Impact Report – Lathrop General Plan Update 3.8-7 TABLE 3.8‐4: LATHROP WATER BOARD CLEANUP SITES

NAME LOCATION
OPEN ‐ REMEDIATION
Former Pilkington North America 500 Louise Ave. E.

Former Pilkington North America 500 Louise Ave. E.

Occidental Chemical Agricultural Products Company 16777 Howland Rd.

OPEN – SITE ASSESSMENT
J. R. Simplot Company 16777 Howland Rd.

OPEN – VERIFICATION MONITORING
J. R. Simplot Company 16777 Howland Rd.

OPEN ‐ INACTIVE CASE
Channel Construction Along Shulte Road Shulte Rd.

OPEN ‐ ACTIVE CASE
San Joaquin Cogen LLC 17200 Murphy Pkwy.

CLOSED CASES (CLEANUP COMPLETED)
California Natural Products 1250 Lathrop Rd. E.

D’Arcy Parkway Road Extension 400‐500 D'Arcy Pkwy.

Hayre’s Egg Producers 12565 S. Manthey Rd.

Lague Sales Salvage Yard 2112 Louise Ave. E.

PG&E Lathrop Gas Dehydrator Undine Rd.

SOURCE: CALIFORNIA WATER RESOURCES CONTROL BOARD GEOTRACKER DATABASE, 2017.

Solid Waste Information System (SWIS)
The Solid Waste Information System (SWIS) is a database of solid waste facilities that is maintained by the California Integrated Waste Management Board (CIWMB). The SWIS data identifies active, planned and closed sites. The City has two solid waste facilities listed in the database, both of which are closed. The site details are listed in Table 3.8‐5 below.

TABLE 3.8‐5: CIWMB FACILITIES/SITES

NUMBER NAME ACTIVITY REGULATORY STATUS
39‐AA‐0012 Windeler Ranch Glass Disposal Site Solid Waste Disposal Site Permitted Closed 39‐CR‐0022 Pilkington North America, Inc. Solid Waste Disposal Site Unpermitted Closed SOURCE: CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF RESOURCES RECYCLING AND RECOVERY, 2017.

The Windeler Ranch Glass Disposal Site is located at 640 Mossdale Road. The facility is owned by Raab, G. and is inspected four times each year. The most recent inspection of this facility (as of December 2017) by the Local Enforcement Agency (San Joaquin County Environmental Health Department) shows no violations or areas of concern.

The Pilkington North America, Inc. Site is located at 500 E Louise Avenue. The facility was formerly owned by Libbey‐Owens Ford (currently owned by ASP/RWM Properties), and is inspected four times each year. The most recent inspections of this facility (as of December 2017) by the Local Enforcement Agency (San Joaquin County Environmental Health Department) shows no violations or areas of concern.

3.8 HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS

3.8-8 Draft Environmental Impact Report – Lathrop General Plan Update

HAZARDS FROM AIR TRAFFIC
The State Division of Aeronautics has compiled extensive data regarding aircraft accidents around airports in California. This data is much more detailed and specific than data currently available from the FAA and the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB). According to the California Airport Land Use Planning Handbook (2011), prepared by the State Division of Aeronautics, 21 percent of general aviation accidents occur during takeoff and initial climb and 44.2 percent of general aviation accidents occur during approach and landing. The State Division of Aeronautics has plotted accidents during these phases at airports across the country and has determined certain theoretical areas of high accident probability.

Approach and Landing Accidents
As nearly half of all general aviation accidents occur in the approach and landing phases of flight, considerable work has been done to determine the approximate probability of such accidents.

Nearly 77 percent of accidents during this phase of flight occur during touchdown onto the runway or during the roll‐out. These accidents typically consist of hard or long landings, ground loops (where the aircraft spins out on the ground), departures from the runway surface, etc. These types of accidents are rarely fatal and often do not involve other aircraft or structures. Commonly these accidents occur due to loss of control on the part of the pilot and, to some extent, weather conditions. (California Division of Aeronautics, 2011).

The remaining 23 percent of accidents during the approach and landing phase of flight occur as the aircraft is maneuvered towards the runway for landing, in a portion of the airspace around the airport commonly called the traffic pattern. Common causes of approach accidents include the pilot’s misjudging of the rate of descent, poor visibility, unexpected downdrafts, or tall objects beneath the final approach course. Improper use of rudder on an aircraft during the last turn toward the runway can sometimes result in a stall (a cross‐control stall) and resultant spin, causing the aircraft to strike the ground directly below the aircraft. The types of events that lead to approach accidents tend to place the accident site fairly close to the extended runway centerline.

The probability of accidents increases as the flight path nears the approach end of the runway. (California Division of Aeronautics, 2011).

According to aircraft accident plotting provided by the State Division of Aeronautics, most accidents that occur during the approach and landing phase of flight occur on the airport surface itself. The remainder of accidents that occur during this phase of flight are generally clustered along the extended centerline of the runway, where the aircraft is flying closest to the ground and with the lowest airspeed. (California Division of Aeronautics, 2002).

Takeoff and Departure Accidents
According to data collected by the State Division of Aeronautics, nearly 65 percent of all accidents during the takeoff and departure phase of flight occur during the initial climb phase, immediately after takeoff. This data is correlated by two physical constraints of general aviation aircraft:

HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS 3.8
Draft Environmental Impact Report – Lathrop General Plan Update 3.8-9  The takeoff and initial climb phase are times when the aircraft engine(s) is under maximum stress and is thus more susceptible to mechanical problems than at other phases of flight; and
 Average general aviation runways are not typically long enough to allow an aircraft that experiences a loss of power shortly after takeoff to land again and stop before the end of the runway.

While the majority of approach and landing accidents occur on or near to the centerline of the runway, accidents that occur during initial climb are more dispersed in their location as pilots are not attempting to get to any one specific point (such as a runway). Additionally, aircraft vary widely in payload, engine power, glide ratio, and several other factors that affect glide distance, handling characteristics after engine loss, and general response to engine failure. This further disperses the accident pattern. However, while the pattern is more dispersed than that seen for approach and landing accidents, the departure pattern is still generally localized in the direction of departure and within proximity of the centerline. This is partially due to the fact that pilots are trained to fly straight ahead and avoid turns when experiencing a loss of power or engine failure.

Turning flight causes the aircraft to sink faster and flying straight allows for more time to attempt to fix the problem (California Division of Aeronautics, 2002).

Local Airport Facilities
There are no private or public airport facilities in the Planning Area.

Stockton Metropolitan Airport: The Stockton Metropolitan Airport is located approximately 3.0 miles north of the Lathrop City Limits. This airport is a County‐owned facility that occupies approximately 1,609 acres at an elevation of 23 feet above mean sea level (MSL). The acreage within the airport influence area is 56,184 acres.

The Stockton Metropolitan Airport is designated as a Non‐hub Commercial Service Airport within the Federal Aviation Administration’s (FAA) National Plan of Integrated Airport Systems (NPIAS).

The airport is served by Allegiant Air, which provides service to Phoenix/Mesa, Arizona and Las Vegas, Nevada. In addition to commercial service, Stockton Metropolitan Airport offers a wide range of fixed base operators (FBOs) providing fuel, aircraft maintenance, aircraft hangar and tie‐down rental, aircraft rental, flight training, aircraft management services, and pilot lounges for corporate and general aviation pilots. The airport also houses FBOs that support air cargo operations.

Stockton Metropolitan Airport is served by a parallel runway system in a northwest‐southeast orientation. Runway 11L‐29R is 10,650 feet long and 150 feet wide and is constructed of asphalt.

Runway 11R‐29L is 4,448 feet long and 75 feet wide and also constructed of asphalt. Runway 11L‐ 29R is accommodated by several instrument approach procedures aiding pilots in navigation to the runway. Runway 29R contains a medium intensity approach lighting system with runway alignment lights (MALSR) to provide runway alignment guidance for pilots in reduced visibility conditions. Runway 11L‐29R is served by a four‐light Precision Approach Path Indicator (PAPI‐ 4) at both ends and contains high intensity runway lighting (HIRL) to indicate the location of the runway edge. Runway 11R‐29L does not contain approach or runway edge lighting.

3.8 HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS

3.8-10 Draft Environmental Impact Report – Lathrop General Plan Update The northernmost portion of the Planning Area is located within the airport influence area for the Stockton Metropolitan Airport identified in the ALUCP. Land within the airport influence area is designated for industrial and commercial uses by the City’s General Plan. Other existing uses within the airport influence area include residential uses.

The lands within the City Limits that are located in the airport influence area for the Stockton Metropolitan Airport are not within the Airport’s noise exposure contours. Additionally, the lands within the City that are located in the airport influence area are not within the Airport’s Safety Zones.

Major Regional Airport Facilities
San Francisco International Airport (SFO): SFO is the largest airport in the region, and a hub for United Airlines. It provides a wide range of domestic airline service and all of the region’s long‐haul international flights. San Francisco serves 68% of regional Bay Area air passengers and 43% of regional air cargo shipments.

Metropolitan Oakland International Airport (OAK): Oakland Airport has traditionally been the hub for low‐cost carriers and a major air cargo center due to operations by FedEx and UPS. Oakland serves 17% of Bay Area regional air passengers and 52% of air cargo.

Norman Y. Mineta San Jose International Airport (SJC): Traffic at San Jose Airport has been affected by the recent realignment of airline services in the Bay Area. The airport does not currently offer any long‐haul international flights, and air cargo facilities are limited due to space constraints. San Jose serves 15% of the Bay Area regional air passengers and 6% of air cargo.

Sacramento International Airport (SMF): The Sacramento Airport served nearly 9 million passengers in 2012 with 150 daily departures to 36 destinations. Southwest provides the majority of flights. Many Sacramento area air passengers use Oakland and San Francisco for their air service needs. Conversely, some Bay Area passengers choose Sacramento Airport.

National Transportation Safety Board Aviation Accident Database The National Transportation Safety Board Aviation Accident Database does not identify any aircraft accidents with Lathrop identified as the nearest location between January of 1983 to 2017. (National Transportation Safety Board, 2017).

FIRE HAZARDS
Fuel Rank
Fuel rank is a ranking system developed by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CalFire) that incorporates four wildfire factors: fuel model, slope, ladder index, and crown index.

The U.S. Forest Service has developed a series of fuel models, which categorize fuels based on burn characteristics. These fuel models help predict fire behavior. In addition to fuel characteristics, slope is an important contributor to fire hazard levels. A surface ranking system has HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS 3.8
Draft Environmental Impact Report – Lathrop General Plan Update 3.8-11 been developed by CalFire, which incorporates the applicable fuel models and slope data. The model categorizes slope into six ranges: 0‐10 percent, 11‐25 percent, 26‐40 percent, 41‐55 percent, 56‐75 percent, and over75 percent. The combined fuel model and slope data are organized into three categories, referred to as surface rank. Thus, surface rank is a reflection of the quantity and burn characteristics of the fuels and the topography in a given area.

The ladder index is a reflection of the distance from the ground to the lowest leafy vegetation for tree and plant species. The crown index is a reflection of the quantity of leafy vegetation present within individual specimens of a given species.

The surface rank, ladder index, and crown index for a given area are combined in order to establish fuel rank of medium, high, or very high. Fuel rank is used by CalFire to identify areas in the California Fire Plan where large, catastrophic fires are most likely.

The City of Lathrop contains areas with “moderate” and “non‐wildland fuel” ranks. CalFire data for the areas immediately surrounding the Planning Area also include “moderate” and “non‐wildland fuel” ranks. Some areas in Stockton, approximately 10 miles or further north of the Planning Area, are designated as “moderate” fuel ranks.

Fire Hazard Severity Zones
The state has charged CalFire with the identification of Fire Hazard Severity Zones (FHSZ) within State Responsibility Areas. In addition, CalFire must recommend Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones (VHFHSZ) identified within any Local Responsibility Areas. The FHSZ maps are used by the State Fire Marshall as a basis for the adoption of applicable building code standards.

LOCAL RESPONSIBILITY AREAS
The majority of the Planning Area is located within a Local Responsibility Area (LRA). The Lathrop Planning Area is covered by two independent Fire Protection Districts: the Lathrop‐Manteca Fire Protection District (LMFD) and French Camp‐McKinley Fire District (French Camp). The LMFD provides fire protection services for all lands within the City of Lathrop being primarily lands south of Roth Road in addition to providing service to some 84.7 square miles of rural area around Manteca in the southern San Joaquin County area. The French Camp provides fire protection for the rural area primarily south of Stockton and north of Roth Road both east and west of Interstate

5. French Camp service boundaries include some 16 square miles, including a small portion of Stockton. Approximately 805 acres of the French Camp Fire District is in the Lathrop Area of Interest and about 149 acres is in the Sphere of Influence.

The City of Lathrop is not categorized as a "Very High" FHSZ by CalFire. No cities or communities within San Joaquin County are categorized as a "Very High" FHSZ by CalFire.

STATE RESPONSIBILITY AREAS
There are no State Responsibility Areas (SRAs) within the vicinity of the Planning Area.

FEDERAL RESPONSIBILITY AREAS
There is one Federal Responsibility Area (FRA) within the Planning Area. The Defense Depot San Joaquin Sharpe site and the Sharpe AAF Airport are located within a FRA. The Depot and Airport

3.8 HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS

3.8-12 Draft Environmental Impact Report – Lathrop General Plan Update are located in northern Lathrop, west of Interstate 5, north of W. Lathrop Road, and south of Roth Road.

Fire Threat
The fuel rank data are used by CalFire to delineate fire threat based on a system of ordinal ranking.

Thus, the Fire Threat model creates discrete regions, which reflect fire probability and predicted fire behavior. The four classes of fire threat range from moderate to extreme. Fire threat can be used to estimate the potential for impacts on various assets and values susceptible to fire. Impacts are more likely to occur and/or be of increased severity for the higher threat classes.

The Planning Area within Lathrop is considered to have low fire hazard severity as the surrounding land uses are either urban or irrigated agricultural land.

3.8.2 REGULATORY SETTING

FEDERAL
Aviation Act of 1958
The Federal Aviation Act resulted in the creation of the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). The FAA is charged with the creation and maintenance of a National Airspace System.

Federal Aviation Regulations (CFR, Title 14)
The Federal Aviation Regulation (FAR) establish regulations related to aircraft, aeronautics, and inspection and permitting.

Clean Air Act
The Federal Clean Air Act (FCAA) was first signed into law in 1970. In 1977, and again in 1990, the law was substantially amended. The FCAA is the foundation for a national air pollution control effort, and it is composed of the following basic elements: NAAQS for criteria air pollutants, hazardous air pollutant standards, state attainment plans, motor vehicle emissions standards, stationary source emissions standards and permits, acid rain control measures, stratospheric ozone protection, and enforcement provisions.

Clean Water Act
The Clean Water Act (CWA), which amended the Water Pollution Control Act (WPCA) of 1972, sets forth the §404 program to regulate the discharge of dredged and fill material into Waters of the U.S. and the §402 National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) to regulate the discharge of pollutants into Waters of the U.S. The §401 Water Quality Certification program establishes a framework of water quality protection for activities requiring a variety of Federal permits and approvals (including CWA §404, CWA §402, FERC Hydropower and §10 Rivers and Harbors).

HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS 3.8
Draft Environmental Impact Report – Lathrop General Plan Update 3.8-13 Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act The Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA) introduced active Federal involvement to emergency response, site remediation, and spill prevention, most notably the Superfund program. The Act was intended to be comprehensive in encompassing both the prevention of, and response to, uncontrolled hazardous material releases.

CERCLA deals with environmental response, providing mechanisms for reacting to emergencies and to chronic hazardous material releases. In addition to establishing procedures to prevent and remedy problems, it establishes a system for compensating appropriate individuals and assigning appropriate liability. It is designed to plan for and respond to failure in other regulatory programs and to remedy problems resulting from action taken before the era of comprehensive regulatory protection.

Environmental Protection Agency
The primary regulator of hazards and hazardous materials is the EPA, whose mission is to protect human health and the environment. The City of Lathrop is located within EPA Region 9, which includes Arizona, California, Hawaii, Nevada, the Pacific Islands, and 148 Tribes.

FY 2001 Appropriations Act
Title IV of the Appropriations Act required the identification of “Urban Wildland Interface Communities in the Vicinity of Federal Lands that are at High Risk from Wildfire” by the U.S.

Departments of the Interior and Agriculture.

Hazardous Materials Transportation Act
The Hazardous Materials Transportation Act, as amended, is the statute regulating hazardous materials transportation in the United States. The purpose of the law is to provide adequate protection against the risks to life and property inherent in transporting hazardous materials in interstate commerce. This law gives the U.S. Department of Transportation (USDOT) and other agencies the authority to issue and enforce rules and regulations governing the safe transportation of hazardous materials (DOE 2002).

Natural Gas Pipeline Safety Act
The Natural Gas Pipeline Safety Act authorizes the U.S. Department of Transportation Office of Pipeline Safety to regulate pipeline transportation of natural (flammable, toxic, or corrosive) gas and other gases as well as the transportation and storage of liquefied natural gas. The Office of Pipeline Safety regulates the design, construction, inspection, testing, operation, and maintenance of pipeline facilities. While the Federal government is primarily responsible for developing, issuing, and enforcing pipeline safety regulations, the pipeline safety statutes provide for State assumption of the intrastate regulatory, inspection, and enforcement responsibilities under an annual certification. To qualify for certification, a state must adopt the minimum Federal regulations and may adopt additional or more stringent regulations as long as they are not incompatible.

3.8 HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS

3.8-14 Draft Environmental Impact Report – Lathrop General Plan Update Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
The Resources Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) established EPA’s “cradle to grave” control (generation, transportation, treatment, storage and disposal) over hazardous materials and wastes. In California, the DTSC has RCRA authorization.

The 1976 Federal Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) and the 1984 RCRA Amendments regulate the treatment, storage, and disposal of hazardous and non‐hazardous wastes. The legislation mandated that hazardous wastes be tracked from the point of generation to their ultimate fate in the environment. This includes detailed tracking of hazardous materials during transport and permitting of hazardous material handling facilities.

The 1984 RCRA amendments provided the framework for a regulatory program designed to prevent releases from USTs. The program established tank and leak detection standards, including spill and overflow protection devices for new tanks. The tanks must also meet performance standards to ensure that the stored material will not corrode the tanks. The RCRA was further amended in 1988 to set additional standards for USTs.

In July 2015, the EPA revised the federal UST regulation, which strengthened the 1988 federal UST regulations by increasing emphasis on properly operating and maintaining UST equipment. The revision added new operation and maintenance requirements and addressed UST systems deferred in the 1988 UST regulation. The purpose of the revision was to help prevent and detect UST releases, which are a leading source of groundwater contamination. To ensure compliance performance measures reflect the 2015 UST regulation, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Association of State and Territorial Solid Waste Management Officials coordinated to update existing compliance performance measures and add new measures. The measures required states to switch from tracking compliance against significant operational compliance measures to the more stringent technical compliance rate (TCR) measures. As of October 2019, only 43.7 percent of USTs were in compliance with all TCR categories.

STATE
Aeronautics Act (Public Utilities Code §21001)
The Caltrans Division of Aeronautics bases the majority of its aviation policies on the Aeronautics Act. Policies include permits and annual inspections for public airports and hospital heliports and recommendations for schools proposed within two miles of airport runways.

Airport Land Use Commission Law (Public Utilities Code §21670 et seq.) The law, passed in 1967, authorized the creation of Airport Land Use Commissions (ALUC) in California. Per the Public Utilities Code, the purpose of an ALUC is to protect public health, safety, and welfare by encouraging orderly expansion of airports and the adoption of land use measures that minimizes exposure to excessive noise and safety hazards within areas around public airports to the extent that these areas are not already devoted to incompatible uses (Pub. Util. Code §21670). Furthermore, each ALUC must prepare an Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (ALUCP).

HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS 3.8
Draft Environmental Impact Report – Lathrop General Plan Update 3.8-15 Each ALUCP, which must be based on a twenty‐year planning horizon, should focus on broadly defined noise and safety impacts.

Assembly Bill 337
Per AB 337, local fire prevention authorities and CalFire are required to identify Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones (VHFHSZ) in LRAs. Standards related to brush clearance and the use of fire‐ resistant materials in fire hazard severity zones are also established.

California Code of Regulations
Title 3 of the California Code of Regulations (CCR) pertains to the application of pesticides and related chemicals. Parties applying regulated substances must continuously evaluate application equipment, the weather, the treated lands, and all surrounding properties. Title 3 prohibits any application that would:
 Contaminate persons not involved in the application;
 Damage non‐target crops or animals or any other public or private property; and  Contaminate public or private property or create health hazards on said property.

Title 8 of the CCR establishes California Occupational Safety and Health Administration (Cal OSHA) requirements related to public and worker protection. Topics addressed in Title 8 include materials exposure limits, equipment requirements, protective clothing, hazardous materials, and accident prevention. Construction safety and exposure standards for lead and asbestos are set forth in Title

8. Title 14 of the CCR establishes minimum standards for solid waste handling and disposal.

Title 17 of the CCR establishes regulations relating to the use and disturbance of materials containing naturally occurring asbestos.

Title 19 of the CCR establishes a variety of emergency fire response, fire prevention, and construction and construction materials standards.

Title 22 of the CCR sets forth definitions of hazardous waste and special waste. The section also identifies hazardous waste criteria and establishes regulations pertaining to the storage, transport, and disposal of hazardous waste.

Title 26 of the CCR is a medley of State regulations pertaining to hazardous materials and waste that are presented in other regulatory sections. Title 26 mandates specific management criteria related to hazardous materials identification, packaging, and disposal. In addition, Title 26 establishes requirements for hazardous materials transport, containment, treatment, and disposal.

Finally, staff training standards are set forth in Title 26.

Title 27 of the CCR sets forth a variety of regulations relating to the construction, operation, and maintenance of the state’s landfills. The title establishes a landfill classification system and categories of waste. Each class of landfill is constructed to contain specific types of waste (household, inert, special, and hazardous).

3.8 HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS

3.8-16 Draft Environmental Impact Report – Lathrop General Plan Update California Government Code Section 65302
This section, which establishes standards for developing and updating General Plans, includes fire hazard assessment and Safety Element content requirements.

California Health and Safety Code
Division 11 of the Health and Safety Code establishes regulations related to a variety of explosive substances and devices, including high explosives and fireworks. Section 12000 et seq. establishes regulations related to explosives and explosive devices, including permitting, handling, storage, and transport (in quantities greater than 1,000 pounds).

Division 12 establishes requirements for buildings used by the public, including essential services buildings, earthquake hazard mitigation technologies, school buildings, and postsecondary buildings.

Division 20 establishes DTSC authority and sets forth hazardous waste and underground storage tank regulations. In addition, the division creates a State superfund framework that mirrors the Federal program.

Division 26 establishes California Air Resources Board (CARB) authority. The division designates CARB as the air pollution control agency per Federal regulations and charges the Board with meeting Clean Air Act requirements.

California Health and Safety Code and Uniform Building Code Section 13000 et seq.

State fire regulations are set forth in §13000 et seq. of the California Health and Safety Code, which is divided into “Fires and Fire Protection” and “Buildings Used by the Public.” The regulations provide for the enforcement of the Uniform Building Code and mandate the abatement of fire hazards.

The code establishes broadly applicable regulations, such as standards for buildings and fire protection devices, in addition to regulations for specific land uses, such as childcare facilities and high‐rise structures.

California Vehicle Code §31600 (Transportation of Explosives) This code establishes requirements related to the transportation of explosives in quantities greater than 1,000 pounds, including licensing and route identification.

California Public Resources Code
The State’s Fire Safety Regulations are set forth in Public Resources Code §4290, which include the establishment of SRAs.

Public Resources Code §4291 sets forth defensible space requirements, which are applicable to anyone who “…owns, leases, controls, operates, or maintains a building or structure in, upon, or HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS 3.8
Draft Environmental Impact Report – Lathrop General Plan Update 3.8-17 adjoining a mountainous area, forest‐covered lands, brush‐covered lands, grass‐covered lands, or land that is covered with flammable material” (§4291(a)).

Food and Agriculture Code
Division 6 of the California Food and Agriculture Code (FAC) establishes pesticide application regulations. The division establishes training standards for pilots conducting aerial applications as well as permitting and certification requirements.

State Oversight of Hazards and Hazardous Materials
The DTSC is chiefly responsible for regulating the handling, use, and disposal of toxic materials.

The State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) regulates discharge of potentially hazardous materials to waterways and aquifers and administers the basin plans for groundwater resources in the various regions of the state. The RWQCB oversees surface and groundwater. Programs intended to protect workers from exposure to hazardous materials and from accidental upset are covered under OSHA at the Federal and California Division of Occupational Safety and Health (Cal/OSHA) and the California Department of Health Services (DHS) at the state level. Air quality is regulated through the CARB and San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District. The State Fire Marshal is responsible for the protection of life and property through the development and application of fire prevention engineering, education, and enforcement; CalFire provides fire protection services for State and privately‐owned wildlands.

Water Code
Division 7 of the California Water Code, commonly referred to as the Porter‐Cologne Water Quality Control Act, created the SWRCB and the RWQCB. In addition, water quality responsibilities are established for the SWRCB and RWQCBs.

LOCAL
Certified Unified Program Agencies
Senate Bill 1082 (1993) required the establishment of a unified hazardous waste and hazardous materials management program. The result was Cal EPA’s United Program, which consolidates the actions of DTSC, the SWRCB, the RWQCB’s, OES, and the State Fire Marshall. DTSC oversees the implementation of the hazardous waste generator and onsite treatment program, one of six environmental programs at the local level, through Certified Unified Program Agencies (CUPAs).

CUPAs have authority to enforce regulations, conduct inspections, administer penalties, and hold hearings. San Joaquin County implements the CUPA that has enforcement authority over the City of Lathrop.

San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District
San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (SJVAPCD) has jurisdiction over the City of Lathrop and deals with pollutants that get into the air from stationary (including fumes, dust and smoke, some asbestos) and mobile sources. SJVAPCD’s mission is to improve the health and quality of life

3.8 HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS

3.8-18 Draft Environmental Impact Report – Lathrop General Plan Update for all Valley residents through efficient, effective and entrepreneurial air quality management strategies. SJVAPCD responds to complaints about smells, answers questions about air quality management permits, and reviews development projects for compliance with air quality and greenhouse gas significance thresholds. The SJVAPCD and air quality are addressed in detail in Section 3.3, Air Quality, of this EIR.

San Joaquin County
Hazardous waste programs are managed and implemented locally through the County of San Joaquin CUPA. The County hosts a variety of hazardous waste collection events throughout the County in an effort to deter improper disposal of hazardous wastes.

Household Hazardous Waste (HHW) Collection Facilities receive hazardous waste that comes from homes and, in some cases, from small business hazardous waste generators. Household wastes include pesticides, batteries, old paint, solvents, used oil, antifreeze, and other chemicals that should not go into a regular municipal landfill.

San Joaquin County Public Health Services monitors the possible groundwater and soil contamination from underground tanks. Its funding mechanism is a billing contract with the State Water Quality Control Board. Public Health Services clean‐up enforcement falls under Title 23, California Code of Regulations. Case workers monitor site‐specific development and must be contacted prior to development.

The City of Lathrop and San Joaquin County Public Works Department deal with illegal discharges to sanitary or industrial sewers, and sometimes collect household hazardous waste. They also help to guard against illegal discharges to storm sewers (releases to the street, etc.).

Households Hazardous Waste
HHWs include pesticides, batteries, old paint, solvents, used oil, antifreeze, and other chemicals that should not go into a regular municipal landfill. HHW programs focus on removing dangerous substances from homes and preventing their release into the environment through landfills, sewer systems and illegal dumping. The City of Lathrop and San Joaquin County Public Works Solid Waste Division collaborate on a variety of hazardous waste collection opportunities to assist in the elimination of household hazardous waste. HHW Collection Facilities receive hazardous waste that comes from homes and, in some cases, from small business hazardous waste generators.

HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS 3.8
Draft Environmental Impact Report – Lathrop General Plan Update 3.8-19

3.8.3 IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES

THRESHOLDS OF SIGNIFICANCE
Consistent with Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, the proposed Project will have a significant impact from hazards and hazardous materials if it will:
 Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials;
 Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment;
 Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one‐quarter mile of an existing or proposed school;  Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment;
 For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area;  Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan; or
 Expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires.

IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
Impact 3.8‐1: General Plan implementation has the potential to create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials, or through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment (Less than Significant) Future development, infrastructure, and other projects allowed under the General Plan may involve the transportation, use, and/or disposal of hazardous materials. Hazardous materials are typically used in industrial, and commercial uses, as well as residential uses. Future uses may involve the transport and disposal of such materials from time to time. Future activities may involve equipment or construction activities that use hazardous materials (e.g., coatings, solvents and fuels, and diesel‐fueled equipment), cleanup of sites with known hazardous materials, the transportation of excavated soil and/or groundwater containing contaminants from areas that are identified as being contaminated, or disposal of contaminated materials at an approved disposal site. While hazardous materials may be associated with industrial activities, hazardous materials may also be associated with the regular cleaning and maintenance of residential and other less intense uses. Accidental release of hazardous materials that are used in the construction or

3.8 HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS

3.8-20 Draft Environmental Impact Report – Lathrop General Plan Update operation of a project may occur. There is also the potential for accidental release of pre‐existing hazardous materials, associated with previous activities on a site.

The use, transportation, and disposal of hazardous materials is regulated and monitored by local fire departments, CUPAs, the Cal OSHA and the DTSC consistent with the requirements of Federal, State, and local regulations and policies. Facilities that store hazardous materials on‐site are required to maintain a Hazardous Materials Business Plan in accordance with State regulations. In the event of an accidental release of hazardous materials, the local CUPA and emergency management agencies (e.g., Police and Fire) would respond. All future projects allowed under the General Plan would be required to comply with the provisions of Federal, State, and local requirements related to hazardous materials. As future development and infrastructure projects are considered by the City, each project would be evaluated for potential impacts, specific to the project, associated with hazardous materials as required under CEQA.

In addition to the requirements associated with Federal and State regulations and the Municipal Code, the General Plan includes policies and actions to address potential impacts associated with hazardous materials among other issues. These policies and actions in the General Plan, which are listed below, would ensure that potential hazards are identified on a project site, that development is located in areas where potential exposure to hazards and hazardous materials can be mitigated to an acceptable level, and that business operations comply with Federal and State regulations regarding the use, transport, storage, and disposal of hazardous materials. The General Plan also includes policies and actions to ensure that the City has adequate emergency response plans and measures to respond in the event of an accidental release of a hazardous substance.

As described previously in the regulatory setting, hazardous materials regulations related to the use, handling, and transport of hazardous materials are codified in Titles 8, 22, and 26 of the CCR, and their enabling legislation set forth in Chapter 6.95 of the California Health and Safety Code.

These laws were established at the state level to ensure compliance with federal regulations to reduce the risk to human health and the environment from the routine use of hazardous substances. These regulations must be implemented by employers/businesses, as appropriate, and are monitored by the state (e.g., Cal OSHA in the workplace or DTSC for hazardous waste) and/or the County. The haulers and users of hazardous materials are listed with the Lathrop‐Manteca Fire District and are regulated and monitored by San Joaquin County. In addition, implementation of Title 49, Parts 171‐180, of the Code of Federal Regulations would reduce any impacts associated with the potential for accidental release of hazardous materials. Therefore, implementation of the General Plan policies and actions listed below, as well as adherence to Federal and State regulations, would ensure that potential impacts associated with the routine use, transport, storage, or disposal or accidental release of hazardous materials would be less than significant.

HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS 3.8
Draft Environmental Impact Report – Lathrop General Plan Update 3.8-21

GENERAL PLAN POLICIES AND ACTIONS THAT MINIMIZE POTENTIAL IMPACTS

PUBLIC SAFETY ELEMENT POLICIES
PS‐4.1 Location. Maintain an awareness of where hazardous materials are being stored and/or produced in the City and throughout the region.

PS‐4.2 Reduction. Encourage producers and users of hazardous materials to reduce the amount of hazardous materials produced and used.

PS‐4.3 Storage. Require the storage of hazardous materials in safe manner.

PS‐4.4 Regulations. Ensure that the LMFD continues to enforce the Uniform Fire Code relating to the use of hazardous material and require the appropriate regulations to be followed and precautions taken for the type and amount of hazard being created, used, stored, and/or disposed.

PS‐4.5 Hazardous Materials Business Plan. Coordinate with the LMFD to ensure that businesses in the city which handle hazardous materials prepare and file a Hazardous Materials Business Plan (HMBP). The HMBP shall consist of general business information, basic information on the location, type, quantity, and health risks of hazardous materials, and emergency response and training plans.

PS‐4.6 Cleanup Sites. Require that the hazardous material transporter and/or the party responsible for the release, coordinates with the San Joaquin County Environmental Health Department, LMFD, and other agencies as needed, to confirm that hazardous waste cleanup sites located within the city are remediated with the property owner in a manner that keeps the public safe.

PS‐4.7 Emergency Response. Work with the LMFD and other responding agencies to ensure that emergency personnel respond safely and effectively to a hazardous materials incident in the city.

PS‐4.8 Public Education. Coordinate with the City’s waste service provider(s) and San Joaquin County to increase public awareness about proper disposal related to household hazardous waste and inform the Lathrop community regarding relevant services and programs to address issues related to hazardous waste and materials.

PUBLIC SAFETY ELEMENT ACTIONS
PS‐4a As part of the development review process, require projects that result in significant risks associated with hazardous materials to include measures to address the risks and reduce the risks to an acceptable level.

PS‐4b Review development proposals to address proximity of users and transporters of significant amounts of hazardous materials relative to sensitive uses, such as schools and residential neighborhoods.

PS‐4c Continue to maintain and update emergency service plans, including plans for the handling of hazardous materials and rapid cleanup of hazardous materials spills.

3.8 HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS

3.8-22 Draft Environmental Impact Report – Lathrop General Plan Update PS‐4d Continue to require the submittal of information regarding hazardous materials manufacturing, storage, use, transport, and/or disposal by existing and proposed businesses and developments to the LMFD.

PS‐4e Coordinate with the LMFD and 911 dispatch center to ensure that the City maintains a current database of hazardous materials.

PS‐4f Educate current and future property owners about contamination from previous uses. The City shall coordinate with property owners in the cleanup of these sites, particularly in areas with redevelopment potential.

PS‐4g Coordinate with the LMFD, other local agencies, Union Pacific Railroad, and other transporters to strictly regulate and enforce the use, storage, transport, and/or disposal of hazardous materials under California Administrative Code Title 19 requirements.

PS‐4h Provide educational opportunities for generators of small quantity, household, and agricultural waste products regarding their responsibilities for source reduction and proper and safe hazardous waste management and disposal.

PS‐4i Coordinate with San Joaquin County and other public agencies to inform consumers about household use and disposal of hazardous materials.

PS‐4j Cooperate fully with Union Pacific Railroad, LMFD, and other agencies, such as the California Highway Patrol, in the event of a hazardous material emergency.

PS‐4k Continue to promote hazardous materials and/or electronic waste drop‐off events and opportunities for the public.

HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS 3.8
Draft Environmental Impact Report – Lathrop General Plan Update 3.8-23 Impact 3.8‐2: General Plan implementation has the potential to emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one‐quarter mile of an existing or proposed school (Less than Significant)
Schools within the City of Lathrop are part of the Manteca Unified School District (MUSD) and BANTA Unified School District. The MUSD provides school services for grades K through 12 within the communities of Manteca, Lathrop, Stockton, and French Camp. The District is approximately 113 square miles and serves more than 23,000 students. Within the City of Lathrop, there are three elementary schools (Lathrop Elementary School, Joseph Widmer School, and Mossdale Elementary School) and one high school (Lathrop High School). Schools within the City of Lathrop west of the San Joaquin River, are within the Banta Unified School District (BUSD). The BUSD provides school services for grades K through 12 within the communities of Banta, Tracy, and Lathrop; more specifically River Islands of Lathrop. River Islands currently has two charter elementary schools, the River Islands Technology Academy and the S.T.E.A.M. Academy). Table

3.8‐6 shows the public schools serving Lathrop.

TABLE 3.8‐6: PUBLIC SCHOOLS SERVING LATHROP
SCHOOL
GRADES
SERVED

ADDRESS

ELEMENTARY AND MIDDLE SCHOOLS
Lathrop Elementary School K‐8 15851 5th Street
Joseph Widmer Elementary School K‐8 751 Stonebridge Lane Mossdale Elementary School K‐8 455 Brookhurst Boulevard River Islands Technology Academy K‐8 1175 Marina Drive
Next Generation S.T.E.A.M. Academy K‐8 18001 Commercial Street Total

HIGH SCHOOLS
Lathrop High School 9‐12 647 Spartan Way
Total
SOURCES: CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION EDUCATIONAL DEMOGRAPHICS UNIT ENROLLMENT FOR 2017‐18 The General Plan’s Land Use Element, and Land Use Map includes land use designations, but does not propose actual development projects, businesses, or school facilities. As such, it is not possible to determine if a specific use will result in hazardous emissions or require handling of hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste in proximity to a school site. The land use designations with the highest possibility of having businesses that result in hazardous emissions or require handling of hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste would be:

Limited Industrial, General Industrial, and Commercial uses. In addition to designated land uses identified by Lathrop’s Land Use Map, existing site uses such as existing agricultural lands and operations also have the potential to use and store hazardous materials. Some of these uses would likely occur within ¼ mile of an existing school. Each of these uses may use a variety of hazardous materials commonly found in urban areas including: paints, cleaners, and cleaning solvents. If handled appropriately, these materials do not pose a significant risk. The General Industrial (GI) land use generally provides opportunities for large‐scale industries requiring

3.8 HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS

3.8-24 Draft Environmental Impact Report – Lathrop General Plan Update substantial acreage. The term general implies industrial operations which are relatively high in intensity of operation and which may require special conditions such as noise attenuation equipment or emission controls to mitigate potential adverse impacts. The Limited Industrial (LI) land use designation accommodates a wide range of uses including business parks, clean light industrial, research and development facilities, tech and biotech manufacturing facilities, high tech services providing assembly, warehousing, and sales of equipment, and warehouse and distribution centers. The Service Commercial land use designation provide for the location of uses such as auto sales and repairs, building materials supply, equipment services. This land use designation is for businesses engaged in servicing equipment, materials, and products as opposed to manufacturing, assembling, and packaging products. The Freeway Commercial designation caters primarily to services associated with highway travel such as hotels, restaurants, automotive services and sales, and fuel stations.

The proposed General Plan is not anticipated to directly lead to the establishment of new businesses that would emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste because the General Plan does not approve any specific development projects. However, given the unknown nature of future business establishments within the commercial and industrial use categories, the potential for hazardous materials is present. Potential impacts related to the handling or transport of hazardous materials in proximity to schools would be minimized through the implementation of the policies and actions listed below, as well as adherence to local, State, and Federal regulations.

All hazardous materials would be required to be handled in accordance with Federal, State, and County requirements, which would limit the potential for a project to expose nearby uses, including schools, to hazardous emissions or an accidental release. Hazardous emissions are monitored by the SJVAPCD, RWQCB, DTSC and the local CUPA (San Joaquin County). In the event of a hazardous materials spill or release, notification and cleanup operations would be performed in compliance with applicable Federal, State, and local regulations and policies, including hazard mitigation plans. As part of the development review process, the City’s proposed General Plan also includes policies and requirements, listed below, that require projects that may result in significant risks associated with hazardous materials to include measures to address and reduce the risks to an acceptable level such that surrounding uses are not exposed to hazardous materials in excess of adopted state and federal standards. Additionally, these policies and actions also require the submittal of information regarding hazardous materials manufacturing, storage, use, transport, and/or disposal by existing and proposed businesses and developments to the Lathrop‐Manteca Fire District. Compliance with all existing regulations as well as General Plan policies and actions related to land use compatibility and hazardous materials handling and reporting requirements would ensure that this impact is less than significant.

GENERAL PLAN POLICIES AND ACTIONS THAT MINIMIZE POTENTIAL IMPACTS

PUBLIC SAFETY ELEMENT POLICIES
PS‐4.1 Location. Maintain an awareness of where hazardous materials are being stored and/or produced in the City and throughout the region.

HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS 3.8
Draft Environmental Impact Report – Lathrop General Plan Update 3.8-25 PS‐4.2 Reduction. Encourage producers and users of hazardous materials to reduce the amount of hazardous materials produced and used.

PS‐4.3 Storage. Require the storage of hazardous materials in safe manner.

PS‐4c Continue to maintain and update emergency service plans, including plans for the handling of hazardous materials and rapid cleanup of hazardous materials spills.

PS‐4d Continue to require the submittal of information regarding hazardous materials manufacturing, storage, use, transport, and/or disposal by existing and proposed businesses and developments to the LMFD.

PS‐4e Coordinate with the LMFD and 911 dispatch center to ensure that the City maintains a current database of hazardous materials.

Impact 3.8‐3: General Plan implementation has the potential to have projects located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 (Less than Significant)
The Hazardous Waste and Substances Sites (Cortese) List is a planning document used by the State, local agencies, and developers to comply with the California Environmental Quality Act requirements in providing information about the location of hazardous materials release sites.

Government Code Section 65962.5 requires the California Environmental Protection Agency There is one site within Lathrop that is listed on the Cortese List. This site, the Sharpe Army Depot (site 39970002), was previously known as Sharpe Army Depot and was operated by the U.S. Army.

Defense Distribution Depot San Joaquin California (DDJC)‐Sharpe was established in 1941 and

3.8 HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS

3.8-26 Draft Environmental Impact Report – Lathrop General Plan Update consists of 727 acres. As of July 1990, the Defense Logistics Agency (DLA) took over operation of Sharpe and is now known as the DDJC‐Sharpe. The repair and reconditioning of heavy equipment and aircraft was conducted onsite until 1976. Storage, handling, preservation, and shipment of general supplies and equipment is the remaining base mission.

Elevated arsenic concentrations have also been detected in the soils and groundwater at the Sharpe site. Lead and chromium contamination have also been found in the soil.

The above‐mentioned sites are subject to various Federal and State laws and regulatory agencies, including the CERCLA, EPA, DTSC, and RWQCB. At this site, activity and use limitations that EPA calls institutional controls are in place. Institutional controls play an important role in site remedies because they reduce exposure to contamination by limiting land or resource use. They also guide human behavior. For instance, zoning restrictions prevent land uses – such as residential uses – that are not consistent with the level of cleanup. The Sharpe facility site has historically been designated Limited Industrial on the Lathrop General Plan Land Use Map, and no changes to this LI designation are proposed as part of the General Plan update. As such, the proposed Project would not introduce sensitive receptors, including residential uses, to this area.

The General Plan does not propose or approve any specific development project, however development allowed by the General Plan could create a hazard to the public or the environment through a disturbance or release of contaminated materials if the development occurs on or adjacent to contaminated sites without appropriate measures to contain or mitigate the existing contamination. Federal and State regulations ensure that existing hazards, including those associated with known hazardous materials sites, are addressed prior to development. Compliance with Federal and State regulations would ensure that potential impacts associated with the hazardous conditions on sites listed pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 would be less than significant.

Impact 3.8‐4: General Plan implementation is not located within an airport land use plan, two miles of a public airport or public use airport, and would not result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area (Less than Significant)
Hazards related to airports are typically grouped into two categories: air hazards and ground hazards. Air hazards jeopardize the safety of an airborne aircraft and expose passengers, pilots, and crews to danger. Examples of air hazards include tall structures, glare‐producing objects, bird HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS 3.8
Draft Environmental Impact Report – Lathrop General Plan Update 3.8-27 and wildlife attractants, radio waves from communication centers, or other features that have the potential to interfere with take‐off or landing procedures, posing a risk to aircraft. Ground hazards jeopardize the safety of current and future residents and/or workers in the vicinity of an airport.

The most obvious ground hazard is a crash, which may produce a serious, immediate risk to those residing in or using areas adjacent to the airport. Most accidents occur during take‐off and landing.

Therefore, the higher the density around an airport, including transportation facilities, the higher the risk associated with this type of hazard.

There are no airport facilities located within the Planning Area. The nearest airport facilities within the vicinity of the Planning Area are the Stockton Metropolitan Airport, located approximately 3 miles north of the Lathrop City Limits, and the New Jerusalem Airport, located approximately 5.5 miles southwest of the Lathrop City Limits.

The New Jerusalem Airport is owned and operated by the City of Tracy. New Jerusalem Airport is served by one runway, Runway 12‐30, which is 3,530 feet long and 60 feet wide, constructed of asphalt. The airport is unattended and serves as a staging area for aerial chemical application, pilot training activities, as well as powered parachute and ultralight activities. The Planning Area is located outside of the airport influence areas for the New Jerusalem Airport; therefore, it is not anticipated that this airport would pose a hazard to people residing or working in the Planning Area.

As previously mentioned, the Stockton Metropolitan Airport is located in unincorporated San Joaquin County adjacent to the City of Stockton City Limits southern boundary. This airport is a County‐owned facility that occupies approximately 1,609 acres at an elevation of 23 feet above Mean Sea Level (MSL). The Stockton Metropolitan Airport is designated as a Non‐hub Commercial Service Airport within the Federal Aviation Administration’s (FAA) National Plan of Integrated Airport Systems (NPIAS). The airport is served by Allegiant Air, which provides service to Phoenix/Mesa, Arizona and Las Vegas, Nevada. In addition to commercial service, Stockton Metropolitan Airport offers a wide range of fixed base operators (FBOs) providing fuel, aircraft maintenance, aircraft hangar and tie‐down rental, aircraft rental, flight training, aircraft management services, and pilot lounges for corporate and general aviation pilots. The airport also houses FBOs that support air cargo operations.

The NTSB Aviation Accident (NTSBAA) Database identifies one aircraft accident (nonfatal) on October 16, 1969 at the Stockton Metropolitan Airport; however, the accident did not occur within the City of Lathrop. Additionally, the NTSBAA Database does not identify any aircraft accidents with Lathrop identified as the nearest location between January of 1983 to 2020. (National Transportation Safety Board, 2017).

The northernmost portion of the Planning Area is located within the airport influence area for the Stockton Metropolitan Airport identified in the ALUCP. The land within the airport influence area is designated for industrial and commercial uses by the City’s General Plan. Other uses within the airport influence area include existing residential uses.

3.8 HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS

3.8-28 Draft Environmental Impact Report – Lathrop General Plan Update The lands within the Planning Area that are located in the airport influence area (AIA) for the Stockton Metropolitan Airport are not within the Airport’s noise exposure contours. Additionally, the lands within the Planning Area that are located in the airport influence area are not within the Airport’s Safety Zones. However, airspace review is required for development greater than 100 feet tall on lands within the AIA.

The City of Lathrop has prepared the General Plan to include policies and actions intended to ensure future developments are consistent with the Stockton Metropolitan ALUCP. General Plan Policy LU‐3.5 requires development within the Stockton Metropolitan Airport Influence Area to be consistent with the compatible uses identified in the Project Review Guidelines for the Airport Land Use Commission. As described above, lands within the Planning Area include lands within Zone 8 (airport influence area). Additionally, General Plan Action LU‐3f requires all applications for development within the Stockton Metro Airport Area of Influence to be referred to the ALUC and the Stockton Metro Airport for comment to ensure that all future plans have limited impacts to the community of Lathrop. Implementation of the General Plan policies and actions discussed above and listed below, as well as Federal and State regulations, would ensure that potential impacts relative to this topic would be less than significant.

GENERAL PLAN POLICIES AND ACTIONS THAT MITIGATE POTENTIAL IMPACTS

LAND USE ELEMENT POLICIES
LU‐3.5 Ensure that development within the Stockton Metropolitan Airport Influence Area (Figure

4.2‐1 of the General Plan Existing Conditions Report) is consistent with the compatible uses identified in the Project Review Guidelines for the Airport Land Use Commission.

LAND USE ELEMENT ACTIONS
LU‐3f Refer all applications for development within the Stockton Metro Airport Area of Influence to the Airport Land Use Commission and the Stockton Metro Airport for comment.

Impact 3.8‐5: General Plan implementation has the potential to impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan (Less than Significant) The General Plan would allow a variety of new development, including residential, commercial, industrial, and public projects, which would result in increased jobs and population in Lathrop.

Road and infrastructure improvements would occur to accommodate the new growth. Future development and infrastructure projects are not anticipated to remove or impede any established evacuation routes within the city. Furthermore, the General Plan does not include land uses, policies, or other components that conflict with adopted emergency response or evacuation plans.

However, given that the type, location, and size of future development and infrastructure projects is not known at this time, there is the potential that the City could receive a development proposal that could potentially interfere with an established emergency evacuation route or plan. The General Plan ensures that the City’s emergency access routes, emergency contact lists, and public information regarding designated facilities and routes are regularly reviewed to ensure that up to date information is available to the City and the public in the event of an emergency. Important HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS 3.8
Draft Environmental Impact Report – Lathrop General Plan Update 3.8-29 new critical facilities would be located to ensure resiliency in the event of a natural disaster.

Implementation of the General Plan policies and actions listed below would result in a less than significant impact related to its environmental topic.

GENERAL PLAN POLICIES AND ACTION THAT MITIGATE POTENTIAL IMPACTS

PUBLIC SAFETY ELEMENT POLICIES
PS‐5.1 Emergency Operations Plan. Continue to maintain and update the Emergency Operations Plan.

PS‐5.2 Critical Facilities. Coordinate with service providers to ensure the resilience of critical facilities, lifeline services, and infrastructure, and plan for the use of critical facilities during post‐disaster response and recovery.

PS‐5.3 Agency Coordination. Coordinate with San Joaquin County and the California Standardized Emergency Management System (SEMS) to ensure coordinated local and State‐level responses in the event of an emergency and implementation of the Countywide Emergency Preparedness Plan and Local Hazard Mitigation Plan.

PS‐5.4 Location Coordination. Coordinate with local key stakeholders (officials, schools, businesses, and organizations) within the community to make them aware of their role in the emergency plan and the necessary requirements in case of emergency.

PS‐5.6: Automatic and Mutual Aid. Continue to participate in automatic and mutual aid agreements with adjacent service providers to ensure efficient and adequate resources, facilities, and support services during and after emergencies.

PS‐5.7 Communication. Provide a comprehensive emergency communication system to properly respond to emergencies. Clearly communicate to the public the City’s plans, procedures, and responsibilities in the event of a disaster or emergency.

PS‐5.9 Public Awareness. Prepare residents for emergency situations by making emergency strategies, including evacuation routes, publicly‐known and easily accessible.

PS‐5.10 School Safety. Coordinate with local schools related to their programs and practices regarding emergency preparedness.

PS‐5.11 Emergency Shelters. Periodically coordinate with emergency shelter providers to ensure that necessary equipment supplies are available in the case of emergency.

PUBLIC SAFETY ELEMENT ACTIONS
PS‐5a Regularly practice implementation of the City’s Emergency Regularly review County and State emergency response procedures that must be coordinated with City procedures.

PS‐5b Cooperate with San Joaquin County OES, LMFD, Lathrop Police Services, San Joaquin County Sheriff, the reclamation districts, and other agencies with responsibility for emergency management in emergency response planning, training and provision of logistical support.

3.8 HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS

3.8-30 Draft Environmental Impact Report – Lathrop General Plan Update PS‐5e Periodically review, maintain, and repair City roadways and emergency access routes, and provide signage, where necessary, to clearly identify emergency access routes.

PS‐5h Develop and annually update an emergency contact list and emergency response information on the City’s website. The information should include emergency access routes, available emergency resources, and contact information for emergency responders.

Impact 3.8‐6: General Plan implementation has the potential to expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires ( Less than Significant)
Wildfires are a potential hazard to development and land uses located in foothill and forested areas. The severity of wildfire problems depends on a combination of vegetation, climate, slope, and people. In addition to natural factors such as lightning, human activity is a primary factor contributing to the incidence of wildfires. Campfires, smoking, debris burning, arson, public utility infrastructure, and equipment use are common human‐related causes of wildfires.

The City of Lathrop is not categorized as a “Very High” FHSZ and no cities or communities within San Joaquin County are categorized as a “Very High” FHSZ by CalFire. The majority of the Planning Area is located within a Local Responsibility Area (LRA). The portions of the Planning Area located in an LRA include: a developed area adjacent south of the Defense Depot San Joaquin Sharpe site and the Sharpe AAF Airport, a developed area near D’Arcy Parkway, an area along the San Joaquin River, just west of Interstate 5, and an undeveloped area along the San Joaquin River in the westernmost Planning Area. The Lathrop Planning Area is covered by two independent Fire Protection Districts: the Lathrop‐Manteca Fire Protection District (LMFD) and French Camp‐ McKinley Fire District (French Camp). The LMFD provides fire protection services for all lands within the City of Lathrop being primarily lands south of Roth Road. The French Camp provides fire protection for the rural area primarily south of Stockton and north of Roth Road both east and west of Interstate 5. French Camp service boundaries include some 16 square miles, including a small portion of Stockton. Approximately 805 acres of the French Camp Fire District is in the Lathrop Area of Interest and about 149 acres is in the Sphere of Influence.

Fire threat determinations is a combination of two factors: 1) fire frequency, or the likelihood of a given area burning, and 2) potential fire behavior (hazard). These two factors are combined to create four threat classes ranging from moderate to extreme. Fire threat can be used to estimate the potential for impacts on various assets and values susceptible to fire. Impacts are more likely to occur and/or be of increased severity for the higher threat classes. The Planning Area is considered to have negligible wildfire fire threat as much of the land use is urban or irrigated agricultural land.

The General Plan includes policies and actions, listed below, for adequate water supply and water flow availability, ensuring adequate emergency access, adequate fire protection services, fire safe design site standards, and ensuring public awareness regarding fire safety. All future projects allowed under the General Plan would be required to comply with the provisions of Federal, State, and local requirements related to fire hazards, including State fire safety regulations associated HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS 3.8
Draft Environmental Impact Report – Lathrop General Plan Update 3.8-31 with wildland‐urban interfaces, fire‐safe building standards, and defensible space requirements. As future development and infrastructure projects are considered by the City, each project would be evaluated for potential impacts, specific to the project, associated with fire hazards as required under CEQA. As described previously, no lands within the city are characterized as having a high fire hazard risk potential, or located adjacent to lands that have a high risk for wildfire.

Development under the General Plan would allow development to place people and/or structures in undeveloped areas that are identified as having a low to moderate risk of wildland fires; therefore, this is considered a less than significant impact.

GENERAL PLAN POLICIES AND ACTION THAT MITIGATE POTENTIAL IMPACTS

PUBLIC SAFETY ELEMENT POLICIES
PS‐2.1 Building Fire Codes. Require that all buildings and facilities within the city comply with local, state, and federal regulatory standards such as the California Building and Fire Codes, as well as other applicable fire safety standards, to minimize the risk of fire in the city.

PS‐2.4 Fire Emergency Response Time. Encourage and work cooperatively with the LMFD District to achieve adequate response times to ensure public safety for all emergency response calls within the city.

PS‐2.5 Roadway Design and Maintenance. Design and maintain roadways to maintain acceptable emergency vehicle response times.

PS‐2.6 Water Supply. Ensure that new development is served with adequate water volumes and water pressure to support fire protection, including minimum required fire flow standards for commercial, industrial and residential areas.

PS‐2.7 Fire Hazard Identification. Regularly monitor CAL FIRE’s fire hazard overlay map for changes in fire hazard severity districts in Lathrop.

PS‐2.9 Grant Funding. Seek grant funding, on our own and in collaboration with regional partners, to mitigate potential wildfire threats and natural disaster threats to the community and to implement special training workshops and projects related to defensible space, fuel reduction practices, and other hazard mitigation practices.

PS‐2.10 Interagency Support. Participate in the mutual aid system and automatic aid agreements to back up and supplement capabilities to respond to emergencies, including plans for emergency backup power sources for critical facilities due to electricity outages.

PUBLIC FACILITIES AND SERVICES ELEMENT POLICIES
PFS‐7.3 Enhanced Service. Periodically review, and if necessary, amend, the criteria for determining the circumstances under which fire service will be enhanced.

PFS‐7.4: Roadway Design and Maintenance. Design and maintain roadways in such a way to maintain acceptable emergency vehicle response times.

3.8 HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS

3.8-32 Draft Environmental Impact Report – Lathrop General Plan Update

PUBLIC SAFETY ELEMENT ACTIONS
PS‐2a Continue to enforce the California Building Code and the California Fire Code to ensure that all construction implements fire‐safe techniques, including fire resistant materials, where required.

PS‐2c Continuously monitor response times and provide the City Council with an annual report on the results. Monitor response times and provide the City Council with a periodic report on the results.

PS‐2d: As part of the City’s development review process for new projects:

A. The City will continue to refer applications to the LMFD for determination of the projects’ potential impacts on fire protection services. Requirements will be added as conditions of project approval, if appropriate.

B. The Planning Commission, the LMFD, and the City Engineer will review proposed street patterns to evaluate the accessibility for fire and emergency response.

PUBLIC FACILITIES AND SERVICES ELEMENT ACTIONS
PFS‐7a Continuously monitor response times and provide the City Council with a periodic report on the results of the monitoring.

PFS‐7b The LMFD and the Public Works Department will review proposed development projects and street networks to evaluate the accessibility for fire engines and other emergency response functions.

HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY 3.9
Draft Environmental Impact Report – Lathrop General Plan Update 3.9-1 This section provides a background discussion of the regional hydrology, flooding, water quality, water purveyors, and water sources in Lathrop. This section is organized with an existing setting, regulatory setting, and impact analysis.

Comments were received during the Notice of Preparation comment period regarding this environmental topic from the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board (CVRWQCB) (November 8, 2021). The CVRWQCB highlighted that any future development under the General Plan must adhere to the Basin Plan, which identifies water quality objectives, and Antidegradation regulations, which requires any discharged water to apply the best practicable treatment to prevent pollution or a nuisance from occurring. The CVRWQCB went on to emphasize the potential permitting requirements related to water quality which are as follows:
 Construction Storm Water General Permit
 Phase I and II Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4) Permits  Industrial Storm Water General Permit
 Clean Water Act Section 404 Permit
 Clean Water Act Section 401 Permit
 Waste Discharge Requirements
 Dewatering Permit
 Limited Threat General NPDES Permit
 NPDES Permit

KEY TERMS
Groundwater: Water that is underground and below the water table, as opposed to surface water, which flows across the ground surface. Water beneath the earth’s surface fills the spaces in soil, gravel, or rock formations. Pockets of groundwater are often called “aquifers” and are the source of drinking water for a large percentage of the population in the United States. Groundwater is often extracted using wells which pump the water out of the ground and up to the surface. Groundwater is naturally replenished by surface water from precipitation, streams, and rivers when this recharge reaches the water table.

Surface water: Water collected on the ground or from a stream, river, lake, wetland, or ocean. Surface water is naturally replenished through precipitation but is naturally lost through evaporation and seepage into soil.

3.9 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY

3.9-2 Draft Environmental Impact Report – Lathrop General Plan Update

3.9.1 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING

REGIONAL HYDROLOGY
Lathrop is located in the San Joaquin River watershed. The San Joaquin River is about 300 miles long. It begins in the Sierra Nevada mountain range on California’s eastern border. The river runs down the western slope of the Sierra and flows roughly northwest through the Central Valley, to where it meets the Sacramento River at the Sacramento‐San Joaquin Delta, a 1,000‐square‐mile maze of channels and islands that drains more than 40 percent of the state’s lands (SJRGA 2013).

Because the Central Valley receives relatively little rainfall (12 to 17 inches a year, falling mostly October through March), snowmelt runoff from the mountains is the main source of fresh water in the San Joaquin River. Over its 300‐mile length, the San Joaquin River is fed by many other streams and rivers, most notably the Stanislaus, Tuolumne, and Merced Rivers.

Most of the surface water in the upper San Joaquin River is stored and diverted at Millerton Lakes’ Friant Dam, near Fresno. From Friant Dam, water is pumped north through the Madera Canal and south through the Friant‐Kern canal to irrigation districts and other water retailers, which then deliver the water directly to the end users in the southern portion of the watershed.

In the central and northern portions of the watershed, many agricultural and municipal users receive water from irrigation districts, such as the Modesto, Merced, Oakdale, South San Joaquin and Turlock Irrigation Districts. That water is provided through diversions from rivers that are tributary to the San Joaquin, such as the Mokelumne, Stanislaus, Tuolumne and Merced Rivers.

In an average year, about 1.5 million acre‐feet of water is diverted from the San Joaquin River at Friant Dam, leaving little flow in the river until the Merced River joins the San Joaquin northwest of the City of Merced. Additional water also reaches the river via flows returning to the river from municipal wastewater treatment plants, as well as urban and agricultural runoff. The rest of the area’s water supply needs are met by importing water from northern California (via the Central Valley Project) and by pumping water from the groundwater basin (SJRGA 2013).

CLIMATE
Lathrop has an inland Mediterranean climate with warm, dry summers and cooler winters. The average daily maximum temperature in the Basin is 65 degrees Fahrenheit (°F), with average temperature highs of 95 °F in July. Average daily minimum temperature is 48 °F, with average temperature lows of 45 °F in January. Normal rainfall level is approximately 9 inches per year, and occurs mainly in the winter months from November to April. Thunderstorms occur on approximately three to four days in the spring, on average.

Lathrop has warm, dry days and relatively cool nights, with clear skies and limited rainfall. Winters are mild with light rains and frequent heavy fog from December to January. In summer, high temperatures often exceed 100 degrees, with averages in the low 90’s in the northern valley and the high 90’s in the southern valley. Summer low temperatures average in the high 50’s in the northern valley and the upper 60’s in the southern valley. Lathrop receives approximately 20 inches of rain per year.

HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY 3.9
Draft Environmental Impact Report – Lathrop General Plan Update 3.9-3

WATERSHEDS
A watershed is a region that is bound by a divide that drains to a common watercourse or body of water.

Watersheds serve an important biological function, oftentimes supporting an abundance of aquatic and terrestrial wildlife including special status species and anadromous and native local fisheries.

Watersheds provide conditions necessary for riparian habitat.

The State uses a hierarchical naming and numbering convention to define watershed areas for management purposes. This means that boundaries are defined according to size and topography, with multiple sub‐watersheds within larger watersheds. Table 3.9‐1 shows the primary watershed classification levels used by the State of California. The second column indicates the approximate size that a watershed area may be within a particular classification level, although variation in size is common.

