3.12‐6 and Table 3.12‐7. Figure 3.12‐1 shows the locations of the noise monitoring sites.
Community noise monitoring equipment included Larson Davis Laboratories (LDL) model 812 and 831 precision integrating sound level meters equipped with ½" microphones. The measurement systems were calibrated using a B&K model 4230 acoustical calibrator before and after testing. The measurement equipment meets all of the pertinent requirements of the American National Standards Institute (ANSI) for Type 1 (precision) sound level meters.
TABLE 3.12‐6: EXISTING CONTINUOUS 24‐HOUR AMBIENT NOISE MONITORING RESULTS
SITE LOCATION
LDN
(DBA)
MEASURED HOURLY NOISE LEVELS, DBA
LOW-HIGH (AVERAGE)
DAYTIME
(7:00 AM - 10:00 PM)
NIGHTTIME
(10:00 PM – 7:00 AM)
LEQ L50 LMAX LEQ L50 LMAX
1 Stewart Road & Manthey Road.
350’ to centerline of I-5. 72 61-72 (66)
60-73
(64)
71-92
(76)
62-69
(66)
61-69
(65)
69-77
(72)
2 South of De Lima Road. West of
I-5. 190’ to centerline of I-5. 74 66-71 (69)
64-70
(68)
77-87
(81)
64-71
(68)
62-70
(66)
74-84
(78)
3 Princeville St. & Pinewood Dr.
200’ to railroad centerline. Site
not shielded by existing 8’ tall
sound wall.
64 50-64
(59)
46-55
(49)
67-83
(76)
50-62
(58)
48-56
(51)
65-83
(77)
SOURCE – SAXELBY ACOUSTICS– 2018.
3.12 NOISE
3.12-12 Lathrop General Plan Update - Draft Environmental Impact Report TABLE 3.12‐7: EXISTING SHORT‐TERM COMMUNITY NOISE MONITORING RESULTS SITE LOCATION TIME¹
MEASURED SOUND LEVEL, DB
LEQ L50 LMAX NOTES
1 Near Paradise Road
& Old River 1:50 p.m. 48 44 65 Light breeze. Jet overflight. 2 Park at Huntington
& Broadmoor 1:08 p.m. 42 40 52 Light breeze. Distant construction noise. 3 Near S. McKinley
Ave. & Roth Rd. 3:54 p.m. 61 60 71
Pet food industrial. Truck
brakes occasionally. Distant
backup alarms. Traffic on Roth
Rd.
4 Near 15820 Harlan
Rd. 220’ to I-5
centerline
3:01 p.m. 75 74 82 I-5 is dominant noise source.
5 Near W. Yosemite
Ave. & ACE tracks 2:18 p.m. 70 66 81
RR at 150 ft. Traffic is primary
noise source. Occasional
trucks.
1 ‐ ALL COMMUNITY NOISE MEASUREMENT SITES HAVE A TEST DURATION OF 10:00 MINUTES.
SOURCE ‐ SAXELBY ACOUSTICS 2018.
The results of the community noise survey shown in Table 3.12‐6 and 3.12‐7 indicate that existing transportation (traffic and railroad) noise sources were the primary contributors of noise observed in the City with commercial and industrial noise contributing to the ambient noise environment in some locations.
NOISE 3.12
Lathrop General Plan Update - Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.12-13
3.12.2 REGULATORY SETTING
FEDERAL
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA)
The FHWA has developed noise abatement criteria that are used for federally funded roadway projects or projects that require federal review. These criteria are discussed in detail in Title 23 Part 772 of the Federal Code of Regulations (23CFR772).
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
The EPA has identified the relationship between noise levels and human response. The EPA has determined that over a 24‐hour period, an Leq of 70 dBA will result in some hearing loss.
Interference with activity and annoyance will not occur if exterior levels are maintained at an Leq of 55 dBA and interior levels at or below 45 dBA. Although these levels are relevant for planning and design and useful for informational purposes, they are not land use planning criteria because they do not consider economic cost, technical feasibility, or the needs of the community.
The EPA has set 55 dBA Ldn as the basic goal for residential environments. However, other federal agencies, in consideration of their own program requirements and goals, as well as difficulty of actually achieving a goal of 55 dBA Ldn, have generally agreed on the 65 dBA Ldn level as being appropriate for residential uses. At 65 dBA Ldn activity interference is kept to a minimum, and annoyance levels are still low. It is also a level that can realistically be achieved.
The Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) was established in response to the Urban Development Act of 1965 (Public Law 90‐448). HUD was tasked by the Housing and Urban Development Act of 1965 (Public Law 89‐117) “to determine feasible methods of reducing the economic loss and hardships suffered by homeowners as a result of the depreciation in the value of their properties following the construction of airports in the vicinity of their homes.” HUD first issued formal requirements related specifically to noise in 1971 (HUD Circular 1390.2).
These requirements contained standards for exterior noise levels along with policies for approving HUD‐supported or assisted housing projects in high noise areas. In general, these requirements established the following three zones:
65 dBA Ldn or less ‐ an acceptable zone where all projects could be approved. Exceeding 65 dBA Ldn but not exceeding 75 dBA Ldn ‐ a normally unacceptable zone where mitigation measures would be required, and each project would have to be individually evaluated for approval or denial. These measures must provide 5 dBA of attenuation above the attenuation provided by standard construction required in a 65 to 70 dBA Ldn area and 10 dBA of attenuation in a 70 to 75 dBA Ldn area.
Exceeding 75 dBA Ldn ‐ an unacceptable zone in which projects would not, as a rule, be approved.
3.12 NOISE
3.12-14 Lathrop General Plan Update - Draft Environmental Impact Report HUD’s regulations do not include interior noise standards. Rather a goal of 45 dBA Ldn is set forth and attenuation requirements are geared towards achieving that goal. HUD assumes that using standard construction techniques, any building will provide sufficient attenuation so that if the exterior level is 65 dBA Ldn or less, the interior level will be 45 dBA Ldn or less. Thus, structural attenuation is assumed at 20 dBA. However, HUD regulations were promulgated solely for residential development requiring government funding and are not related to the operation of schools or churches.
The federal government regulates occupational noise exposure common in the workplace through the Occupational Health and Safety Administration (OSHA) under the EPA. Noise exposure of this type is dependent on work conditions and is addressed through a facility’s or construction contractor’s health and safety plan. With the exception of construction workers involved in facility construction, occupational noise is irrelevant to this study and is not addressed further in this document.
STATE
California Department of Transportation (Caltrans)
Caltrans has adopted policy and guidelines relating to traffic noise as outlined in the Traffic Noise Analysis Protocol (Caltrans 2011). The noise abatement criteria specified in the protocol are the same as those specified by FHWA.
Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR)
OPR has developed guidelines for the preparation of general plans (Office of Planning and Research, 2003). The guidelines include land use compatibility guidelines for noise exposure.
LOCAL
City of Lathrop Noise Ordinance
The City of Lathrop Noise Ordinance sets general limits for community noise exposure. The Noise Ordinance standards are contained in Section 8.20 of the Lathrop Municipal Code. Construction activities are exempt from these regulations, when conducted according to Section 8.20.110, as outlined below.
8.20.110 CONSTRUCTION OF BUILDINGS AND PROJECTS.
It shall be unlawful for any person within a residential zone or within a radius of five hundred (500) feet therefrom, to operate equipment or perform any outside construction or repair work on buildings, structures or projects or to operate any pile driver, power shovel, pneumatic hammer, derrick, power hoist, or any other construction type device between the hours of ten p.m. of one day and seven a.m. of the next day, or eleven p.m. and nine a.m. Fridays, Saturdays and legal holidays, in such a manner that a reasonable person of normal sensitiveness residing in the area is caused discomfort or annoyance unless beforehand a permit therefore has been duly obtained from the office or body of the city having the function to issue permits of this kind. No permit shall be NOISE 3.12
Lathrop General Plan Update - Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.12-15 required to perform emergency work as defined in Sections 8.20.010 through 8.20.040. (Prior code § 99.40)
3.12.3 IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
THRESHOLDS OF SIGNIFICANCE
Consistent with Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, the Project will have a significant impact related to noise if it will result in:
a. Generate a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess ofstandards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies?
b. Generate excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? c. For a project located within the vicinity of a private airstrip or 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 expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels?
The proposed Project is not located within two miles of a public or private airport. Therefore item “c” is not discussed any further in this study.
Generally, a project may have a significant effect on the environment if it will substantially increase the ambient noise levels for adjoining areas or expose people to severe noise levels. In practice, more specific professional standards have been developed. These standards state that a noise impact may be considered significant if it would generate noise that would conflict with local project criteria or ordinances, or substantially increase noise levels at noise sensitive land uses. The potential increase in traffic noise from the Project is a factor in determining significance. Research into the human perception of changes in sound level indicates the following:
A 3‐dB change is barely perceptible,
A 5‐dB change is clearly perceptible, and
A 10‐dB change is perceived as being twice or half as loud.
A limitation of using a single noise level increase value to evaluate noise impacts is that it fails to account for pre‐project‐noise conditions.
TRANSPORTATION NOISE INCREASE CRITERIA
Table 3.12‐8 is based upon recommendations made by the Federal Interagency Committee on Noise (FICON) to provide guidance in the assessment of changes in ambient noise levels resulting from aircraft operations. The recommendations are based upon studies that relate aircraft noise levels to the percentage of persons highly annoyed by the noise. Although the FICON recommendations were specifically developed to assess aircraft noise impacts, it has been accepted that they are applicable to all sources of noise described in terms of cumulative noise exposure metrics such as the Ldn.
3.12 NOISE
3.12-16 Lathrop General Plan Update - Draft Environmental Impact Report TABLE 3.12‐8: SIGNIFICANCE OF CHANGES IN NOISE EXPOSURE
AMBIENT NOISE LEVEL WITHOUT PROJECT, LDN INCREASE REQUIRED FOR SIGNIFICANT IMPACT <60 dB +5.0 dB or more
60-65 dB +3.0 dB or more
>65 dB +1.5 dB or more
SOURCE: FEDERAL INTERAGENCY COMMITTEE ON NOISE (FICON)
Based on the Table 3.12‐8 data, an increase in the traffic noise level of 1.5 dB or more would be significant where the pre‐project noise level exceeds 65 dB Ldn. Extending this concept to higher noise levels, an increase in the traffic noise level of 1.5 dB or more may be significant where the pre‐ project traffic noise level exceeds 75 dB Ldn. The rationale for the Table 3.12‐8 criteria is that, as ambient noise levels increase, a smaller increase in noise resulting from a project is sufficient to cause annoyance.
These transportation noise thresholds of significance shown in Table 3.12‐8 are established by the proposed General Plan via Policy N‐1.4.
NON-TRANSPORTATION NOISE INCREASE CRITERIA
Stationary and Non‐Transportation Noise Sources ‐ A significant impact will occur if the project results in an exceedance of the noise level standards contained in Table N‐3 of the General Plan Noise Element, or the project will result in an increase in ambient noise levels by more than 3 dB, whichever is greater.
Vibration Standards
Vibration islike noise in that it involves a source, a transmission path, and a receiver. While vibration is related to noise, it differs in that in that noise is generally considered to be pressure waves transmitted through air, whereas vibration usually consists of the excitation of a structure orsurface.
As with noise, vibration consists of an amplitude and frequency. A person’s perception to the vibration will depend on their individual sensitivity to vibration, as well as the amplitude and frequency of the source and the response of the system which is vibrating.
Vibration can be measured in terms of acceleration, velocity, or displacement. A common practice is to monitor vibration measures in terms of peak particle velocities in inches per second. Standards pertaining to perception as well as damage to structures have been developed for vibration levels defined in terms of peak particle velocities.
The City does not have specific policies pertaining to vibration levels. However, vibration levels associated with construction activities and railroad operations are addressed as potential noise impacts associated with Project implementation.
Human and structural response to different vibration levelsisinfluenced by several factors, including ground type, distance between source and receptor, duration, and the number of perceived vibration events. Table 3.12‐9 indicates that the threshold for damage to structures ranges from 0.2 to 0.6 peak particle velocity in inches per second (in/sec p.p.v).
NOISE 3.12
Lathrop General Plan Update - Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.12-17 TABLE 3.12‐9: EFFECTS OF VIBRATION ON PEOPLE AND BUILDINGS
PEAK PARTICLE VELOCITY
HUMAN REACTION EFFECT ON BUILDINGS
MM/SEC. IN./SEC.
0.15-
0.30 0.006-
0.019
Threshold of perception; possibility
of intrusion
Vibrations unlikely to cause damage of any
type
2.0 0.08 Vibrations readily perceptible
Recommended upper level of the vibration
to which ruins and ancient monuments
should be subjected
2.5 0.10 Level at which continuous
vibrations begin to annoy people
Virtually no risk of “architectural” damage
to normal buildings
5.0 0.20
Vibrations annoying to people in
buildings (this agrees with the
levels established for people
standing on bridges and subjected
to relative short periods of
vibrations)
Threshold at which there is a risk of
“architectural” damage to normal dwelling -
houses with plastered walls and ceilings.
Special types of finish such as lining of
walls, flexible ceiling treatment, etc., would
minimize “architectural” damage
10-15 0.4-0.6
Vibrations considered unpleasant
by people subjected to continuous
vibrations and unacceptable to
some people walking on bridges
Vibrations at a greater level than normally
expected from traffic but would cause
“architectural” damage and possibly minor
structural damage.
SOURCE: CALTRANS. TRANSPORTATION RELATED EARTHBORN VIBRATIONS. TAV‐02‐01‐R9601 FEBRUARY 20, 2002.
Construction activities may generate perceptible vibration when heavy equipment or impact tools (e.g., jackhammers, hoe rams, pile drivers) are used. Construction activities often include demolition of existing structures, excavation,site preparation work, foundation work, and new building framing and finishing.
For structural damage, the California Department of Transportation uses a vibration limit of 0.5 inches/second, peak particle velocity (in/sec, PPV) for buildings structurally sound and designed to modern engineering standards.
Table 3.12‐10 presents typical vibration levels that could be expected from construction equipment at a distance of 25‐100 feet. The highest levels of vibration typically occur from pile driving operations. Pile driving vibrations are typically below 0.5 in/sec, PPV at distances of 50 feet or more.
TABLE 3.12‐10: VIBRATION LEVELS FOR VARYING CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT
TYPE OF EQUIPMENT
P.P.V. @ 25 FEET
(INCHES/SECOND)
P.P.V. @ 50 FEET
(INCHES/SECOND)
P.P.V. @ 75 FEET
(INCHES/SECOND)
P.P.V. @ 100 FEET
(INCHES/SECOND)
Pile Drive (Impact) 0.644 0.226 0.124 0.080
Pile Drive (Sonic) 0.170 0.060 0.033 0.021
Large Bulldozer 0.089 0.031 0.017 0.011
Loaded Trucks 0.076 0.027 0.015 0.010
Small Bulldozer 0.003 0.001 0.000 0.000
Auger/Drill Rigs 0.089 0.031 0.017 0.011
Jackhammer 0.035 0.012 0.006 0.004
Vibratory Hammer 0.070 0.025 0.0135 0.009
Vibratory
Compactor/Roller 0.210 0.074 0.040 0.026
SOURCE: FEDERAL TRANSIT ADMINISTRATION, TRANSIT NOISE AND VIBRATION IMPACT ASSESSMENT GUIDELINES, MAY 2006
3.12 NOISE
3.12-18 Lathrop General Plan Update - Draft Environmental Impact Report
IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
Impact 3.12‐1: General Plan implementation may result in exposure to significant traffic noise sources (Significant and Unavoidable) The FHWA Highway Traffic Noise Prediction Model (FHWA‐RD 77‐108) was used to develop Ldn (24‐ hour average) 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 values for 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 hourly distribution of traffic for a typical 24‐ hour period.
Existing (Baseline 2020) and Proposed General Plan Buildout volumes and truck counts 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 and Saxelby Acoustics file data for similar roadways. Using these data sources and the FHWA traffic noise prediction methodology, traffic noise levels were calculated for existing conditions.
Traffic noise levels are predicted at the sensitive receptors located at the closest typical setback distance along each Project‐area roadway segment. 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 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.
Table 3.12‐11 shows the future noise levels and the increase in noise levels associated with traffic on the local roadway network under the proposed General Plan, versus the existing (Baseline 2020) conditions.
NOISE 3.12
Lathrop General Plan Update - Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.12-19 TABLE 3.12‐11: BASELINE (2020) VS. PROPOSED GENERAL PLAN
ROADWAY SEGMENT
NOISE LEVELS (LDN, DB) AT NEAREST SENSITIVE RECEPTORS
BASELINE
(2020)
PROPOSED
GP CHANGE CRITERIA1 SIGNIFICANT?
Roth Road I‐5 to Harlan Road 70.1 73.8 3.7 +1.5 dB Yes
Harlan Road South of Roth Road 68.7 69.3 0.6 +1.5 dB No Roth Road Harlan Road to McKinley Avenue 67.1 73.3 6.2 +1.5 dB Yes Roth Road McKinley Avenue to City Limits 65.2 72.5 7.3 +1.5 dB Yes Lathrop Road I‐5 to Harlan Road 67.1 69.1 2.0 +1.5 dB Yes Harlan Road North of Lathrop Road 64.4 66.7 2.3 >65 dB Yes Lathrop Road Harlan Road to 5th Street 66.1 70.0 3.9 +1.5 dB Yes Lathrop Road 5th Street to McKinley Avenue 66.9 71.1 4.2 +1.5 dB Yes Lathrop Road McKinley Avenue to City Limits 67.1 70.0 2.9 +1.5 dB Yes Spartan Way Golden Valley Parkway to Lathrop
Road 56.6 60.7 4.1 +5.0 dB No
Golden Valley
Parkway Spartan Way to River Island Parkway 63.3 71.9 8.6 >65 dB Yes Spartan Way I‐5 to Golden Valley Parkway 60.7 74.3 13.6 >65 dB Yes Harlan Road South of Lathrop Road 67.0 68.3 1.3 +1.5 dB No Cambridge
Avenue South of Lathrop Road 53.6 56.4 2.8 +5.0 dB No
5th Street South of Lathrop Road 56.4 56.7 0.3 +5.0 dB No McKinley Avenue South of Lathrop Road 71.5 73.6 2.1 +1.5 dB Yes River Island
Parkway West of McKee Boulevard 58.2 67.6 9.4 >65 dB Yes River Island
Parkway
Golden Valley Parkway to McKee
Boulevard 59.4 66.2 6.8 >65 dB Yes
Golden Valley
Parkway
River Island Parkway to Towne Centre
Drive 57.0 67.3 10.3 >65 dB Yes
River Island
Parkway I‐5 to Golden Valley Parkway 65.9 73.4 7.5 +1.5 dB Yes Louise Avenue I‐5 to Harlan Road 71.6 73.4 1.8 +1.5 dB Yes Harlan Road North of Louise Avenue 56.7 58.0 1.3 +5.0 dB No Louise Avenue 5th Street to McKinley Avenue 64.9 68.6 3.7 >65 dB Yes Cambridge
Avenue North of Louise Avenue 54.8 54.8 0.0 +5.0 dB No
5th Street North of Louise Avenue 54.6 58.9 4.3 +5.0 dB No McKinley Avenue South of Louise Avenue 63.5 73.1 9.6 >65 dB Yes Louise Avenue McKinley Avenue to City Limits 66.5 71.2 4.7 +1.5 dB Yes McKee Boulevard River Island Parkway to Town Centre
Drive 55.7 59.4 3.7 +5.0 dB No
Towne Centre
Drive
Golden Valley Parkway to McKee
Boulevard 48.0 51.7 3.7 +5.0 dB No
Harlan Road Louise Avenue to D'Arcy Parkway 69.3 69.8 0.5 +1.5 dB No D'Arcy Parkway East of Harlan Road 66.4 66.9 0.5 +1.5 dB No Manthey Road Towne Centre Drive to Stewart Road 56.7 56.7 0.0 +5.0 dB No
3.12 NOISE
3.12-20 Lathrop General Plan Update - Draft Environmental Impact Report TABLE 3.12‐11: BASELINE (2020) VS. PROPOSED GENERAL PLAN
ROADWAY SEGMENT
NOISE LEVELS (LDN, DB) AT NEAREST SENSITIVE RECEPTORS
BASELINE
(2020)
PROPOSED
GP CHANGE CRITERIA1 SIGNIFICANT?
D'Arcy Parkway North of Yosemite Avenue 62.7 63.0 0.3 +3.0 dB No Yosemite Avenue D'Arcy Parkway to McKinley Avenue 64.8 72.0 7.2 >65 dB Yes Yosemite Avenue McKinley Avenue to City Limits 67.8 72.7 4.9 +1.5 dB Yes Somerston
Parkway North of Lakeside Drive 56.0 66.0 10.0 >65 dB Yes Lakeside Drive Stewart Road to Somerston Parkway 54.3 54.3 0.0 +5.0 dB No Stewart Road Manthey Road to Lakeside Drive 50.6 54.1 3.5 +5.0 dB No Yosemite Avenue South of SR 120 61.1 72.3 11.2 >65 dB Yes Yosemite Avenue SR 120 to D'Arcy Parkway 69.3 73.2 3.9 +1.5 dB Yes Paradise Road Stewart Road to City Limits 43.7 67.8 24.1 >65 dB Yes Golden Valley
Parkway South of Dos Reis Road N/A 75.0 N/A N/A N/A
Golden Valley
Parkway South of Inland Passage Way 46.3 74.4 28.1 >65 dB Yes Golden Valley
Parkway West of Somerston Parkway N/A 69.3 N/A N/A N/A
Golden Valley
Parkway South of Dell'Osso Drive N/A 63.9 N/A N/A N/A
Stanford Crossing West of Golden Valley Parkway N/A 57.2 N/A N/A N/A River Island
Parkway West of Somerston Parkway 56.1 68.8 12.7 >65 dB Yes Cambay Parkway West of Lakeside Drve N/A 64.6 N/A N/A N/A Cambay Parkway East of Paradise Road N/A 64.3 N/A N/A N/A Cambay Parkway West of Paradise Road N/A 67.2 N/A N/A N/A Paradise Road South of Cambay Parkway 47.2 69.5 22.3 >65 dB Yes McKinley Avenue South of Yosemite Avenue 65.1 77.9 12.8 +1.5 dB Yes 1WHERE EXISTING NOISE LEVELS ARE LESS THAN 60 DB AN INCREASE OF 5 DB WOULD BE A SIGNIFICANT INCREASE. WHERE EXISTING NOISE LEVELS EXCEED 60 DB BUT ARE LESS THAN 65 DB, AN INCREASE OF 3 DB OR MORE WOULD BE SIGNIFICANT. ADDITIONALLY, ANY INCREASE CAUSING NOISE LEVELS TO EXCEED THE CITY’S NORMALLY ACCEPTABLE 60 DB LDN NOISE LEVEL STANDARD AT AN EXISTING OUTDOOR ACTIVITY AREA OF A RESIDENTIAL USE WOULD ALSO BE SIGNIFICANT. WHERE EXISTING NOISE LEVELS EXCEED 65 DB, AN INCREASE OF 1.5 DB OR MORE WOULD BE SIGNIFICANT.
SOURCE: FHWA‐RD‐77‐108 WITH INPUTS FROM FEHR & PEERS TRANSPORTATION CONSULTANTS, CALTRANS, AND SAXELBY ACOUSTICS 2022.
Buildout of the General Plan may contribute to an exceedance of the City’s transportation noise standards and/or result in significant increases in traffic noise levels at existing sensitive receptors.
As indicated by Tables 3.12‐11, the related traffic noise level increases with a 20‐year circulation system buildout of the proposed General Plan are predicted to increase between 0.3 to 28.1 dB versus the existing Baseline (2020) conditions.
In order to reduce these impacts, the use of sound walls or quiet pavements could be employed.
Construction of new sound walls could be a feasible mitigation measure. However, many of the NOISE 3.12
Lathrop General Plan Update - Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.12-21 impacted residential uses along the roadway segments listed above are accessed directly via driveways off the main roadway or may even already have a sound wall. A new sound wall would require many driveway openings, resulting in partial noise barriers. These openingsin the sound wall would substantially reduce the noise barrier performance. Additionally, raising the heights of sound walls, or construction of new noise barriers would result in encroachment into private property.
Such encroachment would require private property owners to allow permission to enter their property. Raising sound wall heights would likely require enlarging footings, thereby requiring demolition of existing sound walls. Therefore, use of new sound walls, or modifying sound walls is not considered to be practical.
Quiet pavements have been used to mitigate traffic noise and are typically assumed to provide a 3 to 5 dBA reduction. Assuming a minimum reduction of 3 dBA, quiet pavement placed along sensitive receptor areas on the impacted roadway segments could reduce traffic noise level increases. Many of the noise impacts outlined in the previous tables could potentially be mitigated through the use of quiet pavement. However, not all of the impacted roadway segments could be mitigated through use of quiet pavements due to the magnitude of the traffic noise increases. Additionally, widespread repaving of city streets with quiet pavements would be expensive and impractical.
General Plan Policies N‐1.1 through N‐1.18, and Actions N‐1a through N‐1f, identified below, are intended to minimize exposure to excessive noise, including noise associated with traffic.
Specifically, Policies N‐1.1 and N‐1.14 support noise‐compatible land uses in the vicinity of traffic noise sources and require that new development and infrastructure projects be reviewed for consistency with the noise standards established in Tables N‐1 and N‐2. The proposed General Plan standards required under Policy N‐1.1, for exposure to traffic noise meet or exceed the noise level standards shown in General Plan Tables N‐1 and N‐2. Policy N‐1.14 and Actions N‐1c would ensure that new development mitigates potential noise impacts through incorporating the noise control treatments necessary to achieve acceptable noise levels. Policy N‐1.4 sets criteria for evaluating future increases in traffic noise levels. Implementation Action N‐1a would ensure that the Lathrop Municipal Code, including the updated noise ordinance, is consistent with the noise standards established in the General Plan. Implementation Action N‐1d would encourage working with Caltrans to ensure that adequate noise studies are prepared and that noise mitigation measures are considered in State transportation projects. Implementation of the proposed policies and actions of the General Plan will reduce noise and land use compatibility impacts from vehicular traffic noise sources and would ensure that new development is designed to include noise‐attenuating features.
As shown in Table 3.12‐11, the traffic noise increases associated with the proposed General Plan exceed the applicable noise exposure criteria. Therefore, the proposed General Plan would have a significant and unavoidable impact relative to traffic noise on existing noise‐sensitive uses in the City.
3.12 NOISE
3.12-22 Lathrop General Plan Update - Draft Environmental Impact Report
GENERAL PLAN POLICIES AND ACTIONS THAT MINIMIZE POTENTIAL IMPACTS
POLICIES
N‐1.1 Noise Exposure. Consider the noise compatibility of existing and future development when making land use planning decisions. Require development and infrastructure projects to be consistent with the land use compatibility standards contained in Tables N‐1, N‐2, and N‐3 to ensure acceptable noise exposure levels for existing and future development.
N‐1.2 Noise Mitigation. Require new development to mitigate excessive noise to the standards indicated in Tables N‐1, N‐2, and N‐3 through best practices, including building location and orientation, building design features, placement of noise‐generating equipment away from sensitive receptors, shielding of noise‐generating equipment, placement of noise‐tolerant features between noise sources and sensitive receptors, and use of noise‐ minimizing materials.
N‐1.3 Indoor Residential Noise Level. Ensure that new development does not result in indoor noise levels exceeding 45 dBA Ldn for residential uses by requiring the implementation of construction techniques and noise reduction measures for all new residential development.
N‐1.4 Acoustical Studies. Require acoustical studies for new discretionary developments and transportation improvements that have the potential to affect existing noise‐sensitive uses such as schools, hospitals, libraries, care facilities, and residential areas; and for projectsthat would introduce new noise‐sensitive usesinto an area where existing noise levels may exceed the thresholds identified in this element. For projects that are required to prepare an acoustical study, the following stationary and transportation noise source criteria shall be used to determine the significance of those impacts.
A. Stationary and Non‐Transportation Noise Sources ‐ A significant impact will occur if the project results in an exceedance of the noise level standards contained in this element, or the project will result in an increase in ambient noise levels by more than 3 dB, whichever is greater.
B. Transportation Noise Sources –
1. Where existing traffic noise levels are lessthan 60 dB Ldn at the outdoor activity areas of noise‐sensitive uses, a +5 dB Ldn increase in roadway noise levels will be considered significant;
2. Where existing traffic noise levels range between 60 and 65 dB Ldn at the outdoor activity areas of noise‐sensitive uses, a +3 dB Ldn increase in roadway noise levels will be considered significant; and
3. Where existing traffic noise levels are greater than 65 dB Ldn at the outdoor activity areas of noise‐sensitive uses, a + 1.5 dB Ldn increase in roadway noise levels will be considered significant.
NOISE 3.12
Lathrop General Plan Update - Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.12-23 N‐1.5 Acoustical Studies. For projects that are required to prepare an acoustical analysis, the analysis shall:
A. Be the responsibility of the applicant.
B. Be prepared by a qualified acoustical consultant experienced in the fields of environmental noise assessment and architectural acoustics.
C. Include representative noise level measurements with sufficient sampling periods and locations to adequately describe local conditions and the predominant noise sources.
D. Estimate existing and projected (20 years) noise levels in terms of the standards of Tables N‐1, N‐2, or N‐3, and compare those levels to the adopted policies of the Noise Element.
E. Recommend appropriate mitigation measures to achieve compliance with the adopted policies and standards of the Noise Element.
F. Estimate noise exposure after the prescribed mitigation measures have been implemented.
G. If necessary, describe a post‐project assessment program to monitor the effectiveness of the proposed mitigation measures.
N‐1.6 Open Space and Landscaping. Encourage the use of open spaces, trees, and landscaping to buffer new and existing development from noise sources.
N‐1.7 Fences and Sound Walls. When fences and/or sound walls are required for compliance with noise standards, ensure the fences and walls are built to be visually compatible with the surrounding area, at the minimum height necessary to achieve the required sound attenuation. Sound walls should incorporate treatments to resist graffiti.
N‐1.8 Roadway Noise. Encourage nonmotorized transportation alternatives for local trips and the implementation of noise sensitivity measures in the public realm, including traffic‐ calming road design, lateral separation, natural buffers, and setbacks to decrease excessive motor vehicle noise.
N‐1.9 Highway Noise. Coordinate with the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) and the Transportation Corridor Agency (TCA) to achieve maximum noise abatement in the design of new highway projects or improvements along I‐5.
N‐1.10 Truck Traffic. Limit local truck traffic, including loading and unloading, to specific routes, times, and speeds appropriate to each zoning district. Design development so that automobile and truck accessto industrial and commercial properties abutting residential properties is located at the maximum practical distance from residential zones.
N‐1.11 Vehicular Traffic. Monitor and enforce existing speed limits and motor vehicle codes requiring adequate mufflers on all types of vehicles traveling through the city.
3.12 NOISE
3.12-24 Lathrop General Plan Update - Draft Environmental Impact Report N‐1.12 Railroad Noise. Work with the Federal Railroad Administration and passenger and freight rail operators to reduce exposure to rail and train noise in the city, including establishing train horn “quiet zones” consistent with the federal regulations.
N‐1.13 Airplane Noise. Work cooperatively with the SJCOG Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC), Stockton Airport, and other relevant air transportation agencies and airports to minimize noise impacts from airspace activities in the city, including but not limited to, airplane and helicopter flights.
N‐1.14 Noise‐Compatible Land Uses Along Roadways, Highways, and Railroads. Support noise‐ compatible land uses along all existing and future roadways, highways, and railroads. For new residential development backing on to a roadway, freeway, and/or railroad right‐ of‐way, the developer shall be required to provide appropriate mitigation measures to satisfy the performance standards in Table N‐2.
N‐1.15 Construction Noise. Require construction activities to reduce noise impacts on adjacent uses to the criteria identified in Table N‐3, or, if the criteria cannot be met, to the maximum extent feasible complying with Title 15 of the LMC (Building and Construction) and use best practices. Construction activities outside of the permitted construction hours identified in the LMC may be approved on a case‐by‐case basis by the Building Official.
N‐1.16 Temporary special events. Temporary special events including, but not limited to, festivals, concerts, parades, and other similar activities may be allowed to exceed the noise standards established in this General Plan and the standards established by Chapter 8.20 of the LMC (Noise) through issuance of a temporary use permit (see Section
17.108.090 of the LMC [Review of Temporary Uses).
N‐1.17 Temporary emergency operations and emergency equipment usage. Temporary emergency operations or emergency equipment usage may be exempt from noise standard criteria set by this element.
N‐1.18 Interjurisdictional Coordination. Coordinate with neighboring jurisdictions to minimize noise conflicts between land uses along the City's boundaries.
ACTIONS
N‐1a Update Chapter 8.20 of the LMC (Noise) to ensure that the noise standards are consistent with this General Plan, including Tables N‐1, N‐2, and N‐3, and to require new residential, mixed‐use with a residential component, and other noise‐sensitive development to be designed to minimize noise exposure to noise sensitive uses through incorporation of site planning and architectural techniques. The update shall also include noise standards for residential uses within a mixed‐use development, which may differ from other adopted residential noise standards.
N‐1b Review new development projects for compliance with the noise requirements established in this General Plan, including the standards established in Tables N‐1, NOISE 3.12
Lathrop General Plan Update - Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.12-25 N‐2, and N‐3. Where necessary, require new development to mitigate excessive noise through best practices, including building location and orientation, building design features, placement of noise generating equipment away from sensitive receptors, shielding of noise‐generating equipment, placement of noise‐tolerant features between noise sources and sensitive receptors, and use of noise‐ minimizing materials such as rubberized asphalt.