TABLE 3.9‐1: STATE OF CALIFORNIA WATERSHED HIERARCHY NAMING CONVENTION

WATERSHED LEVEL

APPROXIMATE

SQUARE MILES
(ACRES)

DESCRIPTION
Hydrologic Region (HR) 12,735 (8,150,000)
Defined by large‐scale topographic and geologic
considerations. The State of California is divided into ten HRs.

Hydrologic Unit (HU) 672 (430,000)
Defined by surface drainage; may include a major
river watershed, groundwater basin, or closed
drainage, among others.

Hydrologic Area (HA) 244 (156,000)
Major subdivisions of hydrologic units, such as by
major tributaries, groundwater attributes, or stream
components.

Hydrologic Sub‐Area (HSA) 195 (125,000)
A major segment of an HA with significant
geographical characteristics or hydrological
homogeneity.

SOURCE: CALWATER, CALIFORNIA INTERAGENCY WATERSHED MAPPING COMMITTEE, 2008.

Hydrologic Region
San Joaquin County is located in the San Joaquin River Hydrological Region. The San Joaquin River is the principal river of the region, and all other streams of the region are tributary to it. The Mokelumne River and its tributary the Cosumnes River originate in the central Sierra Nevada, along with the more southerly Stanislaus and Tuolumne rivers. The Merced River flows from the south‐central Sierra Nevada and enters the San Joaquin near the City of Newman. The Chowchilla and Fresno rivers also originate in the Sierra south of the Merced River and trend westward toward the San Joaquin River. Creeks originating in the Coast Range and draining eastward into the San Joaquin River include Del Puerto Creek, Orestimba Creek, and Panoche Creek. Del Puerto Creek enters the San Joaquin near the City of Patterson, and Orestimba Creek enters north of the City of Newman. During flood years, Panoche Creek may enter the San Joaquin River or the Fresno Slough near the town of Mendota. The King’s River is a stream of the Tulare Lake Hydrologic Region, but in flood years it may contribute to the San Joaquin River, flowing northward through the James Bypass and Fresno Slough to enter near the City of Mendota. The Mud, Salt, Berrenda, and Ash Sloughs also add to the San Joaquin River, and numerous

3.9 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY

3.9-4 Draft Environmental Impact Report – Lathrop General Plan Update lesser streams and creeks also enter the system, originating in both the Sierra Nevada and the Coast Range. The entire San Joaquin River system drains northwesterly through the Delta to Suisun Bay (DWR 2013, pg. SJR‐5).

Local Watersheds (Hydrologic Sub‐Areas)
Within the San Joaquin River Hydrological Region, the Planning Area is located in the Upper Old River, Oakwood Lake‐San Joaquin River, and Town of French Camp‐San Joaquin River watersheds as shown on Figure 3.9‐1.

LOCAL DRAINAGE
The City provides and maintains a system of storm drains, detention basins, and pumping facilities as well as monitoring and control of the operations of the storm drain system. Additionally, the City enforces storm drain regulations established by the US EPA and the State of California.

The City of Lathrop's storm drainage collection system uses pipelines, surface channels and, in some locations, detention basins that store peak flows to direct drainage to the San Joaquin River. The City's documented existing storm drain infrastructure includes approximately 916 inlets, 691 manholes, 21 pump stations, 4 outfalls to the San Joaquin River, 13 detention basins, and 36 miles of storm drain (J.B.

Anderson, 2016).

STORMWATER QUALITY
Potential hazards to surface water quality include the following nonpoint pollution problems: high turbidity from sediment resulting from erosion of improperly graded construction projects, concentration of nitrates and dissolved solids from agriculture or surfacing septic tank failures, contaminated street and lawn run‐off from urban areas, and warm water drainage discharges into cold water streams.

The most critical period for surface water quality is following a rainstorm which produces significant amounts of drainage runoff into streams at low flow, resulting in poor dilution of contaminates in the low flowing stream. Such conditions are most frequent during the fall at the beginning of the rainy season when stream flows are near their lowest annual levels. Besides the greases, oils, pesticides, litter, and organic matter associated with such runoff, heavy metals such as copper, zinc, and cadmium can cause considerable harm to aquatic organisms when introduced to streams in low flow conditions.

Urban stormwater runoff was managed as a non‐point discharge (a source not readily identifiable) under the Federal Water Pollution Control Amendments of 1972 (PL 92‐500, Section 208) until the mid‐ 1980's. However, since then, the Federal Environmental Protection Agency has continued to develop implementing rules which categorize urban runoff as a point source (an identifiable source) subject to National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permits. Rules now affect medium and large urban areas, and further rulemaking is expected as programs are developed to meet requirements of Federal water pollution control laws.

Surface water pollution is also caused by erosion. Excessive and improperly managed grading, vegetation removal, quarrying, logging, and agricultural practices all lead to increased erosion of exposed earth and sedimentation of watercourses during rainy periods. In slower moving water bodies these same factors often cause a buildup of siltation, which ultimately reduces the capacity of the water HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY 3.9
Draft Environmental Impact Report – Lathrop General Plan Update 3.9-5 system to percolate and recharge groundwater basins, as well as adversely affecting both aquatic resources and flood control efforts.
303(d) Impaired Water Bodies
Water quality in Lathrop is governed by the CVRWQCB, which set water quality standards in their Water Quality Control Plan for the respective basins (Basin Plans). The Basin Plans identify beneficial uses for surface water and groundwater and establish water quality objectives to attain those beneficial uses.

Section 303(d) of the federal CWA requires States to identify waters that do not meet water quality standards or objectives and thus, are considered "impaired." Once listed, Section 303(d) mandates prioritization and development of a Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL). The TMDL is a tool that establishes the allowable loadings or other quantifiable parameters for a waterbody and thereby the basis for the States to establish water quality‐based controls. The purpose of TMDLs is to ensure that beneficial uses are restored and that water quality objectives are achieved.

According to the California Water Quality Control Monitoring Council, which is part of California Environmental Protection Agency, Natural Resources, there are many areas within the San Joaquin County which are considered Section 303(d) impaired waterbodies. Those areas in the city and in the regional vicinity of the Planning Area that are impaired are referred as Delta Waterways (Southern Portion) by the Water Quality Control Monitoring Council. This includes 3,125 acres listed as early as 1996 for Chlorpyrifos (Agriculture, Urban Runoff/Storm Sewers), DDT (Agriculture), Diazinon (Agriculture, Urban Runoff/Storm Sewers), Electrical Conductivity (Agriculture), Group A Pesticides (Agriculture), Invasive Species (Source Unknown), Mercury (Resource Extraction), and Unknown Toxicity (Source Unknown).

The City of Lathrop, in collaboration with San Joaquin County, Tracy. Lodi, Manteca, and Patterson prepared a Multi‐Agency Post‐Construction Stormwater Standards Manual to provide consistent guidance for municipal workers, developers and builders in implementing the requirements under the Statewide Small MS4 NPDES permit (2013‐0001‐DWQ).

Storm water runoff may play a role in the water quality impairments described above. Runoff that occurs as overland flow across yards, driveways, and public streets is intercepted by the storm water drainage system and conveyed to local drainages before eventually being routed to the Pacific. This storm water can carry pollutants that can enter the local waterways and result in the types of water quality impairments described above. Common sources of storm water pollution in the city include litter, trash, pet waste, paint residue, organic material (yard waste), fertilizers, pesticides, sediments, construction debris, metals from automobile brake pad dust, air pollutants that settle on the ground or attach to rainwater, cooking grease, illegally dumped motor oil, and other harmful fluids.

Potential hazards to surface water quality include the following nonpoint pollution problems: high turbidity from sediment resulting from erosion of improperly graded construction projects, concentration of nitrates and dissolved solids from agriculture or surfacing septic tank failures, contaminated street and lawn run‐off from urban areas, and warm water drainage discharges into cold water streams.

3.9 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY

3.9-6 Draft Environmental Impact Report – Lathrop General Plan Update The most critical period for surface water quality is following a rainstorm which produces significant amounts of drainage runoff into streams at low flow, resulting in poor dilution of contaminates in the low flowing stream. Such conditions are most frequent during the fall at the beginning of the rainy season when stream flows are near their lowest annual levels. Besides the greases, oils, pesticides, litter, and organic matter associated with such runoff, heavy metals such as copper, zinc, and cadmium can cause considerable harm to aquatic organisms when introduced to streams in low flow conditions.

Urban stormwater runoff was managed as a non‐point discharge (a source not readily identifiable) under the Federal Water Pollution Control Amendments of 1972 (PL 92‐500, Section 208) until the mid‐ 1980's. However, since then, the Federal Environmental Protection Agency has continued to develop implementing rules which categorize urban runoff as a point source (an identifiable source) subject to NPDES permits. Rules now affect medium and large urban areas, and further rulemaking is expected as programs are developed to meet requirements of Federal water pollution control laws.

Table 3.9‐2 below summarizes 303(d) impaired water bodies in the vicinity of the Planning Area.

HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY 3.9
Draft Environmental Impact Report – Lathrop General Plan Update 3.9-7 TABLE 3.9‐2: PLANNING AREA VICINITY IMPAIRED WATER BODIES

POLLUTANT FINAL LISTING DECISION
TMDL
STATUS1

EXPECTED
TMDL
COMPLETION2

USEPA TMDL
APPROVAL DATE3 POTENTIAL SOURCES
DELTA WATERWAYS, SOUTHERN PORTION (3,125 ACRES)

METALS/METALLOIDS
Mercury
Do Not Delist from
303(d) list (USEPA
approved TMDL)
5B 10/20/2011
Agricultural Return
Flows, Atmospheric
Deposition,
Highway/Road/Bridge
Runoff, Industrial
Point Sources,
Municipal Point
Sources, Natural
Sources, Resource
Extraction, Urban
Runoff/Storm Sewers

MISCELLANEOUS
Invasive Species List on 303(d) list (TMDL
required list) 5A 2019 Unknown

PESTICIDES
DDT
(Dichlorodiphenyl
trichloroethane)
Do Not Delist from
303(d) list (TMDL
required list)
5A 2027
Unknown
Group A
Pesticides
List on 303(d) list (TMDL
required list) 5A 2027    Unknown
Chlorpyrifos
List on 303(d) list (being
addressed by USEPA
approved TMDL)
5B    10/10/2007
Unknown
Diazinon
List on 303(d) list (being
addressed by USEPA
approved TMDL)
5B    10/10/2007
Unknown

3.9 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY

3.9-8 Draft Environmental Impact Report – Lathrop General Plan Update

POLLUTANT FINAL LISTING DECISION
TMDL
STATUS1

EXPECTED
TMDL
COMPLETION2

USEPA TMDL
APPROVAL DATE3 POTENTIAL SOURCES

SALINITY
Electrical
Conductivity
Do Not Delist from
303(d) list (TMDL
required list)
5A 2027 Unknown

TOXICITY
Toxicity List on 303(d) list (TMDL
required list) 5A 2019 Unknown
FRENCH CAMP SLOUGH (PORTION)(6.3 MILES)

FECAL INDICATOR BACTERIA
Indicator Bacteria
Do Not Delist from
303(d) list (TMDL
required list)
5A 2027 Unknown

NUTRIENTS
Oxygen, Dissolved
Do Not Delist from
303(d) list (TMDL
required list)
5A 2027    Unknown
Diazinon
Do Not Delist from
303(d) list (being
addressed with action
other than TMDL)
5C       Agriculture
Chlorpyrifos List on 303(d) list (USEPA
approved TMDL) 5B    10/8/2007 Agriculture

TOXICITY
Toxicity
Do Not Delist from
303(d) list (TMDL
required list)
5A 2027 Unknown
TOM PAINE SLOUGH, IN DELTA WATERWAYS SOUTHERN PORTION (14 MILES)

NUTRIENTS
Oxygen, Dissolved List on 303(d) list (TMDL
required list) 5A 2027 Unknown

SALINITY
Chloride List on 303(d) list (TMDL
required list) 5A 2027 Unknown
Salinity List on 303(d) list (TMDL
required list) 5A 2027 Unknown
1: TOTAL MAXIMUM DAILY LOAD (TDML)
2: DETERMINATION THE LOADING CAPACITY OF THE WATERBODY AND ALLOCATION OF LOAD AMONG DIFFERENT POLLUTANT SOURCES. 3: APPROVED TMDL WASTELOAD ALLOCATIONS GENERALLY BECOME IMPLEMENTED THROUGH EPA’S NATIONAL POLLUTANT DISCHARGE ELIMINATION SYSTEM (NPDES) PERMITS UNDER CWA SECTION 402.

SOURCE: STATE WATER RESOURCES CONTROL BOARD, FINAL 2014/2016 CALIFORNIA INTEGRATED REPORT (CLEAN WATER ACT SECTION 303(D) LIST / 305(B) REPORT)

GROUNDWATER
In February, 2019 DWR approved a Basin Boundary Modification Request that incorporates all of the City of Lathrop in the Tracy Sub‐basin and removes the City from the Eastern San Joaquin Sub‐basin.

The City has coordinated with the Tracy Sub‐basin Groundwater Sustainability Agencies (GSA) to develop a Groundwater Sustainability Plan (GSP) that needs to be adopted and submitted to DWR by HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY 3.9
Draft Environmental Impact Report – Lathrop General Plan Update 3.9-9 January 31, 2022. The GSP was adopted by the City of Lathrop GSA on December 13, 2021. The Tracy Subbasin is not adjudicated, nor are any of the neighboring subbasins.

The Tracy Subbasin encompasses an area of about 238,429 acres (370 square miles) in San Joaquin and Alameda counties, primarily between the eastern extent of the Coast Ranges on the south and the San Joaquin River on the east. The Subbasin is bounded on the north and east by the San Joaquin River, on the south by the San Joaquin‐Stanislaus counties border, and on the west by the aerial extent of sedimentary deposits bounded by the Coastal Ranges. The San Joaquin, Old, and Middle rivers are the principal rivers within or bordering the subbasin.

Most of the groundwater pumping occurs in the area south of Old River and east of the San Joaquin River within Lathrop. North of the Old River, surface water from the Sacramento‐San Joaquin Delta, is used to meet most of the water demand. The bottom of the Subbasin is the base of fresh water which is positioned at the top of the marine sediments that contain saline water. In the Tracy Subbasin, the base of the freshwater ranges from about 400 feet to 2,000 feet beneath the Subbasin. Two principal aquifers are located with the Subbasin, an Upper confined to semi‐confined aquifer and a Lower confined aquifer that are separated by a layer of clay. The Upper and Lower aquifers merge where there is an absence of the clay layer, near the southwestern portion of the Subbasin. These layers also merge north of the Old River in the northern portion of the Subbasin.

The City of Lathrop encompasses approximately 14,400 (22 square miles) of the Tracy Subbasin.

Municipal water sources include groundwater pumped by five wells and treated surface water purchased from the Southern San Joaquin Irrigation District (SSJID). The surface water supplies from SSJID helps the City reduce its use of groundwater. The average water demand of the City is about 9,000 acre‐feet per year (AFY) and the future buildout demand for the City is estimated at 20,000 AFY. The City’s total projected groundwater supply was approximately 44 percent or 6,253 AFY in 2020. This projection is expected to increase to 7,060 AFY (47 percent) in 2028 in which the supply stays constant as the City anticipates to increase its surface water supply through buildout.

FLOODPLAIN MAPPING
FEMA Flood Zones
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) mapping provides important guidance for the City in planning for flooding events and regulating development within identified flood hazard areas. FEMA’s National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) is intended to encourage State and local governments to adopt responsible floodplain management programs and flood measures. As part of the program, the NFIP defines floodplain and floodway boundaries that are shown on Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs). The FEMA FIRM for the Planning Area is shown on Figure 3.9‐2.

Areas that are subject to flooding are indicated by a series of alphabetical symbols, indicating anticipated exposure to flood events:
 Zone A: Subject to 100‐year flooding with no base flood elevation determined. Identified as an area that has a one percent chance of being flooded in any given year.  Zone AE: Subject to 100‐year flooding with base flood elevations determined.

3.9 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY

3.9-10 Draft Environmental Impact Report – Lathrop General Plan Update  Zone AH: Subject to 100‐year flooding with flood depths between one‐ and three‐feet being areas of ponding with base flood elevations determined.  500‐year Flood Zone: Subject to 500‐year flooding. Identified as an area that has a 0.2 percent chance of being flooded in a given year.
 Zone X, Area with Reduced Risk Due to Levee: This zone includes areas that would be flooded if a 500‐year flood occurred but has a reduced risk of flooding due to levee protection The Planning Area is subject to flooding problems along the natural creeks and drainages that traverse the area. The primary flood hazard is the San Joaquin River and its tributaries, notably Paradise Cut (along the southwestern SOI boundary). A levee running from Airport Way in Manteca west and northwest along the San Joaquin River provides flood protection for the land north and east of the River.

This levee is under the jurisdiction of Reclamation District No. 17 (RD 17).

The 100‐year flood plain is largely confined to the southern and western portions of the City limits and SOI. Additionally, the 500‐year flood plain is located in the eastern and northern portions of the City limits and SOI. Zone X, Area with Reduced Risk Due to Levee includes the majority of the Planning Area.

SB 5 Flood Zones
Both State policy and recently enacted State legislation (Senate Bill 5) call for 200‐year (0.5% annual chance) flood protection to be the minimum level of protection for urban and urbanizing areas in the Central Valley. Senate Bill 5 (SB5) requires that the 200‐year protection be consistent with criteria used or developed by the Department of Water Resources. SB 5 requires all urban and urbanizing areas in the Sacramento and San Joaquin Valleys to achieve 200‐year Urban Level of flood protection (or a finding of adequate progress toward 200‐year flood protection) in order to approve development. The 200‐year floodplain for the Planning Area, as mapped for the City of Lathrop and San Joaquin County, is shown on Figure 3.9‐3. As shown in the figure, nearly the entire City and SOI is located in the 200‐year floodplain, however detailed flood mapping is required to determine risks based on base flood elevations. Detailed flood mapping was included as part of the Lathrop Safety Element Amendment in 2015 to address SB 5 200‐Year Flood Protection and included detailed flood mapping.

RD 17 created a Joint Powers Authority (JPA) that includes San Joaquin County, Stockton, Manteca, and Lathrop to issue bonds to fund the local share of Phase 1 through 3 Improvements to the RD 17 levees.

Lathrop is working with RD 17 to update that JPA to fund the local share of the needed Urban Level of Protection (ULOP) improvements to the RD 17 levees, to adopt fee programs and/or exactions paid and advanced from property owners in areas of entitled and planned development within RD17, and a new Enhanced Infrastructure Financing District. As of February 2016, Lathrop and Manteca have funded the required Urban Levee Design Criteria analysis of the RD 17 levees, identified the 200‐year floodplain, calculated an estimated cost to provide the ULOP improvements, and requested State funds for the State share of this work. Lathrop will continue to work with all public agencies within RD 17 to provide for final design and construction of ULOP improvements that will allow findings of Adequate Progress toward providing ULOP as the improvements are constructed.

The San Joaquin Area Flood Control Agency (SJAFCA) is a Joint Powers Authority that was created in May 1995 for the purpose of addressing flood protection for the City of Stockton and surrounding County. On HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY 3.9
Draft Environmental Impact Report – Lathrop General Plan Update 3.9-11 November, 16, 2017, the Joint Exercise of Powers Agreement was expanded to include the Cities of Lathrop and Manteca. SJAFCA coordinates and partners with State and Federal agencies to address FEMA’s Flood Insurance Rate Maps, levee standards, and flood protection issues.

Dam Inundation
Earthquakes centered close to a dam are typically the most likely cause of dam failure. Dam Inundation maps have been required in California since 1972, following the 1971 San Fernando Earthquake and near failure of the Lower Van Norman Dam. The Planning Area has the potential to be inundated by four dams: Tulloch Dam, San Luis Dam, New Exchequer Dam (Lake McClure), and New Melones Dam. The dam inundation area for each dam is shown in Figure 3.9‐4. Each dam is briefly described below:
 The Tulloch Dam, owned and operated by the Oakdale and South San Joaquin Irrigation Districts (collectively known as the Tri‐Dam Project), is a gravity dam located on the Stanislaus River in both Calaveras and Tuolumne Counties. This dam was built in 1958 at a height of 205 feet with a reservoir capacity of 68,400 acre‐feet. The Tulloch Dam is a jurisdictional dam.  The San Luis Dam (or B.F. Sisk Dam), jointly owned and operated by the Bureau of Reclamation and the State of California, is a zoned earthfill dam that provides supplemental irrigation water to land in western Merced, Fresno and Kings Counties, as well as generates power. This dam, located on San Luis Creek near Los Banos, was completed in 1967 at a height of 382 feet with a reservoir capacity of 2,041,000 acre‐feet. The San Luis Dam is a non‐jurisdictional dam.  Pine Flat Dam is a concrete gravity structure completed by the United States Army Corps of Engineers in 1954. The Pine Flat Dam is utilized for flood control, irrigation, power production, and recreation. This solid concrete gravity dam is located on the Kings River north of Squaw Valley in Fresno County. Pine Flat Dam has a height of 440 feet and a storage capacity of 1,000,000 acre‐feet. The Pine Flat Dam is a jurisdictional dam.  The New Melones Dam, owned and operated by Bureau of Reclamation’s Central Valley Project, is utilized for irrigation, power production, and downstream flood control. This earth and rockfill dam is located on the Stanislaus River in southern Mother Lode, off of Highway 49. New Melones Dam was completed in 1979 at a height of 625 feet and a storage capacity of 2,400,000 acre‐feet. The New Melones Dam is a non‐jurisdictional dam.  The New Exchequer Dam, owned and operated by the Merced Irrigation District, is utilized for irrigation, power production, and downstream flood control. This concrete gravity‐arch dam is located on the Merced River in Mariposa County. New Melones Dam was completed in 1967 at a height of 490 feet and a storage capacity of 1,024,600 acre‐feet. The New Exchequer Dam is a jurisdictional dam.

These dams do not have a history of failure; however, they are identified as having the potential to inundate the Planning Area in the unlikely event of dam failure. The dam owners/operators, Oakdale and South San Joaquin Irrigation Districts, the Merced Irrigation District, the Bureau of Reclamation, the United States Army Corps of Engineers, and the State of California, are responsible for the management, monitoring, and improvements to these dams to reduce the risk of dam failure and inundation.

3.9 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY

3.9-12 Draft Environmental Impact Report – Lathrop General Plan Update The entire Planning Area may be subject to inundation in the event of dam failure. Despite the number of dams near San Joaquin County, the risk of dam failure inundating portions of the County is considered low, and the degree and nature of risk for each dam is unknown. Dam failure can occur under three general conditions: as a result of an earthquake, an isolated incident due to structural instability, or because of intense rain in excess of design capacity.

Despite the number of dams near San Joaquin County, the risk of dam failure inundating portions of the County is considered low, and the degree and nature of risk for each dam is unknown. Dam failure can occur under three general conditions: as a result of an earthquake, an isolated incident due to structural instability, or because of intense rain in excess of design capacity.

Section 8589.5 of the California Government Code requires local jurisdictions to adopt emergency procedures for the evacuation of populated inundation areas identified by dam owners. The local Office of Emergency Services has prepared a Dam Failure Plan. This plan includes a description of dams, direction of floodwaters, responsibilities of local jurisdictions, and evacuation plans.

3.9.2 REGULATORY SETTING
There are a number of regulatory agencies whose responsibility includes the oversight of the water resources of the state and nation including FEMA, the US EPA, the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB), and the CVRWQCB. The following is an overview of the federal, state and local regulations that are applicable to the proposed project.

FEDERAL
Clean Water Act
The CWA, initially passed in 1972, regulates the discharge of pollutants into watersheds throughout the nation. Section 402(p) of the act establishes a framework for regulating municipal and industrial stormwater discharges under the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Program.

Section 402(p) requires that stormwater associated with industrial activity that discharges either directly to surface waters or indirectly through municipal separate storm sewers must be regulated by an NPDES permit.

The CWA establishes the basic structure for regulating the discharges of pollutants into the waters of the United States and gives the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) the authority to implement pollution control programs. The statute’s goal is to regulate all discharges into the nation’s waters and to restore, maintain, and preserve the integrity of those waters. The CWA sets water quality standards for all contaminants in surface waters and mandates permits for wastewater and stormwater discharges.

The CWA also requires states to establish site‐specific water quality standards for navigable bodies of water and regulates other activities that affect water quality, such as dredging and the filling of wetlands. The following CWA sections assist in ensuring water quality for the water of the United States:

HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY 3.9
Draft Environmental Impact Report – Lathrop General Plan Update 3.9-13 CWA Section 208 requires the use of best management practices (BMPs) to control the discharge of pollutants in stormwater during construction CWA Section 303(d) requires the creation of a list of impaired water bodies by states, territories, and authorized tribes; evaluation of lawful activities that may impact impaired water bodies, and preparation of plans to improve the quality of these water bodies. CWA Section 303(d) also establishes TMDLs, which is the maximum amount of a pollutant that a water body can receive and still safely meet water quality standards CWA Section 404 authorizes the US Army Corps of Engineers to require permits that will discharge dredge or fill materials into waters in the US, including wetlands.

In California, the EPA has designated the SWRCB and its nine RWQCBs with the authority to identify beneficial uses and adopt applicable water quality objectives.

The SWRCB is responsible for implementing the CWA and does so through issuing NPDES permits to cities and counties through regional water quality control boards. Federal regulations allow two permitting options for storm water discharges (individual permits and general permits).

Federal Emergency Management Agency
FEMA operates the NFIP. Participants in the NFIP must satisfy certain mandated floodplain management criteria. The National Flood Insurance Act of 1968 has adopted as a desired level of protection, an expectation that developments should be protected from floodwater damage of the Intermediate Regional Flood (IRF). The IRF is defined as a flood that has an average frequency of occurrence on the order of once in 100 years, although such a flood may occur in any given year. Communities are occasionally audited by the California Department of Water Resources to insure the proper implementation of FEMA floodplain management regulations.

Flood Control Act
The Flood Control Act (1917) established survey and cost estimate requirements for flood hazards in the Sacramento Valley. All levees and structures constructed per the Act were to be maintained locally but controlled federally. All rights of way necessary for the construction of flood control infrastructure were to be provided to the Federal government at no cost.

Federal involvement in the construction of flood control infrastructure, primarily dams and levees, became more pronounced upon passage of the Flood Control Act of 1936.

Flood Disaster Protection Act (FDPA)
The FDPA of 1973 was a response to the shortcomings of the NFIP, which were experienced during the flood season of 1972. The FDPA prohibited Federal assistance, including acquisition, construction, and financial assistance, within delineated floodplains in non‐participating NFIP communities. Furthermore, all Federal agencies and/or federally insured and federally regulated lenders must require flood insurance for all acquisitions or developments in designated Special Flood Hazard Areas (SFHAs) in communities that participate in the NFIP.

Improvements, construction, and developments within SFHAs are generally subject to the following standards:

3.9 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY

3.9-14 Draft Environmental Impact Report – Lathrop General Plan Update  All new construction and substantial improvements of residential buildings must have the lowest floor (including basement) elevated to or above the base flood elevation (BFE).  All new construction and substantial improvements of non‐residential buildings must either have the lowest floor (including basement) elevated to or above the BFE or dry‐floodproofed to the BFE.
 Buildings can be elevated to or above the BFE using fill, or they can be elevated on extended foundation walls or other enclosure walls, on piles, or on columns.  Extended foundation or other enclosure walls must be designed and constructed to withstand hydrostatic pressure and be constructed with flood‐resistant materials and contain openings that will permit the automatic entry and exit of floodwaters. Any enclosed area below the BFE can only be used for the parking of vehicles, building access, or storage.

National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP)
Per the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968, the NFIP has three fundamental purposes: Better indemnify individuals for flood losses through insurance; Reduce future flood damages through State and community floodplain management regulations; and Reduce Federal expenditures for disaster assistance and flood control.

While the Act provided for subsidized flood insurance for existing structures, the provision of flood insurance by FEMA became contingent on the adoption of floodplain regulations at the local level.

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
NPDES permits are required for discharges to navigable waters of the United States, which includes any discharge to surface waters, including lakes, rivers, streams, bays, oceans, dry stream beds, wetlands, and storm sewers that are tributary to any surface water body. NPDES permits are issued under the Federal CWA, Title IV, Permits and Licenses, Section 402 (33 USC 466 et seq.) The RWQCB issues these permits in lieu of direct issuance by the Environmental Protection Agency, subject to review and approval by the EPA Regional Administrator (EPA Region 9). The terms of these NPDES permits implement pertinent provisions of the Federal CWA and the Act’s implementing regulations, including pre‐treatment, sludge management, effluent limitations for specific industries, and anti‐degradation. In general, the discharge of pollutants is to be eliminated or reduced as much as practicable so as to achieve the CWA’s goal of “fishable and swimmable” navigable (surface) waters.

Technically, all NPDES permits issued by the RWQCB are also Waste Discharge Requirements issued under the authority of the CWA.

These NPDES permits regulate discharges from publicly owned treatment works, industrial discharges, stormwater runoff, dewatering operations, and groundwater cleanup discharges. NPDES permits are issued for five years or less and are therefore to be updated regularly. The rapid and dramatic population and urban growth in the Central Valley Region has caused a significant increase in NPDES permit applications for new waste discharges. To expedite the permit issuance process, the SWRCB has adopted several general NPDES permits, each of which regulates numerous discharges of similar types of wastes. The SWRCB has issued general permits for stormwater runoff from industrial and construction sites statewide. Stormwater discharges from industrial and construction activities in the HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY 3.9
Draft Environmental Impact Report – Lathrop General Plan Update 3.9-15 Central Valley Region can be covered under these general permits, which are administered jointly by the SWRCB and RWQCB.

Individual projects in the City that disturb more than one acre would be required to obtain NPDES coverage under the California General Permit for Storm Water Discharges Associated with Construction and Land Disturbance Activities (Construction General Permit). The Construction General Permit requires the development and implementation of a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) describing Best Management Practices (BMP) the discharger would use to prevent and retain storm water runoff. The SWPPP must contain a visual monitoring program; a chemical monitoring program for “non‐visible” pollutants to be implemented if there is a failure of BMPs; and a sediment monitoring plan if the site discharges directly to a waterbody listed on the 303(d) list for sediment.

Rivers and Harbors Appropriation Act of 1899
One of the country’s first environmental laws, this Act established a regulatory program to address activities that could affect navigation in Waters of the United States.

Water Pollution Control Act of 1972
The Water Pollution Control Act (WPCA) established a program to regulate activities that result in the discharge of pollutants to waters of the United States
STATE
California Fish and Wildlife Code
The California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) protects streams, water bodies, and riparian corridors through the streambed alteration agreement process under Section 1600 to 1616 of the California Fish and Game Code. The California Fish and Game Code establishes that ”an entity may not substantially divert or obstruct the natural flow or substantially change the bed, channel or bank of any river, stream or lake, or deposit or dispose of debris, waste, or other material containing crumbled, flaked, or ground pavement where it may pass into any river stream, or lake” (Fish and Game Code Section 1602(a)) without notifying the CDFW, incorporating necessary mitigation and obtaining a streambed alteration agreement. The CDFWs jurisdiction extends to the top of banks and often includes the outer edge of riparian vegetation canopy cover.