N‐1c Require acoustical studies for all new discretionary projects, including those related to development and transportation, which have the potential to generate noise impacts which exceed the standardsidentified in this General Plan. The studiesshall include representative noise measurements, estimates of existing and projected noise levels, and mitigation measures necessary to ensure compliance with this element.
N‐1d Coordinate with Caltrans, the cities of Manteca, Tracy, and Stockton, San Joaquin County, and SJCOG ALUC and Stockton Airport, and all other agencies when necessary, to ensure that these agencies obtain City concurrence prior to initiating any noise mitigation or other project affecting Lathrop.
N‐1e Work with the Federal Rail Authority and passenger and freightrailservice providers to establish a Quiet Zone at at‐grade crossings in the city. Where new development would be affected by the train and rail noise, require project applicants to fund a fair‐share of: a) studies associated with the application for a Quiet Zone, and b) alternative safety measures associated with the Quiet Zone (including, but not limited to signage, gates, lights, etc.).
N‐1f Work in cooperation with Caltrans, the Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR), San Joaquin Regional Rail Commission, and other agencies where appropriate to maintain noise level standards for both new and existing projects in compliance with Table N‐2.
Additional or alternative criteria can be used for determining a substantial increase in noise levels.
For instance, if the overall increase in noise levels occurs where no noise‐sensitive uses are located, then the City may use their discretion in determining if there is any impact at all. In such a case, the following alternative factors may be used for determining a substantial increase in noise levels:
the resulting noise levels;
the duration and frequency of the noise;
the number of people affected;
conforming or non‐conforming land uses;
the land use designation of the affected receptor sites; public reactions or controversy as demonstrated at workshops or hearings, or by correspondence; and
prior CEQA determinations by other agencies specific to the project.
3.12 NOISE
3.12-26 Lathrop General Plan Update - Draft Environmental Impact Report Table N‐1 – Land Use Compatibility for Community Noise Environments Standards Land Use Category
Community Noise Exposure
Ldn or CNEL, dB
Normally
Acceptable1
Conditionally
Acceptable2
Normally
Unacceptable3
Clearly
Unacceptable4
Residential – Low
Density Single Family,
Duplex, Mobile Homes
< or = 60 55 ‐ 70 70‐75 >75
Residential – Multi‐
Family < or = 60 60 ‐ 70 70‐75 >75
Transient Lodging –
Motels, Hotels < or = 65 60 ‐ 70 70‐80 >80
Schools, Libraries,
Churches, Hospitals,
Nursing Homes
< or = 70 60 ‐ 70 70‐80 >80
Auditoriums, Concert
Halls, Amphitheaters < or = 70 ‐ >65 ‐
Sports Arena, Outdoor
Spectator Sports
< or = 75 ‐ >70 ‐
Playgrounds,
Neighborhood Parks < or = 70 ‐ 67.5‐75 >72.5
Golf Courses, Riding
Stables, Water
Recreation, Cemeteries
< or = 75 ‐ 70 ‐ 80 >80
Office Buildings,
Business Commercial
and Professional
< or = 70 67.5 – 72.5 >75 ‐
Industrial,
Manufacturing,
Utilities, Agriculture
< or = 75 70 – 80 >75 ‐
1. Normally Acceptable – Specified land use is satisfactory, based upon the assumption that any buildings involved are of normal conventional construction, without any special noise insulation requirements.
2. Conditionally Acceptable – New construction of development should be undertaken only after a detailed analysis of the noise reduction requirements is made and needed noise insulation features included in the design. Conventional construction, but with closed windows and fresh air supply systems or air conditioning will normally suffice.
3. Normally Unacceptable – New construction or development should generally be discouraged. If new construction or development does proceed, a detailed analysis of the noise reduction requirements must be made and needed noise insulation features included in the design.
4. Clearly Unacceptable – New Construction or development should generally not be undertaken.
NOISE 3.12
Lathrop General Plan Update - Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.12-27 Table N‐2 – Maximum Allowable Noise Exposure from Mobile Noise Sources Land Use1
Outdoor
Activity
Areas2,3
Interior Spaces
Ldn/CNEL, dB Leq, dB4
Residential 60 45 ‐
Motels/Hotels 65 45 ‐
Mixed‐Use 65 45 ‐
Hospitals, Nursing Homes 60 45 ‐
Theaters, Auditoriums ‐ ‐ 35
Churches 60 ‐ 40
Office Buildings 65 ‐ 45
Schools, Libraries, Museums 70 ‐ 45
Playgrounds, Neighborhood Parks 70 ‐ ‐
Industrial 75 ‐ 45
Golf Courses, Water Recreation 70 ‐ ‐
1. Where a proposed use is not specifically listed, the use shall comply with the standards for the most similar use as determined by the City.
2. Outdoor activity areas for residential development are considered to be the back yard patios or decks of single family units and the common areas where people generally congregate for multi‐family developments. Where common outdoor activity areas for multi‐family developments comply with the outdoor noise level standard, the standard will not be applied at patios or decks of individual units provided noise‐reducing measures are incorporated (e.g., orientation of patio/deck, screening of patio with masonry or other noise‐attenuating material). Outdoor activity areas for non‐residential developments are the common areas where people generally congregate, including pedestrian plazas, seating areas, and outside lunch facilities; not all residential developments include outdoor activity areas.
3. In areas where it is not possible to reduce exterior noise levels to achieve the outdoor activity area standard using a practical application of the best noise‐reduction technology, an increase of up to 5 dB Ldn over the standard will be allowed provided that available exterior noise reduction measures have been implemented and interior noise levels are in compliance with this table.
4. Determined for a typical worst‐case hour during periods of use.
3.12 NOISE
3.12-28 Lathrop General Plan Update - Draft Environmental Impact Report Table N‐3 – Performance Standards for Stationary Noise Sources, Including Affected Projects1,2,3,4 Noise Level Descriptor Daytime
7am to 10pm
Nighttime
10pm to 7am
Hourly Leg, dB 55 45
1. Each of the noise levels specified above should be lowered by 5 dB for simple tones, noises consisting primarily of speech or music, or recurring impulsive noises. Such noises are generally considered to be particularly annoying and are a primary source of noise complaints.
2. No standards have been included for interior noise levels. Standard construction practices should, with the exterior noise levels identified, result in acceptable interior noise levels.
3. Stationary noise sources which are typically of concern include, but are not limited to, the following:
a. HVAC Systems
b. Pump Stations
c. Emergency Generators
d. Steam Valves
e. Generators
f. Air Compressors
g. Conveyor Systems
h. Pile Drivers
i. Drill Rigs
j. Welders
k. Outdoor Speaker
l. Cooling Towers/Evaporative Condensers
m. Lift Stations
n. Boilers
o. Steam Turbines
p. Fans
q. Heavy Equipment
r. Transformers
s. Grinders
t. Gas or Diesel Motors
u. Cutting Equipment
v. Blowers
4. The types of uses which may typically produce the noise sources described above include but are not limited to: industrial facilities, pump stations, 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, and athletic fields
NOISE 3.12
Lathrop General Plan Update - Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.12-29 Impact 3.12‐2: General Plan implementation may result in exposure to excessive railroad noise sources (Less than Significant) Table 3.12‐4 indicates that the 60 dB Ldn railroad noise contours for the Union Pacific/ACE commuter/freight line may extend up to 642 feet from the railroad centerline. Future development located along these railroad lines could therefore be exposed to unacceptable exterior noise levels.
Specifically, Policies N‐1.1 and N‐1.14 support noise‐compatible land uses in the vicinity of railroad noise sources and require that new development and infrastructure projects be reviewed for consistency with the noise standards established in Tables N‐1 and N‐2. The proposed General Plan standards required under Policy N‐1.1, for exposure to railroad noise meet or exceed the noise level standards of the adopted General Plan. Policy N‐1.14 and Actions N‐1c would ensure that new development mitigates potential noise impacts through incorporating the noise control treatments necessary to achieve acceptable noise levels.
Implementation of these General Plan policies and actions would ensure that development allowed under the proposed General Plan is not exposed to noise levels associated with railroad operations in excess of the City’s established standards. This is a less than significant impact.
Impact 3.12‐3: Implementation of the General Plan could result in the generation of excessive stationary noise sources (Less than Significant) Implementation of the General Plan could result in the future development of land uses that generate noise levels in excess of applicable City noise standards for non‐transportation noise sources. Such land uses may include commercial area loading docks, industrial uses, HVAC equipment, car washes, daycare facilities, auto repair, and recreational uses. While the General Plan does not specifically propose any new noise generating uses, the Land Use Map includes industrial land use designations, which may result in new noise sources. Specific development projects and the details of future noise generating land uses that may be located in the city in the future are not known at this time. Additionally, noise from existing stationary sources, as identified in the background section of this chapter, will continue to impact noise‐sensitive land uses in the vicinity of the noise sources. New projects which may include stationary noise sources such as automotive and truck repair facilities, tire installation centers, car washes, loading docks, corporation yards, parks, and play fields may create noise levels in excess of the City’s standards.
While no specific projects are proposed under the general plan update, changes in land use may allow for more intensive noise‐generating uses in closer proximity to noise‐sensitive uses. Where this occurs, detailed noise studies would be required to ensure that noise control measures are implemented into the project design. Such measures could include redesign of industrial buildings away from sensitive uses, construction of sound walls or berms between noise generating uses and sensitive uses, using buildingsto create additional buffer distance and screening, or othersite design measures to ensure that non‐transportation (stationary) noise sources do not cause exterior noise levels to exceed allowable standards at sensitive receptors.
For example, a typical maintenance yard might generate noise levels of approximately 68 dBA Leq at a distance of 100 feet, as shown in Table 3.12‐5. This would exceed the City’s proposed stationary noise standards of 55 dBA Leq (daytime) and 45 dBA Leq (nighttime). Construction of a 12‐foot‐tall
3.12 NOISE
3.12-30 Lathrop General Plan Update - Draft Environmental Impact Report sound wall could reduce noise levels to approximately 55 dBA Leq. For a daytime use, this would be sufficient to meet the City’s 55 dBA Leq daytime noise standard. For a yard which require nighttime operation, a sound wall would not be sufficient to achieve the 45 dBA Leq nighttime noise standard.
To achieve the nighttime noise standard, the distance from receptors would need to be increased by 250 feet for a 12‐foot‐tall wall to achieve the 45 dBA Leq nighttime standard. While this is just a theoretical scenario, it illustrates that use of site design measures, screening walls, etc. can be sufficient to achieve compliance with the City’s stationary noise standards, even when more intensive uses are proposed in closer proximity to sensitive receptors.
The General Plan includes policies and actions that are intended to reduce noise associated with stationary sources. Specifically, Policies N‐1.1 through N‐1.4 and N‐2.1 through N‐2.4 and Actions N‐ 1b and N‐1c would reduce noise associated with stationary sources. Specifically, Policy N‐1.2 and Action N‐1b require new development to mitigate excessive noise to the standards indicated in Tables N‐1, N‐2, and N‐3 through best practices, including building location and orientation, building design features, placement of noise‐generating equipment away from sensitive receptors, shielding of noise‐generating equipment, placement of noise‐tolerant features between noise sources and sensitive receptors, and use of noise‐minimizing materials. Implementation of the proposed policies and actions of the General Plan will reduce noise impacts from stationary noise sources to a less than significant level.
NOISE 3.12
Lathrop General Plan Update - Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.12-31 Impact 3.12‐4: General Plan implementation may result in an increase in construction noise sources (Less than Significant)
New development, maintenance of roadways, and installation of public utilities and infrastructure generally require construction activities. These activities include the use of heavy equipment and impact tools. Table 3.12‐12 provides a list of the types of equipment which may be associated with construction activities, and their associated noise levels.
TABLE 3.12‐12: CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT NOISE
TYPE OF EQUIPMENT
PREDICTED NOISE LEVELS, LMAX DB DISTANCES TO NOISE CONTOURS (FEET)
NOISE
LEVEL AT
50’
NOISE
LEVEL AT
100’
NOISE
LEVEL AT
200’
NOISE
LEVEL AT
400’
70 DB LMAX
CONTOUR
65 DB LMAX
CONTOUR
Backhoe 78 72 66 60 126 223
Compactor 83 77 71 65 223 397
Compressor (air) 78 72 66 60 126 223
Concrete Saw 90 84 78 72 500 889
Dozer 82 76 70 64 199 354
Dump Truck 76 70 64 58 100 177
Excavator 81 75 69 63 177 315
Generator 81 75 69 63 177 315
Jackhammer 89 83 77 71 446 792
Pneumatic Tools 85 79 73 67 281 500
Source: Roadway Construction Noise Model User’s Guide. Federal Highway Administration. FHWA‐HEP‐05‐054.
January 2006. Saxelby Acoustics, LLC 2019.
Activities involved in construction would typically generate maximum noise levels ranging from 85 to 90 dB at a distance of 50 feet. Construction could result in periods of significant ambient noise level increases and the potential for annoyance. However, the proposed General Plan includes policies and actions that are intended to reduce noise associated with construction noise (listed below). Specifically, Policy N‐1.15 would reduce noise associated with construction noise.
Implementation of the proposed policies and actions of the General Plan will ensure noise impacts from construction are less than significant.
GENERAL PLAN POLICIES AND ACTIONS THAT MINIMIZE POTENTIAL IMPACTS N‐1.15 Construction Noise. Require construction activities to reduce noise impacts on adjacent uses to the criteria identified in Table N‐3, or, if the criteria cannot be met, to the maximum extent feasible complying with Title 15 of the LMC (Building and Construction) and use best practices.
Construction activities outside of the permitted construction hours identified in the LMC may be approved on a case‐by‐case basis by the Building Official.
Impact 3.12‐5: General Plan implementation may result in construction vibration (Less than Significant)
Construction activities facilitated by the proposed General Plan may include demolition of existing structures, site preparation work, excavation of below grade levels, foundation work, pile driving, and new building erection. Demolition for an individual site may last several weeks and at times may produce substantial vibration. Excavation for underground levels may also occur on some
3.12 NOISE
3.12-32 Lathrop General Plan Update - Draft Environmental Impact Report project sites and vibratory pile driving could be used to stabilize the walls of the excavated area.
Piles or drilled caissons may also be used to support building foundations.
While typical construction vibrations are not predicted to cause damage to existing buildings or cause annoyance to sensitive receptors located further than 25‐feet, should pile driving be required within 50 feet of an existing structure, these impacts may be considered significant. With implementation of Action N‐2d below would ensure that construction vibrations do not cause damage to any adjacent structures, and thus, the proposed Project would result in a less than significant impact relative to this environmental topic.
GENERAL PLAN POLICIES AND ACTIONS THAT MINIMIZE POTENTIAL IMPACTS N‐2d: If pile driving is required within 50 feet of an existing structure, pre‐construction crack documentation and construction vibration monitoring shall be conducted to ensure that construction vibrations do not cause damage to any adjacent structures. The results of the documentation and monitoring shall be submitted to the City Community Development Department prior to the start of construction activities which would occur within 50 feet of an existing structure.
Impact 3.12‐6: General Plan implementation may result in exposure to groundborne vibration (Less than Significant)
Development facilitated by the General Plan could expose persons to excessive groundborne vibration levels attributable to trains. The proposed locations of buildings and their specific sensitivity to vibration are not known at this time; however, such uses located in close proximity to railroad tracks could be exposed to ground vibration levels exceeding FTA guidelines.
The proposed General Plan includes Action N‐2b requires that individual development projects undergo project‐specific environmental review and address potential vibration impacts associated with railroad operations. If project‐level significant vibration impacts are identified, specific mitigation measures will be required under CEQA. The implementation of this policy would limit potential groundborne vibrations associated with railroad operationsto a lessthan significant level.
GENERAL PLAN POLICIES AND ACTIONS THAT MINIMIZE POTENTIAL IMPACTS
ACTIONS
N‐2b Require new residential projects located adjacent to major freeways and railroad lines to follow the FTA vibration screening distance criteria to ensure that residential uses are not exposed to vibrations exceeding 72 VdB forfrequent events(more than 70 events per day), 75 VdB for occasional events (30‐70 events per day), or 80 VdB for infrequent events (less than 30 events per day).
1.,81 Tracy
.. l
l
..
i
!, ,
'9.,.
·
-
·,
r
.,..:·::�-,
ii ;
1111
U.,,aplW
HNINI .. O, §
� ,_.,
NO!lhO .. tDl -
Lathrop General Plan Update
City of Lathrop, California
Figure 3.12-1: Noise Measurement Sites
Legend
f-------J Lathrop City Boundary
,----.