California Code of Regulations
California Code of Regulations (CCR) Title 22, Chapter 15, Article 20 requires all public water systems to prepare a Consumer Confidence Report for distribution to its customers and to the Department of Health Services. The Consumer Confidence Report provides information regarding the quality of potable water provided by the water system. It includes information on the sources of the water, any detected contaminants in the water, the maximum contaminants levels set by regulation, violations and actions taken to correct them, and opportunities for public participation in decisions that may affect the quality of the water provided.

3.9 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY

3.9-16 Draft Environmental Impact Report – Lathrop General Plan Update California Government Code
Relevant sections of the California Government Code are identified below.

SECTION 65302
Revised safety elements must include maps of any 200‐year flood plains and levee protection zones within the Planning Area.

SECTION 65584.04
Any land having inadequate flood protection, as determined by FEMA or DWR, must be excluded from land identified as suitable for urban development within the planning area.

SECTION 8589.4
California Government Code §8589.4, commonly referred to as the Potential Flooding‐Dam Inundation Act, requires owners of dams to prepare maps showing potential inundation areas in the event of dam failure. A dam failure inundation zone is different from a flood hazard zone under the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP). NFIP flood zones are areas along streams or coasts where storm flooding is possible from a “100‐year flood.” In contrast, a dam failure inundation zone is the area downstream from a dam that could be flooded in the event of dam failure due to an earthquake or other catastrophe. Dam failure inundation maps are reviewed and approved by the California Office of Emergency Services (OES). Sellers of real estate within inundation zones are required to disclose this information to prospective buyers.

California Department of Health Services
The Department of Health Services, Division of Drinking Water and Environmental Management, oversees the Drinking Water Program. The Drinking Water Program regulates public water systems and certifies drinking water treatment and distribution operators. It provides support for small water systems and for improving their technical, managerial, and financial capacity. It provides subsidized funding for water system improvements under the State Revolving Fund (“SRF”) and Proposition 50 programs. The Drinking Water Program also oversees water recycling projects, permits water treatment devices, supports and promotes water system security, and oversees the Drinking Water Treatment and Research Fund for MTBE and other oxygenates.

Consumer Confidence Report Requirements
California Code of Regulations (CCR) Title 22, Chapter 15, Article 20 requires all public water systems to prepare a Consumer Confidence Report for distribution to its customers and to the Department of Health Services. The Consumer Confidence Report provides information regarding the quality of potable water provided by the water system. It includes information on the sources of the water, any detected contaminants in the water, the maximum contaminant levels set by regulation, violations and actions taken to correct them, and opportunities for public participation in decisions that may affect the quality of the water provided.

HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY 3.9
Draft Environmental Impact Report – Lathrop General Plan Update 3.9-17 California Water Code
California’s primary statute governing water quality and water pollution issues with respect to both surface waters and groundwater is the Porter‐Cologne Water Quality Control Act of 1970 (Division 7 of the California Water Code) (Porter‐Cologne Act). The Porter‐Cologne Act grants the SWRCB and each of the RWQCBs power to protect water quality and is the primary vehicle for implementation of California’s responsibilities under the Federal CWA. The Porter‐Cologne Act grants the SWRCB and the RWQCBs authority and responsibility to adopt plans and policies, to regulate discharges to surface and groundwater, to regulate waste disposal sites, and to require cleanup of discharges of hazardous materials and other pollutants. The Porter‐Cologne Act also establishes reporting requirements for unintended discharges of any hazardous substance, sewage, or oil or petroleum product.

Each RWQCB must formulate and adopt a Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan) for its region. The regional plans are to conform to the policies set forth in the Porter‐Cologne Act and established by the SWRCB in its State water policy. The Porter‐Cologne Act also provides that a RWQCB may include within its regional plan water discharge prohibitions applicable to particular conditions, areas, or types of waste.

Assembly Bill 162
Assembly Bill (AB) 162 requires a general plan’s land use element to identify and annually review those areas covered by the general plan that are subject to flooding as identified by flood plain mapping prepared by FEMA or DWR. The bill also requires, upon the next revision of the housing element, on or after January 1, 2009, the conservation element of the general plan to identify rivers, creeks, streams, flood corridors, riparian habitat, and land that may accommodate floodwater for purposes of groundwater recharge and stormwater management. By imposing new duties on local public officials, the bill creates a State‐mandated local program.

This bill also requires, upon the next revision of the housing element, on or after January 1, 2009, the safety element to identify, among other things, information regarding flood hazards and to establish a set of comprehensive goals, policies, and objectives, based on specified information for the protection of the community from, among other things, the unreasonable risks of flooding.

Assembly Bill 70
AB 70 provides that a city or county may be required to contribute its fair and reasonable share of the property damage caused by a flood to the extent that it has increased the State’s exposure to liability for property damage by unreasonably approving, as defined, new development in a previously undeveloped area, as defined, that is protected by a State flood control project, unless the city or county meets specified requirements.

Senate Bill 610 and Assembly Bill 901
The State Legislature passed SB 610 and AB 901 in 2001. Both measures modified the Urban Water Management Planning Act.

3.9 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY

3.9-18 Draft Environmental Impact Report – Lathrop General Plan Update SB 610 requires additional information in an urban water management plan if groundwater is identified as a source of water available to an urban water supplier. It also requires that the plan include a description of all water supply projects and programs that may be undertaken to meet total projected water use. SB 610 requires a city or county that determines a project is subject to CEQA to identify any public water system that may supply water to the project and to request identified public water systems to prepare a specified water supply assessment. The assessment must include, among other information, an identification of existing water supply entitlements, water rights, or water service contracts relevant to the identified water supply for the proposed project, and water received in prior years pursuant to these entitlements, rights, and contracts.

AB 901 requires an urban water management plan to include information, to the extent practicable, relating to the quality of existing sources of water available to an urban water supplier over given time periods. AB 901 also requires information on the manner in which water quality affects water management strategies and supply reliability. The bill requires a plan to describe plans to supplement a water source that may not be available at a consistent level of use, to the extent practicable. Additional findings and declarations relating to water quality are required.

Senate Bill 221
SB 221 adds Government Code Section 66455.3, requiring that the local water agency be sent a copy of any proposed residential subdivision of more than 500 dwelling units within five days of the subdivision application being accepted as complete for processing by the city or county. It also adds Government Code Section 66473.7, establishing detailed requirements for establishing whether a “sufficient water supply” exists to support any proposed residential subdivisions of more than 500 dwellings, including any such subdivision involving a development agreement. When approving a qualifying subdivision tentative map, the city or county must include a condition requiring availability of a sufficient water supply. The applicable public water system must provide proof of availability. If there is no public water system, the city or county must undertake the analysis described in Government Code Section 66473.7.

The analysis must include consideration of effects on other users of water and groundwater.

State Updated Model Landscape Ordinance
Under AB 1881, the updated Model Landscape Ordinance requires cities and counties to adopt landscape water conservation ordinances by January 31, 2010 or to adopt a different ordinance that is at least as effective in conserving water as the updated Model Ordinance.

Water Quality Control Basin Plan
The Water Quality Control Plan for the Sacramento‐San Joaquin River Basins (Basin Plan), amended by the CVRWQCB in 2018, identifies the beneficial uses of water bodies and provides water quality objectives and standards for waters of the Sacramento River and SJR basins, including the Delta.

State and federal laws mandate the protection of designated “beneficial uses” of water bodies. State law defines beneficial uses as “domestic; municipal; agricultural and industrial supply; power generation; recreation; aesthetic enjoyment; navigation; and preservation and enhancement of fish, HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY 3.9
Draft Environmental Impact Report – Lathrop General Plan Update 3.9-19 wildlife, and other aquatic resources or preserves” (Water Code Section 13050[f]). Additional protected beneficial uses of the SJR include groundwater recharge and freshwater replenishment.

State Water Resources Control Board Storm Water Strategy The Storm Water Strategy is founded on the results of the Storm Water Strategic Initiative, which served to direct the State Water Board’s role in storm water resources management and evolve the Storm Water Program by a) developing guiding principles to serve as the foundation of the storm water program, b) identifying issues that support or inhibit the program from aligning with the guiding principles, and c) proposing and prioritizing projects that the Water Boards could implement to address those issues.

The State Water Board staff created a strategy‐based document called the Strategy to Optimize Management of Storm Water (STORMS). STORMS includes a program vision, missions, goals, objectives, projects, timelines, and consideration of the most effective integration of project outcomes into the Water Board’s Storm Water Program.

LOCAL
Lathrop Municipal Code
CHAPTER 12.28 PROTECTION OF WATER COURSES

12.28.020 Rules and regulations.

A. It shall be unlawful for any person to interfere with, destroy or use in any manner whatsoever any levee, embankment, channel, dam, reservoir, rain or stream gauges, telephone line, piling; or other stream protection work constructed by the city or by any drainage district organized under the laws of the state, without having received a written permit therefor from the public works director, which permit shall be revocable whenever, in the opinion of the public works director the public interest and welfare require the revocation thereof. Application for the use of any levee, embankment, channel, dam or reservoir shall be made to the public works director, setting forth the particular use desired, and the purpose and duration thereof. The public works director shall investigate such applications and may impose such terms and conditions as may be necessary to insure the proper maintenance of the property for flood control and drainage purposes.

B. It shall be unlawful for any person to place on or cause to be placed in any drainage ditch, water course, channel or conduit, or upon any property over which the city or any drainage district has an easement for flood control or drainage purposes duly recorded in the office of the city clerk, any wires, fence, building or other structure, or any refuse, rubbish, tin cans or other matter that may impede, retard or change the direction of the flow of water in such drainage ditch, water course, channel or conduit, or that will catch or collect debris carried by such water, or is placed where the natural flow of the storm and flood waters would carry the same downstream to the damage and detriment of either private or public property adjacent to said drainage ditch, water course, channel or conduit.

3.9 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY

3.9-20 Draft Environmental Impact Report – Lathrop General Plan Update C. It shall be unlawful for any person to change the drainage on his or her property so as to divert the drainage to the nearest public road, without first obtaining a permit to do so from the public works director.

D. It shall be unlawful for any person to fill or obstruct or maintain any fill or obstruction in any drainage ditch, water course, channel or conduit carrying storm or drainage water unless a permit to do so has been obtained from the public works director.

E. It shall be unlawful for any person to do anything to any drainage ditch, water course, channel or conduit carrying storm or drainage water that will in any manner obstruct or interfere with the flow of water through such ditches, water courses, channels or conduits unless a permit to do so has been obtained from the public works director.

F. It shall be unlawful for any person to level land in a manner which would flood adjacent properties or public roadways.

G. Every property owner, whether it be a person or his lessee or tenant, through whose property a drainage ditch, water course, channel or conduit carrying storm or drainage water passes, shall keep and maintain the same free from obstacles that will prevent or retard the flow of water through such ditch, water course, channel or conduit except that same may be filled or altered if a permit to do so has been first obtained pursuant to this chapter. (Prior code § 158.02) CHAPTER 13.28 ‐ STORMWATER MANAGEMENT AND DISCHARGE CONTROL

13.28.020 Purpose and intent. The purpose of this chapter is to establish minimum stormwater management requirements and controls to protect and safeguard the general health, safety, and welfare of the public residing in watersheds within the city of Lathrop, pursuant to and consistent with the Federal Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. Section 1251 et seq.) and the Porter‐Cologne Water Quality Act (California Water Code Section 13000 et seq.). This chapter seeks to meet that purpose through the following objectives:

A.   To comply with all federal and state laws, lawful standards and orders applicable to stormwater and urban runoff pollution control;
B.   To prohibit any discharge which may interfere with the operation of, or cause any damage to the storm drain system or impair the beneficial use of the receiving waters; C.   To prohibit illicit discharges into the storm drain system; D.  To reduce non‐stormwater discharge to the storm drain system to the maximum extent practicable;
E.   Minimize increases in stormwater and runoff from any development in order to reduce flooding, siltation, and streambank erosion and maintain the integrity of drainage channels; F.   Minimize nonpoint source pollution caused by stormwater runoff from development that would otherwise degrade local water quality; and
G.   Minimize the total annual volume of surface water runoff that flows from any specific site during and following development. (Ord. 07‐265 § 1)
HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY 3.9
Draft Environmental Impact Report – Lathrop General Plan Update 3.9-21

13.28.130 REQUIREMENT TO PREVENT, CONTROL AND REDUCE STORMWATER POLLUTANTS.

A. Authorization to Adopt and Impose Best Management Practices (BMPs). The city may adopt requirements identifying best management practices for any activity, operation, or facility which may cause or contribute to pollution or contamination of stormwater, the storm drain system, or waters of the United States. Where best management practice requirements are promulgated by the city or any federal, state of California, or regional agency for any activity, operation, or facility which would otherwise cause the discharge of pollutants to the storm drain system or a waters of the United States, every person undertaking such activity or operation, or owning or operating such facility shall comply with such requirements.

B. New Development and Redevelopment. The city may adopt requirements identifying appropriate design standards and best management practices to control the volume, rate, and potential pollutant load of stormwater runoff from new development and redevelopment projects as may be appropriate to minimize the generation, transport and discharge of pollutants. The city shall incorporate such requirements in any land use entitlement and construction or building‐related permit to be issued relative to such development or redevelopment. The owner and developer shall comply with the terms, provisions, and conditions of such land use entitlements and building permits as required in this chapter.

C. Responsibility to Implement Best Management Practices. Notwithstanding the presence or absence of requirements promulgated pursuant to subsections A and B of this section, any person engaged in activities or operations, or owning facilities or property which will or may result in pollutants entering stormwater, the storm drain system, or waters of the United States shall implement best management practices to the extent they are technologically achievable to prevent and reduce such pollutants. The owner or operator of a commercial or industrial establishment shall provide reasonable protection from accidental discharge of prohibited materials or other wastes into the municipal storm drain system or watercourses. Facilities to prevent accidental discharge of prohibited materials or other wastes shall be provided and maintained at the owner or operator’s expense.

D. Maintenance Agreements. All structural and nonstructural permanent stormwater BMPs not in the control of the city of Lathrop shall have an enforceable maintenance agreement to ensure the system functions as designed. The agreement shall include any and all maintenance easements required to access and inspect the stormwater BMPs, and to perform routine maintenance as required. Such agreements shall specify the parties responsible for the proper maintenance of all stormwater BMPs.

City of Lathrop Stormwater Management Program
The City has an adopted a stormwater management program (SWMP) for compliance with requirements of the Phase 2 NPDES municipal stormwater permit. The SWMP is composed of six program elements developed to reduce contaminants discharged into receiving water bodies. The six Minimum Control Measure (MCM) elements of the SWMP are public education and outreach, public involvement/participation, illicit discharge detection and elimination, construction site runoff control, post construction runoff control in new development and redevelopment, and pollution prevention/good housekeeping for municipal operations. For each MCM, the City has selected a suite of BMPs and measurable goals to address the specific stormwater problems identified within the city limits.

3.9 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY

3.9-22 Draft Environmental Impact Report – Lathrop General Plan Update In association with the SWMP, the City adopted a Storm Water Ordinance, construction standards, and design review guidelines to reduce contaminants in stormwater runoff. Of particular relevance to the proposed project is the City’s coordination of BMP review and implementation under the construction site runoff control program. New development and redevelopment control measures include development of structural controls, development of nonstructural controls, development of ordinances or regulatory mechanisms, and development of long‐term operation and maintenance (O&M) practices.

Pollution prevention/good housekeeping for municipal operations addresses routine O&M activities for drainage systems, roadways, parks and open spaces, and other municipal operations to help ensure a reduction in pollutants entering the storm sewer system. The pollution prevention/good housekeeping program also includes a training component to prevent and reduce stormwater pollution from municipal operations. The pollution prevention/good housekeeping BMPs can be separated into two broad categories: source controls and materials management.

Source controls are BMPs designed to prevent or reduce pollutants at the source and include BMPs such as storm drainage system maintenance, structural floatable controls, street maintenance staff training, flood control projects, and litter ordinances. Materials management BMPs are designed to reduce pollutants with nonstructural controls such as pesticide education and spill prevention control.

3.9.3 IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES

THRESHOLDS OF SIGNIFICANCE
Consistent with Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, the proposed Project will have a significant impact on the environment associated with hydrology and water quality if it will:
• Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or ground water quality.
• Substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the project may impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin. • Conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan.
• Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river or through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner which would:
o Result in substantial erosion or siltation on‐ or off‐site; o Substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on‐ or offsite;
o Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff; or
o Impede or redirect flood flows.
• In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, risk release of pollutants due to project inundation.

HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY 3.9
Draft Environmental Impact Report – Lathrop General Plan Update 3.9-23

IMPACTS AND MITIGATION
Impact 3.9‐1: General Plan implementation could violate water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade water quality or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan (Less than Significant)

CONSTRUCTION-RELATED WATER QUALITY IMPACTS
No specific development projects are proposed or would be approved as part of the General Plan update, however land uses and growth identified under the proposed General Plan Land Use Map would result in future development projects throughout the Planning Area. Grading, excavation, removal of vegetation cover, and loading activities associated with future construction activities could temporarily increase runoff, erosion, and sedimentation. Construction activities also could result in soil compaction and wind erosion impacts that could adversely affect soils and reduce the revegetation potential at construction sites and staging areas.

As required by the CWA, each subsequent development project or improvement project that disturbs one or more acres will require an approved SWPPP that includes best management practices for grading and preservation of topsoil. A SWPPP is not required if the project will disturb less than one acre.

SWPPPs are designed to control storm water quality degradation to the extent practicable using best management practices during and after construction.

Future development project applicants must submit the SWPPP with a Notice of Intent to the CVRWQCB to obtain a General Permit. The CVRWQCB is an agency responsible for reviewing the SWPPP with the Notice of Intent, prior to issuance of a General Permit for the discharge of storm water during construction activities. The CVRWQCB accepts General Permit applications (with the SWPPP and Notice of Intent) after specific projects have been approved by the lead agency. The lead agency for each specific project that is larger than one acre is required to obtain a General Permit for discharge of storm water during construction activities prior to commencing construction (per the CWA).

As described previously, the General Plan sets policies and actions for build‐out of the City, but it does not envision or authorize any specific development project. Because of this, the site‐specific details of potential future development projects are currently unknown and analysis of potential impacts of such projects is not feasible and would be speculative. However, each future project must include detailed project specific drainage plans that control storm water runoff and erosion, both during and after construction. The CVRWQCB will require a project specific SWPPP to be prepared for each future project that disturbs an area one acre or larger. The SWPPPs will include project specific best management measures that are designed to control drainage and erosion.

NEW DEVELOPMENT-RELATED WATER QUALITY IMPACTS
New development and infrastructure improvements projects under the proposed General Plan could introduce constituents into the storm water system that are typically associated with urban runoff.

These constituents include sediments, petroleum hydrocarbons, pesticides, fertilizers, and heavy metals such as lead, zinc, and copper. These pollutants tend to build up during the dry months of the year.

3.9 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY

3.9-24 Draft Environmental Impact Report – Lathrop General Plan Update Precipitation during the early portion of the wet season (generally from November to April) washes away most of these pollutants, resulting in high pollutant concentrations in the initial wet weather runoff. This initial runoff is referred to as the “first flush” of storm events. Subsequent periods of rain would result in less concentrated pollutant levels in the runoff.

The development allowed under the General Plan would be within areas currently designated for urban uses many of which are currently undeveloped. Therefore, new development and infrastructure projects have the potential to result in increases in the amount of impervious surfaces throughout Lathrop.

Future increases in impervious surfaces would result in increased urban runoff, pollutants, and first flush roadway contaminants, as well as an increase in nutrients and other chemicals from landscaped areas.

These constituents could result in water quality impacts to onsite and offsite drainage flows to area waterways.

Waters that are listed under Section 303(d) of the CWA are known as “impaired.” CWA Section 303(d) lists many water bodies within the County. Those areas in the regional vicinity of the Planning Area that are impaired by the Water Quality Control Monitoring Council include the: Delta Waterways (Northern Portion), Delta Waterways (Southern Portion), French Camp Slough (Portion), Lone Tree Creek, and Tom Paine Slough (in Delta Waterways Southern Portion). The Delta Waterways (Eastern Portion) includes 2,927 acres listed in 2011 for Agricultural Return Flows, Atmospheric Deposition, Highway/Road/Bridge Runoff, Industrial Point Sources, Municipal Point Sources, Natural Sources, Resource Extraction, Miscellaneous, Urban Runoff/Storm Sewers. The Delta Waterways (Southern Portion) includes 3,125 acres listed as early as 1996 for Chlorpyrifos (Agriculture, Urban Runoff/Storm Sewers), DDT (Agriculture), Diazinon (Agriculture, Urban Runoff/Storm Sewers), Electrical Conductivity (Agriculture), Group A Pesticides (Agriculture), Invasive Species (Source Unknown), Mercury (Resource Extraction), and Unknown Toxicity (Source Unknown). The other impaired water bodies range in size from 6.3 to

14.8 miles with unknown or agricultural‐related pollutant sources. Agricultural uses could be the main contributing factor for waterways that are impaired due to Group A Pesticides, Chlorpyrifos, Diazinon, and Electrical Conductivity. In this case, land conversion to urban use may improve some runoff pollutant levels for certain categories of pollutants.

Storm water runoff may also play a role in the water quality impairments described above. Runoff that occurs as overland flow across yards, driveways, and public streets is intercepted by the storm water drainage system and conveyed to local drainages before eventually being routed to the Pacific. This storm water can carry pollutants that can enter the local waterways and result in the types of water quality impairments described above. Common sources of storm water pollution in the City include litter, trash, pet waste, paint residue, organic material (yard waste), fertilizers, pesticides, sediments, construction debris, metals from automobile brake pad dust, air pollutants that settle on the ground or attach to rainwater, cooking grease, illegally dumped motor oil, and other harmful fluids.

Due to future development and infrastructure projects, the overall volume of runoff in Lathrop could be increased compared to existing conditions. If the City’s drainage system is not adequately designed, General Plan buildout could result in localized higher peak flow rates. Localized increases in flow would be significant if increases exceeded system capacity or contributed to bank erosion. This is considered a potentially significant impact, which would be minimized through the implementation of the policies HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY 3.9
Draft Environmental Impact Report – Lathrop General Plan Update 3.9-25 and actions listed below, as well as adherence to the City’s adopted Municipal Code requirements described previously in the Regulatory Setting (Section 3.9‐2).

The General Plan sets policies and actions for build‐out of the City, but it does not envision or authorize any specific development project. Because of this, the site‐specific details of potential future development projects are currently unknown and analysis of potential impacts of such projects is not feasible and would be speculative. However, each future development and infrastructure project is required to prepare a detailed project specific drainage plan, Water Quality Management Plan, and a SWPPP that will control storm water runoff and erosion, both during and after construction. If the project involves the discharge into surface waters the project proponent will need to acquire a Dewatering permit, NPDES permit, and Waste Discharge permit from the CVRWQCB.

As described above, under the Regulatory Setting, the City is required to implement a range of measures and procedures when reviewing new development and infrastructure projects. Chapter 13.28 of the City’s Municipal Code establishes minimum storm water management requirements and controls and outlines discharges which violate industrial or construction activity NPDES permit. Chapter 13.28.130 of the City’s Municipal Code regulates stormwater quality and prohibits discharges of pollutants into surface waters unless the discharge is authorized by an NPDES storm water discharge permit.

Compliance with existing City construction and stormwater management codes, and submittal of a site‐ specific drainage study and SWPPP, would reduce these potential impacts related to stormwater quality.

While the primary regulatory mechanisms for ensuring that future development and infrastructure projects do not result in adverse water quality impacts are contained in the Lathrop Municipal Code, the City of Lathrop has developed the General Plan to include additional policies and actions that, when implemented, will further reduce water pollution from construction, new development, and new infrastructure projects, and protect and enhance natural storm drainage and water quality features. The policies and actions identified below include numerous requirements that would reduce the potential for General Plan implementation to result in increased water quality impacts. Actions by the City during the development review process require the review of development projects to identify potential stormwater and drainage impacts and require development to include measures to ensure that off‐site runoff is not increased beyond pre‐development levels during rain and flood events. In addition, compliance with the CWA and regulations enforced by the Regional Water Quality Control Board would ensure that construction‐related impacts to water quality are minimized and future projects comply with all applicable laws and regulations.

The City of Lathrop provides and maintains a system of storm drains, detention basins, and pumping facilities as well as monitoring and control of the operations of the storm drain system. Provision of stormwater detention facilities as needed would reduce runoff rates and peak flows. The implementation of the General Plan policies and implementation actions listed below include policies aimed to maximize stormwater quality and infiltration as well as actions to review development projects to identify potential stormwater and drainage impacts and require development to identify potential stormwater and drainage impacts and require development to include measures to ensure that off‐site runoff is not increased as a during rain and flood events. Existing regulatory requirements that manage water quality include requirements to obtain approval from the CVRWQCB for NPDES permits, other discharge permits, SWPPPs, and to implement Best Management Practices. These regulatory

3.9 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY

3.9-26 Draft Environmental Impact Report – Lathrop General Plan Update requirements are intended to ensure that water quality does not degrade to levels that would violate water quality standards. Through implementation of the General Plan policies and actions listed below, implementation of the Lathrop Municipal Code requirements identified above, compliance with mandatory Federal and State regulations, and compliance with the existing regulations for the San Joaquin River Hydrological Region would ensure that impacts to drainage patterns and water quality would be less than significant.

HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY 3.9
Draft Environmental Impact Report – Lathrop General Plan Update 3.9-27

GENERAL PLAN POLICIES AND IMPLEMENTATION ACTIONS THAT MINIMIZE POTENTIAL IMPACTS

PUBLIC SAFETY ELEMENT POLICIES
PS‐3.3 Regional Coordination. Continue to work cooperatively with the San Joaquin County Flood Control and Water Conservation District, the County Office of Emergency Services, SJAFCA, local reclamation districts and other agencies to:

A. Consider the need to expand the capacity of flood control facilities based on changing flood conditions associated with climate change and extreme weather; B. Address storm drainage issues; and
C. Preplan for flood disaster response, such as required evacuation in the event of a serious breach of an upstream dam capable of the flooding the community.

PS‐3.7 Mitigation. Require all development projects to demonstrate how storm water runoff will be detained or retained on‐site, treated, and/or conveyed to the nearest drainage facility as part of the development review process. Project applicants shall demonstrate that project implementation would not result in increases in the peak flow runoff to adjacent lands or drainage facilities that would exceed the design capacity of the drainage facility or result in an increased potential for offsite flooding.

PS‐3.8 Construction Activities. Ensure that construction activities will not result in adverse impacts to existing flood control and drainage facilities, and adequate drainage and erosion control measures are provided during construction of new development.

PS‐3.9 Adequate Infrastructure. Maintain and regularly assess the status of local storm drainage infrastructure to ensure that the system is functioning property.

PUBLIC FACILITIES AND SERVICES ELEMENT POLICIES
PFS‐4.1 Maintain Capacity. Maintain and improve storm drainage infrastructure and flood control facilities in order to protect the community from flood hazards.

PFS‐4.2 Regional Partnerships. Continue to work cooperatively with the San Joaquin Area Flood Control Agency and other outside agencies to meet SB‐5 requirements to provide a 200‐year Urban Level of Protection and other needs and priorities relative to storm drainage issues. Also, continue to participate with the San Joaquin Valley Stormwater Quality Partnership to meet objectives related to compliance with the City’s Small MS4 Phase 2 permit.

PFS‐4.3 Maintenance Districts. Continue to fund the operation and maintenance of stormwater facilities and regulatory compliance through the creation of maintenance districts and/or other appropriate mechanisms that avoid burdening the City’s finances.

PFS‐4.4 National Programs. Cooperate in regional programs to implement the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System program.

PFS‐4.5 Development Review. Continue to require all development projects to:

3.9 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY

3.9-28 Draft Environmental Impact Report – Lathrop General Plan Update A. Demonstrate how storm water runoff will be detained or retained on‐site and/or conveyed to the nearest drainage facility as part of the development review process and as required by the City’s Small MS4 Phase 2 permit; and
B. Analyze their drainage and stormwater conveyance impacts and either demonstrate that the City’s existing infrastructure can accommodate increased stormwater flows, or make the necessary improvements to mitigate all potential impacts.

PFS‐4.6 Stormwater Runoff. Stormwater runoff may be directed towards permeable surfaces to the greatest extent feasible to allow for more percolation of stormwater into the ground.

PFS‐4.7 Stormwater Capture. Encourage the use of professionally designed stormwater capture methods to aid in the reuse of rainwater for non‐potable uses in compliance with applicable State regulations.

PFS‐4.8 Stormwater Treatments. Promote Best Management Practices (BMPs) and Low Impact Development measures (LID) to treat stormwater before discharge from the site. The facilities shall be sized to meet regulatory requirements.

PFS‐4.9 Naturalized Stormwater Facilities. Maintain stormwater facilities in a naturalized condition where appropriate, incorporating recreational trails, parkway vegetation, and other amenities, minimizing grading, and ensuring that vegetation does not reduce channel capacity, and consistent with the Recreation and Resources Element.

PFS‐4.10 Dual‐Use Detention Basins. Allow recreational uses in dual‐use detention basins for parks, ball fields, and other uses where appropriate.

PFS‐4.11 Data Collection. As necessary to meet storm drainage goal(s), map, track, and analyze data on all current storm drain facilities in order to provide clear and accurate forecasts for future demand.

RECREATION AND RESOURCES ELEMENT POLICIES
RR‐4.4 Natural Water Bodies and Drainage Systems. Limit the disturbance of natural water bodies and drainage systems in Lathrop by conserving natural open space areas, protecting channels, and minimizing the impacts from stormwater and urban runoff.

RR‐8.8 Management Strategies. Manage water resources as part of a broader integrated approach that includes groundwater, surface water, conservation, water quality, reuse, environmental stewardship, and other water management strategies.

PUBLIC SAFETY ELEMENT ACTIONS
PS‐3d Update the Storm Drainage Master Plan every five years. The update shall be reviewed periodically for adequacy and consistency with the General Plan.

PS‐3e Identify which storm water and drainage facilities are in need of repair and address these needs through the City’s Capital Improvement Program.

PS‐3g Continue to review development projects to identify potential stormwater and drainage impacts and require new, unentitled development to include measures to ensure that off‐site runoff is HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY 3.9
Draft Environmental Impact Report – Lathrop General Plan Update 3.9-29 not increased during rain and flood events. As part of the development review process, require developers to prepare hydrological studies as necessary. Studies shall encompass the project site as well as the entire drainage area.

PUBLIC FACILITIES AND SERVICES ELEMENT ACTIONS
PFS‐4a Update the City’s master plans regarding stormwater runoff, flooding, and removal of surface water contaminants every five years, or as needed. The update shall be reviewed periodically for adequacy and consistency with the General Plan.

PFS‐4b Continue to complete gaps in the drainage system in areas of existing development.

PFS‐4c Identify which storm water and drainage facilities are in need of repair or reconstruction and address these needs through the City’s Capital Improvement Program.

PFS‐4d Continue to review development projects to identify potential stormwater and drainage impacts and require development to include measures to ensure that off‐site runoff is not increased beyond pre‐development levels during rain and flood events.

PFS‐4e Project designs should minimize drainage concentrations, minimize impervious coverage, utilize pervious paving materials, utilize low impact development (LID) strategies, and utilize Best Management Practices (BMPs) to reduce stormwater runoff.