1 ____ 1 Lathrop Sphere of Influence
Noise Measurement - Long Term
0 Noise Measurement
- Short Term
O.Smi 1.Smi 2.Smi
Projection: State Plane (California Zone 3) / NAD83 / feet Rev. Date: 08/25/2018
" SAXELBY
�� (� ACOUSTICS
Acoustics• Noise • Vibration
3.12 NOISE
3.12-34 Lathrop General Plan Update - Draft Environmental Impact Report This page left intentionally blank
PUBLIC SERVICES AND RECREATION 3.13
Draft Environmental Impact Report – Lathrop General Plan Update 3.13-1 Public services such as fire and police protection are vital to maintaining a safe and healthy community. Educational services serve as a foundation for providing citizens with the skills and resources to excel today and in the future. There are many other public services that are important to a community, such as parks and recreational opportunities, libraries, museums, hospitals, and other healthcare facilities.
This section provides a background discussion and analysis of fire protection services, police services, schools, parks and recreational facilities, libraries, and other community facilities and services. This section is organized with an existing setting, regulatory setting, and impact analysis.
Utilities services, including water, sewer, stormwater and drainage, and solid waste disposal, are addressed in Chapter 3.15 (Utilities and Service Systems) of this Draft EIR.
No comments were received during the NOP comment period regarding this environmental topic.
3.13.1 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
FIRE PROTECTION SERVICES
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, excluding lands north of Roth Road which are protected by French Camp. LMFD also provides service to some 84.7 square miles of rural area around Lathrop and Manteca (in the southern San Joaquin County area).
LMFD was established in 1936 to provide fire protection for the township of Lathrop, rural Lathrop and the rural areas surrounding Manteca. The Fire District was organized under the laws of the State of California, Health and Safety Code Section 13800, known as the Fire Protection District law of 1987. LMFD is governed by a five‐member Board of Directors who are elected at‐large to serve a four‐year term. Since 1936 the Fire District has developed into a pro‐active Fire Department covering 100 square miles including the City of Lathrop. The Fire District is organized to maintain career personnel on duty, 24 hours a day, year‐round, to respond to emergencies from the fire stations. LMFD has three (3) Fire Stations located in the City of Lathrop.
The French Camp Fire District 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 proposed Area of Interest and about 149 acres is in the SOI. The District was established in 1946 to provide fire protection for the French Camp Community and surrounding area. The Fire District was organized under the laws of the State of California, Health and Safety Code Section 13800, known as the Fire Protection District law of 1987.
3.13 PUBLIC SERVICES AND RECREATION
3.13-2 Draft Environmental Impact Report – Lathrop General Plan Update Lathrop‐Manteca Fire Protection District (LMFPD)
Since the incorporation of Lathrop in 1989, the LMFD has worked with the City Council to develop plans to provide adequate coverage for potential urban growth of the city. This has included the imposition of Fire Facilities Fees for new development as well as a sharing in the Special Sales Tax (Measure C) passed city‐wide.
The LMFD boundaries spread over about 100 square miles, with the bulk of the District (70%) outside of the City limits of Lathrop. Locations of the existing LMFD fire stations are presented in Figure 3‐13‐1 (Fire Station Locations).
LMFD calls are dispatched by the City of Stockton’s emergency communications dispatch center along with the Manteca Fire Department, Stockton Fire Department, and Lodi Fire Departments.
As described in the City’s most recent Draft Municipal Services Review (2022 Draft MSR) LMFD tracks the following times segments and continuously works to improve response times. These times are provided from LMFD’s records, specific to the City of Lathrop’s capturing data from Jan 1, 2020 to Dec 31, 2020.
Alarm Processing Time: Defined as the time elapsed between receipt of alarm and the dispatch of apparatus to the emergency call. The LMFD benchmarks this according to the National Fire Protection Association Standard 1221: Installation, Maintenance, and Use of Emergency Services Communications Systems. Section 7.4.3 of this standard identifies the that elapsed alarm processing for the highest priority of life‐threatening calls shall have an alarm processing time of 60 seconds for at least 90 percent of these total calls. The Lathrop Manteca Fire District currently contracts with the City of Stockton for dispatch services. In addition, the Fire District has moved its primary alerting system to an internet protocol system that increases the speed of which alarms are "pushed" to the emergency responding units. The Fire District meets this standard one hundred (100) percent of the time.
Turnout Time: This time is calculated from the receipt of the alarm by the station of unit and ends at the time the unit begins its rolling travel time. Benchmarks for these time standards are 60 seconds for 90% of the total Emergency Medical Calls and 80 seconds for 90% of the total Fire Calls. The Fire District's data shows a 60 second turnout time for EMS Calls for 88% percent of occurrences and have an 80 second turnout time for 95% of the fire occurrences.
Response Time: Response time is reflected by the turnout time and travel time that are added together to create a complete picture of the Fire District response time. In 2020, the Fire District responded to emergency incidents 70% of the time within five minutes at the 90th percentile with all combined responses. It should be noted that due to growth demands and development planning the fire district responds to areas of new development that are often outside of the existing service zones. While call volumes in those areas are generally lower, they do have an impact on the overall analyses. The PUBLIC SERVICES AND RECREATION 3.13
Draft Environmental Impact Report – Lathrop General Plan Update 3.13-3 District has plans to add two (2) to three (3) additional fire stations/companies in order to service these developments. At buildout, the Fire District expects to be closely meeting travel distance times that are closer in alignment with LMFD standards.
The Fire Prevention Bureau administers the District’s fire prevention and code enforcement program. Plan checks are done by the Fire Prevention staff or a third‐party plan check company along with construction and business inspections. Fire Company personnel conduct annual pre‐ incident inspections. Additional fire safety programs include smoke detector installation for the elderly and disabled and fire safety and awareness in the schools.
The Fire District responds, not only to fires of all types, but also medical emergencies, traffic accidents, service calls, Hazardous Material incidents, technical rescue incidents, and water rescues. The Fire District is an active member of the San Joaquin County Hazardous Materials Response Team. The Fire District is also part of the Urban Search and Rescue Team.
French Camp
The authorized personnel strength of French Camp consists of 16 employees, of which 7 are line staff and 9 are reserve personnel. The French Camp and Montezuma Fire Protection Districts rotate Fire Chiefs in order to provide coverage for the respective Fire Stations. The fire district is organized to maintain three personnel with automatic aid agreements with other agencies. On May 15, 2015, the District and Mountain House Community Services District (Mountain House CSD) entered into an agreement for the District to provide fire protection and emergency medical services to the community served by the Mountain House CSD. The District provides staffing to Mountain House CSD based on staffing response guidelines established by the jointly adopted Service Level Criteria using vehicles, equipment and apparatus of both Districts.
The District charges Mountain House CSD an established daily rate with the rate renegotiated every year. The District also bills Mountain House CSD for service, supplies and apparatus as needed. The original contract term extended from September 15, 2015 through June 30, 2020.
The contract was extended through June 30, 2025. Station 16‐1 in Mountain house is staffed with five (5) personnel on‐duty.
French Camp maintains one Fire Station located at 310 East French Camp Road and also operates out of the Mountain House Fire Station located at 911 Traditions Street, Mountain House. The French Camp station is staffed by 2 engine companies and is staffed 24‐hours per day. The organization responds to approximately 1,800 calls between Mountain House and French Camp.
According to response data by Lifecom Dispatch Center, and confirmed by Former Chief Paul Tualla, the District’s 90 percentile “turnout time” and “travel” times in 2015 were 1:50 minutes and 6:01 minutes respectively to the Roth Road area. These times were below the average 90 percentile time for all rural fire districts at 2:42 minutes turnout time and 7:38 minutes response time. The Chief estimates the longest travel time was 7:24 minutes.
3.13 PUBLIC SERVICES AND RECREATION
3.13-4 Draft Environmental Impact Report – Lathrop General Plan Update The Fire District responds, not only to fires of all types, but also medical emergencies, traffic accidents, and water rescues. The Fire District is an active member of the San Joaquin County Hazardous Materials Response Team. The Fire District is also part of the Urban Search and Rescue Team.
ISO RATING
The Insurance Services Office (ISO) rating measures individual fire protection agencies against a national Fire Suppression Rating Schedule which includes such criteria as facilities and support for handling and dispatching fire alarms, first‐alarm responses and initial attack, and adequacy of the local water supply for the fire suppression purposes. ISO ratings are on a scale of 1‐10 with 1 being the highest rating. In 2013, ISO developed split classifications for some communities, which can represent the risk of loss more precisely. An example of a split classification system is 4/4X or 4/4Y.
The first number refers to the classification of properties within 5 road miles of a fire station and within 1,000 feet of a creditable water supply. The second number, with either the X or Y designation, applies to properties within 5 road miles of a fire station but beyond 1,000 feet of a creditable water supply. ISO generally assigned Class 10 to properties beyond 5 road miles.
LATHROP-MANTECA FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT
In its most recent report, the ISO Public Classification Program rates the LMFD as a community classification of 3 for the City of Lathrop1
. This rating is unchanged since the ISO rating for the City of Lathrop in their January 2013 ISO report. The District is currently working with ISO to review the classification in 2022.
FRENCH CAMP
The ISO Public Classification Program rates the French Camp in their November 2017 report as a community classification of 4/4Y for the District2
. This is an improvement from the community
classification of 4/8b for the District in the ISO November 23, 2010 report.
FIRE STATIONS
The Lathrop‐Manteca Fire Protection District currently operates three fire stations within the Lathrop Planning area, as shown on Figure 3.13‐1 and listed below. Station 31 (800 E. J Street, Lathrop, CA 95330): Station 31 services a large section of East Lathrop. The boundaries generally run from Interstate 5 at Roth Road to Louise Avenue.
Station 31 is staffed with four personnel, including the on‐duty Battalion Chief. Station 34 (460 River Islands Parkway, Lathrop, CA 95330): Station 34 is located on the west side of Interstate 5 within the City of Lathrop. This station officially opened on May 20th, 2006. This station responds to calls for service on the west side of Interstate 5 and on the east side of I‐5, south of Louise Avenue. Staffing for this station includes one Captain, one Firefighter/Engineer, and one Firefighter.
1 Personal communication with Steven Pickerill, LMFD Deputy Fire Marshall, 11:30am on 8/16/2018. 2 Personal communication with French Camp Office of Administration and Fire Prevention, 12:20pm on 8/16/2018.
PUBLIC SERVICES AND RECREATION 3.13
Draft Environmental Impact Report – Lathrop General Plan Update 3.13-5 Station 35 (19001 Somerston, Lathrop, CA 95330): Station 35 is located in the southern portion of Lathrop west of Interstate 5. The primary response area for Station 35 is the River Islands development in the southwestern portion of the City of Lathrop. The fire station houses one of the LMFD’s Type 3 (wildland) fire engines and the LMFD rescue unit.
The station is staffed with one Captain, one Firefighter/Engineer, and one Firefighter as well as the District’s Administrative offices and headquarters.
FRENCH CAMP
French Camp currently operates a single fire station located which is listed below:
Station 11‐1 (310 E. French Camp Road, French Camp, CA): The Station is staffed with at least two on‐duty personnel and on Duty Chief available 24 hours a day, seven day a week.
In addition, the Reserve Firefighter personnel are an important supplemental force to augment the line staff in firefighting duties in fire suppression of structural, wildland, and other types of fires. As of 2015, French Camp expanded fire protection service to the community of Mountain House on a contract basis.
POLICE PROTECTION SERVICES
San Joaquin County Sheriff’s Department – Lathrop Police Services Law enforcement services in the City of Lathrop are currently provided through contract with the San Joaquin County Sheriff’s Department. Lathrop Police Services’ officers are Deputy Sheriffs assigned to the City. They have unique training to include traffic enforcement, specific to an incorporated City.
Lathrop Police Services satellite office is located at 390 Towne Centre Dr, Lathrop, CA 95330. Since the City was incorporated, police service has been expanded to include eleven patrol cars. Lathrop Police Services is staffed 24 hours a day in a series of 3 patrol shifts with a minimum of 2 patrol officers per shift. Minimum staffing levels are set at 6 officers per day. Lathrop Police Services has 26 sworn officers, including 1 captain serving as police chief, 1 lieutenant, 3 sergeants, 1 detective, 20 deputy sheriffs and 3 civilian staff. If needed, additional assistance can be summoned under a mutual aid agreement with surrounding cities and the County. Existing police staffing levels in the City are approximately 1.31 per 1,000 residents. The current city‐wide priority 1 average response time is 4 minutes. Priority 1 calls are where a threat is posed to life or a crime of violence.
The approval and/or pending development projects in the City will result in additional demand for law enforcement services. Capital costs for new facilities and equipment is funded through development impact fees and operational costs are funded through a combination of an increased tax base, participation in Community Facility District (CFD) and Measure C funding (A City initiated special tax which does not have a sunset clause).
The City of Lathrop is currently in the process of transitioning to its own police department. In April 2021 the Lathrop City Council approved a resolution that initiated the process of recruiting, hiring, and training for the establishment of the City’s first police department. As of the time this
3.13 PUBLIC SERVICES AND RECREATION
3.13-6 Draft Environmental Impact Report – Lathrop General Plan Update Draft EIR was prepared, the City is currently on schedule to formally deploy its own police department in July 2022.
MISCELLANEOUS PUBLIC SAFETY
Multi‐Jurisdictional Local Government Emergency Response The San Joaquin County Office of Emergency Services (OES) is the single coordinating center for major emergency activities. In cooperation with others, OES maintains and oversees the Multi‐ Hazard Functional Plan, which is the Countywide disaster preparedness program. OES also provides training for first responders, businesses, and other governmental agencies.
Community Emergency Response Team
The Community Emergency Response Team (CERT) Program educates people about disaster preparedness for hazards that may impact their area and trains them in basic disaster response skills, such as fire safety, light search and rescue, team organization, and disaster medical operations. Using the training learned in the classroom and during exercises, CERT members can assist others in their neighborhood or workplace following an event when professional responders are not immediately available to help. CERT members also are encouraged to support emergency response agencies by taking a more active role in emergency preparedness projects in their community.
The Lathrop‐Manteca Fire Protection District offers CERT training for those community members interested in this type of community service. The training covers many topics of preparedness including:
Disaster preparedness;
Disaster fire suppression;
Disaster medical operations;
Disaster psychology and team organization; and
Disaster simulation.
PARKS AND RECREATIONAL FACILITIES
The City of Lathrop Parks and Recreation Department manages 108 acres of parks and open space throughout the City of Lathrop. Local parks offer amenities such as a community center with a gymnasium, open space, athletic fields, playgrounds, and picnic areas. The Parks and Recreation Department manages programs that are multi‐generation in nature such as community events, sports camps, adult and youth sports programs, youth before and after school programs, art programs, and senior programs.
PUBLIC SERVICES AND RECREATION 3.13
Draft Environmental Impact Report – Lathrop General Plan Update 3.13-7 Types of Parks
COMMUNITY PARKS
Community parks are typically up to 20 acres in size, and include areas for active sports as well as space for family and group activities. Community parks are larger than neighborhood parks and provide services to fulfill the active and passive recreational needs of multiple neighborhoods.
Community parks serve the needs of a local neighborhood by providing a close to home site for more active recreation that is not typically suitable or physically possible in a neighborhood park such as formal sports fields or lighted courts.
The City of Lathrop has three community parks totaling 35.5 acres. The facilities included in these parks are fields and courts for various sports, a community center building for arts and crafts, clubs, and social activities. Some of the community center buildings are joint‐use facilities with the school district.
NEIGHBORHOOD PARKS
Neighborhood parks are typically a minimum of four acres in size, and serve as the focal point of the community providing the hub for both physical and social activities. Neighborhood parks should be designed to be flexible to serve a variety of seasonal recreation needs. These parks act as critical building blocks of the City’s image and assist in developing an overall sense of community and security. They also serve as essential access points for the City‐wide green space network.
Currently, Lathrop has ten neighborhood parks accounting for 42.6 acres.
MINI PARKS
Mini‐parks are generally less than 2 acres in size and provide residents with a social and recreational gathering place, similar to a neighborhood park, but on a smaller scale. Mini‐parks should provide small‐scale recreational and aesthetic benefits primarily in denser residential areas or commercial areas with high pedestrian use. Each resident should be within walking distance (1/2 mile) of a neighborhood or mini park.
Currently, Lathrop has eight mini parks totaling 7.6 acres.
OPEN SPACE CORRIDORS
The Open Space Corridor can take several forms, including the pedestrian parkway separate from auto traffic, a combined vehicle and pedestrian parkway, a buffer zone between residential and commercial or industrial areas, or as a lineal park or paseo connecting with other components of the Parks and Recreation system or located separate from other areas such as along reaches of the San Joaquin River or other waterways.
River Park North and South have been included in this classification, putting Lathrop at (2) two linear parks, accounting for 10.7 acres.
3.13 PUBLIC SERVICES AND RECREATION
3.13-8 Draft Environmental Impact Report – Lathrop General Plan Update City Parks
The City currently manages 25 distinct parks and four public facilities. Table 3.13‐1 summarizes the City’s park facilities. Additional parks within the City of Lathrop will become available in the City of Lathrop as development continues within the River Islands development area.