PFS‐4f Promote the use of LID strategies in new development and redevelopment projects, including but not limited to the use of canopy trees and shrubs, vegetated swales, and permeable paving.

PFS‐4g Require new development to mitigate increases in stormwater peak flows and/or volume.

Mitigation measures, such as LID strategies, should take into consideration impacts on adjoining lands in the City.

PFS‐4h Continue to implement a comprehensive municipal stormwater pollution‐prevention program in compliance with requirements of the Water Quality Control Plan In collaboration with San Joaquin County and the Cities of Tracy, Lodi, Manteca, and Patterson, continue to implement the Multi‐Agency Post‐Construction Stormwater Standards Manual to manage stormwater runoff from new development and redevelopment.

RECREATION AND RESOURCES ELEMENT ACTIONS
RR‐4c Require new development which has the potential to result in water quality impacts to the City’s waterways and the local groundwater basin to implement all feasible mitigation measures to reduce impacts.

RR‐4d Publicize volunteer‐based programs that organize community habitat restoration and/or cleanup events and provide public education regarding the benefits of city and regional water resources.

3.9 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY

3.9-30 Draft Environmental Impact Report – Lathrop General Plan Update Impact 3.9‐2: General Plan implementation could result in the depletion of groundwater supplies, interfere substantially with groundwater recharge or conflict with a groundwater management plan. (Less than Significant) The quantity of ground water in the San Joaquin Valley has been declining for decades, as evidenced by the substantial lowering of water levels in the aquifers. Impacts on groundwater in the Lathrop area are an important consideration in any development plan. See Impact 3.15‐1 in Section 3.15, Utilities, for further discussions regarding water demand and groundwater supplies. Impacts related to groundwater supplies and interference with groundwater recharge are considered in two ways: (1) conversion of pervious surfaces (which allow for groundwater recharge), and (2) use of groundwater as a water supply (which reduces the amount of local groundwater supply).

Future development projects in the Planning Area would result in new impervious surfaces and could reduce rainwater infiltration and groundwater recharge in those areas. Infiltration rates vary depending on the overlying soil types. In general, sandy soils have higher infiltration rates and can contribute to significant amounts of ground water recharge; clay soils tend to have lower percolation potential; and impervious surfaces such as pavement significantly reduce infiltration capacity and increase surface water runoff.

The 2014 SGMA enacted groundwater legislation in California that requires the formation of Groundwater Sustainability Agencies (GSA) who will be responsible for developing Groundwater Sustainability Plans to manage groundwater basins. The City is located within the Tracy Sub‐basin as of February 2019 and has been in coordination with the GSA to develop a Groundwater Sustainability Plan (GSP). The GSP must be adopted and submitted to the DWR by January 31, 2022. The City’s GSP was adopted by the City of Lathrop GSA in December 2021.

As discussed in Section 3.15, Utilities and Service Systems, the City’s 2020 UWMP documents current and projects future water demands and supplies through 2040, as shown in Table 3.15‐1. Water supplies to meet future demands include surface water purchased from SSJID, City produced groundwater and recycled water. The City’s water supply is projected to increase by about 54 percent from 2020 to 2040, primarily due to implementation of the City’s UMWP. Future City groundwater pumping is estimated based on the safe yield for all groundwater pumping within the City’s planning area which is not predicted to experience any additional restrictions as a result of the City’s GSP.

Subsequent development projects under the General Plan, such as residential, commercial, industrial, and roadway projects would result in new impervious surfaces and could reduce rainwater infiltration and groundwater recharge. Undeveloped land west of Interstate 5 and east of the San Joaquin River and the River Islands Phase II tract have a land use designation that allows a range of development densities.

The proposed General Plan does not increase the acreage of developable land uses from the previous General Plan. In addition, the General Plan does not designate areas currently designated for open spaces uses for additional urban uses. However, when compared to existing conditions, development allowed under the proposed General Plan would allow currently undeveloped portions of Lathrop to develop with additional impervious surfaces.

HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY 3.9
Draft Environmental Impact Report – Lathrop General Plan Update 3.9-31 The amount of new pavement and impervious surfaces, and the extent to which they affect infiltration, depends on the site‐specific features and soil types of a given project site. Projects located in urban areas would have less of an impact than projects converting undeveloped lands.

Subsequent development projects proposed within the Planning Area, such as residential, commercial, light industrial, and infrastructure projects, would result in new impervious surfaces and could reduce stormwater infiltration and groundwater recharge. Infiltration rates vary depending on the overlying soil types. In general, sandy soils have higher infiltration rates and can contribute to significant amounts of ground water recharge; clay soils tend to have lower percolation potentials; and impervious surfaces such as pavement significantly reduce infiltration capacity and increase surface water runoff. The amount of new pavement and the extent to which it affects infiltration depends on the site‐specific soil type. Projects located in urban areas would have less of an impact than projects converting open lands and spaces. The City must evaluate individual projects as they are proposed to ensure that they would not result in a significant interference with recharge.

The City plans to utilize its existing groundwater wells to supply water in the future. As discussed in the City’s UWMP the current estimated annual groundwater yield is 4,720 AFY and the City currently has no plans to install additional groundwater wells or expand its groundwater production. Additionally, as described in the UWMP the City’s ability to utilize groundwater wells will not be impacted by groundwater levels within the Tracy groundwater basin, and would not require the City to limit groundwater production to maintain a sustainable groundwater budget. Based on the available information, it is anticipated that 100% the City’s current estimated groundwater yield is available for the planning horizon.

The General Plan includes policies and actions to support groundwater recharge and water conservation. For example, Policy RR‐8.6 supports the sustainable yield and calls for the City to operate the City’s well system in such a manner as to not exceed the sustainable yield of the local groundwater aquifers. While policy RR‐8.7 supports groundwater recharge through the promotion of and the use of permeable surface materials and areas of open space, in order to decrease surface runoff and promote groundwater recharge. Subsequent development projects proposed within the Planning Area would be subject to these policies as well as additional policies and actions listed below that support groundwater conservation and recharge.

The General Plan includes policies and implementation actions that support water conservation and aim to diversify the City’s water sources. The General Plan and development codes are consistent with local groundwater objectives and promote sustainable yields throughout the planning horizon.

Implementation of the following General Plan policies and implementation actions would further ensure that the General Plan would have a less than significant impact relative to this topic.

3.9 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY

3.9-32 Draft Environmental Impact Report – Lathrop General Plan Update

GENERAL PLAN POLICIES AND IMPLEMENTATION ACTIONS THAT MINIMIZE POTENTIAL IMPACTS

POLICIES
RR‐8.2 Ground Water. Protect the quantity and quality of Lathrop’s groundwater through reduced potable water use, increased water conservation, and recharge opportunities.

RR‐8.6 Sustainable Yield. Operate the City’s well system in such a manner as to not exceed the sustainable yield of the local groundwater aquifers.

RR‐8.7 Groundwater Recharge. Promote the use of permeable surface materials and provide for ample areas of open space, including parks and greenways, and naturalized land, in order to decrease surface runoff and promote groundwater recharge.

PFS‐2.4 SSJID Water Supply Agreement. Renew and update the water supply agreement with SSJID as needed to supplement the City's existing system in order to meet projected demand and to reduce the City’s reliance on groundwater resources.

PFS‐2.5 Development Review. Consider the effect of incremental increases in the demands on groundwater supply and water quality when reviewing development applications.

PFS‐10.4 Promotion. Promote the use of recycled water and treated wastewater to the extent allowable and feasible, including use for irrigation, agriculture, industrial, and groundwater recharge purposes, when such opportunities become available.

IMPLEMENTATION ACTIONS
RR‐8a Regularly review and update the City’s water conservation measures to be consistent with current best management practices for water conservation, considering measures recommended by the State Department of Water Resources and the California Urban Water Conservation Council.

RR‐8c Continue to implement and update as necessary standards for water conserving landscape practices, including the use of drought tolerant plants, for both public and private projects, as well as guidance provided by the Lathrop Municipal Code Chapter 17.92 (Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance), and Chapter 13.08 (Water Conservation and Rationing Provisions).

PFS‐2a Update the IWRMP, regarding water supply and distribution, every five years, or as needed. The update shall reflect the most recent adopted groundwater studies that establish a safe yield for the groundwater basin and/or establish maximum extraction from the basin. The update shall be reviewed periodically for adequacy and consistency with the General Plan.

PFS‐2b Continue to rely on existing groundwater and surface water resources, while maintaining and improving the infrastructure, in collaboration with the SSJID, other water districts, and other local jurisdictions where applicable, to provide access to the water supply.

HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY 3.9
Draft Environmental Impact Report – Lathrop General Plan Update 3.9-33 PFS‐4e Project designs should minimize drainage concentrations, minimize impervious coverage, utilize pervious paving materials, utilize low impact development (LID) strategies, and utilize Best Management Practices (BMPs) to reduce stormwater runoff.

Impact 3.9‐3: General Plan implementation could alter the existing drainage pattern in a manner which would result in substantial erosion, siltation, flooding, impeded flows, or polluted runoff (Less than Significant) The City of Lathrop is within the jurisdictional boundary of the CVRWQCB. Under the CVRWQCB NPDES permit system, all existing and future municipal and industrial discharges to surface water within the city would be subject to regulation. NPDES permits are required for operators of municipal separate storm sewer systems, construction projects, and industrial facilities. These permits contain limits on the amount of pollutants that can be contained in each facility’s discharge.

General Plan implementation has the potential to impact the Planning Area’s storm drainage system.

The potential impacts would be primarily derived from development in what are now underdeveloped and/or underutilized areas. Construction activities are regulated by the NPDES General Construction Storm Water Permit. Compliance with the storm water permit during construction activities requires the preparation of a SWPPP that contains BMPs to control the discharge of pollutants, including sediment, into local surface water drainages.

In addition to complying with the NPDES programs and Municipal Code stormwater requirements described previously, the General Plan contains policies and implementation actions to reduce impacts associated with stormwater and drainage including policies which require new development to demonstrate how storm water runoff will be detained or retained on‐site and/or conveyed to the nearest drainage facility as part of the development review process. Additionally, the General Plan actions require the City to continue to review development projects to identify potential stormwater and drainage impacts and require development to include measures to ensure that off‐site runoff is not increased during rain and flood events.

Individual future projects developed after adoption of the General Plan would create new impervious surfaces. This would result in an incremental reduction in the amount of natural soil surfaces available for infiltration of rainfall and runoff, potentially generating additional runoff during storm events. In addition, the increase in impervious surfaces, along with the increase in surface water runoff, could increase the non‐point source discharge of pollutants. Anticipated runoff contaminants include sediment, pesticides, oil and grease, nutrients, metals, bacteria, and trash. Contributions of these contaminants to stormwater and non‐stormwater runoff would degrade the quality of receiving waters.

During the dry season, vehicles and other urban activities release contaminants onto the impervious surfaces, where they can accumulate until the first storm event. During this initial storm event, or first flush, the concentrated pollutants would be transported via runoff to stormwater drainage systems.

Contaminated runoff waters could flow into the stormwater drainage systems that discharge into rivers, agricultural ditches, sloughs, and channels, and ultimately could degrade the water quality of any of these water bodies.

3.9 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY

3.9-34 Draft Environmental Impact Report – Lathrop General Plan Update The General Plan sets policies and actions for build‐out of the City, but it does not propose or authorize any specific development projects. Because of this, the site‐specific details of potential future development projects are currently unknown and analysis of potential impacts of such projects is not feasible and would be speculative, and would require a project level analysis for site specific impacts. As previously discussed in the Regulatory Setting section of this chapter, future project applicants would be required to obtain permits from the Army Corps of Engineers and the Department of Fish and Wildlife if any work is performed within a waterway. Each future development project must also include detailed project specific floodplain and drainage studies that assess the drainage characteristics and flood risks so that an appropriate storm drainage plans can be prepared to control storm water runoff, both during and after construction.

The City of Lathrop, in collaboration with San Joaquin County, Tracy, Lodi, Manteca, and Patterson prepared a Multi‐Agency Post‐construction Stormwater Standards Manual to provide consistent guidance for municipal workers, developers and builders in implementing the requirements under the Statewide Small MS4 NPDES permit (2013‐0001‐DWQ).

Through implementation of the General Plan policies and actions listed below, implementation of the Lathrop Municipal Code requirements, adherence to the Lathrop Stormwater Development Standards Plan, Post‐construction Stormwater Standards Manual, and compliance with mandatory Federal and State regulations would ensure that impacts related to increased flooding or water quality impacts associated with increased runoff would be less than significant.

GENERAL PLAN POLICIES AND IMPLEMENTATION ACTIONS THAT MINIMIZE POTENTIAL IMPACTS

PUBLIC FACILITIES AND SERVICES POLICIES
PFS‐4.1 Maintain Capacity. Maintain and improve storm drainage infrastructure and flood control facilities in order to protect the community from flood hazards.

PFS‐4.5 Development Review. Continue to require all development projects to:

A. Demonstrate how storm water runoff will be detained or retained on‐site and/or conveyed to the nearest drainage facility as part of the development review process and as required by the City’s Small MS4 Phase 2 permit; and
B. Analyze their drainage and stormwater conveyance impacts and either demonstrate that the City’s existing infrastructure can accommodate increased stormwater flows, or make the necessary improvements to mitigate all potential impacts.

HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY 3.9
Draft Environmental Impact Report – Lathrop General Plan Update 3.9-35 PFS‐4.6 Stormwater Runoff. Stormwater runoff may be directed towards permeable surfaces to the greatest extent feasible to allow for more percolation of stormwater into the ground.

PFS‐4.7 Stormwater Capture. Encourage the use of professionally designed stormwater capture methods to aid in the reuse of rain water for non‐potable uses in compliance with applicable State regulations.

PFS‐4.10 Dual‐Use Detention Basins. Allow recreational uses in dual‐use detention basins for parks, ball fields, and other uses where appropriate.

RECREATION AND RESOURCES POLICIES
RR‐4.4 Natural Water Bodies and Drainage Systems. Limit the disturbance of natural water bodies and drainage systems in Lathrop by conserving natural open space areas, protecting channels, and minimizing the impacts from stormwater and urban runoff.

RR‐4.7 Wildlife Corridors. Participate in the planning of drainage channels and other areas that provide potential wildlife linkages between open space areas in the community and the vicinity.

PUBLIC FACILITIES AND SERVICES IMPLEMENTATION ACTIONS
PFS‐4a Update the City’s master plans regarding stormwater runoff, flooding, and removal of surface water contaminants every five years, or as needed. The update shall be reviewed periodically for adequacy and consistency with the General Plan.

PFS‐4b Continue to complete gaps in the drainage system in areas of existing development.

PFS‐4c Identify which storm water and drainage facilities are in need of repair or reconstruction and address these needs through the City’s Capital Improvement Program.

PFS‐4f Promote the use of LID strategies in new development and redevelopment projects, including but not limited to the use of canopy trees and shrubs, vegetated swales, and permeable paving.

3.9 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY

3.9-36 Draft Environmental Impact Report – Lathrop General Plan Update PFS‐4g Require new development to mitigate increases in stormwater peak flows and/or volume.

Mitigation measures, such as LID strategies, should take into consideration impacts on adjoining lands in the City.

RECREATION AND RESOURCES IMPLEMENTATION ACTIONS
RR‐4c Require new development which has the potential to result in water quality impacts to the City’s waterways and the local groundwater basin to implement all feasible mitigation measures to reduce impacts.

Impact 3.9‐4: General Plan implementation would not release pollutants due to project inundation by flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche. (Less than Significant)
FLOOD
The FEMA FIRM for the Planning Area is shown on Figure 3.9‐2. The Planning Area is subject to flooding problems along the natural creeks and drainages that traverse the area. The primary flood hazard is the San Joaquin River and its tributaries, notably Old River (contiguous with the western Study Area boundary) and Paradise cut along the southwestern Study Area boundary. A levee running from Airport Way in Manteca west and northwest along the San Joaquin River provides flood protection for the land north and east of the River. This levee is under the jurisdiction of Reclamation District No. 17 (RD 17).

The 200‐year floodplain for the Planning Area, as mapped by the City of Lathrop and San Joaquin County, is shown on Figure 3.9‐3. As shown in the figure, the 200‐year floodplain encompasses the entirety of the City’s SOI and City limits. Existing uses within the 200‐year floodplain include urban uses such as commercial, industrial, and residential, as well as agricultural and open space uses.

The General Plan would allow development and improvement projects that would involve some land clearing, grading, and other ground‐disturbing activities that could temporarily increase soil erosion rates during and shortly after project construction. As required by the CWA, each subsequent development project or improvement project will require an approved SWPPP that includes best management practices for grading and preservation of topsoil. SWPPPs are designed to control storm water quality degradation to the extent practicable using best management practices during and after construction.

As described previously in the Regulatory Setting, the City of Lathrop regulates storm water discharge in accordance with the NPDES permit through Chapter 13.28 of the Lathrop Municipal Code, Stormwater Quality Management Discharges. In addition to complying with the NPDES programs and Municipal Code requirements, the General Plan contains policies to reduce impacts associated with stormwater and drainage including policies to maintain sufficient levels of storm drainage service, maintain drainage channels in a naturalized condition where appropriate, and other best practices in order to protect the HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY 3.9
Draft Environmental Impact Report – Lathrop General Plan Update 3.9-37 community from flood hazards and minimize the discharge of materials into the storm drain system that are toxic.

Additionally, Section 17.30.030, 200‐Year flood protection requirements for new development, requires certain findings prior to approving certain projects within a 200‐year floodplain. The review authority shall not approve the execution of a development agreement, a tentative map, or a parcel map for which a tentative map is not required, or a discretionary permit or other discretionary entitlement that would result in the construction of a new building, or construction that would result in an increase in allowed occupancy for an existing building, or issuance of a ministerial permit that would result in the construction of a new residence for property that is located within the 200 Year Flood Zone unless the review authority finds, based on substantial evidence in the record, one of the following:

1. The facilities of the State Plan of Flood Control or other flood management facilities protect the new development site to the urban level of flood protection in urban and urbanizing areas or the national Federal Emergency Management Agency standard of flood protection in non‐urbanized areas; or

2. Conditions imposed on the new development will protect the property to the urban level of flood protection in urban and urbanizing areas or the national Federal Emergency Management Agency standard of flood protection in non‐urbanized areas; or

3. The local flood management agency has made adequate progress on the construction of a flood protection system that will result in flood protection equal to or greater than the urban level of flood protection in urban or urbanizing areas, or the national Federal Emergency Management Agency standard of flood protection in non‐urbanized areas, for a new development site located within a flood hazard zone intended to be protected by the system. For urban and urbanizing areas protected by project levees, the urban level of flood protection shall be achieved by 2028; or

4. The new development site located in an undetermined risk area has met the urban level of flood protection based on substantial evidence in the record.

TSUNAMI AND SEICHES
Tsunamis and seiches are standing waves that occur in the ocean or relatively large, enclosed bodies of water that can follow seismic, landslide, and other events from local sources (California, Oregon, Washington coast) or distant sources (Pacific Rim, South American Coast, Alaska/Canadian coast).

Lathrop is located approximately 65 miles from the Pacific Ocean at an elevation of approximately 20 feet above mean sea level. Based on tsunami inundation maps prepared by the Department of Conservation, California Emergency Management Agency, and California Geological Survey, Lathrop is not identified as being within a tsunami inundation or run‐up zone.

Seiches are typically caused when strong winds and rapid changes in atmospheric pressure push water from one end of a body of water to the other. When the wind stops, the water rebounds to the other side of the enclosed area. The water then continues to oscillate back and forth for hours or even days. In a similar fashion, earthquakes, tsunamis, or severe storm fronts may also cause seiches along ocean shelves and ocean harbors, or other bodies large of water. Any body of water may experience limited

3.9 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY

3.9-38 Draft Environmental Impact Report – Lathrop General Plan Update oscillation during storm events or following seismic events, however oscillation in small bodies of water is generally limited. In smaller water bodies seiches may have the potential to damage or overtop dams.

Generally, in lakes the threat of large‐scale damage from seiches comes from downstream flooding that would be caused by large volumes of water overtopping a dam or reservoir.

As described previously, the Planning Area has the potential to be inundated by four dams: Tulloch Dam, San Luis Dam, Pine Flat Dam, New Exchequer Dam (Lake McClure), and New Melones Dam. The dam inundation area for each dam is shown in Figure 3.9‐4. As such, the City is at significant risk from inundation in the result of a dam failure. Dam failure is generally a result of structural instability caused by improper design or construction, instability resulting from seismic shaking, or overtopping and erosion of the dam. As discussed previously, larger dams that are higher than 25 feet or with storage capacities over 50 acre‐feet of water are regulated by the California Dam Safety Act, which is implemented by the California Department of Water Resources, Division of Dam Safety (DSD). The DSD is responsible for inspecting and monitoring these dams. The Act also requires that dam owners submit to the California Office of Emergency Services inundation maps for dams that would cause significant loss of life or personal injury as a result of dam failure. The County Office of Emergency Services is responsible for developing and implementing a Dam Failure Plan that designates evacuation plans, the direction of floodwaters, and provides emergency information.

Regular inspection by DSD and maintenance by the dam owners ensure that the dams are kept in safe operating condition. As such, failure of these dams is considered to have an extremely low probability of occurring and is not considered to be a likely reasonably foreseeable event.

In addition, man‐made lakes within the Planning Area are shallow with limited surface areas and would not generate devastating seiches. The City of Lathrop is not within a tsunami hazard area and would not be subject to substantial impacts from seiche events. Therefore, this is considered a less than significant impact.

GENERAL PLAN POLICIES AND IMPLEMENTATION ACTIONS THAT MINIMIZE POTENTIAL IMPACTS

PUBLIC SAFETY ELEMENT POLICIES
PS‐3.1 Regulatory Compliance. Coordinate with local, state, and federal agencies to ensure that the City’s regulations related to flood control are in compliance with federal, State, and local standards.

PS‐3.2 FEMA Coordination. Coordinate with the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) to ensure that Federal Insurance Rate Maps correctly depict flood hazards in the City.

PS‐3.3 Regional Coordination. Continue to work cooperatively with the San Joaquin County Flood Control and Water Conservation District, the County Office of Emergency Services, SJAFCA, local reclamation districts and other agencies to:

A. Consider the need to expand the capacity of flood control facilities based on changing flood conditions associated with climate change and extreme weather; B. Address storm drainage issues; and
HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY 3.9
Draft Environmental Impact Report – Lathrop General Plan Update 3.9-39 C. Preplan for flood disaster response, such as required evacuation in the event of a serious breach of an upstream dam capable of the flooding the community.

PS‐3.4 Evaluate Hazards. Require evaluation of potential flood hazards prior to approval of development projects to determine whether the proposed development is reasonably safe from flooding and consistent with California Department of Water Resources Urban Level of Flood Protection Criteria (ULOP). The City shall not approve the execution of a development agreement, a tentative map, or a parcel map for which a tentative map is not required, or a discretionary permit or other discretionary entitlement that would result in the construction of a new building, or construction that would result in an increase in allowed occupancy for an existing building, or issuance of a ministerial permit that would result in the construction of a new residence for property that is located within a 200‐year flood hazard zone, unless the adequacy of flood protection as described in Government Code §65865.5(a), 65962(a), or 66474.5(a), has been demonstrated.

PS‐3.5 New Development. New development may be permitted in areas not identified as "urban" or "urbanizing" provided that:

1. Such areas are protected from 100‐year flooding by FEMA‐accredited levees or equivalent flood protection as shown on an adopted FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Map, a FEMA‐approved Letter of Map Revision or a Conditional Letter of Map Revision, subject to conditions specified in the letter; or

2. Where not protected by FEMA‐accredited 100‐year levees, such areas are subject to all applicable requirements of Municipal Code Chapter 8.30 (Floodplain Management), the California Building Standards Code as adopted by the City, and the latest promulgated FEMA standards for development in the 100‐year floodplain, provided that new development defined as "urban" or "urbanizing."
PS‐3.6 Local Coordination. Continue to work closely with the Cities of Manteca and Stockton, San Joaquin County, RD 2062, and RD 17, to improve levee systems east of the San Joaquin River to provide ULOP for urban and urbanizing areas in Lathrop by 2028, including ensuring that findings of "adequate progress" will continue to be made until improvements are in place to provide ULOP.

PUBLIC SAFETY ELEMENT IMPLEMENTATION ACTIONS
PS‐3a Monitor changes in Federal and State laws and regulations related to local flood protection, including the National Flood Insurance Program and incorporate necessary changes into the

3.9 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY

3.9-40 Draft Environmental Impact Report – Lathrop General Plan Update Municipal Code, the City's Emergency Operations Plan, and building codes as required and ensure that the City’s regulations continue to require that new development within flood hazard zones is consistent with this Public Safety Element and is required to meet the flood protection requirements of State law, including but not limited to Government Code Sections 65007, 65865.5, 65962 and 66474.5.

PS‐3b Communicate with FEMA annually regarding updates to Flood Insurance Rate Maps and Letter of Map Revisions.

PS‐3c Periodically review county, state, and federal flood control best practices and incorporate appropriate standards into the Municipal Code.

PS‐3d Update the Storm Drainage Master Plan every five years. The update shall be reviewed periodically for adequacy and consistency with the General Plan.

PS‐3e Identify which storm water and drainage facilities are in need of repair and address these needs through the City’s Capital Improvement Program.

PS‐3f Complete gaps in the drainage system in areas of existing development.

PS‐3g Continue to review development projects to identify potential stormwater and drainage impacts and require new, unentitled development to include measures to ensure that off‐site runoff is not increased during rain and flood events. As part of the development review process, require developers to prepare hydrological studies as necessary. Studies shall encompass the project site as well as the entire drainage area.

PS‐3h Work with the San Joaquin County Flood Control District and SJAFCA to apply for grants that provide funding for local drainage controls, FEMA’s Hazard Mitigation Grant and Flood Mitigation Program, CalEPA and the CA State Water Resources Control Board offer grants to municipalities throughout California.

PS‐3i Disseminate information on flooding, flood control on private property, floodplains, and flood preparedness to the public as part of the City’s participation in the FEMA CRS program.

PS‐3j Require applications for development in areas subject to 200‐year flooding to indicate the depth of predicted 200‐year flooding on the basis of official maps approved by the City of Lathrop Floodplain Administrator.

PS‐3k Coordinate with RD 17 and RD 2062 as required for the purpose of ensuring that ULOP is available as soon as possible and that "adequate progress" findings can be made.

PUBLIC FACILITIES AND SERVICES ELEMENT IMPLEMENTATION ACTIONS PFS‐4a Update the City’s master plans regarding stormwater runoff, flooding, and removal of surface water contaminants every five years, or as needed. The update shall be reviewed periodically for adequacy and consistency with the General Plan.

S an
J oaquin R.

Paradise Cut
Circle
Lake
M iddle R.

Old R.

Red Bridge SloughSan Joaquin River
Walthall Slough-San
Joaquin River
Oakwood LakeSan Joaquin River
Town of French
Camp-San
Joaquin River
Roberts
Island-Trapper
Slough
McDonald
Island-Hayes
Slough
Upper Old River
Lower Old River
Union Island
Mandeville
IslandConnection
Slough
Middle
River-San
Joaquin River Simmons Creek- Littlejohns Creek
Lower
Lone Tree
Creek
Walker SloughFrench Camp Slough

LATHROP MANTECA
TRACY

STOCKTON
UV120
UV4
UV33
UV120
UV99
§¨¦580
§¨¦5
§¨¦205
LegendHUC-12 Watershed
Lower Lone Tree CreekLower Old RiverMandeville IslandConnection SloughMiddle River-SanJoaquin RiverOakwood Lake-SanJoaquin RiverRed Bridge Slough-SanJoaquin River Roberts Island-TrapperSloughSimmons CreekLittlejohns CreekTown of French CampSan Joaquin RiverUnion IslandUpper Old RiverWalker Slough-FrenchCamp SloughWalthall Slough-SanJoaquin River Í
01 ½
Miles
Sources: San Joaquin County;City of Lathrop.; USGSWatershed Boundary Dataset.Map date: May 24, 2018.

CITY OF LATHROP GENERAL PLAN
Figure 3.9-1. Watershed Map
83'$7(

3.9 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY

3.9-42 Draft Environmental Impact Report – Lathrop General Plan Update This page left intentionally blank.

San Joaqui n R.

Paradise Cut Circle
Lake
Mi ddle R.

Tom
Pain
e
Slo
ugh
Old
R.

Old
R.

San Jo
a quin
R.
§¨¦5
R
i
ver
Islands Pk
W Woodward Av
W
L
o
u
i
se Av
S Mckinley Av
D Arcy Pk
E Roth Rd
W
Yosemite
Av
E Louise Av
E
L
a
t
h
r
o
p
R
d
O St
J St
Mckinley Av
N Airport Wy
Harlan Rd
S Manthey Rd
S Manthey Rd
Land Park Dr Golden Valley Pk Nestle Wy
W Howard Rd
Howland Rd
Barbara Terry Bl Mckee Bl
T
h
o
m
s
e
n
R
dCambridge Dr
Walthall Slough
Gr
a
n
t
Lin
e
Ca
n
a
l
§¨¦5
§¨¦5
UV120
§¨¦205

CITY OF LATHROP GENERAL PLAN
Figure 3.9-2.

FEMA Flood Zone Designations
Legend
Lathrop City Boundary
Manteca City Boundary
Lathrop Sphere of Influence
Manteca Sphere of Influence
FEMA Designation
100-year Flood Zone
500-year Flood Zone
X - Area of Minimal Flood
Hazard
X - Area with Reduced Flood
due to Levee
Í
0¼½
Miles
Sources: FEMA
06077C_20211117; San Joaquin
County; City of Lathrop. Map
date: February 22, 2022.

San Joaquin R.
unshaded

3.9 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY

3.9-44 Draft Environmental Impact Report – Lathrop General Plan Update This page left intentionally blank.

San Joaqui n
R.

Paradise Cut Circle
Lake
Mi ddle R.

Tom
Pain
e
Slo
ugh
Old
R.

Old
R.

San
J o
aquin
R.
§¨¦5
R
i
ver
Islands Pk
W Woodward Av
W
L
o
u
i
se Av
S Mckinley Av
D Arcy Pk
E Roth Rd
W
Yosemite
Av
E Louise Av
E
L
a
t
h
r
o
p
R
d
O St
J St
Mckinley Av
N Airport Wy
Harlan Rd
S Manthey Rd
S Manthey Rd
Land Park Dr Golden Valley Pk Nestle Wy
W Hard R
d
Howland Rd
Barbara Terry Bl Mckee Bl
T
h
o
m
s
e
n
R
dCambridge Dr
Walthall Slough
Gr
a
n
t
Lin
e
Ca
n
a
l
§¨¦5
§¨¦5
UV120
§¨¦205

CITY OF LATHROP GENERAL PLAN
Figure 3.9-3.
200-year Floodplain
Legend
Lathrop City Boundary
Manteca City Boundary
Lathrop Sphere of Influence
Manteca Sphere of Influence
Assessor Parcel Boundary
200-Year Floodplain
Í
0¼½
Miles
Sources: California DWR Best
Available Maps (BAM) data,
USACE 200-yr Comprehensive
Sutdy; San Joaquin County; City
of Lathrop. Map date:

December 13, 2017.

San Joaquin R.

3.9 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY

3.9-46 Draft Environmental Impact Report – Lathrop General Plan Update This page left intentionally blank.

CITY OF LATHROP GENERAL PLAN83'$7(
Figure 3.9-4. Dam Inundation Areas
Legend
Lathrop City BoundarySurrounding City LimitsLathrop Sphere of InfluenceManteca Sphere of InfluenceDam Inundation Area Í
0½ ¼
Miles
Sources: California OES; SanJoaquin County; City ofLathrop. Map date: September6, 2018.

San Luis Dam
Pine Flat Dam
New Melones Dam
San Luis Dam
New Hogan Dam
Tulloch Dam
New Exchequer Dam
(Lake McClure)
TRACY

MANTECA

STOCKTON

LATHROP
§¨¦5
§¨¦5
§¨¦205
UV120
TRACY

MANTECA

STOCKTON

LATHROP
§¨¦5
§¨¦5
§¨¦205
UV120
TRACY

MANTECA

STOCKTON

LATHROP
§¨¦5
§¨¦5
§¨¦205
UV120
TRACY

MANTECA

STOCKTON

LATHROP
§¨¦5
§¨¦5
§¨¦205
UV120
TRACY

MANTECA

STOCKTON

LATHROP
§¨¦5
§¨¦5
§¨¦205
UV120

3.9 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY

3.9-48 Draft Environmental Impact Report – Lathrop General Plan Update This page left intentionally blank.

LAND USE, POPULATION, AND HOUSING 3.10
Draft Environmental Impact Report – Lathrop General Plan Update 3.10-1 This section identifies the existing land use conditions, discusses population and housing trends and projections, analyzes the Project’s consistency with relevant planning documents and policies adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect, and recommends mitigation measures to avoid or minimize the significance of potential environmental impacts.

General Plan policies associated with other specific environmental topics are discussed in the relevant sections of this EIR.

Comments related to the potential for land use conflicts and the potential for air quality impacts and noise and vibration impacts were received during the public review period or scoping meeting for the Notice of Preparation and are addressed in detail in their respective EIR Chapters (3.3 Air Quality and 3.12 Noise). Full comments received are included in Appendix A.

3.10.1 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING

EXISTING CONDITIONS
The City Limits includes the area within the City’s corporate boundary, over which the City exercises land use authority and provides public services. A City’s Sphere of Influence (SOI) is the probable physical boundary and service area of a local agency, as adopted by a Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO). An SOI may include both incorporated and unincorporated areas within which a city or special district will have primary responsibility for the provision of public facilities and services. The Area of Interest (AOI) is a geographic area beyond the sphere of influence in which land use decisions or other governmental actions of one local agency (the “Acting Agency”) impact directly or indirectly upon another local agency (“the Concerned Agency”). The AOI includes land in the northwest portion of the Planning Area north of the city limits and SOI, and areas in the Stewart Tract outside of the existing City Limits and SOI. Lands within the northwest portion of the Planning Area had previously been included within the SOI and was subsequently removed during the 2016 Municipal Services Review Sphere Amendment. All lands currently within the AOI are outside of the Lathrop City Limits and SOI.

For the purposes of the General Plan, the Planning Area is the geographic area for which the General Plan provides a framework for long‐term plans for growth, resource conservation, and continued agricultural activity. State law requires the General Plan to include all territory within Lathrop’s incorporated area as well as "any land outside its boundaries which in the planning agency's judgment bears relation to its planning" (California Government Code Section 65300). The Planning Area for the Lathrop General Plan includes the entire city limits, the City’s SOI, and lands within the AOI. Figure 2.0‐2 in Chapter 2.0, Project Description, shows Lathrop’s Planning Area boundaries.

Land Use Patterns
When discussing land use, it is important to distinguish between planned land uses and existing land uses. The General Plan land use designations identify the long‐term planned use of land but do not present a complete picture of existing land uses. The San Joaquin County Assessor’s office maintains a database of existing land uses on individual parcels, including the number of dwelling

3.10 LAND USE, POPULATION, AND HOUSING

3.10-2 Draft Environmental Impact Report – Lathrop General Plan Update units and related improvements such as non‐residential building square footage. This information is used as the basis for property tax assessments and is depicted on Figure 3.10‐1.

Existing land uses refer to the existing built environment, which may be different from the land use or zoning designations applied to land for planning purposes. Existing land uses are based on data provided by the County Assessor and Parcel Quest. The predominant land uses in the City and Planning Area are single‐family residential at 5,286.86 total acres, agricultural uses 3,291.71 total acres, industrial manufacturing (1,235.19 acres), institutional (1,636.46 acres). Additional uses in the City and Planning Area include commercial, multifamily residential, parks and recreation, open space, office, and communication/utilities uses.

Development Trends
Lathrop began with a store and schoolhouse prior to construction of the Central Pacific Railroad around 1870, and was known as Wilson's Station. The Town's growth through the 1870's was steady, reaching a population of about 600 by 1879. Lathrop entered a period of decline in the 1880's which was to continue for nearly 50 years. With the transfer of the railroad roundhouse and machine shop to Tracy, the transfer of rural postal customers to Manteca, and a major fire in 1911, Lathrop's population and economy dwindled until World War II. The war brought Permanente Metals and the Sharpe Army Depot to town. Permanente produced aircraft parts and magnesium bombs, while the Depot became one of the major army supply depots in the Western United States. During the 1940's, Lathrop expanded from its original townsite to an area of about five square miles. Housing tracts were constructed during postwar years and Lathrop became home to large industrial employers including Best Fertilizer, and Libby‐Owens‐Ford which produced auto glass. Residential growth was slow during the 1950's and 1960's, but accelerated through the '70's and '80's. Nearly all of the vacant land between the original townsite and Interstate 5 has been developed. With about 3,700 people and 1,100 homes in 1980, Lathrop expanded to a population of 6,841 in 1990 and about 7,000 in early 1991. Lathrop became a municipality by a majority vote in the election held in 1989. As of 2020 the City of Lathrop had a population of 26,503 and with 7,284 residential units. According to the California, Department of Finance (E‐5 Population and Housing Estimates 1/22), Lathrop has an estimated population of 31,331 with 8,972 total housing units.

LAND USE, POPULATION, AND HOUSING 3.10
Draft Environmental Impact Report – Lathrop General Plan Update 3.10-3 Population and Households
Table 3.10‐1 summarizes the population and household data for Lathrop and San Joaquin County from 1990 through 2020.

TABLE 3.10‐1: POPULATION AND HOUSEHOLD GROWTH
1990 2000 2010 2020 2022*
1990‐
2000 %
CHANGE
2000‐
2010 %
CHANGE
2010‐
2020 %
CHANGE

LATHROP
Population 6,841 10,445 18,023 26,503 31,331 53% 72% 48% Households 1,927 2,908 4,782 5,503 -- 51% 64% 15%
Persons per
household 3.55 3.59 3.77 3.88 3.65 1% 5% 3%

SAN JOAQUIN COUNTY
Population 480,628 563,598 685,306 773,505 784,298 17% 22% 13% Households 166,274 181,629 215,007 228,567 -- 9% 18% 6% Persons per
household 2.94 3.00 3.12 3.22 3.10 2% 4% 3%
SOURCE: U.S. CENSUS, 1990, 2010; LATHROP HOUSING ELEMENT, 2016; CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE, 2021 ‐ 2022 ESTIMATES. * ESTIMATED BY DOF JANUARY 2022.

Lathrop incorporated in 1989 and by 1990, the US Census Bureau recorded the population at 6,841. From 1990 to 2000, the city’s population increased by 51% from 6,841 to 10,445 persons.

From 2000 to 2010 Lathrop experienced population growth increasing by approximately 72% from 10,445 to 18,023. San Joaquin County's total population increased by approximately 20% during the decades of 1990‐2000 and 2000‐2010. As of 2020, Lathrop’s population was estimated to be 26,806, an increase of 49% from the 2010 population of 18,023. As of January 2022 the California, Department of Finance estimated Lathrop’s population to be 31,331.

Over the years, the average household size has fluctuated slightly with a high of 3.88 in 2020 and a low of 3.55 in 1990.

Housing Units
As shown in Table 3.10‐2, the number of housing units in Lathrop has increased at rates similar to the population with significant increases since 1990. In 2020, there were 7,284 housing units in the city. From 2000 to 2010, housing units increased from 2,991 to 5,261, a 76% increase, while between 2010 and 2020 the city experienced a 38% increase.

TABLE 3.10‐2: HOUSING UNITS
1990 2000 2010 2020 2022*
1990‐
2000 %
CHANGE
2000‐
2010 %
CHANGE
2010‐
2020 %
CHANGE

3.10 LAND USE, POPULATION, AND HOUSING

3.10-4 Draft Environmental Impact Report – Lathrop General Plan Update Lathrop 2,040 2,991 5,261 7,284 8,972 47% 76% 38%
San Joaquin
County 158,659 189,160 233,755 249,058 258,566 19% 24% 6.6% SOURCE: U.S. CENSUS, 2000, 2010; LATHROP HOUSING ELEMENT, 2016, 2010 CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE, 2020, 2022. * ESTIMATED BY DOF JANUARY 2022.

3.10.2 REGULATORY SETTING
STATE
California General Plan Law
Government Code Section 65300 requires that each county and city adopt a General Plan “for the physical development of the county or city, and any land outside its boundaries which bears relation to its planning.”
The General Plan will include a comprehensive set of goals, policies, and actions (implementation measures), as well as a revised Land Use Map. It is a comprehensive long‐term plan for the physical development of the county or city and is considered a "blueprint" for development. The General Plan must contain seven state‐mandated elements: Land Use, Open Space, Conservation, Housing, Circulation, Noise, and Safety. It may also contain any other elements that the county or city wishes to include. The land use element designates the general location and intensity of designated land uses to accommodate housing, business, industry, open space, education, public buildings and grounds, recreation areas, and other land uses.

The 2017 General Plan Guidelines, established by the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR) to assist local agencies in the preparation of their general plans, further describe the mandatory land use element as a guide to planners, the general public, and decision makers prescribing the ultimate pattern of development for the county or city.

Regional Housing Needs Plan
California General Plan law requires each city and county to have land zoned to accommodate a fair share of the regional housing need. The share is known as the Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) and is based on a Regional Housing Needs Plan (RHNP) developed by councils of government. The San Joaquin Council of Governments (SJCOG) is the lead agency for developing the RHNP for the San Joaquin County area that includes the Cities of Escalon, Lathrop, Lodi, Manteca, Ripon, Stockton, and Tracy. Lathrop’s fair share of the adopted RHNA for 2014‐2023 is summarized in Table 3.10‐3
LAND USE, POPULATION, AND HOUSING 3.10
Draft Environmental Impact Report – Lathrop General Plan Update 3.10-5 TABLE 3.10‐3: REGIONAL HOUSING NEEDS ALLOCATION (2014‐2023 RHNA)

EXTREMELY LOW INCOME

VERY LOW INCOME

LOW INCOME

MODERATE INCOME ABOVE MODERATE INCOME TOTAL
2014 ‐ 2023
1,778 957 2,421 5,156
SOURCE: SJCOG, 2014‐2023 REGIONAL HOUSING NEEDS PLAN (RHNP) The City is not required to ensure that adequate development to accommodate the RHNA occurs; however, the City must facilitate housing production by ensuring that land is available and that unnecessary development constraints have been removed. The City’s Housing Element, provides for the accommodation of the 2014‐2023 RHNA that has been assigned to the City of Lathrop.

Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy SJCOG approved its most‐recent Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (RTP/SCS) in June 2018, which continues to provide a “sustainability vision” through year 2042 that recognizes the significant impact the transportation network has on the region’s public health, mobility, and economic vitality. The Plan serves as a guide for achieving public policy decisions that will result in balanced investments for a wide range of multimodal transportation improvements.

The plan charts a course for closely integrating land use and transportation – so that the region can grow smartly and sustainably. It outlines more than $11.461 billion in transportation system investments through 2042. The Plan was prepared through a collaborative and comprehensive process with input from local governments, county transportation commissions, tribal governments, non‐profit organizations, businesses and local stakeholders within San Joaquin County.

California Environmental Quality Act
The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) was developed to protect the quality of the environment and the health and safety of persons from adverse environmental effects.

Discretionary projects are required to be reviewed consistent with the requirements of CEQA to determine if there is potential for the project to cause a significant adverse effect on the environment. Depending on the type of project and its potential effects, technical traffic, noise, air quality, biological resources, and geotechnical reports may be needed. If potential adverse effects can be mitigated to less than significant levels, a mitigated negative declaration may be adopted. If potentially adverse effects cannot be mitigated to less than significant levels, an environmental impact report is required. These documents have mandated content requirements and public review times. Preparation of CEQA documents can be costly and time‐consuming, potentially extending the processing time of a project by a year or longer.

Subdivision Code
A subdivision is any division of land for the purpose of sale, lease or finance. The State of California Subdivision Map Act (Government Code § 66410) regulates subdivisions throughout the state. The goals of the Subdivision Map Act are as follows:

3.10 LAND USE, POPULATION, AND HOUSING

3.10-6 Draft Environmental Impact Report – Lathrop General Plan Update  To encourage orderly community development by providing for the regulation and control of the design and improvement of a subdivision with proper consideration of its relationship to adjoining areas.
 To ensure that areas within the subdivision that are dedicated for public purposes will be properly improved by the subdivider so that they will not become an undue burden on the community.
 To protect the public and individual transferees from fraud and exploitation.

The Map Act allows cities some flexibility in the processing of subdivisions. Lathrop controls this process through the subdivision regulations in the Municipal Code (Title 16 ‐ SUBDIVISIONS). These regulations ensure that minimum requirements are adopted for the protection of the public health, safety and welfare; and that the subdivision includes adequate community improvements, municipal services and other public facilities. Lathrop’s subdivision provisions support the Subdivision Map Act and, in so doing, also support implementation of the City’s General Plan.

Delta Protection Act of 1992
The western portion of the General Plan Area is within the “Secondary Zone” defined in the Resource Management Plan required in the California Delta Protection Act of 1992, as shown on Figure 3.10‐3. As stated in the act the “basic goals of the state for the delta are the following:
(a) Protect, maintain, and, where possible, enhance and restore the overall quality of the delta environment, including, but not limited to, agriculture, wildlife habitat, and recreational activities.
(b) Assure orderly, balanced conservation and development of delta land resources. (c) Improve flood protection by structural and nonstructural means to ensure an increased level of public health and safety.
"Secondary zone" means all the delta land and water area within the boundaries of the delta not included within the primary zone, subject to the land use authority of local government, and that includes the land and water areas as shown on the map titled "Delta Protection Zones" on file with the State Lands Commission. (Section 29731) However, this division does not confer any permitting authority upon the commission or require any local government to conform their general plan, or land use entitlement decisions, to the resource management plan, except with regard to lands within the primary zone. The resource management plan does not preempt local government general plans for lands within the secondary zone. (Section 29764) The Delta Reform Act of 2009
While there are many agencies involved in both the near and long‐term management of the Delta, the Sacramento‐San Joaquin Delta Reform Act of 2009 (Delta Reform Act) established the Delta Stewardship Council (Council) to create a comprehensive, long‐term, legally enforceable plan to guide how multiple federal, state, and local agencies manage the Delta’s water and environmental resources. The 2009 legislation directed the Council to oversee implementation of this plan through coordination and oversight of state and local agencies proposing to fund, carry out, and LAND USE, POPULATION, AND HOUSING 3.10
Draft Environmental Impact Report – Lathrop General Plan Update 3.10-7 approve Delta‐related activities. It also granted the Council regulatory and appellate authority over certain actions that take place in whole or in part in the Delta and Suisun Marsh, referred to as covered actions.

Since 2010, the Council has developed, amended, and begun implementing the Delta Plan, addressing multiple complex challenges in the process. Much progress has been made, but much remains to be done. Developed to achieve the state’s coequal goals of a reliable statewide water supply and a protected, restored Delta ecosystem in a manner that preserves the values of the Delta as a place, the Delta Plan includes 14 regulatory policies and 95 recommendations.

Collectively, these policies and recommendations address current and predicted challenges related to the Delta’s ecology, flood management, land use, water quality, and water supply reliability.

The Delta Plan’s policies and recommendations are based on best available science and depend on cooperation and coordination among federal, state, and local agencies.

LOCAL
City of Lathrop General Plan
Lathrop’s current General Plan was last comprehensively updated in 1991, with amendments in 1992, 1997, 2001, 2003, 2004, 2006, 2010, 2011, 2013, 2015, 2016, 2018, 2020, and 2021. An update to the Housing Element was completed in in 2019.

The General Plan has three basic functions:

1. To enable the City Council, upon the advice of its Planning Commission, to express agreement on goals and policies for current and future development.

2. To provide clear guidance in judging whether projects proposed by public agencies and private developers are in close agreement with policies of the General Plan.

3. To allow and provide the basis for making intelligent changes to the Plan as time and changing circumstances may dictate, while being true to its purpose.

The City’s General Plan includes a broad goal policy framework that guides land use and planning decisions within the city. The land use element is included in the Lathrop General Plan Part IV (Section A) of the Community Development Element.

Planned land uses within the City include low, medium and high density residential, office, retail, industrial, commercial and conservation land and open space which are included within one of the specific planning areas identified by the City’s Land Use Map. Table 3.10‐4 shows General Plan Land use designations throughout the Planning Area. Figure 5.0‐1 included in Chapter 5.0 (Alternatives) illustrates the City’s current General Plan Land Use Designations and their respective distributions throughout the Planning Area.

3.10 LAND USE, POPULATION, AND HOUSING

3.10-8 Draft Environmental Impact Report – Lathrop General Plan Update TABLE 3.10‐4: EXISTING CITY OF LATHROP LAND USE DESIGNATIONS

LAND USE

CITY LIMITS SOI AREA OF

INTEREST
TOTAL

PLANNING AREA

ACREAGE ACREAGE ACREAGE ACREAGE
AOI ‐ Area of Interest 2,122.16 2,122.16
AOI‐Area of Interest: AOI‐Area of Interest    2,122.16 2,122.16 City Proper 4,519.76 120.49 4,640.25
CC: Community Commercial 59.46   59.46
CP: Community Park 35.59   35.59
ES: Elementary School 26.37   26.37
FC: Freeway Commercial 132.34 54.54   186.88
FS: Fire Station 8.20   8.20
GI: General Industrial 1,065.37   1,065.37
HD: High Density Residential 8.96   8.96
LD: Low Density Residential 879.61   879.61
LI: Limited Industrial 1,410.97 65.94   1,476.92
MD: Medium Density 177.44   177.44
NC: Neighborhood Commercial 29.74   29.74
NP: Neighborhood Park 40.33   40.33
OS: Open Space 57.54   57.54
P: Public 63.55   63.55
PO: Professional Office 15.97   15.97
RecR: Recreational Residential 54.13   54.13
ROW: ROW 251.12   251.12
SC: Service Commercial: 185.85   185.85
VC: Village Center 17.23   17.23
CL ‐ Central Lathrop 1,373.62 1,373.62
CP‐CL: Community Park 80.09    80.09
HR‐CL: High Density Residential 75.69    75.69
K‐8‐CL: Elementary School 37.42    37.42
NC‐CL: Neighborhood Commercial 12.02    12.02
NP‐CL: Neighborhood Park 44.80    44.80
OC‐CL: Office Commercial 226.09    226.09
OS‐CL: Open Space 48.37    48.37
P‐SP‐CL: Public/Semi‐Public 10.94    10.94
R/MU‐CL: Residential/Mixed Use 41.41    41.41
ROW‐CL: ROW 10.06    10.06
SPC‐CL: Specialty Commercial 7.82    7.82
VR/K‐8/DS‐CL: Elementary School 17.85    17.85
VR‐CL: Variable Density Residential 695.19    695.19
WWTP‐CL: Wastewater Treatment Plant 65.88    65.88
LG ‐ Lathrop Gateway 303.97 62.79 366.76
LAND USE, POPULATION, AND HOUSING 3.10
Draft Environmental Impact Report – Lathrop General Plan Update 3.10-9

LAND USE

CITY LIMITS SOI AREA OF

INTEREST
TOTAL

PLANNING AREA

ACREAGE ACREAGE ACREAGE ACREAGE
CO‐LG: Commercial Office 68.17 68.17
LI‐LG: Limited Industrial 184.34 184.34
SC‐LG: Service Commercial: Lathrop
Gateway

38.05 55.77 92.83
ROW‐LG: ROW 13.41 7.02 20.43
RI ‐ River Islands 4,412.46 4,412.46
MU‐RI: Mixed Use Town Center 164.58    164.58
NC‐RI: Neighborhood Retail 23.38    23.38
RCO‐RI: Resource Conservation 667.29    667.29
RGC‐RI: Regional Commercial 500.20    500.20
RH‐RI: Residential High 34.37    34.37
RL‐RI: Residential Low 2,813.73    2,813.73
RM‐RI: Residential Medium 208.91    208.91
SL ‐ South Lathrop Specific Plan 301.83 301.83
CO‐SL: Commercial Office 13.00    13.00
LI‐SL: Limited Industrial 250.75    250.75
OS‐SL: Open Space River/Levee Park 12.79    12.79
P/QP‐SL: Public/Quasi Public Facilities 10.34    10.34
ROW‐SL: ROW 14.94    14.94
ST ‐ Stewart Tract 737.11 432.52 1,169.63
RCO‐ST: Resource Conservation 181.37    181.37
RC‐ST: Recreation Commercial 77.03 273.88 350.91
RR‐ST: Recreation Residential    145.03 145.03
R‐ST: Residential 12.41    12.41
UR‐ST: Urban Reserve 421.80    421.80
ROW‐ST:ROW 45.28   13.54 58.82
Grand Total 11,648.75 183.28 2,554.68 14,386.70
SOURCES: SAN JOAQUIN COUNTY, 2021; CITY OF LATHROP GIS LAND USE DATA FILE 2017; DE NOVO PLANNING GROUP, 2021.

City of Lathrop Zoning Ordinance
Title 17 of the Lathrop Municipal Code is the City’s Zoning Ordinance. The Zoning Ordinance carries out the policies of the General Plan by classifying and regulating the uses of land and structures within the City, consistent with the General Plan. The Zoning Ordinance is adopted to protect and promote the public health, safety, comfort, convenience, prosperity, and general welfare of residents and businesses. More specifically, the code is adopted to achieve the following objectives:

A. To provide a zone plan to guide the physical development of the city in such a manner as to achieve progressively the general arrangement of land uses described and depicted in the general plan;

3.10 LAND USE, POPULATION, AND HOUSING

3.10-10 Draft Environmental Impact Report – Lathrop General Plan Update B. To foster wholesome, serviceable and attractive living environment, the beneficial development of areas which exhibit conflicting patterns of use, and the stability of existing land uses which conform with objectives, policies, principles and standards of the general plan;
C. To prevent excessive population densities and overcrowding of land with structures; D. To promote a safe, effective circulation system, the provision of adequate off‐street parking and truck loading facilities, and the appropriate location of community facilities.

E. To protect and promote appropriately located commercial and industrial activities in order to preserve and strengthen the city's economic base;
F. To protect and enhance real property values and city's natural assets; G. To ensure unimpeded development of such new urban expansion that is logical, desirable and in conformance with objectives and policies of the general plan; H. To provide and protect open space in accordance with policies of the resources management element of the general plan, including avoiding the premature development of prime agricultural lands.

Local Agency Formation Commission of San Joaquin County In 1963, the State Legislature created a LAFCO for each county, with the authority to regulate local agency boundary changes. Subsequently, the State has expanded the authority of a LAFCO. The goals of a LAFCO include preserving agricultural and open space land resources and providing for efficient delivery of services. The San Joaquin LAFCO has authority over land use decisions in San Joaquin County affecting local agency boundaries. Its authority extends to the incorporated cities, including annexation of County lands into a city, and special districts within the County. LAFCO has the authority to review and approve or disapprove the following:
 Annexations to or detachments from cities or districts;  Formation or dissolution of districts;
 Incorporation or disincorporation of cities;
 Consolidation or reorganization of cities or districts;  Extensions of service beyond an agency's jurisdictional boundaries;  Development of, and amendments to, Spheres of Influence (SOI). The SOI is the probable physical boundary and service area of each local government agency. This may extend beyond the current service area of the agency; and
 Provision of new or different services by districts.

In addition, LAFCO conducts Municipal Service Reviews (MSRs) for services within its jurisdiction. A MSR typically includes a review of existing municipal services provided by a local agency and its infrastructure needs and deficiencies. It also evaluates financing constraints and opportunities, management efficiencies, opportunities for rate restructuring and shared facilities, local accountability and governance, and other issues.

Legislation, including Assembly Bill 1555 and Senate Bill 244, has been enacted to encourage the identification and annexation of islands, which are unincorporated areas substantially surrounded by a city or cities.

LAND USE, POPULATION, AND HOUSING 3.10
Draft Environmental Impact Report – Lathrop General Plan Update 3.10-11 San Joaquin County General Plan
San Joaquin County adopted its General Plan in December 2016. The County’s General Plan provides a comprehensive set of goals, policies, and implementing actions to guide the County’s growth through the year 2035.

The County’s General Plan establishes allowed land uses for lands within the City’s SOI and AOI.

While the City of Lathrop General Plan Land Use Map identifies planned land uses within the SOI, San Joaquin County has ultimate land use planning and project approval authority within the SOI unless the lands are annexed to the City.

3.10 LAND USE, POPULATION, AND HOUSING

3.10-12 Draft Environmental Impact Report – Lathrop General Plan Update The County’s land use designations for areas within the SOI and AOI are summarized in Table 3.10‐ 5 and the County’s land use designations for the unincorporated area around the City are shown on Figure 3.10‐2.

TABLE 3.10‐5: SAN JOAQUIN COUNTY LAND USE DESIGNATIONS IN AOI AND SOI LAND USE ACREAGE*
AOI 2,509.58
Agriculture/General 1,949.81
Agriculture/Urban Reserve 400.81
Commercial/Freeway Service 16.75
Industrial/Limited 50.92
Open Space/Resource Conservation 91.29
SOI 200.93
Agriculture/General 9.24
Agriculture/Urban Reserve 62.73
Commercial/Freeway Service 12.07
Industrial/General 4.91
Industrial/Limited 111.99
Grand Total 2,710.51
*NOTE: NON‐PARCEL SPECIFIC ACREAGE INCLUDES ROW.

SOURCE: SAN JOAQUIN COUNTY, 2017; DE NOVO PLANNING GROUP, 2018.

San Joaquin County Aviation System Airport Land Use Compatibility Plans In July 2009, the San Joaquin County’s Aviation System Airport Land Use Commission adopted the Countywide Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (ALUCP) for all airports within San Joaquin County except Stockton Metropolitan, which sets forth the "referral area boundaries" around each airport in the County and the limits on land use, building height, and population density in those areas.

The ALUCP regulates land use in three major areas: safety zones, noise zones, and height restrictions. It provides land use compatibility guidelines for lands near the airport, to avert potential safety problems and to ensure unhampered airport operations. The ALUCP establishes two compatibility areas: safety and noise. In May 2016, the San Joaquin County’s Aviation System Airport Land Use Commission adopted the Stockton Metropolitan Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (ALUCP), which establishes the planning boundaries around airport that define height/airspace protection, noise, and safety areas for policy implementation, and areas within which notification of airport proximity is required as part of real estate transactions. Both the Countywide ALUCP and Stockton Metropolitan ALUCP were updated in 2018 to ensure consistency between the two ALUCPs.

Under California Government Code Section 65302.3(a), general plans must be consistent with any airport land use plan adopted pursuant to Public Utilities Code Section 21675. The Stockton Metropolitan Airport is the closest airport to Lathrop. The northernmost portion of the City of and City’s Planning Area are located the airport influence area for the Stockton Metropolitan Airport identified in the ALUCP.

LAND USE, POPULATION, AND HOUSING 3.10
Draft Environmental Impact Report – Lathrop General Plan Update 3.10-13

3.10.3 IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES

THRESHOLDS OF SIGNIFICANCE
Consistent with Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, the proposed Project will have a significant impact on land use and population if it will:
 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;
 Induce substantial unplanned population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure); or
 Displace substantial numbers of existing people or housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere.

IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
Impact 3.10‐1: General Plan implementation would not physically divide an established community (Less than Significant)
The proposed General Plan establishes the City’s vision for future growth and development. Goal LU‐1 of the General Plan aims to accommodate a mix and distribution of uses that meet the needs of the community. The land uses allowed under the proposed General Plan (Figure 2.0‐2) provide opportunities for cohesive new growth at in‐fill locations within existing urbanized areas of the city, as well as new growth adjacent to existing urbanized areas within the existing City Limits, and would not create physical division within the community. In addition, Goal LU‐5 aims to ensure that new development is compatible with and well integrated with existing development. New development and redevelopment projects would be designed to complement the character of the existing community and neighborhoods and provide connectivity between existing development and new development. The proposed General Plan Land Use Map designates sites for a range of urban and developed uses as well as open spaces. The proposed General Plan does not include any new areas designated for urbanization or new roadways, infrastructure, or other features that would divide existing communities. The proposed General Plan would have a less than significant impact associated with the physical division of an established community. The policies and actions listed below would ensure that future development is compatible with and well integrated with adjacent communities and land uses. Additional information including policies and actions related to street connectivity can be found in Section 3.14 (Transportation and Circulation) of this DEIR.

GENERAL PLAN GOALS POLICIES AND ACTIONS THAT MINIMIZE POTENTIAL IMPACTS

LAND USE ELEMENT GOALS
GOAL LU‐5 Ensure that new development is compatible with existing development.

3.10 LAND USE, POPULATION, AND HOUSING

3.10-14 Draft Environmental Impact Report – Lathrop General Plan Update GOAL LU‐1 Accommodate a mix of land uses that meet the needs of residents, businesses, and visitors with places to live, work, shop, be entertained and culturally engaged.

LAND USE ELEMENT COMPATIBILITY POLICIES
LU‐5.1 Require new development to be compatible and complementary to existing development.

Where appropriate and feasible, promote connections between neighborhoods and services and facilities.

LU‐5.6 In considering land use change requests, consider factors such as compatibility with surrounding uses in terms of privacy, noise, and changes in traffic levels.

LAND USE ELEMENT COMPATIBILITY ACTIONS
LU‐5.a Through the development review process, screen development proposals for land use and transportation network compatibility with existing surrounding or abutting development or neighborhoods.

LU‐5.b Through the development review process, analyze land use compatibility and require adequate buffers and/or architectural enhancements to protect sensitive receptors from intrusion of development activities that may cause unwanted nuisances and health risks.

LU‐5.c When industrial projects, including warehouse projects, fulfillment centers, and other projects that may generate high volumes of truck trips and/or air quality emissions are proposed within 1,000 feet of existing or planned residential uses or other sensitive receptors, the City shall require the preparation of a Health Risk Assessment (HRA) that meets the standards established by the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA), and the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (SJVAPCD). Projects shall not be approved until it can be demonstrated that the project would not result in an exceedance of the established thresholds of significance for public health risks at nearby sensitive receptors.