TABLE 3.13‐1: SUMMARY OF PARKS AND RECREATION FACILITIES
PARK/FACILITYNAME FACILITYTYPE ACREAGE
Apolinar Sangalang Park Neighborhood Park 9.7
Armstrong Park Mini Park 0.4
Basin Park Neighborhood Park 4.4
Crescent Park Mini Park 1.4
Crystal Cove Park Neighborhood Park 3.3
Generations Center Community Park 6.0
Lathrop Skate Park Mini Park 0.3
Leland & Jane Stanford Park Neighborhood Park 4.1
Libby Park Mini Park 1.2
Michael Vega Park Neighborhood Park 2.9
Milestone Manor Park Mini Park 1.00
Mossdale Commons Mini Park 1.45
Mossdale Landing Community
Park
Community Park 20.4
Park West Neighborhood Park 6.8
Reflections Park Neighborhood Park 5.2
River Park North Open Space Corridor 3.2
River Park South Open Space Corridor 7.4
Somerston Park Neighborhood Park 2.0
Summer House Park Neighborhood Park 2.0
The Green Mini Park 1.0
Thomsen Park Mini Park 0.8
Tidewater Park Neighborhood Park 2.1
Valverde Park Community Park 9.1
William S. Moss Park Neighborhood Park 4.1
Woodfield Park Neighborhood Park 5.5
SOURCE: CITY OF LATHROP PARKS AND RECREATION Master Plan. 2020.
PUBLIC SERVICES AND RECREATION 3.13
Draft Environmental Impact Report – Lathrop General Plan Update 3.13-9
PARK STANDARDS
Lathrop has established the following standards for acres of parkland:
5 acres per 1000 residents including:
2 acres of neighborhood park for every 1000 new residents 3 acres a community park for every 1000 new residents As described in the Lathrop Parks Master Plan (2020) Lathrop has 107.8 acres of parks identified in the parks inventory and notes that to continue to meet the adopted standard of 5 acres per 1000 residents (2 acres of neighborhood park space and 3 acres of community park space), Lathrop is short approximately 0.1 acre of park for the current (2020) population.
On a regional scale, the City is located in the Sacramento‐San Joaquin Delta (Delta), which contains several recreational areas and facilities, primarily for water‐based recreation. Regional County parks near the City include the 9.85‐acre Dos Reis Regional Park and the 3.7‐acre Mossdale Crossing Regional Park, both located along the San Joaquin River. Mossdale Crossing Park is located on the west side of Interstate 5. Each of these parks includes boat launch ramps, picnic/barbeque areas, and children’s play areas. Dos Reis Regional Park also has camping facilities.
Also in the vicinity is the Haven Acres Marina, a private marina located on the San Joaquin River north of Dos Reis Regional Park. This facility provides river access to the San Joaquin River and includes parking areas, a boat ramp, and 10 boat berths.
SCHOOLS
Schools within the City of Lathrop are part of the Manteca Unified School District (MUSD). 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). River Islands has two charter elementary schools, located within the Banta Unified School District (River Islands Technology Academy and the S.T.E.A.M. Academy).
Table 3.13‐2 lists MUSD schools in in Lathrop grades serves location and recent enrollment for each school.
3.13 PUBLIC SERVICES AND RECREATION
3.13-10 Draft Environmental Impact Report – Lathrop General Plan Update TABLE 3.13‐2: PUBLIC SCHOOLS SERVING LATHROP
SCHOOL
GRADES
SERVED
ADDRESS
ENROLLMENT
2019‐20
SCHOOL YEAR
ELEMENTARY AND MIDDLE SCHOOLS
Lathrop Elementary School K‐8 15851 5th Street 895
Joseph Widmer Elementary School K‐8 751 Stonebridge Lane 792 Mossdale Elementary School K‐8 455 Brookhurst Boulevard 1,040 River Islands Technology Academy K‐8 1175 Marina Drive 1,021 Next Generation S.T.E.A.M. Academy K‐8 18001 Commercial Street 637 Total 4,385
HIGH SCHOOLS
Lathrop High School 9‐12 647 Spartan Way 1,337
Total 1,337
SOURCE: CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION EDUCATIONAL DEMOGRAPHICS UNIT ENROLLMENT FOR 2019‐20 As shown in Table 3.13‐2, the schools in the City had a total enrollment of approximately 5,722 students, of which 4,385 were enrolled in elementary and middle school (grades K – 8) and 1,330 were enrolled in high school (grades 9 – 12).
District‐wide MUSD Schools has a total enrollment of 23,834 students for the 2019‐2020 school year. Table 3.13‐3 provides a summary of the public school enrollment by grade within MUSD.
TABLE 3.13‐3: ENROLLMENT BY GRADE MUSD (2019‐2020)
MANTECA
UNIFIED
GRADE LEVEL
K 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
TOTAL
2019‐
2020
Total 1,931 1,645 1,692 1,740 1,740 1,716 1,811 1,883 2,002 2,002 1,859 1,907 1,931 23,834 SOURCE: CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION EDUCATIONAL DEMOGRAPHICS UNIT ENROLLMENT FOR 2019‐2020
OTHER PUBLIC FACILITIES
Library Services
The Lathrop Branch Library is located at 459 Spartan Way. The Lathrop Branch Library offers computer workstations for Internet and word processing use, a ready reference collection, and a circulating collection of popular materials in English and Spanish. Items include books, magazines, audiobooks, large print books, DVDs, and music CDs. The Manteca Bulletin is available for reading in the branch. Customers are able to receive hold requests, check out and return items, and to return materials from other library locations at this branch. The Lathrop Branch Library is open Monday through Thursday, from 1:00 to 6:00 PM, and Friday and Saturday from noon to 5:00 PM.
PUBLIC SERVICES AND RECREATION 3.13
Draft Environmental Impact Report – Lathrop General Plan Update 3.13-11 Lathrop Senior Center
The Lathrop Senior Center located at 15707 Fifth Street provides lunches, classes, and various trip sand activities. There are no membership fees to participate at the center’ however, some classes and activities have nominal fees. The facility is open Monday through Friday, 9:00 AM through 4:00 PM. In addition, each month, the Senior Advisory Committee meets at the Lathrop Senior Center, which is designed by the City of Lathrop to coordinate recreational, education, and social service opportunities for those aged fifty and above.
Lathrop Hospital and Medical Facilites
Lathrop is mostly served by hospital and medical facilities from neighboring communities in French Camp and Manteca. Health care facilities within Manteca encompass Doctor’s Hospital of Manteca, Kaiser Permanente Manteca Medical Center, residential care facilities, as well as private physicians and other medical practitioners. The primary medical facility in French Camp is San Joaquin General Hospital. Lathrop does have an urgent care clinic located within city limits.
Doctor’s Hospital of Manteca, provides acute care service for Manteca and the surrounding community. The hospital is located at 1205 east North Street in the City of Manteca. Doctor’s Hospital of Manteca offers Comprehensive diagnostic and surgical services, Intensive care unit, Breast healthcare, including mammography, behavioral health care, a 67‐bed adult inpatient psychiatric treatment center, expanded imaging services, hip and knee surgery, back pain treatment and surgery, bariatric (weight‐loss) surgery. Kaiser Permanente Manteca Medical Center also provides acute care service for Manteca and the surrounding community. The hospital is located at 1777 West Yosemite Avenue. Residents typically travel to other facilities, for certain specialized services including severe trauma and psychiatric care.
San Joaquin General Hospital is a general acute care facility located at 500 W. Hospital Rd in the unincorporated community of French Camp. The hospital contains 196‐beds and provides a range of services including general medical and surgical care, high‐risk obstetrics, neonatal intensive care, and pediatrics and intensive care. The associated medical campus includes primary care and specialty outpatient clinics.
The San Joaquin County Public Health Services provides maternal and child health care programming, California Children's Services, child health and disability programs, vaccinations and general public health nursing to the community. Alcohol & drug programs are also organized under the County Health Services and provide residential treatment, out‐patient counseling, perinatal programs and community education and information.
3.13 PUBLIC SERVICES AND RECREATION
3.13-12 Draft Environmental Impact Report – Lathrop General Plan Update
3.13.2 REGULATORY SETTING
FEDERAL
There are no Federal regulations applicable to the environmental topics of public services and recreation.
STATE AND LOCAL
Fire Protection and Emergency Response
CALIFORNIA OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH ADMINISTRATION In accordance with California Code of Regulations Title 8 Sections 1270 "Fire Prevention" and 6773 "Fire Protection and Fire Equipment" the California Occupational Safety and Health Administration (Cal/OSHA) has established minimum standards for fire suppression and emergency medical services. The standards include, but are not limited to, guidelines on the handling of highly combustible materials, fire hose sizing requirements, restrictions on the use of compressed air, access roads, and the testing, maintenance, and use of all fire fighting and emergency medical equipment.
EMERGENCY RESPONSE/EVACUATION PLANS
The State passed legislation authorizing the Office of Emergency Services (OES) to prepare a Standard Emergency Management System (SEMS) program, which sets forth measures by which a jurisdiction should handle emergency disasters. Non‐compliance with SEMS could result in the State withholding disaster relief from the non‐complying jurisdiction in the event of an emergency disaster.
FIRE PROTECTION
The California Fire Code contains regulations relating to construction and maintenance of buildings and the use of premises. Topics addressed in the Code include fire department access, fire hydrants, automatic sprinkler systems, fire alarm systems, fire and explosion hazards safety, hazardous materials storage and use, provisions to protect and assist first responders, industrial processes, and many other general and specialized fire safety requirements for new existing buildings and premises.
CALIFORNIA FIRE CODE
The 2019 California Fire Code contains regulations relating to construction, maintenance, and use of buildings. Topics addressed in the California Fire Code include fire department access, fire hydrants, automatic sprinkler systems, fire alarm systems, fire and explosion hazards safety, hazardous materials storage and use, provisions intended to protect and assist fire responders, industrial processes, and many other general and specialized fire‐safety requirements for new and existing buildings and the surrounding premises. The Fire Code contains specialized technical regulations related to fire and life safety.
PUBLIC SERVICES AND RECREATION 3.13
Draft Environmental Impact Report – Lathrop General Plan Update 3.13-13
CALIFORNIA HEALTH AND SAFETY CODE
State fire regulations are set forth in Sections 13000 et seq. of the California Health and Safety Code. This includes regulations for building standards (as also set forth in the California Building Code), fire protection and notification systems, fire protection devices such as extinguishers and smoke alarms, high‐rise building and childcare facility standards, and fire suppression training.
NFPA 1710
The National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) 1710 Standards are applicable to urban areas and where staffing is comprised of career Firefighters. According to these guidelines, a career fire department needs to respond within six minutes, 90 percent of the time with a response time measured from the 911 call to the time of arrival of the first responder.
The standards are divided as follows:
Dispatch time of one minute or less for at least 90 percent of the alarms; Turnout time of one minute or less for EMS calls (80 seconds for fire and special operations response);
Fire response travel time of four minutes or less for the arrival of the first arriving engine company at a fire incident and eight minutes or less travel time for the deployment of an initial full alarm assignment at a fire incident;
Eight minutes or less travel time for the arrival of an advanced life support (ALS) (4 minutes or less if provided by the fire department.
CITY OF LATHROP MUNICIPAL CODE
The City of Lathrop Municipal Code has ordinances related to fire protection include Chapter 3.20 (Impact Fee Ordinance), which requires development impact fees to be charged to fund improvements to the City’s infrastructure. Chapter 1.12 (Administrative Enforcement Procedures) describes the authority of the LMFD fire marshal in determining imminent health and safety hazards, and the powers associated with such a determination. Chapter 16.28 (Improvements) describes the requirements of a subdivider to provide and connect water mains and fire hydrants to the City’s water system, with approval of the number and location of fire hydrants to be determined by the Fire Chief.
Parks and Recreation
QUIMBY ACT
The Quimby Act (California Government Code Section 66477) states that “the legislative body of a city or county may, by ordinance, require the dedication of land or impose a requirement of the payment of fees in lieu thereof, or a combination of both, for park or recreational purposes as a condition to the approval of a tentative or parcel map.” Requirements of the Quimby Act apply only to the acquisition of new parkland and do not apply to the physical development of new park facilities or associated operations and maintenance costs. The Quimby Act seeks to preserve open space needed to develop parkland and recreational facilities; however, the actual development of parks and other recreational facilities is subject to discretionary approval and is evaluated on a
3.13 PUBLIC SERVICES AND RECREATION
3.13-14 Draft Environmental Impact Report – Lathrop General Plan Update case‐by‐case basis with new residential development. The City has adopted park fees as allowed by the Quimby Act, as described in greater detail below.
LATHROP MUNICIPAL CODE
The Lathrop Municipal Code contains ordinances regulating park fees within the City of Lathrop.
Chapter 3.20 provides for the City’s Impact Fee Ordinance, which requires development impact fees to be charged to fund improvements to the City’s infrastructure. Chapter 12.20 allows the city council to authorize the adoption of fees for recreation programs and for the use of park facilities for non‐city functions, and provides other provisions related to parks within the City of Lathrop.
LATHROP PARKS AND RECREATION MASTER PLAN
The City of Lathrop adopted a Parks and Recreation Master Plan in 2020. The Master Plan evaluates the parks and recreation needs of the community and develop strategies, policies, and actions that reflect those needs to create better places to recreate within Lathrop. This document provides the City’s Parks and Recreation Department with precise direction and be a realistic guide over the Planning Period.
Schools
CALIFORNIA CODE OF REGULATIONS
The California Code of Regulations, Chapter 4.9, Payment of Fees, Charges, Dedications, or Other Requirements Against a Development Project. Section 65995‐65998 (h) The payment or satisfaction of a fee, charge, or other requirement levied or imposed pursuant to Section 17620 of the Education Code in the amount specified in Section 65995 and, if applicable, any amounts specified in Section 65995.5 or 65995.7 are hereby deemed to be full and complete mitigation of the impacts of any legislative or adjudicative act, or both, involving, but not limited to, the planning, use, or development of real property, or any change in governmental organization or reorganization as defined in Section 56021 or 56073, on the provision of adequate school facilities.
CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
The California Department of Education (CDE) School Facilities Planning Division (SFPD) prepared a School Site Selection and Approval Guide that provides criteria for locating appropriate school sites in the State of California. School site and size recommendations were changed by the CDE in 2000 to reflect various changes in educational conditions, such as lowering of class sizes and use of advanced technology. The expanded use of school buildings and grounds for community and agency joint use and concern for the safety of the students and staff members also influenced the modification of the CDE recommendations.
Specific recommendations for school size are provided in the School Site Analysis and Development Guide. This document suggests a ratio of 1:2 between buildings and land. CDE is aware that in a number of cases, primarily in urban settings, smaller sites cannot accommodate this ratio. In such cases, the SFPD may approve an amount of acreage less than the recommended gross site size and building‐to‐ground ratio.
PUBLIC SERVICES AND RECREATION 3.13
Draft Environmental Impact Report – Lathrop General Plan Update 3.13-15 Certain health and safety requirements for school site selection are governed by state regulations and the policies of the SFPD relating to:
Proximity to airports, high‐voltage power transmission lines, railroads, and major roadways;
Presence of toxic and hazardous substances;
Hazardous facilities and hazardous air emissions within one‐quarter mile; Proximity to high‐pressure natural gas lines, propane storage facilities, gasoline lines, pressurized sewer lines, or high‐pressure water pipelines; Noise;
Results of geological studies or soil analyses; and
Traffic and school bus safety issues.
THE KINDERGARTEN-UNIVERSITY PUBLIC EDUCATION FACILITIES BOND ACT OF 2002 (PROP 47) This act was approved by California voters in November 2002 and provides for a bond issue of $13.05 billion to fund necessary education facilities to relieve overcrowding and to repair older schools. Funds will be targeted at areas of greatest need and must be spent according to strict accountability measures. Funds will also be used to upgrade and build new classrooms in the California Community Colleges, the California State University, and the University of California in order to provide adequate higher education facilities to accommodate growing student enrollment.
LEROY F. GREENE SCHOOL FACILITIES ACT OF 1998 (SB 50)
The “Leroy F. Greene School Facilities Act of 1998,” also known as Senate Bill 50 or SB 50 (Chapter 407, Statutes of 1998), governs a school district’s authority to levy school impact fees. This comprehensive legislation, together with the $9.2 billion education bond act approved by the voters in November 1998 known as “Proposition 1A”, reformed methods of school construction financing in California. SB 50 instituted a new school facility program by which school districts can apply for state construction and modernization funds. It imposed limitations on the power of cities and counties to require mitigation of school facilities impacts as a condition of approving new development and provided the authority for school districts to levy fees at three different levels:
Level I fees are the current statutory fees allowed under Education Code 17620. This code section provides the basic authority for school districts to levy a fee against residential and commercial construction for the purpose of funding school construction or reconstruction of facilities. These fees vary by district for residential construction and commercial construction and are increased biannually.