LAND USE, POPULATION, AND HOUSING 3.10
Draft Environmental Impact Report – Lathrop General Plan Update 3.10-15 LU‐5.d When industrial projects, including warehouse projects, fulfillment centers, and other projects that may generate high volumes of truck trips and/or air quality emissions are proposed within 1,000 feet of existing or planned residential uses or other sensitive receptors, the City shall require the implementation of best management practices (BMPs) to reduce pollution exposure to sensitive receptors, particularly diesel particulate matter (DPM). The appropriate BMPs shall be established on a case‐by‐case basis, and should consider the following tools, methods, and approaches:
• Creating physical, structural, and/or vegetative buffers that adequately prevent or substantially reduce pollutant dispersal between warehouses and any areas where sensitive receptors are likely to be present, such as homes, schools, daycare centers, hospitals, community centers, and parks.
• Providing adequate areas for on‐site parking, on‐site queuing, and truck check‐in that prevent trucks and other vehicles from parking or idling on public streets. • Placing facility entry and exit points from the public street away from sensitive receptors, e.g., placing these points on the north side of the facility if sensitive receptors are adjacent to the south side of the facility. Exceptions can be made for emergency vehicle access (EVA) points.
• Locating warehouse dock doors and other onsite areas with significant truck traffic and noise away from sensitive receptors.
• Screening dock doors and onsite areas with significant truck traffic and noise with physical, structural, and/or vegetative barriers that adequately prevent or substantially reduce pollutant dispersal from the facility towards sensitive receptors. • Posting signs clearly showing the designated entry and exit points from the public street for trucks and service vehicles.
• Posting signs indicating that all parking and maintenance of trucks must be conducted within designated on‐site areas and not within the surrounding community or public streets.

LU‐5.e Update the Lathrop Municipal Code to include Good Neighbor Guidelines for Warehouse Distribution Facilities. The new Good Neighbor Guidelines should include:
a. A definition of the type and size of facility that is subject to the Guidelines; b. Standards to minimize exposure to diesel emissions to sensitive receptors that are situated in close proximity to the proposed facility;
c. Standards and practices that eliminate diesel trucks from unnecessarily traversing through residential neighborhoods;
d. Standards and practices that eliminate trucks from using residential areas and repairing vehicles on the streets;
e. Strategies to reduce and/or eliminate diesel idling within the facility’s site;

3.10 LAND USE, POPULATION, AND HOUSING

3.10-16 Draft Environmental Impact Report – Lathrop General Plan Update LU‐5.f Update the Central Lathrop Specific Plan (CLSP) to accomplish the following objectives:
a. Bring the Specific Plan’s land use map into consistency with the General Plan Land Use Map (Figure LU‐1)
b. Establish a circulation network that keeps future truck trips as far from existing and planned sensitive receptors as feasible;
c. Establish site design standards for new industrial projects; d. Identify financing and cost‐recovery methods to fund roadway and infrastructure improvements.
e. Circulation design standards that promote safe transportation routes that limit impacts to developed areas to the south, and connectivity enhancements to provide better connectivity to I‐5.
f. Infrastructure improvements to improve roadway operations g. Opportunities to provide employee‐serving amenities onsite, such as parks and plazas, outdoor seating areas, fitness facilities, and daycare centers as a means to reduce vehicle trips, while supporting air quality, public health, and sustainability goals.

LAND USE ELEMENT MIX OF LAND USES - POLICIES
LU‐1.1 Support a full spectrum of conveniently located residential, commercial, industrial, public, and quasi‐public uses that support business development, regional transportation objectives and the livability of residential neighborhoods.

LU‐1.3 Maintain a supply of developable lands sufficient to meet desired levels of housing, jobs, economic, educational, and recreational needs of the city over the planning horizon.

LU‐1.4 Continue to support the development of a variety of housing types and densities that meet the needs of individuals and families, and offers residents of all income levels, age groups and special needs sufficient housing opportunities and choices. (Additional policies specifically related to Housing are included in the General Plan’s Housing Element) LU‐1.5 Support the preservation of designated Open Space lands. This does not apply to the development or expansion of parks uses and amenities, which may also be considered open space uses.

LU‐1.6 Ensure adequate school sites are accommodated throughout the city by allowing new schools to be located in a variety of compatible land use designations, including residential, commercial, and mixed‐use designations.

LU‐1.7 Ensure consistency between the Land Use Map and implementing plans, ordinances, and regulations.

LU‐1.8 Recognize that the General Plan and Land Use Map may be amended in accordance with State law in order to ensure that there is an adequate supply of commercial, industrial, public facility, parks, residential, and other desired land uses to serve the City’s needs.

LAND USE, POPULATION, AND HOUSING 3.10
Draft Environmental Impact Report – Lathrop General Plan Update 3.10-17 LU‐1.9 Promote equitable land use patterns to ensure that all residents in neighborhoods have access to community amenities and transportation choices, and have safe places to walk and bike.

LAND USE ELEMENT MIX OF LAND USES - ACTIONS
LU‐1.a Update the City’s Zoning Code and Map as appropriate to ensure consistency with this land use element and designations shown on Figure LU‐1. As part of the update, create a new Public/Quasi‐Public zoning district applicable to the City proper.

LU‐1.b Review the Zoning Ordinance and update as appropriate to reflect Land Use goals, policies, and implementation actions included in this Plan.

LU‐1.c Review the City’s adopted Specific Plans for consistency with the General Plan, and update as appropriate to ensure consistency with this land use element and designations shown on Figure LU‐1.

LU‐1.d As part of development review process, ensure that residential and non‐residential developments fall within the minimum and maximum density requirements and or allowed floor‐area‐ratios stipulated on the Land Use Map and included within the Land Use Descriptions. Projects shall also be reviewed for consistency with the development standards and density requirements established by any applicable Specific Plan governing the area in question. In instances where there is an inconsistency between the General Plan and a Specific Plan that has not been updated after adoption of this General Plan, the development densities and intensities established by the General Plan shall prevail.

3.10 LAND USE, POPULATION, AND HOUSING

3.10-18 Draft Environmental Impact Report – Lathrop General Plan Update Impact 3.10‐2: General Plan implementation would not 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 (Less than Significant)

STATE PLANS
The proposed General Plan was prepared in conformance with State laws and regulations associated with the preparation of general plans, including requirements for environmental protection. Discussion of the proposed General Plan’s consistency with State regulations, plans, and policies associated with specific environmental issues (e.g., air quality, traffic, water quality, etc.) is provided in the relevant chapters of this Draft EIR. The State would continue to have authority over any State‐owned lands in the vicinity of the city and the proposed General Plan would not conflict with continued application of State land use plans, policies, and regulations adopted to avoid or mitigate environmental effects.

The Delta Plan contains a set of regulatory policies with which State and local agencies are required to comply with. The Delta Reform Act specifically established a certification process for compliance with the Delta Plan. This means that State and local agencies that propose to carry out, approve, or fund a qualifying action in whole or in part in the Delta, called a “covered action,” must certify that this action is consistent with the Delta Plan and must file a certificate of consistency with the Council that includes detailed findings. Areas Subject to the Delta Plan are included within the Delta’s Primary and Secondary zones. No areas on the city or Planning Area are within the “Primary Zone” of the Delta. However, the majority of the General Plan Area is within the “Secondary Zone.” Figure 3.10‐3 shows lands within the Planning Area that are subject to the Delta Plan.

The City of Lathrop has prepared the General Plan to include numerous policies and actions intended to ensure construction and maintenance activities associated with future development projects under the proposed General Plan do not conflict with the Delta Plan. For example, General Plan Action RR‐7a requires the City to review all projects affecting areas within the Delta Secondary Zone to ensure they are consistent with the criteria and policies set forth by the Delta Stewardship Council’s “Delta Plan”. Additionally, General Plan Action RC‐7b requires City staff to provide opportunities for review of and comment by the Reclamation Districts, the Delta Stewardship Council, Delta Protection Commission, and SWRCB during project review, as applicable. Overall, consistency with the General Plan policies and actions described above would ensure future development projects under the proposed General Plan would not conflict with the Delta Plan.

REGIONAL PLANS
The northernmost portion of the Planning Area is located within the Airport Influence Area for the Stockton Metropolitan Airport identified in the Stockton Metropolitan ALUCP. Construction and maintenance activities associated with future development projects under the proposed General Plan could result in conflicts with the adopted ALUCP for the Stockton Metropolitan Airport. The City of Lathrop has prepared the General Plan to include policies and actions intended to ensure consistency between the General Plan and the Stockton Metropolitan ALUCP.

LAND USE, POPULATION, AND HOUSING 3.10
Draft Environmental Impact Report – Lathrop General Plan Update 3.10-19 General Plan Policy LU‐3.5 ensures that development within the Stockton Metropolitan Airport Influence Area is consistent with the compatible uses identified in the Project Review Guidelines for the Airport Land Use Commission. Additionally, General Plan Action LU‐3f states that the City will refer all applications for development within the Stockton Metro Airport Area of Influence to the ALUC and the Stockton Metro Airport for comment to ensure that all future plans have limited impacts. Consistency with the General Plan policies and actions described above would ensure future development projects under the proposed General Plan would not conflict with an adopted ALUCP.

CITY PLANS
As set forth by State law, the General Plan serves as the primary planning document for the City and subordinate documents and plans would be updated to be consistent with the General Plan.

Similar to the existing General Plan, the proposed General Plan focuses on a land use pattern, creating a community where new development blends with existing neighborhoods, and promoting the City as a desirable place to live and work. The proposed General Plan carries forward and enhances policies and measures from the City’s existing General Plan that were intended for environmental protection and would not remove or conflict with City plans, policies, or regulations adopted for environmental protection. The proposed General Plan would require modifications to the City’s Zoning Ordinance to provide consistency between the General Plan and zoning; however, these modifications do not propose, and will not remove or adversely modify portions of the Municipal Code that were adopted to mitigate an environmental effect.

The General Plan update includes modifications to the General Plan Land Use Map. The proposed Land Use Map is depicted in Figure 2.0‐2. The revisions to the Land Use Map are consistent with the City’s objectives provided in Chapter 2.0, Project Description, and included open space conservation uses along river corridors and in locations of the city with sensitive habitats. While the proposed General Plan has been developed to be largely consistent with adopted plans and regulations, the General Plan Land Use Map designates lands for development and identifies lands for intensification of land use (development at higher densities and intensities). In some cases, the redesignation reflects existing development on parcels and would not provide for additional density. However, there would be no parcels currently designated as conservation and open space uses that would be allowed to develop with urban uses under the proposed Project.

SUMMARY
Subsequent development and infrastructure projects would be required to be consistent with all applicable policies, standards, and regulations, including those land use plans, policies, and regulations adopted to mitigate environmental effects by the City as well as those adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over components of future development projects. Potential environmental impact associated with conflicts with land use requirements would be less than significant.

3.10 LAND USE, POPULATION, AND HOUSING

3.10-20 Draft Environmental Impact Report – Lathrop General Plan Update

GENERAL PLAN POLICIES AND ACTIONS THAT MINIMIZE POTENTIAL IMPACTS

LAND USE ELEMENT POLICIES
LU‐1.7 Ensure consistency between the Land Use Map and implementing plans, ordinances, and regulations.

LU‐3.5 Ensure that development within the Stockton Metropolitan Airport Influence Area (Figure

4.2‐1 of the General Plan Existing Conditions Report) is consistent with the compatible uses identified in the Project Review Guidelines for the Airport Land Use Commission.

LAND USE ELEMENT ACTIONS
LU‐3.f Refer all applications for development within the Stockton Metro Airport Area of Influence to the Airport Land Use Commission and the Stockton Metro Airport for comment.

RECREATION AND RESOURCE ELEMENT ACTIONS
RR‐4b Require new development, infrastructure, long‐range planning, and similar projects, to comply with the requirements of the San Joaquin County Multi‐Species Habitat Conservation and Open Space Plan to ensure that potentially significant impacts to special‐ status species and sensitive resources are adequately addressed.

A. Air pollutant emissions associated with the project during construction, project operation, and cumulative conditions.

B. Potential exposure of sensitive receptors to toxic air contaminants.

C. Significant air quality impacts associated with the project for construction, project operation, and cumulative conditions.

D. Mitigation measures to reduce significant impacts to less than significant or the maximum extent feasible where impacts cannot be mitigated to less than significant.

RR‐7a Review all projects affecting areas within the Delta Secondary Zone to ensure they are consistent with the criteria and policies set forth by the Delta Stewardship Council’s “Delta Plan”. Recognize that areas already anticipated for development in the General Plan within the Secondary Zone are not subject to the Delta Plan.

RR‐7b As applicable, provide opportunities for review of and comment by the Reclamation Districts, the Delta Stewardship Council, Delta Protection Commission, and SWRCB during project review.

RR‐7c Review any projects located adjacent to priority habitat restoration areas, as identified is the Delta Plan, and consult the California Department of Fish and Wildlife, as warranted, to LAND USE, POPULATION, AND HOUSING 3.10
Draft Environmental Impact Report – Lathrop General Plan Update 3.10-21 ensure that any impacts do not have a significant effect on the opportunity to restore habitat as described in the Delta Plan.

RR‐7d Review and regulate new development, infrastructure, and levee improvement projects to ensure consistency with Federal and State flood and floodway requirements, including BDCP and Delta Plan policies as applicable.

RR‐8a Regularly review and update the City’s water conservation measures to be consistent with current best management practices for water conservation, considering measures recommended by the State Department of Water Resources and the California Urban Water Conservation Council.

Impact 3.10‐3: General Plan implementation would not induce substantial unplanned population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure) (Less than Significant) The proposed General Plan is a long‐range planning document that establishes the City’s vision for growth patterns, including areas for development and lands for open space and conservation. The General Plan provides the framework for the City’s plan for growth and development, including new businesses, expansion of existing businesses, and new residential uses. Infrastructure and services would need to be extended to accommodate future growth. At full buildout, the proposed General Plan could accommodate over 25,000 housing units and approximately 44 million square feet of non‐residential building square footage within the Planning Area. As shown in Table 2.0‐2 in Chapter 2.0, the proposed General Plan would result in approximately 17,379 new housing units.

This new growth may increase the city’s population by approximately 66,562 residents and 49,250 employees compared to existing conditions within the city. The actual amount of development that will occur throughout the planning horizon of the General Plan is based on many factors outside of the City’s control. Actual future development would depend on future real estate and labor market conditions, property owner preferences and decisions, site‐specific constraints, and other factors. New development and growth are largely dictated by existing development conditions, market conditions, and land turnover rates. Very few communities in California actually develop to the full potential allowed in their respective General Plans during the planning horizon.

Given the historical and current population, housing, and employment trends, growth in the city, as well as the entire state, is inevitable. The primary factors that account for population growth are natural increase and net migration. The average annual birth rate for California is expected to be 20 births per 1,000 population. Additionally, California is expected to attract more than one third of the country’s immigrants. Other factors that affect growth include the cost of housing, the location of jobs, the economy, the climate, and transportation. While these factors would likely

3.10 LAND USE, POPULATION, AND HOUSING

3.10-22 Draft Environmental Impact Report – Lathrop General Plan Update result in growth in Lathrop during the planning period of the proposed General Plan, growth will continue to occur based primarily on the demand of the housing market and demand for new commercial, industrial, and other non‐residential uses. As future development occurs under the proposed General Plan, new roads, infrastructure, and services would be necessary to serve the development, and this infrastructure would accommodate planned growth. The proposed General Plan is intended to accommodate the City’s fair share of statewide housing needs, which are allocated by the SJCOG, based on regional numbers provided by the California Department of Housing and Community Development on a regular basis (every eight years).

The proposed General Plan includes policies and actions that minimize environmental impacts associated with growth, such as air quality, noise, traffic, water supply, and water quality effects.

Chapters 3.1 through 3.16 and 4.0 provide a discussion of environmental effects associated with development allowed under the proposed General Plan. Each of these EIR chapters include relevant policies and action items that would minimize potential environmental impacts associated with growth, to the greatest extent feasible.

With implementation of General Plan, policies and actions intended to guide growth to appropriate areas and provide services necessary to accommodate growth, the land uses allowed under the proposed General Plan, the infrastructure anticipated to accommodate proposed land uses, and the goal and policy framework would not induce growth that would exceed adopted thresholds, beyond those disclosed and analyzed throughout this EIR. Therefore, population and housing growth associated with the proposed General Plan would result a less than significant impact.

LAND USE, POPULATION, AND HOUSING 3.10
Draft Environmental Impact Report – Lathrop General Plan Update 3.10-23 Impact 3.10‐4: General Plan implementation would not displace substantial numbers of existing people or housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere (Less than Significant) Developed land in the Planning Area that is comprised of residential uses is not anticipated to undergo significant land use changes under the proposed Project. The proposed General Plan focuses on providing the framework for logical, orderly growth within the City Limits and well‐ delineated residential neighborhoods, employment centers, and community amenities. The proposed General Plan Land Use Map includes an expansion to the City’s total amount of residential dwelling units when compared to existing levels of development. Additional development allowed under the proposed General Plan allows for the diversification of the City’s housing supply to meet the needs of the community at various socioeconomic levels. While the proposed General Plan may result in development that could remove residences, development allowed under the General Plan identifies lands for a variety of housing densities and types would result in an increase in the total number of residences and provide additional housing opportunities for persons that may be displaced as a result of development.

Therefore, impacts of the proposed General Plan on the displacement of people or housing are considered less than significant. The policies listed below would further ensure that a range of housing types are provided in the City.

GENERAL PLAN POLICIES AND ACTIONS THAT MINIMIZE POTENTIAL IMPACTS

LAND USE ELEMENT POLICIES
LU‐1.1 Support a full spectrum of conveniently located residential, commercial, industrial, public, and quasi‐public uses that support business development, regional transportation objectives and the livability of residential neighborhoods.

LU‐1.3 Maintain a supply of developable lands sufficient to meet desired levels of housing, jobs, economic, educational, and recreational needs of the city over the planning horizon.

ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ELEMENT POLICIES
ED‐3.1 Encourage Diversity of Housing Types. Complement the City’s inventory of single‐family homes with additional housing in other configurations, such as apartments and townhouses, to ensure that there are housing opportunities for diverse workforce households, including young entry‐level workers, middle‐aged workers who live alone and in families, and empty‐nesters.

ED‐3.2 Support Efforts for Housing at a Range of Price Points. Recognizing that a workforce that supports a diverse local economy will have a broad range of income levels, work to ensure that in the City’s housing inventory includes below‐market rate options, market rate

3.10 LAND USE, POPULATION, AND HOUSING

3.10-24 Draft Environmental Impact Report – Lathrop General Plan Update options that are more affordable (e.g., “missing middle” housing) and market rate housing that meets needs for entry‐level housing, move‐up housing, and executive housing.

ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ELEMENT ACTIONS
ED‐3.a Consistent with the Housing and Land Use Elements, ensure that the City provides sufficient land zoned for a range of residential densities that will accommodate low‐ density single‐family detached family housing to higher‐density units suitable for singles, couples, and smaller households, at a range of income levels.

ED‐3.b Consistent with the Housing Element, ensure that the City removes un‐necessary governmental constraints to preservation, maintenance, and development of housing for all income levels.

San Joaqui n R.

Paradise Cut
Circle
Lake
M iddle R.

Tom
Paine Slough
Old R.

Old R.

San J oaquin R.
§¨¦5
Riv er Isla nds Pk
WLouise Av
S Mckinley Av
Spur Line Rr
S El Rancho Rd
W Canal Bl
Rvi er Ben d Dr
Balboa Dr Pescadero Av
W Yosemite Av
F ifth St
O St
W Yosemite Av
E Lathrop Rd
Seventh St
S Wing Levee Rd
Marina Dr
Wb 205
SParad ise Av W Woodward Av
S Roberts Rd
Lak eside Dr
Gail Dr
Harlan R d
W California Av
Christopher Wy
Spartan Wy
W Undine Rd
Manthey Rd
E Louise Av
Avon Av
S Mac Arthur Dr
S TomPaine Av
Lan d Park Dr
Paradise A
Eb 205 Onramp
v
Daniels St
E Roth Rd
S Crocker Rd
W Arbor Av
Nestle Wy
D Arcy Pk
SLaurelAv
Murphy Pk
W Lucerne Av
MantheyRd
E Arbor Av
WDelta Av
W Frewert Rd
W Manila Rd
Stewart Rd
Paradise Av
S Alder Av
Mckinley Av
Airport Wy
Golden Valley Pk
E Madruga Rd
W Howard Rd
S Laurel Av
S Cedar Av
W Berry Av
W Briggs Rd
Howland Rd
Dos Reis Rd
De Lima Rd
W Carlin Rd
W Undine Rd
S WillowGlen Rd
Cohen Rd
Walthall Slough
Grant Line Canal
§¨¦5
§¨¦5
UV120
§¨¦205
Assessor Use Code Category
Single Family ResidentialMultifamily ResidentialCommercialIndustrial ManufacturingIndustrial Non-ManufacturingCommunication/UtilitiesParks and Recreation InstitutionalOfficeAgriculturalOpen SpaceNon-TaxableNo Use Code Sources: San Joaquin County; City of Lathrop.Map date: April 20, 2018.

San Joaquin R.

CITY OF LATHROP GENERAL PLAN83'$7(
Figure

3.1 0-1. Assessor's Office Map
Planning Areas
Lathrop City BoundaryManteca City BoundaryArea of Interest Lathrop Sphere ofInfluenceManteca Sphere ofInfluence
Í
0½ ¼
Miles
§¨¦5

3.10 LAND USE, POPULATION, AND HOUSING

3.10-26 Draft Environmental Impact Report – Lathrop General Plan Update This page left intentionally blank
San Joaqui n R.

Paradise Cut
Circle
Lake
M iddle R.

Tom
Paine Slough
Old R.

Old R.

San J oaquin R.
§¨¦5
Riv er Isl andsPk
W Louise Av
S Mckinley Av
Spur L ni e Rr
S El Rancho Rd
W Canal Bl
Rvi er Ben d Dr
Balboa Dr Pescadero Av
W Yosemite Av
F ifth St
O St
W Yosemite Av
E Lathrop Rd
Seventh St
S Wing Levee Rd
Marina Dr
Wb 205
SParad ise Av W Woodward Av
S Roberts Rd
Lak esideDr
Gail Dr
Harlan Rd
W CaliforniaAv
Christopher Wy
Spartan Wy
W Undine Rd
Manthey Rd
E Louise Av
Avon Av
SMacArthur Dr
S TomPaine Av
Land Park Dr
Paradise A
Eb 205 Onramp
v
Daniels St
E Roth Rd
S Crocker Rd
W Arbor Av
Nestle Wy
D Arcy Pk
SLaurelAv
Murphy Pk
W Lucerne Av
MantheyRd
E Arbor Av
W Delta Av
W Frewert Rd
W Manila Rd
Stewart Rd
Paradise Av
S Alder Av
Mckinley Av
Airport Wy
Golden Valley Pk
E Madruga Rd
W Howard Rd
S Laurel Av
S Cedar Av
W Berry Av
W Briggs Rd
Howland Rd
Dos Reis Rd
De Lima Rd
W Carlin Rd
W Undine Rd
S WillowGlen Rd
Cohen Rd
Walthall Slough
Grant Line Canal
§¨¦5
§¨¦5
UV120
CITY OF LATHROP GENERAL PLAN83'$7(
San Joaquin R.

Figure

3.1 0-2. Surrounding Land Uses
San Joaquin County General Plan 2035
County Designation Overlay
A/G Agriculture/General A/L Agriculture/Limited A/UR Agriculture/Urban Reserve C/FS Commercial/Freeway Service C/N Commercial/Neighborhood C/R Commercial/Recreation I/G Industrial/General I/L Industrial/LimitedOS/RC Open Space/Resource Conserv.

R/R Residential/Rural R/VL Residential/Very Low Density R/L Residential/Low Density R/M Residential/Medium Density City of Lathrop
City of Manteca General Plan AG Agriculture NC Neighborhood CommercialCMU Commercial Mixed Use GC General CommercialVLDR Very Low Density Residential LDR Low Density ResidentialMDR Medium Density Residential HDR High Density Residential BIP Business Industrial Park LI Light Industrial HI Heavy Industrial OS Open Space P ParkPQP Public/Quasi-Public §¨¦205
Legend
Lathrop City BoundaryManteca City BoundaryLathrop Sphere ofInfluenceManteca Sphere ofInfluence Í
0½ ¼
Miles
Sources: San Joaquin County; City ofLathrop; City of Manteca.Map date: April 13, 2018.

3.10 LAND USE, POPULATION, AND HOUSING

3.10-28 Draft Environmental Impact Report – Lathrop General Plan Update This page left intentionally blank

S T O C K T O N

M A N T E C A

L A T H R O P

T R A C Y
Yosemite Ave
French Camp Rd
Eleventh St
Louise Ave
Schulte Rd
Woodward Ave
El Dorado St
Grant Line Rd
Roth Rd
Mathews Rd
Mckin el y Ave
D Arcy Pk
Barbara Terry
Blvd
Mckee Bl vd
Fifth St
Union Rd
Chrisman Rd
Lathrop Rd
Howard Rd
Airport Way
Bird Rd
Wolfe Rd
River Islands Pk
Tesla Dr
West Ripon Rd
Roberts Rd
Figure 3.10-3 The Delta Plan
Data sources: Delta Stewardship Council; San Joaquin County. Map date: October 15, 2021.

Legend CITY OF LATHROP GENERAL PLAN UPDATE
Lathrop City Boundary
Other Incorporated Areas
Lathrop Sphere of Influence
Legal Delta Boundary
Primary Delta Zone
Secondary Delta Zone
Prioirty Habitat Restoration
Other Floodplains to be Protected
from Encroachment
Delta Plan Planned Land Use
Agriculture
Open Space/Recreation
Natural Preserve/Marsh
Areas Designated for Development
Public/Quasi-Public
Water p
0 ½ 1
Miles
UV120
§¨¦5
§¨¦5
§¨¦205
§¨¦5

3.10 LAND USE, POPULATION, AND HOUSING

3.10-30 Draft Environmental Impact Report – Lathrop General Plan Update This page left intentionally blank
MINERAL RESOURCES 3.11
Draft Environmental Impact Report – Lathrop General Plan Update 3.11-1 This section provides a background discussion and analysis of mineral and energy resources in Lathrop. This section is organized with an environmental setting, regulatory setting, and impact analysis.

No comments were received on this environmental topic during the NOP comment period.

3.11.1 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING

MINERAL RESOURCE CLASSIFICATION
Pursuant to Surface Mining and Reclamation Act (SMARA), the California State Mining and Geology Board oversees the mineral resource zone (MRZ) classification system. The MRZ system characterizes both the location and known/presumed economic value of underlying mineral resources. The mineral resource classification system uses four main MRZs based on the degree of available geologic information, the likelihood of significant mineral resource occurrence, and the known or inferred quantity of significant mineral resources. The four classifications are described in Table 3.11‐1.

TABLE 3.11‐1: MINERAL RESOURCE CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM

CLASSIFICATION DESCRIPTION
MRZ‐1
Areas where adequate information indicates that no significant mineral deposits are present, or where it is judged that little likelihood exists for their presence.

MRZ‐2
Areas where adequate information indicates that significant mineral deposits are present, or where it is judged that a high likelihood exists for their presence.

MRZ‐3 Areas containing mineral deposits, the significance of which cannot be evaluated.

MRZ‐4
Areas where available information is inadequate for assignment to any other MRZ classification.

SOURCE: CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF CONSERVATION DIVISION OF MINES AND GEOLOGY, 2002.

MINERAL RESOURCES
Mineral resources include commercially viable oil and gas deposits, and nonfuel mineral resources deposits. Nonfuel mineral resources include metals such as gold, silver, iron, and copper; industrial metals such as boron compounds, rare‐earth elements, clays, limestone, gypsum, salt, and dimension stone; and construction aggregate, including sand, gravel, and crushed stone. California is the largest producer of sand and gravel in the nation.

In 2014, the California Geological Survey identified that approximately 4 billion tons of permitted aggregate reserves lie within the 31 aggregate study areas in California. These permitted aggregate reserves have been determined to be acceptable for commercial use, exist within properties owned or leased by aggregate producing companies, and have permits allowing mining of aggregate material. Sand, gravel, and crushed stones are construction materials that are collectively referred to as construction aggregate. These materials provide the bulk and strength to Portland cement concrete (PCC), asphaltic concrete (AC), plaster, and stucco. Other uses include road base, subbase, railroad ballast, and fill.

3.11 MINERAL RESOURCES

3.11-2 Draft Environmental Impact Report – Lathrop General Plan Update From 1981 to 2010, California consumed an average of about 180 million tons of construction aggregate (all grades) per year. (CGS, 2012)
The California Geological Survey issued Special Report 199 designating areas within the Stockton‐ Lodi P‐C Region based on the significance of mineral resources. The Stockton‐Lodi P‐C Region contains about 969 million tons PCC‐grade aggregate resources and 67 million tons PCC‐grade sand resources. These resources are classified into different mineral resource zone designations, MRZ‐1, MRZ‐2, MRZ‐2 (PCC sand), MRZ‐3, and MRZ‐4.

MRZ‐2 (PCC‐1) zones are identified as areas where adequate information indicates that fine aggregate (naturally sand) mineral deposits are present, or where it is judged that a high likelihood for their presence exists. The fine sand aggregate found in these areas are typically used to produce PCC‐grade aggregate. PCC‐1 indicates that it produces general use cement, as opposed to type 2 or 3 used for structures in water or in high early strength periods. The primary mineral resources in San Joaquin County are sand, gravel, and natural gas, with limited mining of peat, gold, and silver. In 2012, the California Geological Survey assessed the Stockton‐Lodi Production‐ Consumption (P‐C) Region mineral resources, with a focus on aggregate resources. Mineral resources in the region are classified based on whether the aggregate meets the specifications for use in PCC. This aggregate is termed “PCC‐grade aggregate.” The material quality specifications for PCC‐grade aggregate are more restrictive than the specifications for aggregate for other applications. As a result of the strict specifications, PCC‐grade aggregate deposits are scarcer and more valuable than other aggregate resources.

To be considered significant for the purpose of mineral land classification, a mineral deposit or group of deposits, must meet criteria adopted by the State Mining and Geology Board. These criteria include marketability and threshold values. The threshold value is approximately $17.375 million for a construction aggregate deposit. PCC‐grade aggregate sells for about $13 per ton in the Stockton‐Lodi P‐C Region; therefore, $17,375,000 equates to about 1.3 million tons of PCC‐grade aggregate material.

Approximately 232 million tons of PCC‐grade aggregate reserves are permitted for production in the County (CGS, 2012). There are 34 active and inactive aggregate mines within San Joaquin County (San Joaquin County, 2009).

Planning Area
Figure 3.11‐1: Mineral Resource Zones shows mineral resources within and near the Planning Area.

As shown on Figure 3.11‐1, the southeastern portion of the Planning Area near the Stewart Tract and Oakwood Lake is located in Resource Sector D, which consists of a large PCC‐grade sand deposit situated along the San Joaquin Rivers. This sector is classified as MRZ‐2 (PCC sand). The Planning Area also contains areas that are designated as MRZ‐3 “areas containing mineral deposits the significance of which cannot be evaluated from available data.” Table 3.11‐2 identifies significant mineral resources within the City, and Planning Area.