Level II fees are outlined in Government Code Section 65995.5, allowing school districts to impose a higher fee on residential construction if certain conditions are met. These conditions include having a substantial percentage of students on multi‐track year‐round scheduling, having an assumed debt equal to 15–30 percent of the district’s bonding capacity (percentage is based on revenue sources for repayment), having at least 20
3.13 PUBLIC SERVICES AND RECREATION
3.13-16 Draft Environmental Impact Report – Lathrop General Plan Update percent of the district’s teaching stations housed in relocatable classrooms, and having placed a local bond on the ballot in the past four years which received at least 50 percent plus one of the votes cast. A Facility Needs Assessment must demonstrate the need for new school facilities for unhoused pupils is attributable to projected enrollment growth from the construction of new residential units over the next five years. Level III fees are outlined in Government Code Section 655995.7. If State funding becomes unavailable, this code section authorizes a school district that has been approved to collect Level II fees to collect a higher fee on residential construction. This fee is equal to twice the amount of Level II fees. However, if a district eventually receives State funding, this excess fee may be reimbursed to the developers or subtracted from the amount of state funding.
3.13.3 IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
THRESHOLDS OF SIGNIFICANCE
Consistent with Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, the proposed Project will have a significant impact on public services and recreation if it would result in:
Substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services:
o Fire Protection;
o Police Protection;
o Schools;
o Parks; and
o Other public facilities.
An increase in the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated; or
If it includes recreational facilities or requires the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment.
PUBLIC SERVICES AND RECREATION 3.13
Draft Environmental Impact Report – Lathrop General Plan Update 3.13-17
IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
Impact 3.13‐1: General Plan implementation could result in adverse physical impacts on the environment associated with the need for new governmental facilities or the need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts (Less than Significant)
Development accommodated under the General Plan would result in additional residents and businesses in the City, including new residential, industrial, office, and commercial uses. As described in Chapter 2.0, the General Plan is expected to accommodate up to 17,379 new residential dwelling units and up to 30,630,722 square feet of non‐residential building space within the city at full buildout.
This new growth would increase the City’s population by approximately 66,562 residents and would include approximately 49,250 new jobs. The full development of the new non‐residential uses shown in Chapter 2.0 (Project Description), Table 2.0‐2.
Development and growth facilitated by the General Plan would result in increased demand for public services, including fire protection, law enforcement, schools, parks, libraries, and other public and governmental services. The General Plan includes policies and actions to ensure that public services are provided at acceptable levels and that the City will maintain and implement public facility master plans, in collaboration with appropriate outside service providers and other agencies, to ensure compliance with appropriate regional, state, and federal laws and to provide efficient public facilities and services to Lathrop.
As the demand for services increases, there will likely be a need for new or expanded service structures (e.g., office, maintenance, and administrative buildings and facilities, schools, parks, fire facilities, libraries, etc.) to provide for adequate staffing, equipment, and appropriate facilities to serve growth in the city.
Existing facilities may be expanded at their current location. New facilities may also be constructed. The Public/Quasi‐Public, Park, and Open Space land use designations would accommodate the majority of new public facilities necessary to provide community services. There would likely be environmental impacts associated with the construction or expansion of the facilities needed to provide public services.
The General Plan does not propose or approve actual development projects, or the physical expansion of public facilities. As future development and infrastructure projects (including new governmental facilities) are considered by the City, each project will be evaluated for conformance with the General Plan, Municipal Code, and other applicable regulations. Such development and infrastructure projects would also be analyzed for potential environmental impacts, consistent with the requirements of CEQA. Any future expansion of public facilities required by growth in the City would be required to be reviewed for site‐specific impacts.
3.13 PUBLIC SERVICES AND RECREATION
3.13-18 Draft Environmental Impact Report – Lathrop General Plan Update It is also important to understand that special legal principles apply to impacts to school facilities.
According to Government Code Section 65996, the development fees authorized by Senate Bill 50 (1998) (described earlier) are deemed to be “full and complete school facilities mitigation” for impact caused by new development. The legislation also recognized the need for the fee to be adjusted periodically to keep pace with inflation. The legislation indicated that in January 2000, and every two years thereafter, the State Allocation Board would increase the maximum fees according to the adjustment for inflation in the statewide index for school construction.
As previously stated, new or expanded facilities will be needed to serve growth contemplated in the General Plan. The environmental effect of providing the public services is associated with the physical impacts of providing new and expanded facilities. The specific impacts of providing new and expanded facilities cannot be determined at this time, as the General Plan does not propose or authorize development nor does it designate specific projects for new or expanded public facilities. However, new and expanded facilities would be primarily provided on sites with land use designations that allow such uses and the environmental impacts of constructing and operating the governmental facilities would likely be similar to those associated with new development, redevelopment, and infrastructure projects under the General Plan. These impacts are described in the relevant chapters (Chapters 3.1 through 3.12, 3.14 through 3.16 and 4.0) of this Draft EIR. As discussed in Chapters 3.1 through 3.12 and 3.14 through 3.16 and 4.0, the proposed General Plan includes policies and actions that are specifically designed to reduce or avoid environmental impacts of construction and development, which includes public facilities. There are no additional significant impacts related to construction of governmental and public facilities, consistent with the General Plan land use designation and Land Use Map, beyond the impacts that are analyzed throughout this EIR. Any future development, including new and expanded governmental facilities, under the General Plan would be subject to project‐level review, would be required to comply with regulations, policies, and standards included in the General Plan, and would be reviewed for compliance with CEQA, including analysis of project‐level impacts and mitigation measures as appropriate.
Potential environmental impacts associated with the future construction of government facilities within the Plan Area are addressed throughout this EIR. This EIR analyzes the physical environmental effects that may occur as a result of development and introduction of new urban land uses within the Plan Area. Each future facility, if constructed, would fall within the range of environmental impacts disclosed in this EIR, and would be subject to relevant policies and actions included in this EIR. It is noted, however, that development of facilities within the Planning Area may also contribute to impacts described throughout this DEIR.
The General Plan includes a range of policies and actions (listed below) to ensure that public services are provided in a timely fashion, are adequately funded, are coordinated between the City and appropriate service agency, and that new development funds its fair share of services. No new facilities are proposed at this time and any new facilities would be subject to site specific environmental reviews as required by CEQA and would be subject to all local and State requirements. Therefore, impacts related to the provisions and need for public facilities are less than significant.
PUBLIC SERVICES AND RECREATION 3.13
Draft Environmental Impact Report – Lathrop General Plan Update 3.13-19
GENERAL PLAN POLICIES AND ACTIONS THAT MINIMIZE POTENTIAL IMPACTS
PUBLIC FACILITIES AND SERVICES ELEMENT POLICIES
PFS‐1.1 Service Enhancements. Encourage the implementation of new techniques and technologies to provide the best available level of community services in a cost‐effective manner.
PFS‐1.2 Evaluation of City Services and Programs. Evaluate existing city services and programs and compare the efficiency and net results of providing the programs and services.
PFS‐1.3 Public Facility Plans. Maintain and implement public facility master plans, in collaboration with appropriate outside service providers and other agencies, to ensure compliance with appropriate regional, state, and federal laws and to provide efficient public facilities and services to the city.
PFS‐1.4 Revenue Sources. Identify and proactively pursue local, stable, and predictable sources of revenue to meet public facility, service, and infrastructure needs.
PFS‐1.6 Capital Improvements. Maintain and fund the capital improvement program to ensure the adequate and efficient provision of public facility and municipal improvements.
PFS‐1.7 Comprehensive Approach. Encourage the comprehensive, rather than piecemeal, development of public facilities and services.
PFS‐1.8 Cost Recovery. Recover the direct upfront costs and indirect long‐term costs of providing services and facilities to new development through a combination of fees, exactions, and other methods based on an evaluation of long‐term economic benefits and in a manner consistent with the City’s cost recovery goals.
PFS‐1.9 Economic Development and Residential Growth Focus. Plan and develop public services and facilities to support economic development and residential growth.
PFS‐1.12 Infrastructure Rehabilitation. Prioritize the regular maintenance and rehabilitation of public facilities and critical infrastructure in Lathrop.
PFS‐1.13 Demonstrate Capacity. Require new development to demonstrate that the City’s public services and facilities can accommodate the increased demand for said services and facilities associated with the project as part of the entitlement process.
PFS‐1.14 Mitigate Impacts. Require new development to offset or mitigate impacts to community services and facilities to ensure that service levels for existing users are not degraded or impaired by new development, to the satisfaction of the City.
PFS‐7.1 Fire and Police Facilities. Encourage the Lathrop Manteca Fire Protection District (LMFD) to maintain adequate staff and equipment to provide efficient, high quality, and responsive fire protection, and emergency medical services to existing and future growth in the city.
PFS‐7.2 Emergency Response Times. Work cooperatively with the LMFD and providers of emergency medical services to ensure acceptable response times in accordance with provider standards.
3.13 PUBLIC SERVICES AND RECREATION
3.13-20 Draft Environmental Impact Report – Lathrop General Plan Update PFS‐7.3 Enhanced Service. Periodically review and, if necessary, amend the criteria for determining the circumstances under which fire, police, and emergency services will be enhanced.
PFS‐7.4 Roadway Design and Maintenance. Design and maintain roadways to maintain acceptable emergency vehicle response times.
PFS‐7.5 Department Consultation. Coordinate with LMFD and the Lathrop Police Department in the review of new development applications to ensure that adequate attention is being paid to fire and safety concerns during the design and planning of a project.
PFS‐7.6 Crime Prevention. Promote and support community‐based crime prevention programs, such as community policing, public education, youth crime prevention, and outreach programs, as an important tool to the provision of professional police services.
PFS‐7.7 Community Awareness. Support the LMFD and the Lathrop Police Department in promoting community awareness regarding crime through public service organizations, and the establishment of citizen involved programs and patrols.
PFS‐7.8 Site Design. Recognize the role of site design in crime prevention and implement best practices into existing plans and new development strategies.
PFS‐7.9 Technology. Encourage and support efforts to improve police, fire, and emergency medical services through improved use of modern technology and industry best practices.
PFS‐8.2 Adequate Facilities. Continue to engage Manteca Unified School District (MUSD) and the Banta Unified School District (BUSD) in the planning process for land use changes so that they can provide adequate educational opportunities for all students in a timely manner in accordance with the pace of residential development.
PFS‐8.3 School Siting. Continue to work with the local school districts to ensure that adequate sites are designated and facilities are planned to accommodate new residential development, with a focus on providing neighborhood schools that address the following:
A. School locations are encouraged to be located near complimentary uses to contribute to the neighborhood character and provide opportunities for joint‐use, including capacity to accommodate a broad range of programs and services and augment neighborhood parks and recreation facilities.
B. School districts are encouraged to comply with City standards in the site design and landscaping of school facilities.
PFS‐8.4 Joint‐Use of Facilities. Encourage the MUSD and BUSD to consider the joint‐use of its facilities to support the provision of civic, cultural, and recreational uses in a cost‐effective manner.
PFS‐8.5 Financing and Proportionate Share. Encourage the local school districts to properly collect required development fees so that new development funds its proportionate share of the Districts’ costs for new school facilities.
PUBLIC SERVICES AND RECREATION 3.13
Draft Environmental Impact Report – Lathrop General Plan Update 3.13-21
PUBLIC SAFETY ELEMENT POLICIES
PS‐2.2 Fire Protection Services. Coordinate with the Lathrop Manteca Fire Protection District (LMFD) in the provision of fire protection services to serve the city’s current and future population and development.
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‐2.10 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 ACTIONS
PFS‐1a Regularly coordinate with outside service providers and other agencies regarding their public facility plans and provide local input on goals, objectives, and projects.
PFS‐1b Maintain records regarding the quality and status of public facilities and critical infrastructure and use this information to inform the capital improvement planning process.
PFS‐1c After conducting a comprehensive needs assessment, establish priorities and funding mechanisms for projects and improvements to public and community facilities and buildings. The priority setting process should include a public outreach and participation component, and should assess needs and opportunities associated with community buildings and specific needs identified by the public and the City Council.
PFS‐1d Periodically review the fee schedules for water and sewer connections, city facilities and major equipment, and development impact fees and revise fees as necessary to maintain acceptable service levels.
PFS‐1e Require new development to pay its fair share of the cost of on and offsite community services and facilities that are necessary to serve the new development project.
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.
PFS‐7c The Lathrop Police Department will review proposed development projects to evaluate the incorporation of crime prevention through environmental design (CPTED) principles. The Department should establish review standards to ensure consistent project review.
PFS‐8a Continue to refer projects to the MUSD and the BUSD during the development review process to obtain the school districts’ input on future school site facilities identified in their School Facilities Master Plan, that may be necessary to meet the project’s demand.
PFS‐8c Pursue joint‐use agreements with schools, social service agencies, cultural institutions, and other community organizations to extend library and other public services to populations that may otherwise not be served.
3.13 PUBLIC SERVICES AND RECREATION
3.13-22 Draft Environmental Impact Report – Lathrop General Plan Update
PUBLIC SAFETY ELEMENT ACTIONS
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.
PS‐2e Participate in Mutual Aid Agreements with Manteca, other agencies within San Joaquin County, and the State of California, as required by the LMFD.
Impact 3.13‐2: General Plan implementation may result in adverse physical impacts associated with the deterioration of existing parks and recreation facilities or the construction of new parks and recreation facilities (Less than Significant)
Growth accommodated under the General Plan would include a range of uses that would increase the population of the City and also attract additional workers and tourists to the City. Such growth would result in increased demand for parks and recreation facilities. It is anticipated that over the life of the General Plan, use of parks, trails, and recreation facilities would increase, due to new residents and businesses. The additional demand on existing parks and recreational facilities would increase the need for maintenance and improvements. These improvements could have environmental impacts, although the exact impacts cannot be determined since the potential improvements are unknown.
The provision of new parks and recreation facilities would reduce the potential for adverse impacts and physical deterioration of existing parks and recreation facilities, by providing additional facilities to accommodate the demand for parks and recreation facilities. These new facilities would be provided at a pace and in locations appropriate to serve new development, as required to maintain the City adopted standard for park space acreage at 5.0 acres for every 1,000 residents (as required by General Plan Policy RR‐1.3). Development under the General Plan would indirectly lead to the construction of new parks and recreation facilities to serve new growth and to meet existing parks and recreation needs. The General Plan supports the creation of new parks and recreation facilities, including new parks and trails, to accommodate a wide range of activities for all age groups. These new parks and recreation facilities would be spread throughout areas proximate to new development in and around existing neighborhoods. Neighborhood and community parks and trails would generally be accommodated in the Public/Quasi‐Public, Park, and Open Space Land use designations.
Because the entire City of Lathrop is designated as a disadvantaged community under the SB 1000 guidelines, the current distribution of park acreage per 1,000 residents for the entire City of Lathrop is an appropriate indicator of adequate park space and access. The California Statewide Park Program (Public Resources Code §5642) defines underserved communities as having a ratio of less than three acres of parkland per 1,000 residents. This measure identifies areas where PUBLIC SERVICES AND RECREATION 3.13
Draft Environmental Impact Report – Lathrop General Plan Update 3.13-23 surrounding population density may overwhelm limited park space. The city has approximately 105.7 acres of parkland. Therefore, with a 2020 population of approximately 28,701 the current distribution of park acreage per 1,000 residents is 3.68, which is above the Statewide Park Program standard.
The projected additional population (which excludes existing population) as a result of buildout of the General Plan land use map (as detailed in Chapter 2.0) is 66,562. At a ratio of five acres of parkland per 1,000 residents, buildout of the General Plan within the City limits would result in a demand for approximately 332 acres of developed parkland. It should be noted that new development would be required to fund its fair share for required parkland but would not make up for any existing system deficiencies.
Potential environmental impacts associated with the future construction of park facilities within the Planning Area are addressed throughout this EIR. This EIR analyzes the physical environmental effects that may occur as a result of development and introduction of new urban land uses within the Plan Area. Each future park, if constructed, would fall within the range of environmental impacts disclosed in this EIR, and would be subject to relevant mitigation measures included in this EIR.
The General Plan does not specifically propose any development projects, including parks. As a result, site‐specific physical impacts of future park development and construction cannot be determined until future projects are brought forward for review. As future parks and recreation projects are considered by the City, each project will be evaluated for conformance with the General Plan, Municipal Code, and other applicable regulations. Parks and recreation projects would also be analyzed for potential environmental impacts, consistent with the requirements of CEQA.
In addition to ensuring that new and expanded parks and recreation facilities are provided to accommodate new growth, the General Plan includes policies and actions to ensure that parks and recreation facilities are adequately maintained and improved to serve both existing and planned growth.
The General Plan includes a range of policies and actions (listed below) to ensure that parks and recreational facilities are adequately funded, and that new development funds its fair share of services needed to meet General Plan objectives. New development is required to participate in the provision and expansion of public services, recreational amenities, and facilities, and is also required to demonstrate that the City’s public services and facilities can accommodate the increased demand for said services and facilities associated with future projects during the entitlement process.