MINERAL RESOURCES 3.11
Draft Environmental Impact Report – Lathrop General Plan Update 3.11-3 TABLE 3.11‐2: MINERAL RESOURCES WITHIN THE PLANNING AREA

CLASSIFICATION DESCRIPTIONS CITY LIMITS (AC) SPHERE OF

INFLUENCE (AC)
MRZ‐2
Areas where adequate information indicates that
significant mineral deposits are present, or where
it is judged that a high likelihood exists for their
presence.
509.0 286.2
MRZ‐3 Areas containing mineral deposits, the significance of which cannot be evaluated. 2708.2 120.4
Totals 3217.2 406.6
SOURCE: CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF CONSERVATION DIVISION OF MINES AND GEOLOGY, ACCESSED DECEMBER 2017

3.11.2 REGULATORY SETTING
STATE
Surface Mining and Reclamation Act of 1975
The California Department of Conservation Surface Mining and Reclamation Act of 1975 (§ 2710), also known as SMARA, provides a comprehensive surface mining and reclamation policy that permits the continued mining of minerals, as well as the protection and subsequent beneficial use of the mined and reclaimed land. The purpose of SMARA is to ensure that adverse environmental effects are prevented or minimized and that mined lands are reclaimed to a usable condition and are readily adaptable for alternative land uses. The production and conservation of minerals are encouraged, while also giving consideration to values relating to recreation, wildlife, range, and forage, as well as aesthetic enjoyment. Residual hazards to public health and safety are eliminated.

These goals are achieved through land use planning by allowing a jurisdiction to balance the economic benefits of resource reclamation with the need to provide other land uses.

If a use is proposed that might threaten the potential recovery of minerals from an area that has been classified MRZ‐2, SMARA would require the jurisdiction to prepare a statement specifying its reasons for permitting the proposed use, provide public notice of these reasons, and forward a copy of the statement to the State Geologist and the State Mining and Geology Board (Cal. Pub.

Res. Code Section 2762). Lands classified MRZ‐2 are areas that contain identified mineral resources.

3.11 MINERAL RESOURCES

3.11-4 Draft Environmental Impact Report – Lathrop General Plan Update

3.11.3 IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES

THRESHOLDS OF SIGNIFICANCE
Consistent with Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, the proposed project may have a significant impact on the environment associated with mineral resources if it would:

1. Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state; or

2. Result in the loss of availability of a locally‐important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan.

IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
Impact 3.11‐1: General Plan implementation would result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state (Significant and Unavoidable) Within the Planning Area, mineral resources include sand and gravel. The western portion of the planning area within and adjacent to the Stewart Tract area is designated as MRZ‐2, which consists of a large PCC‐grade sand deposit situated along the San Joaquin River and in south Lathrop. The area is classified as an important MRZ for PCC grade aggregate by the DOC. PCC‐grade aggregate is valuable in centeral California where it used for a variety of construction purposes. Brown Sand and Gravel, Incorporated, has produced processed sand located within the area designated as resources of regional significance just south of Lathrop within the AOI. Lands adjacent to the existing quarry within the City Limits, the majority of which are currently designated as for urban reserve, and resource conservation uses. A small portion of the MRZ‐2 zone is designated for more intensive developed uses, including commercial and residential uses. In addition, a large area designated MRZ‐3 is located in the central and south portion of the Planning Area within zones designated for residential, commercial and industrial uses a by the existing and proposed General Plan.

General Plan GOAL RR‐5 aims to balance the extraction of mineral resources with future development and conservation opportunities and includes policies to allow the extraction of resources. Additionally, Policy RR‐5.2 Ensures that areas with mineral resources can be mined while productive and are ultimately reused for suitable development or open space, to the extent feasible. The Lathrop General Plan and Land Use Map have been developed to focus development within the existing city limits and promote infill development to conserve resources throughout the region. No urban expansions are planned beyond what has been currently identified for urban development. The following General Plan goals, policies, and actions have been included to limit impacts to mineral resources. However, implementation of the General Plan and development allowed under the Land Use Map would permanently convert undeveloped portions of Planning Area to urban uses and this may preclude the recovery of mineral resources from the Plan Area.

Therefore, this impact would remain significant and unavoidable.

MINERAL RESOURCES 3.11
Draft Environmental Impact Report – Lathrop General Plan Update 3.11-5

GENERAL PLAN GOALS POLICIES AND ACTIONS THAT MINIMIZE IMPACTS

RECREATION AND RESOURCE ELEMENT
GOAL
GOAL RR‐5. BALANCE THE EXTRACTION OF MINERAL RESOURCES WITH FUTURE DEVELOPMENT AND CONSERVATION OPPORTUNITIES.

POLICIES
RR‐5.1 Resource Extraction. Allow the extraction of mineral resources, consistent with federal, state, and local regulations, as an interim use.

RR‐5.2 Appropriate Reuse. As feasible, ensure that areas with mineral resources can be mined while productive and are ultimately reused for suitable development or open space.

IMPLEMENTATION ACTIONS
RR‐5a Continue to identify areas in the Planning Area that have potential resource deposits, including but not limited to sand and gravel.

RR‐5b Continue to work with property owners to develop reclamation plans for areas with mineral resource deposits.

3.11 MINERAL RESOURCES

3.11-6 Draft Environmental Impact Report – Lathrop General Plan Update Impact 3.11‐2: General Plan implementation would result in the loss of availability of a locally‐important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan (Significant and Unavoidable)
The Plan Area is designated as MRZ‐2 by the City’s General Plan and the City’s General Plan includes policies in support of the reclamation of MRZ‐2 mineral resources and specifically includes those resources in the Planning Area.

The City’s existing General Plan indicates that the lands classified as MRZ‐2 are considered important to the area and of regional and statewide significance. Specifically, the General Plan identifies Mineral Resources Policy 1 which indicates that MRZ‐2 lands should be mined and reclaimed, if determined practical and feasible, prior to their use for various urban purposes.

Mineral Resources Policy 2 indicates that the depth of the known sand deposits of regional significance is considerable and that potential for mining to the depth is recognized for the lands between the I‐5/SR 120 merge and the UPRR. Mineral Resources Policy 3 requires lands classified MRZ‐2 with potential to mine to depth to have the combining “mineral resource open space zone.” While Policies 1 through 3 encourage the mining and reclamation of MRZ‐2 lands, which includes those in the Plan Area, Policy 4 provides for development of such lands with urban uses without first being mined if compelling reasons can be stated by the City in support of such actions and the requirements of the relevant Public Resources Code sections are fulfilled. The analysis in this Draft EIR is limited to the environmental impacts of implementing the proposed General Plan and is not focused on the project’s social or economic merits.

Brown Sand and Gravel, Incorporated, will continue to produce processed sand located within the areas identified as resources of local significance just south of Lathrop within portions of the AOI.

As described previously, the Lathrop General Plan and Land Use Map has been developed to focus development within the existing city limits and promote infill development to conserve resources throughout the region. No urban expansions are planned beyond what has been currently identified for urban development. General Plan goals, policies, and actions described previously under Impact 3.11‐1 have been included to limit impacts to mineral resources. However, implementation of the General Plan and development allowed under the Land Use Map would permanently convert undeveloped portions of Planning Area to urban uses. Therefore, this impact would remain significant and unavoidable.

San Joaqui n R.

Paradise Cut Circle
Lake
Mi ddle R.

Tom Paine Slough
Old R.

Old R.

San J o aquin R.
§¨¦5
River Islands Pk
W Woodward Av
W Louise Av
S Mckinley Av
D Arcy Pk
E Roth Rd
W Yosemite Av
E Louise Av
E Lathrop Rd
O St
J St
Mckinley Av
N Airport Wy
Harlan Rd
S Manthey Rd S Manthey Rd
Land Park Dr
Golden Valley Pk
Nestle Wy
W Howard Rd
Howland Rd
Barbara Terry Bl
Mckee Bl
Thomsen Rd
Cambridge Dr
Walthall Slough
Grant Line Canal
§¨¦5
§¨¦5
UV120
§¨¦205

CITY OF LATHROP GENERAL PLAN UPDATE
Figure 3.11-1 Mineral Resources Zones
Legend
Lathrop City Boundary
Lathrop Sphere of Influence
Boundary of the Stockton-Lodi ProductionConsumption Region Mineral Resource Zones
MRZ-2 - Areas where adequate information
indicates that significan mineral deposits are
present, or where it is judged that a high
likelihood for their presences exists.

MRZ-3 - Areas containing mineral deposits the
significance of which cannot be evaluated from
available data.

Í 0 ¼ ½
Miles
Sources: California Geological Survey, Updated
Mineral Land Classification Map for Portland Cement
Concrete-Grade Aggregate in the Stockton-Lodi
Production-Consumption Region, San Joaquin and
Stanislaus Counties, CA, Special Report 199-Plate 1,
2012;
Map date: January 17, 2018.

San Joaquin R.

City Limits (ac) Sphere of Influence (ac)
MRZ-2 509.0 286.2
MRZ-3 2708.2 120.4
Totals 3217.2 406.6

3.11 MINERAL RESOURCES

3.11-8 Draft Environmental Impact Report – Lathrop General Plan Update This page left intentionally blank
NOISE 3.12
Lathrop General Plan Update - Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.12-1 Thissection provides a discussion of the regulatory setting and a general description of existing noise sources in the City of Lathrop. The analysis of potential noise‐related impacts in this section was prepared with assistance from Saxelby Acoustics.

Comments related to this environmental topic were received during the Draft EIR Public Scoping Meeting. Verbal comments were provided to the General Plan update team related to the potential for noise and vibration from heavy duty trucks to impact residents. All comments received during the 30‐day NOP Public Review Comment Period are included in Appendix A.

3.12.1 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING

KEY TERMS
Acoustics The science of sound.

Ambient Noise The distinctive acoustical characteristics of a given area consisting of all noise sources audible at that location. In many cases, the term ambient is used to describe an existing or pre‐project condition such as the setting in an environmental noise study.

Attenuation The reduction of noise.

A‐Weighting A frequency‐response adjustment of a sound level meter that conditions the output signal to approximate human response.

Decibel or dB Fundamental unit ofsound, defined as ten timesthe logarithm of the ratio of the sound pressure squared over the reference pressure squared. All dB levels used in this report are A‐weighted values, unless otherwise stated.

CNEL Community Noise Equivalent Level. Defined as the 24‐hour average noise level with noise occurring during evening hours (7 ‐ 10 p.m.) weighted by + 5 dB and nighttime hours weighted by +10 dB. Typically, 1 dB higher than Ldn for transportation noise sources.

Frequency The measure of the rapidity of alterations of a periodic acoustic signal, expressed in cycles per second or Hertz.

Impulsive Sound of short duration, usually less than one second, with an abrupt onset and rapid decay.

Ldn Day/Night Average Sound Level. Similar to CNEL but with no evening weighting.

Leq Equivalent or energy‐averaged sound level.

Lmax The highest root‐mean‐square (RMS) sound level measured over a given period of time.

L(n) The sound level exceeded a described percentile over a measurement period.

For instance, an hourly L50 is the sound level exceeded 50 percent of the time during the one hour period.

Loudness A subjective term for the sensation of the magnitude of sound.

3.12 NOISE

3.12-2 Lathrop General Plan Update - Draft Environmental Impact Report Noise Unwanted sound.

SEL A rating, in decibels, of a discrete event, such as an aircraft flyover or train passby, that compresses the total sound energy into a one‐second event

FUNDAMENTALS OF ACOUSTICS
Acoustics is the science of sound. Sound may be thought of as mechanical energy of a vibrating object transmitted by pressure waves through a medium to human (or animal) ears. If the pressure variations occur frequently enough (at least 20 times per second), then they can be heard and are called sound. The number of pressure variations per second is called the frequency of sound, and is expressed as cycles per second or Hertz (Hz).

Noise is a subjective reaction to different types of sounds. Noise is typically defined as (airborne) sound that is loud, unpleasant, unexpected or undesired, and may therefore be classified as a more specific group of sounds. Perceptions of sound and noise are highly subjective from person to person.

Measuring sound directly in terms of pressure would require a very large and awkward range of numbers. To avoid this, the decibel scale was devised. The decibel scale uses the hearing threshold (20 micropascals), 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, and changes in levels (dB) correspond closely to human perception of relative loudness.

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. There is a strong correlation between A‐weighted sound levels (expressed as 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 section are in terms of A‐weighted levels, but are expressed as dB, unless otherwise noted.

The decibel scale is logarithmic, not linear. In other words, two sound levels 10 dB apart differ in acoustic energy by a factor of 10. When the standard logarithmic decibel is A‐weighted, an increase of 10 dBA is generally perceived as a doubling in loudness. For example, a 70 dBA sound is half as loud as an 80 dBA sound, and twice as loud as a 60 dBA sound.

Community noise is commonly described in terms of the ambient noise level, which is defined asthe 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 is the foundation of the composite noise descriptor, Ldn, and shows very good correlation with community response to noise.

The day/night average level (Ldn) is based upon the average noise level over a 24‐hour day, with a +10 decibel weighing applied to noise occurring during nighttime (10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m.) hours.

NOISE 3.12
Lathrop General Plan Update - Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.12-3 The nighttime penalty is based upon the assumption that people react to nighttime noise exposures asthough they were twice asloud as daytime exposures. Because Ldn represents a 24‐hour average, it tends to disguise short‐term variations in the noise environment. CNEL is similar to Ldn, but includes a +3 dB penalty for evening noise. Table 3.12‐1 lists several examples of the noise levels associated with common situations.

TABLE 3.12‐1: TYPICAL NOISE LEVELS

COMMON OUTDOOR ACTIVITIES NOISE LEVEL (DBA) COMMON INDOOR ACTIVITIES --110-- Rock Band
Jet Fly-over at 300 m (1,000 ft) --100--
Gas Lawn Mower at 1 m (3 ft) --90--
Diesel Truck at 15 m (50 ft),
at 80 km/hr (50 mph) --80-- Food Blender at 1 m (3 ft)
Garbage Disposal at 1 m (3 ft)
Noisy Urban Area, Daytime
Gas Lawn Mower, 30 m (100 ft) --70-- Vacuum Cleaner at 3 m (10 ft) Commercial Area
Heavy Traffic at 90 m (300 ft) --60-- Normal Speech at 1 m (3 ft) Quiet Urban Daytime --50-- Large Business Office
Dishwasher in Next Room
Quiet Urban Nighttime --40-- Theater, Large Conference Room (Background)
Quiet Suburban Nighttime --30-- Library
Quiet Rural Nighttime --20-- Bedroom at Night, Concert Hall (Background)
--10-- Broadcast/Recording Studio
Lowest Threshold of Human Hearing --0-- Lowest Threshold of Human Hearing SOURCE: CALTRANS, TECHNICAL NOISE SUPPLEMENT, TRAFFIC NOISE ANALYSIS PROTOCOL. SEPTEMBER 2013.

3.12 NOISE

3.12-4 Lathrop General Plan Update - Draft Environmental Impact Report

EFFECTS OF NOISE ON PEOPLE
The effects of noise on people can be placed in three categories:
 Subjective effects of annoyance, nuisance, and dissatisfaction;  Interference with activities such as speech, sleep, and learning; and  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 in the last category. There is no completely satisfactory way to measure the subjective effects of noise or the corresponding reactions of annoyance and dissatisfaction. A wide variation in individual thresholds of annoyance exists and different tolerances to noise tend to develop based on an individual’s past experiences with noise.

Thus, an important way of predicting a human reaction to a new noise environment is the way it compares to the existing environment to which one has adapted: the so‐called ambient noise level.

In general, the more a new noise exceeds the previously existing ambient noise level, the less acceptable the new noise will be judged by those hearing it.

With regard to increases in A‐weighted noise level, the following relationships occur:
 Except in carefully controlled laboratory experiments, a change of 1 dBA cannot be perceived;
 Outside of the laboratory, a 3 dBA change is considered a just‐perceivable difference;  A change in level of at least 5 dBA is required before any noticeable change in human response would be expected; and
 A 10 dBA change is subjectively heard as approximately a doubling in loudness, and can cause an adverse response.

Stationary point sources of noise – including stationary mobile sources such as idling vehicles – attenuate (lessen) at a rate of approximately 6 dB per doubling of distance from the source, depending on environmental conditions (i.e. atmospheric conditions and either vegetative or manufactured noise barriers, etc.). Widely distributed noises,such as a large industrial facility spread over many acres, or a street with moving vehicles, would typically attenuate at a lower rate.

NOISE 3.12
Lathrop General Plan Update - Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.12-5

EXISTING NOISE LEVELS
Traffic Noise Levels
The FHWA Highway Traffic Noise Prediction model (FHWA‐RD 77‐108) was used to develop community noise equivalent level (CNEL) noise contours for all highways and major roadways in the General Plan study area. The model is based upon the CALVENO noise emission factors for automobiles, medium trucks, and heavy trucks, with consideration given to vehicle volume, speed, roadway configuration, distance to the receiver and the acoustical characteristics of the site. The FHWA model predicts hourly Leq valuesfor free‐flowing traffic conditions and is generally considered to be accurate within 1.5 dB. To predict Ldn values, it is necessary to determine the day/night distribution of traffic for a typical 24‐hour period.

Existing traffic volumes were obtained from the traffic modeling performed for the General Plan study area. Day/night traffic distributions were based upon continuous hourly noise measurement data. Heavy truck counts were also provided by the traffic engineer. Using these data sources and the FHWA traffic noise prediction methodology, traffic noise levels were calculated for existing conditions. Table 3.12‐2 shows the results of this analysis.

Traffic noise levels are predicted at the sensitive receptors located at the closest typical setback distance along each project‐area roadway segments. In some locations sensitive receptors may be located at distances which vary from the assumed calculation distance and may experience shielding from intervening barriers or sound walls. However, the traffic noise analysis is believed to be representative of the majority of sensitive receptors located closest to the project‐area roadway segments analyzed in this report.

The actual distances to noise level contours may vary from the distances predicted by the FHWA model due to roadway curvature, grade, shielding from local topography or structures, elevated roadways, or elevated receivers. The distances reported in Table 3.12‐2 are generally considered to be conservative estimates of noise exposure along roadways in the City of Lathrop.

3.12 NOISE

3.12-6 Lathrop General Plan Update - Draft Environmental Impact Report TABLE 3.12‐2: PREDICTED EXISTING TRAFFIC NOISE LEVELS (2020 BASELINE)

ROADWAY SEGMENT

NOISE LEVEL

AT CLOSEST

RECEPTORS
(DB, LDN)1

DISTANCES TO TRAFFIC NOISE

CONTOURS, LDN (FEET)
60 DB 65 DB 70 DB
Roth Road I‐5 to Harlan Road 70.1 473 220 102
Harlan Road South of Roth Road 68.7 383 178 83
Roth Road Harlan Road to McKinley Avenue 67.1 299 139 64 Roth Road McKinley Avenue to City Limits 65.2 239 111 51 Lathrop Road I‐5 to Harlan Road 67.1 297 138 64
Harlan Road North of Lathrop Road 64.4 195 91 42
Lathrop Road Harlan Road to 5th Street 66.1 128 59 28
Lathrop Road 5th Street to McKinley Avenue 66.9 217 100 47 Lathrop Road McKinley Avenue to City Limits 67.1 297 138 64 Spartan Way Golden Valley Parkway to Lathrop
Road 56.6 59 27 13
Golden Valley
Parkway
Spartan Way to River Island
Parkway 63.3 167 78 36
Spartan Way I‐5 to Golden Valley Parkway 60.7 111 52 24 Harlan Road South of Lathrop Road 67.0 146 68 31
Cambridge Avenue South of Lathrop Road 53.6 19 9 4
5th Street South of Lathrop Road 56.4 29 13 6
McKinley Avenue South of Lathrop Road 71.5 294 136 63
River Island
Parkway West of McKee Boulevard 58.2 123 57 26
River Island
Parkway
Golden Valley Parkway to McKee
Boulevard 59.4 198 92 43
Golden Valley
Parkway
River Island Parkway to Towne
Centre Drive 57.0 109 50 23
River Island
Parkway I‐5 to Golden Valley Parkway 65.9 249 115 54
Louise Avenue I‐5 to Harlan Road 71.6 589 273 127
Harlan Road North of Louise Avenue 56.7 104 48 22
Louise Avenue 5th Street to McKinley Avenue 64.9 342 159 74 Cambridge Avenue North of Louise Avenue 54.8 22 10 5
5th Street North of Louise Avenue 54.6 22 10 5
McKinley Avenue South of Louise Avenue 63.5 171 79 37
Louise Avenue McKinley Avenue to City Limits 66.5 271 126 58 McKee Boulevard River Island Parkway to Town
Centre Drive 55.7 26 12 6
Towne Centre
Drive
Golden Valley Parkway to McKee
Boulevard 48.0 16 7 3
Harlan Road Louise Avenue to D'Arcy Parkway 69.3 418 194 90 NOISE 3.12
Lathrop General Plan Update - Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.12-7 TABLE 3.12‐2: PREDICTED EXISTING TRAFFIC NOISE LEVELS (2020 BASELINE)

ROADWAY SEGMENT

NOISE LEVEL

AT CLOSEST

RECEPTORS
(DB, LDN)1

DISTANCES TO TRAFFIC NOISE

CONTOURS, LDN (FEET)
60 DB 65 DB 70 DB
D'Arcy Parkway East of Harlan Road 66.4 268 125 58
Manthey Road Towne Centre Drive to Stewart
Road 56.7 60 28 13
D'Arcy Parkway North of Yosemite Avenue 62.7 301 140 65 Yosemite Avenue D'Arcy Parkway to McKinley
Avenue 64.8 208 97 45
Yosemite Avenue McKinley Avenue to City Limits 67.8 250 116 54 Somerston
Parkway North of Lakeside Drive 56.0 27 12 6
Lakeside Drive Stewart Road to Somerston
Parkway 54.3 21 10 5
Stewart Road Manthey Road to Lakeside Drive 50.6 28 13 6 Yosemite Avenue South of SR 120 61.1 119 55 26
Yosemite Avenue SR 120 to D'Arcy Parkway 69.3 415 193 89 Paradise Road Stewart Road to City Limits 43.7 8 4 2
Golden Valley
Parkway South of Dos Reis Road N/A N/A N/A N/A
Golden Valley
Parkway South of Inland Passage Way 46.3 7 3 1
Golden Valley
Parkway West of Somerston Parkway N/A N/A N/A N/A
Golden Valley
Parkway South of Dell'Osso Drive N/A N/A N/A N/A
Stanford Crossing West of Golden Valley Parkway N/A N/A N/A N/A River Island
Parkway West of Somerston Parkway 56.1 46 22 10
Cambay Parkway West of Lakeside Drive N/A N/A N/A N/A
Cambay Parkway East of Paradise Road N/A N/A N/A N/A
Cambay Parkway West of Paradise Road N/A N/A N/A N/A
Paradise Road South of Cambay Parkway 47.2 14 6 3
McKinley Avenue South of Yosemite Avenue 65.1 99 46 21
NOTES: DISTANCES TO TRAFFIC NOISE CONTOURS ARE MEASURED IN FEET FROM THE CENTERLINES OF THE ROADWAYS. 1 TRAFFIC NOISE LEVELS ARE PREDICTED AT THE CLOSEST SENSITIVE RECEPTORS SOURCE: FHWA‐RD‐77‐108 WITH INPUTS FROM FEHR & PEERS TRANSPORTATION CONSULTANTS, CALTRANS, AND SAXELBY ACOUSTICS 2022.

3.12 NOISE

3.12-8 Lathrop General Plan Update - Draft Environmental Impact Report Railroad Noise Levels
To quantify noise exposure from existing train operations, a continuous (24‐hour) noise level measurement survey was conducted along the westernmost Union Pacific railroad line. Noise measurement data for the easternmost Union Pacific line which also carries commuter trainsfor the Altamont Corridor Express (ACE) was obtained from the Existing Conditions Report for the City of Manteca General Plan Update (De Novo Planning Group, October 2017).

The purpose of the noise level measurements was to determine typical sound exposure levels (SEL) forrailroad line operations, while accounting for the effects of travelspeed, warning horns and other factors which may affect noise generation. In addition, the noise measurement equipment was programmed to identify individual train events, so that the typical number of train operations could be determined.

Table 3.12‐3 shows a summary of the continuous noise measurement results for railroad activity within the city.

TABLE 3.12‐3: RAILROAD NOISE MEASUREMENT RESULTS

MEASUREMENT

LOCATION

RAILROAD
TRACK

GRADE CROSSING
/WARNING HORN

TRAIN EVENTS PER
24-HR PERIOD
AVERAGE SEL AT 50’
LT-3 UP No grade crossing. No
horn usage observed. 16 104 dBA
Lathrop/Manteca
Rail Station UP/ACE Yes 26 108 dBA
SOURCE: SAXELBY ACOUSTICS ‐ 2018
Noise measurement equipment consisted of Larson Davis Laboratories (LDL) model 831 precision integrating sound level meters equipped with a GRAS ½" microphone. The measurement system was calibrated using a B&K 4230 acoustical calibrator before and after testing. Audio recordings of events were captured along with sound measurement data to help with source identification of events. The measurement equipment meets all of the pertinent requirements of the American National Standards Institute (ANSI) for Type 1 (precision) sound level meters.

To determine the distances to the day/night average (Ldn) railroad contours, it is necessary to calculate the Ldn for typical train operations. This was done using the SEL values and above‐ described number and distribution of daily train operations. The Ldn may be calculated as follows:

Ldn = SEL + 10 log Neq ‐ 49.4 dB, where:

SEL is the mean Sound Exposure Level of the event, Neq is the sum of the number of daytime (7 a.m. to 7 p.m.) events plus 10 times the number of nighttime (10 p.m. to 7 a.m.) events per day, and 49.4 is ten times the logarithm of the number of seconds per day. Based upon the above‐described noise level data, number of operations and methods of calculation, the Ldn value for railroad line operations have been calculated, and the distances to the Ldn noise level contours are shown in Table 3.12‐4.

NOISE 3.12
Lathrop General Plan Update - Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.12-9 TABLE 3.12‐4: APPROXIMATE DISTANCES TO THE RAILROAD NOISE CONTOURS EXTERIOR NOISE LEVEL AT 100 FEET,
LDN

DISTANCE TO EXTERIOR NOISE LEVEL CONTOURS, FEET
60 DB LDN 65 DB LDN 70 DB LDN
UNION PACIFIC – NO WARNING HORNS
69 dB 372 173 80
UNION PACIFIC / ACE – WITH WARNING HORNS
77 dB 642’ 298’ 138’
SOURCE: SAXELBY ACOUSTICS ‐ 2018.

Fixed Noise Sources
The production of noise is a result of many industrial processes, even when the best available noise control technology is applied. Noise exposures within industrial facilities are controlled by federal and state employee health and safety regulations (OSHA and Cal‐OSHA), but exterior noise levels may exceed locally acceptable standards. Commercial, recreational and public service facility activities can also produce noise which affects adjacent sensitive land uses. These noise sources can be continuous and may contain tonal components which have a potential to annoy individuals who live nearby. In addition, noise generation from fixed noise sources may vary based upon climatic conditions, time of day and existing ambient noise levels.

In the City of Lathrop, fixed noise sourcestypically include parking lots, loading docks, parks,schools, and other commercial/retail use noise sources (HVAC, exhaust fans, etc.) From a land use planning perspective, fixed‐source noise control issues focus upon two goals:

1. To prevent the introduction of new noise‐producing uses in noise‐sensitive areas, and

2. To prevent encroachment of noise sensitive uses upon existing noise‐producing facilities.

The first goal can be achieved by applying noise level performance standardsto proposed new noise‐ producing uses. The second goal can be met by requiring that new noise‐sensitive uses in near proximity to noise‐producing facilities include mitigation measures that would ensure compliance with noise performance standards.

Fixed noise sources which are typically of concern include but are not limited to the following:
 HVAC Systems  Cooling Towers/Evaporative
Condensers
 Pump Stations  Lift Stations
 Steam Valves  Steam Turbines
 Generators  Fans
 Air Compressors  Heavy Equipment
 Conveyor Systems  Transformers
 Pile Drivers  Grinders
 Drill Rigs  Gas or Diesel Motors
 Welders  Cutting Equipment

3.12 NOISE

3.12-10 Lathrop General Plan Update - Draft Environmental Impact Report  Outdoor Speakers  Blowers
 Chippers  Cutting Equipment
 Loading Docks  Amplified music and voice
The types of uses which may typically produce the noise sources described above, include, but are not limited to: wood processing facilities, pump stations, industrial/agricultural facilities, trucking operations, tire shops, auto maintenance shops, metal fabricating shops, shopping centers, drive‐ up windows, car washes, loading docks, public works projects, batch plants, bottling and canning plants, recycling centers, electric generating stations, race tracks, landfills, sand and gravel operations, special events such as concerts, and athletic fields. Typical noise levels associated with various types of stationary noise sources are shown in Table 3.12‐5.

TABLE 3.12‐5: TYPICAL STATIONARY SOURCE NOISE LEVELS
USE

NOISE LEVEL
AT 100 FEET,
LEQ1

DISTANCE TO NOISE CONTOURS, FEET
50 DB LEQ
(NO SHIELDING)
45 DB LEQ
(NO SHIELDING)
50 DB LEQ
(WITH 5 DB

SHIELDING)
45 DB LEQ
(WITH 5 DB

SHIELDING)
Auto Body Shop 56 dB 200 355 112 200
Auto Repair (Light) 53 dB 141 251 79 141
Busy Parking Lot 54 dB 158 281 89 158
Cabinet Shop 62 dB 398 708 224 398
Car Wash 63 dB 446 792 251 446
Cooling Tower 69 dB 889 1,581 500 889
Loading Dock 66 dB 596 1,059 335 596
Lumber Yard 68 dB 794 1,413 447 794
Maintenance Yard 68 dB 794 1,413 447 794
Outdoor Music Venue 90 dB 10,000 17,783 5,623 10,000
Paint Booth Exhaust 61 dB 355 631 200 355
Skate Park 60 dB 316 562 178 316
School Playground /
Neighborhood Park 54 dB 158 281 89 158
Truck Circulation 48 dB 84 149 47 84
Vendor Deliveries 58 dB 251 446 141 251
1 Analysis assumes a source‐receiver distance of approximately 100 feet, no shielding, and flat topography.

Actual noise levels will vary depending on site conditions and intensity of the use. This information is intended as a general rule only, and is not suitable for final site‐specific noise studies.

Source: Saxelby Acoustics 2018.

NOISE 3.12
Lathrop General Plan Update - Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.12-11 DIAMOND PET FOODS, INC.

Diamond Pet Foods operates a manufacturing facility located at 250 Roth Road, near the northern city limits. Based upon short‐term noise monitoring, the facility was measured to generate a noise level of 61 dBA Leq at a distance of approximately 1,200 feet. Assuming the facility were to operate continuously, the day/night (Ldn) average noise level would be 67.4 dBA Ldn at 1,200 feet and the distance to the 60 dBA Ldn noise contour would be 2,813 feet.

COMMUNITY NOISE SURVEY
A community noise survey was conducted to document ambient noise levels at various locations throughout the City. Short‐term noise measurements were conducted at five locations throughout the City on Thursday February 22, 2018. In addition, three continuous 24‐hour noise monitoring sites were also conducted to record day‐night statistical noise level trends. The data collected included the hourly average (Leq), median (L50), and the maximum level (Lmax) during the measurement period. Noise monitoring sites and the measured noise levels at each site are summarized in Table

Lathrop City CouncilSeptember 19, 2022

Lathrop City Council
September 19, 2022