The General Plan does not propose or approve the construction or expansion of parks or recreational facilities. Any new or expanded parks or recreational facilities that may be constructed in the future would be primarily provided on sites with land use designations that allow such uses and the environmental impacts of constructing and operating the parks and recreational facilities would likely be similar to those associated with new development,
3.13 PUBLIC SERVICES AND RECREATION
3.13-24 Draft Environmental Impact Report – Lathrop General Plan Update redevelopment, and infrastructure projects under the General Plan. These impacts are described in the relevant chapters (Chapters 3.1 through 3.12, 3.14 through 3.16, and 4.0) of this Draft EIR.
As discussed in Chapters 3.1 through 3.12 and 3.14 through 3.16 and 4.0, the proposed General Plan includes policies and actions that are specifically designed to minimize or avoid environmental impacts from construction and development, which includes parks and recreational facilities.
There are no additional impacts related to construction of parks and recreational facilities, consistent with the General Plan land use designation and Land Use Map, beyond the impacts that are analyzed throughout this EIR. Any future development under the General Plan would be required to comply with regulations, policies, and standards included in the General Plan, and would be reviewed for compliance with CEQA, including analysis of project‐level impacts and mitigation measures as appropriate.
Therefore, impacts related to the provisions and need for park and recreational facilities are considered less than significant.
GENERAL PLAN POLICIES AND ACTIONS THAT MINIMIZE POTENTIAL IMPACTS
RECREATION AND RESOURCES ELEMENT POLICIES
RR‐1.3 Acreage Requirements. Maintain the City adopted standard for park space acreage at 5.0 acres for every 1,000 residents, including:
A. 2.0 acres for every 1,000 residents for neighborhood parks; and B. 3.0 acres for every 1,000 residents for community parks.
RR‐1.9 Surplus Public Agency Lands. Utilize the City’s Naylor Act rights and other funding mechanisms to acquire and/or lease surplus school land and other appropriately located surplus public agency lands for open space, parks, and recreation facilities as they become available.
RR‐1.12 Funding. Continue to pursue funding from established sources and explore non‐traditional funding options and innovative partnerships to bolster and support the development, improvement, and maintenance of City parks and recreational amenities.
RECREATION AND RESOURCES ELEMENT ACTIONS
RR‐1a Implement and update as necessary the City of Lathrop Parks and Recreation Master Plan and the River Islands Parks and Recreation Master Plan.
RR‐1b Pursue available resources to fund facilities and parkland maintenance, acquisition, and/or development such as General Fund, private donations, gifts and endowments, special districts, and federal and state grants.
RR‐1f Periodically review and update the park in‐lieu fee ordinance as‐necessary to better reflect current costs and needs to address park demand generated by infill development.
RR‐1g Periodically review and update the fees charged for facility rentals, recreation programs, and other activities to ensure that they are appropriate, equitable, and meet the City’s cost recovery goals.
ñca
©!
©!
©!
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
Station
# 35
Lathrop
Elementary
School
Widmer
Elementary
School
Mossdale
Elementary
School
Manteca
Adult
School
River Islands
Technology
Charter School
Lathrop
High
School
Station #34
Station
# 31
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
Mckinle
y Av
N Airport Wy
Harla
n Rd
S
M
a
nthey
Rd
S
Manthey Rd
Land Park Dr
Golden
Va
lley
Pk
Nestle Wy
W Howard Rd
How
la
n
d
Rd
Barbara Terry Bl
Mckee Bl
Thomsen Rd
Ca
mb
ri
d
g
e
D
r
Walthall Slough
Grant Line Canal
§¨¦5
§¨¦5
UV120
§¨¦205
CITY OF LATHROP GENERAL PLAN
Figure 3.13-1 Public Facilities
Legend
ñ City Hall
©! Fire Station
ca Police Department
Æc Library
Lathrop City BoundaryManteca City BoundaryLathrop Sphere of InfluenceManteca Sphere of InfluencePublic SchoolAssessor Parcel Boundary Í
0½ ¼
Miles
Sources: San Joaquin County;City of Lathrop; GoogleMaps.
Sa
n
Joaquin R.
3.13 PUBLIC SERVICES AND RECREATION
3.13-26 Draft Environmental Impact Report – Lathrop General Plan Update This page left intentionally blank
CIRCULATION 3.14
3.14-1 Draft Environmental Impact Report – Lathrop General Plan Update This chapter describes the potential impacts to the multi‐modal transportation system associated with the proposed General Plan. The impact analysis examines the vehicular, transit, bicycle, and pedestrian components of the City’s transportation system. To provide context for the impact analysis, an overview of the circulation network’s setting, with descriptions of each transportation mode, is presented first.
Following the environmental setting, an overview of the regulatory framework, influencing the transportation system and providing the basis for impact significance thresholds used in the impact analysis, is presented. The chapter concludes with the impact analysis findings and recommended mitigation measures.
With the implementation of Senate Bill (SB) 743, local agencies may no longer rely on vehicular delay or capacity‐based analyses for California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) impact determination. Instead, agencies must analyze transportation impacts utilizing vehicle miles traveled (VMT), a measure of the total distance traveled by vehicles for trips beginning or ending in Lathrop on a typical weekday. VMT impacts are calculated and assessed using an efficiency metric (for example, VMT per household for residential projects or per employee for commercial projects). This is a change from the prior method of analyzing transportation impacts, which measured level of service (LOS) at intersections and roadway segments, using grades from LOS A to LOS F. While SB 743 does not allow LOS to be used to measure transportation impacts under CEQA, it may still be included in goals and policiesin a local agency’s general plan.
Transportation‐related comments were received during the public review period for the Notice of Preparation from the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District, including comments about strategies to reduce VMT. The proposed General Plan Circulation Element policies support these strategies. Comments were also received about truck routes and truck traffic. The proposed General Plan Land Use, Circulation, and Noise elements address these issues. Full comments received are included in Appendix A.
3.14.1 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
This section provides a contextual background to the City’s existing transportation system, representing conditions prior to the onset of the COVID‐19 pandemic, which has had enormous impacts on travel behavior. The General Plan addresses the overall planning and development of the circulation system for residents and visitors in a multi‐modal framework. Transportation system components include the roadway network, public transportation system, bicycle and pedestrian system, and goods movement.
The City of Lathrop is located within California’s Central Valley in the southern portion of San Joaquin County. Interstate 5 (I‐5) connects Lathrop to Stockton and Sacramento to the north and Los Angeles to the south. I‐205 connects Lathrop to Tracy and the Bay Area to the west. State Route (SR) 120 connects Lathrop to Manteca, SR 99, foothill communities, and Yosemite National Park to the east. SR 99 also connects to Modesto and Fresno to the south.
3.14 CIRCULATION
Draft Environmental Impact Report – Lathrop General Plan Update 3.14-2 Data from the 2021 California Department of Finance (DOF) Population and Housing Estimate Report and 2019 American Community Survey (ACS) Five‐Year Estimates were utilized to illustrate journey to work (JTW) statistics for Lathrop. According to the DOF, Lathrop’s population was estimated to be 26,806 people in 2020. The ACS estimates Lathrop had 9,480 employed residents 16 years of age or older. The ACS also reportsthat the majority of workersliving in Lathrop, 75.2 percent, drove to work alone, whereas other modes of transportation accounted for approximately 21 percent of commute trips, with 17.4 percent of workersin carpools, 1.3 percent using public transitsystems, 0.5 percent of commuters walking to work, 0.7 percent bicycling to work, and 3.8 percent of workers working at home. Approximately 92.6 percent of Lathrop’s employed residents commute by automobile (including taxicabs) or motorcycle. It should be noted that these only represent home‐based work trips, which represents approximately 12% of all trips made per household, according to the California Household Travel Survey.
Table 3.14‐1 provides an overview of Lathrop’s JTW mode split data compared to countywide statistics for San Joaquin County and the State of California.
CIRCULATION 3.14
3.14-3 Draft Environmental Impact Report – Lathrop General Plan Update TABLE 3.14‐1: DEMOGRAPHIC AND JOURNEY TO WORK DATA
MEASURE LATHROP SAN JOAQUIN COUNTY CALIFORNIA
Population1 26,806 773,505 39,648,938
Employed persons2 9,480 303,147 18,191,555
MODE SPLIT NUMBER PERCENTAGE NUMBER PERCENTAGE NUMBER PERCENTAGE Drove alone 7,126 75.2% 238,729 78.8% 13,411,041 73.7%
Carpooled 1,652 17.4% 39,088 12.9% 1,841,632 10.1%
Public transit 120 1.3% 5,055 1.7% 923,834 5.1%
Bicycle 67 0.7% 1,228 0.4% 173,081 1.0%
Walked 48 0.5% 4,164 1.4% 476,291 2.6%
Motorcycle 40 0.4% 565 0.2% 58407 0.3%
Other 71 0.7% 1,890 0.6% 233,303 1.3%
Worked from home 356 3.8% 12,428 4.1% 1,073,966 5.9% 1POPULATION DATA FOR 2020 OBTAINED FROM 2021 CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE POPULATION AND HOUSING ESTIMATE REPORT. 2EMPLOYMENT AND MODAL CHOICE DATA OBTAINED FROM 2019 AMERICAN COMMUNITY SURVEY 5‐YEAR ESTIMATES.
SOURCE: FEHR & PEERS, 2021.
Based on 2019 estimates, the ACS also reports characteristics of Lathrop’s employed residents 16 years of age or older. Of these workers, 14.6 percent or 1,384 work within Lathrop, 41.6 percent or 3,944 work within San Joaquin County but outside of Lathrop, and 43.7 percent or 4,143 work in other California counties. The mean travel time to work is 44.1 minutes, and 33.9 percent of residents have a travel time of 60 minutes or longer.
The US Census OnTheMap reported 10,526 jobs within Lathrop in 2019. According to OnTheMap, about 576 of these jobs were staffed by people living within Lathrop (lower than the ACS estimate above), and 9,950 were staffed by people living outside of Lathrop.
Additionally, Lathrop had 6,898 occupied households with an average of 3.88 persons per household as of January 1, 2020, according to the 2021 California DOF Population and Housing Estimate Report.
ROADWAY SYSTEM
This section describes the physical characteristics of Lathrop’s roadway network. Figure 3.14‐1 shows the roadway classification system in Lathrop. Figure 3.14‐2 shows the number of lanes on arterials and collectors.
State Highways
Three highways operated and maintained by Caltrans pass through Lathrop: I‐5, I‐205, and SR 120.
I‐5 is a six‐lane freeway running through the center of the City. I‐5 is a primary route connecting the City of Lathrop with Stockton and Sacramento to the north and Los Angeles to the south. I‐5 has interchanges with I‐205 and SR 120 in the southern portion of the City. I‐5 hasinterchanges at the following City streets:
Roth Road
Lathrop Road
Louise Avenue
3.14 CIRCULATION
Draft Environmental Impact Report – Lathrop General Plan Update 3.14-4 Mossdale Road (northbound access only)
Manthey Road (southbound access only)
I‐205 is a six‐lane freeway that has an interchange with I‐5 at its east terminus in the southern portion of the City. To the west, I‐205 connects to Tracy and the Bay Area.
SR 120 is a four‐lane freeway that has an interchange with I‐5 at its west terminus in the southern portion of the City. It continues through Manteca and has an interchange at Yosemite Avenue, serving eastern sections of Lathrop. A new interchange is planned at McKinley Avenue within the City limits of Manteca.
SR 120 connects with SR 99 about six miles east of I‐5, where it continues as an arterial east of SR 99 and as an expressway east of the Manteca City Limit. To the east, SR 120 connects to Yosemite National Park and the Sierra.
Arterials
Arterial streets are designed to serve through traffic and major local traffic generators such as residential, commercial, industrial, and institutional uses. (Traffic volumes provided for each segment below are based on counts collected by National Data and Surveying Services on April 3‐4 or 17‐18, 2018.) Lathrop’s north‐south arterials are described below:
Manthey Road is a two‐lane road within the City. North of the City, Manthey Road operates as a two‐lane rural highway, passing primarily through agricultural and industrial uses before connecting to Stockton. Manthey Road continues south and terminates at Spartan Way/Lathrop Road, then resumes again just north of Louise Avenue as a dead‐end road serving local access.
Manthey Road resumes once again at Town Centre Drive until it terminates in a rural agricultural area just south of the City Limit. Between Towne Centre Drive and Stewart Road, Manthey Road carries approximately 2,700 vehicles per day.
Harlan Road is a two‐lane road, with a three‐lane section between Slate Street and Shilling Avenue, that begins north of the City at French Camp Road, passes through rural agricultural, residential, and industrial uses before entering the City just north of Roth Road. Harlan Road ends just north of SR 120. South of Lathrop Road, Harlan Road carries approximately 11,400 vehicles per day.
McKinley Avenue is a two‐lane road that begins at Lathrop Road and continues through the City until it ends at Woodward Avenue south of the City Limit. South of Louise Avenue, McKinley Avenue carries approximately 4,800 vehicles per day.
Golden Valley Parkway is a primarily six‐lane road that currently begins at Lathrop Road/Spartan Way and ends at Brookhurst Boulevard. South of River Islands Parkway, Golden Valley Parkway carries approximately 6,500 vehicles per day.
Somerston Parkway is a road that begins as two lanes at Riverfront Drive, becomes four lanes at River Islands Parkway and ends just south of Mariners Drive. North of Mariners Drive, Somerston Parkway carries approximately 1,100 vehicles per day.
CIRCULATION 3.14
3.14-5 Draft Environmental Impact Report – Lathrop General Plan Update Lathrop’s east‐west arterials are described below:
Roth Road is a two‐lane road that begins at Manthey Road and ends at Airport Way east of the City Limit. Between I‐5 and Harlan Road, Roth Road carries approximately 17,200 vehicles per day.
Spartan Way/Lathrop Road begins as a two‐lane road at Barbara Terry Boulevard and becomes a four‐lane road at Crespi Street and ends as Spartan Road at Golden Valley Parkway (GVP). Lathrop Road continues east of GVP as a four‐lane road over the two Union Pacific Railroad overcrossings, and continues into Manteca primarily as a two‐lane road. Between I‐5 and Harlan Road, Lathrop Road carries approximately 24,300 vehicles per day.
River Islands Parkway currently begins at Norbeck as a four‐lane road. From Somerston Parkway to McKee Boulevard, it is two lanes. East of McKee Boulevard, the road widens to six lanes. At I‐ 5, the road becomes Louise Avenue. West of Golden Valley Parkway, River Islands Parkway carries approximately 12,000 vehicles per day.
Louise Avenue is a four‐lane road that begins at I‐5 and continues to the eastern City Limit where it narrows to two lanes and continues into Manteca. Between I‐5 and Harlan Road, Louise Avenue carries approximately 29,700 vehicles per day.
Lakeside Drive currently begins as a four‐lane road at Dell’Osso Drive and becomes two lanes and a collector at Somerston Parkway. It continues until it becomes Stewart Road, which continues to Manthey Road. East of Parkside Drive, Lakeside Drive carries approximately 2,600 vehicles per day.
Yosemite Avenue begins as a four‐lane road at Jefferson Way. It becomes primarily a two‐lane road at SR 120 with a four‐lane section near D’Arcy Parkway. It continuesthrough the eastern City Limit into Manteca astwo lanes. East of McKinley Avenue, Yosemite Avenue carries approximately 10,700 vehicles per day.
Traffic Volumes
Count data was collected for 44 study segments identified as those most critical to Lathrop’s local circulation system and its connectivity to the regional transportation network. Data was collected on April 3‐4 and 17‐18, 2018, while schools were in session. No unusual traffic conditions were observed, and weather conditions were generally dry.
Figure 3.14‐3 shows the existing average daily traffic (ADT) volumes for roadways within the City. ADT represents the total volume passing a point or along a segment of roadway, in both directions, on an average weekday.
Vehicle Miles Traveled
By definition, one vehicle mile traveled (VMT) occurs when one vehicle (regardless of number of occupants) is driven on a roadway for one mile. For the purposes of this EIR, VMT is estimated and projected for a typical weekday when schools are in session. VMT values in this analysis represent the full length of a given trip and are not truncated at jurisdiction boundaries. Additionally, these VMT values are
3.14 CIRCULATION
Draft Environmental Impact Report – Lathrop General Plan Update 3.14-6 for trips beginning or ending in the City (i.e., are associated with Lathrop land uses). Trips passing through the City without stopping are not included in these VMT estimates, as the City has little or no control over such trips.
VMT is used to measure performance of the existing transportation network and to evaluate potential transportation impacts. Although the absolute amount of VMT is typically reported, impact analysis is typically based on VMT expressed as an efficiency metric. VMT efficiency metrics, such as VMT per resident, VMT per employee, or VMT per dwelling unit, allow the VMT performance of different‐sized projects to be compared. Such metrics provide a measure of travel efficiency and help depict whether people are traveling by vehicle more or less over time, across different areas, or across different planning scenarios. A per‐dwelling‐unit or per‐employee decline in VMT compared to a baseline condition indicates that the transportation network is operating more efficiently.
The City of Lathrop Travel Demand Model, a trip‐based model, was used to estimate VMT in the General Plan planning area. Table 3.14‐2 shows the major land uses in the model for the 2020 baseline, which reflects modeling to incorporate development into 2020.
TABLE 3.14‐2: EXISTING CONDITIONS MODEL MAJOR LAND USE
LAND USE UNITS 2020 BASELINE
Single family Dwelling Units 6,201
Multi family Dwelling Units 217
Age restricted Dwelling Units 249
Restaurant Employees 344
Industrial Employees 6,384
Office Employees 1,023
Retail Employees 659
SOURCE: FEHR & PEERS, 2021
It is noted that inherent potential limitations exist when using a future year travel demand model as changes in travel behavior and transportation systems are expected to occur in response to emerging trends, new technologies, and evolving user preferences. Some of these new travel options and technologies are discussed below. Additionally, information about how technology is affecting travel is accumulating over time. Some of these emergent changes that could influence future travel forecasts include:
Substitution of internet shopping and home delivery for some shopping or meal‐related travel. Substitution of telework for commute travel.
New travel modes and choices. Transportation networking companies (TNCs), such as Uber and Lyft), have increased the travel options available to travelers and have contributed to changes in traditional travel demand relationships. Additional options such as car share, bike share, scooter share, and on‐demand micro transit are also emerging.
Automated and connected vehicles.
Long‐term effects of the COVID‐19 pandemic.
CIRCULATION 3.14
3.14-7 Draft Environmental Impact Report – Lathrop General Plan Update Like most models, the Lathrop travel demand model does not explicitly capture the above‐mentioned new modes of travel and emerging trends in travel behavior. Significant uncertainties exist at the present time that prevent explicit modeling of these new modes and emerging trends for the analysis of the General Plan. However, since VMT is a “relative efficiency” metric, to the extent that these trends could cause systematic changes acrossthe City and beyond, uncertaintiesin these effects effectively cancel each other out when comparing VMT efficiency for a given horizon period.
Two measures of VMT are used in this analysis:
VMT per dwelling unit, for residential land uses. Includes VMT for trips produced by a dwelling unit’s residents, such as to work, school, or shop, and with one end of the trip at the home, on a typical weekday.
VMT per employee, for non‐residential land uses. Includes all trips with one end at the land use, including employees, customers, and deliveries, on a typical weekday. (Note that this ratio is different than the VMT generated by each employee, as the latter only includes trips made by employees).
VMT per dwelling unit is used because the model uses dwelling units as an input. VMT per resident estimates can be made based on estimates of residents per household.
VMT estimates for the 2020 baseline conditions are shown in Table 3.14‐3. In addition to the two metrics presented above, additional metrics are reported for information.
With respect to the residential uses, it is reasonable to expect that multi‐family dwelling units would generate about three‐quarters of the VMT of single‐family dwelling units, as the ratio of their daily trip generation rates is in that range. Additionally, socioeconomic characteristics likely play a role, with single‐ family units having a propensity for longer distance commute trips.
Regarding the non‐residential uses, the most common use types are shown including retail, office, industrial, and restaurants. Although schools, churches, parks, etc. are also present within Lathrop, proposals for new construction are relatively rare and should be evaluated on a case‐by‐case basis.
Additionally, the VMT per employee reported here does not only reflect the actual amount of travel by each employee but is a ratio of that land use’s total amount of travel (by all users including employees, customers, visitors, and deliveries) divided by employees. The VMT reported here represents all vehicle trips, from origin to destination, associated with the land use, including portions of the trip outside of the study area, in accordance with OPR Technical Advisory guidance (described in the Regulatory Framework section). Air quality, GHG, and energy analysis are based on a different measure of VMT, only including travel within the study area, to determine the impact of the city’s mobile emissions, as described in those resource sections. Readers should refer to those resource sections for more information about how the plan’s travel characteristics affect those specific topics. Because each section is focused on a specific environmental effect with its own specific metrics, thresholds, orsignificance criteria, it is possible to have a different conclusion for transportation impacts than other resource topics that also reference plan‐ related travel.
3.14 CIRCULATION
Draft Environmental Impact Report – Lathrop General Plan Update 3.14-8 TABLE 3.14‐3: VMT, BASELINE CONDITIONS
LAND USE UNITS 2020 BASELINE CONDITIONS
Single family residential VMT per dwelling unit 111.5
Multi‐family residential VMT per dwelling unit 86.0
Age restricted residential VMT per dwelling unit 47.5
Restaurant VMT per employee1 215.2
Industrial VMT per employee 77.8
Office VMT per employee 36.5
Retail VMT per employee 135.3
All residential VMT per dwelling unit 108.3
All residential VMT per resident2 27.9
All employment VMT per employee 85.8
All land uses VMT per service population2,3 42.9
Total VMT VMT 1,497,700
NOTES: 1VMT PER EMPLOYEE RATIOS INCLUDE ALL TRIPS BY EMPLOYEES, CUSTOMERS, VISITORS, AND DELIVERIES 2BASED ON 3.88 RESIDENTS/DWELLING UNIT (CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE, E‐5 CITY/COUNTY POPULATION AND HOUSING ESTIMATES, 1/1/2021) 3SERVICE POPULATION INCLUDES RESIDENTS AND EMPLOYEES 4VMT INCLUDES FULL LENGTH OF ALL TRIPS WITH EITHER AN ORIGIN OR DESTINATION WITHIN THE PLANNING AREA.
SOURCE: FEHR & PEERS, 2021
Safety
Collision history data for injury collisions in the Lathrop planning area, excluding freeways, was retrieved for the years 2016‐2020 inclusive. Table 3.14‐4 displays this data by year for all injury collisions and those involving pedestrians, bicyclists, or trucks. History of collisions involving killed or seriously injured (KSI) victims is presented in Table 3.14‐5. Collision heatmaps for all collisions and KSI collisions both within and outside of the sphere of influence are shown in Figures 3.14‐4 and 3.14‐5. Maps of collisions involving pedestrians, bicyclists, or trucks are shown in Figures 3.14‐6 to 3.14‐8. As shown, most collisions occur on arterials.
Over the period shown, an average of 39 injury collisions and 4.4 KSI collisions per year within the Lathrop sphere of influence (within the red planning area boundary in Figures 3.14‐4 to 3.14‐8) (excluding freeways) were reported. Of the baseline weekday VMT presented in Table 3.14‐3, about 323,663 occurred within the planning area. These collisions equate to approximately 0.00000047 annual injury collision and 0.000000040 KSI collision per mile of driving. In other words, one injury collision could be expected for every 2.3 million miles of driving. This ratio emphasizes that injury collisions are relatively infrequent when viewed in the context of total driving in the city.
About 8 percent of all pedestrian collisions and no bicyclist collisions resulted in severe injuries or fatalities. For comparison purposes, within all of San Joaquin County (excluding State highways), KSI collisions comprised about 24 percent of pedestrian collisions and 16 percent of bicyclist collisions. Thus, the severity of collisionsinvolving bicyclists and pedestriansin the city islower than in the county, perhaps due to slower travel speeds and more frequent use of bicycle and pedestrian facilities within the city.
CIRCULATION 3.14
3.14-9 Draft Environmental Impact Report – Lathrop General Plan Update TABLE 3.14‐4: INJURY COLLISIONS, 2016‐2020
YEAR ALL PEDESTRIAN BICYCLIST TRUCK
2016 35 3 1 0
2017 51 2 4 3
2018 43 4 0 3
2019 45 4 3 4
2020 23 0 0 0
Total 197 13 8 10
SOURCE:UC BERKELEY TRAFFIC INJURY AND MANAGEMENT SYSTEM, 2022 NOTE: 2020 DATA PRELIMINARY
TABLE 3.14‐5: KILLED OR SERIOUS INJURY COLLISIONS, 2016‐2020
YEAR ALL PEDESTRIAN BICYCLIST TRUCK
2016 3 0 0 0
2017 2 0 0 1
2018 2 0 0 1
2019 6 1 0 0
2020 4 0 0 0
Total 17 1 0 2
SOURCE:UC BERKELEY TRAFFIC INJURY AND MANAGEMENT SYSTEM, 2022 NOTE: 2020 DATA PRELIMINARY
Table 3.14‐6 displays the primary collision factors associated with this history. Unsafe speed was the top factor.
TABLE 3.14‐6: PRIMARY COLLISION FACTOR, 2016‐2020
PRIMARY COLLISON FACTOR
ALL INJURY COLLISIONS KILLED OR SERIOUS INJURY COLLISIONS
NUMBER SHARE NUMBER SHARE
Unsafe Speed 61 31.0% 5 29.4%
Automobile Right of Way 31 15.7% 2 11.8%
Traffic Signals and Signs 27 13.7% 2 11.8%
Improper Turning 26 13.2% 2 11.8%
Driving or Bicycling Under the
Influence of Alcohol or Drug 15 7.6% 2 11.8%
Wrong Side of Road 10 5.1% 2 11.8%
Pedestrian Violation 9 4.6% 1 5.9%
Other Improper Driving 5 2.5% 0 0.0%
Other 13 6.6% 1 5.9%
Total 197 100.0% 17 100.0%
SOURCE:UC BERKELEY TRAFFIC INJURY AND MANAGEMENT SYSTEM, 2022 NOTE: 2020 DATA PRELIMINARY
3.14 CIRCULATION
Draft Environmental Impact Report – Lathrop General Plan Update 3.14-10
PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM
Bus Transit Operations
The San Joaquin Regional Transit District provides connections from Lathrop to Stockton, and Dublin/Pleasanton, and other destinations in San Joaquin County.
SAN JOAQUIN REGIONAL TRANSIT DISTRICT
Route 90 connects Lathrop to Stockton and Tracy with service weekdays, once in the morning and once in the afternoon both northbound and southbound. A stop is provided on Louise Avenue at Harlan Road and 5th Street at the Lathrop Community Center.
Route 150 provides commuter service from Lathrop to the Dublin/Pleasanton BART station with seven departures every day. One stop is provided at the Lathrop Crossing Shopping Center on Harlan Road south of Lathrop Road.
The San Joaquin Regional Transit District has mounted exterior bicycle racks or cargo area bicycle storage on all fixed route interregional buses.
Van Go! on‐demand rideshare service provides travel anywhere withing the county with a 48‐hour reservation from 8 AM to 5 PM seven days a week.
PARATRANSIT
San Joaquin Regional Transit provides paratransit, also known as dial‐a‐ride or door‐to‐door service, for people who are unable to independently use the transit system due to a physical or mental disability.
Individuals must be registered and certified as ADA eligible before using the service. Paratransit operators are required by the ADA to service areas within three‐quarters of a mile of their respective, public fixed‐ route service. Service hours are Monday through Friday from 5:40 AM to 9:55 PM and weekends and holidays from 8:00 AM to 7:04 PM. Ride reservations must be made one to two days in advance.
Route 90 is a Hopper service route, which replaces paratransit service during Hopper service hours. These routes will deviate up to three‐quarters of a mile for certified passengers not able to reach their fixed route stops. Ride reservations must be made one to two days in advance.
Taxi Services
Taxi service in Lathrop is provided by private operators that serve the city and the greater San Joaquin County area. Taxi service is available 24 hours a day, seven days a week by calling in a service request.
Transportation Networking Companies
Lyft and Uber provide connections to local and regional destinations. Availability varies depending on driver availability, and service may not be available at all times. Service is requested by smartphone applications for each provider.
CIRCULATION 3.14
3.14-11 Draft Environmental Impact Report – Lathrop General Plan Update Altamont Corridor Express Rail Transit
The Altamont Corridor Express (ACE) rail service connects Lathrop to San Jose and the Bay Area and also connects Stockton to Lathrop. During weekdays, four westbound trains serve Lathrop between 4:29 AM and 7:51 AM and four eastbound trains serve Lathrop between 5:23 PM and 8:26 PM. The Lathrop/Manteca station is located on Shideler Parkway at Yosemite Avenue (just east of McKinley Avenue). ACE trains allow bicycles on designated passenger train cars.
The Amtrak Thruway Busservice also provides connections weekdaysfrom the ACE station to the Stockton Amtrak station. Most buses require storing the bicycle in the baggage storage compartment underneath the bus.
BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN SYSTEM
The following section describes the bicycle and pedestrian network in Lathrop.
Bicycle Facilities
Bicycle facilities in Lathrop are categorized into three types as described and depicted in illustrations below. Note that while the graphicsinclude typical widthsfor the variousfacilities, the exact configuration of a bike facility may vary depending on its location.
Class I Bikeway (Bike Path): Also known as a shared‐use path or multi‐use path, a bike path is a paved right‐of‐way for bicycle travel that is completely separate from any street or highway.
3.14 CIRCULATION
Draft Environmental Impact Report – Lathrop General Plan Update 3.14-12 Class II Bikeway (Bike Lane): A striped and stenciled lane for one‐way bicycle travel on a street or highway. This facility could include a buffered space between the bike lane and vehicle lane and the bike lane could be adjacent to on‐street parking.
Class III Bikeway (Bike Route): A signed route along a street where the bicyclist shares the right‐ of‐way with motor vehicles. This facility can also be designated using a shared lane marking (sharrow).
Bicycle facilities in Lathrop include the following:
Class I shared‐use bike paths:
o Some sections of Golden Valley Parkway, Spartan Way, River Islands Parkway, Lakeside Drive, and Somerston Parkway
o North side of Lathrop Road between Harlan Road and 5th Street Class II bike lanes:
o Eastbound Thomsen Road from Derby Lane to just west of Halmar Lane o 5th Street from Lathrop Road to H Street and from J Street to Louise Avenue o Lathrop Road from 5th Street to eastern City Limit
o Somerston Parkway south of River Islands Parkway
o River Islands Parkway west of McKee Boulevard (eastbound only between McKee Boulevard and Somerston Parkway)
CIRCULATION 3.14
3.14-13 Draft Environmental Impact Report – Lathrop General Plan Update o Spartan Way from Golden Valley Parkway to north of Hidden Cove Drive o McKee Boulevard from Town Centre Drive to Brookhurst Boulevard Lakeside Drive east of Somerston Parkway is currently signed for bike lanes but bike lanes are not striped. Lakeside Drive west of Stewart Road is partially signed as a Class III bike route.
In general, most Lathrop schools, parks, and public buildings are equipped with bike racks for short‐term bicycle parking. Section 17.76.120 of the Lathrop Municipal Code specifies bicycle parking requirements, including number of spaces and locations.
Pedestrian Facilities
Pedestrian facilities include sidewalks, crosswalks, pedestrian signal infrastructure, curb ramps, and streetscape amenities. Most developed arterial streets in Lathrop provide sidewalk coverage, accessible curb ramps, and marked crosswalks. Sidewalks are also provided in most of Lathrop’s single‐family residential neighborhoods, in multi‐family residential developments, and in commercial developments.
While the pedestrian network is generally well developed in Lathrop, there are some locations where gaps in the sidewalk network can be found. In general, facilities along developing arterials vary depending on the level of development along the street. In some locations where adjacent parcels have not been developed, the street is not fully built‐out and hence sidewalks have not been constructed.
GOODS MOVEMENT
Goods movement in Lathrop is accomplished by truck and rail.
Truck Routes
Several local Surface Transportation Assistance Act (STAA) truck routes exist within Lathrop. STAA routes have specific signage and are designed with street widths, curb return radii, and other features to accommodate STAA trucks, which have longer wheelbases than other trucks. According to the City of Lathrop Truck Route Map, the following streets are STAA truck routes within Lathrop:
Harlan Road
Howland Road
Roth Road
Lathrop Road between Manthey Road and Harlan Road
Louise Avenue approximately 700 feet west of the Union Pacific Railroad D’Arcy Parkway
McKinley Avenue from Louise Avenue about 1,000 feet north Shideler Parkway
Yosemite Avenue from Jefferson Way to Shideler Parkway Jefferson Way
Glacier Way
Several other roads are designated as City truck routes:
Manthey Road north of Lathrop Road and south of Towne Centre Drive
3.14 CIRCULATION
Draft Environmental Impact Report – Lathrop General Plan Update 3.14-14 Golden Valley Parkway
Lathrop Road east of McKinley Avenue
McKinley Avenue between Lathrop Road and Yosemite Avenue Murphy Parkway
Tesla Drive
Christopher Way
Yosemite Avenue east of Shideler Parkway
Louise Avenue west of Manthey Road approximately 700 feet east to the Union Pacific Railroad Railroad Network
Additionally, goods movement in Lathrop and the region is supported by the Union Pacific Railroad which passes through the City and has an intermodal facility between Roth Road and Lathrop Road just east of the City limit. The BNSF Railway also passes through the City.
At‐grade railroad crossings with advanced signage, flashing signals, and crossing arms exist on the following streets:
Roth Road west of McKinley Avenue
Roth Road at east city limit
Louise Avenue west of McKinley Avenue
Louise Avenue at east city limit
D’Arcy Parkway east of Howland Road
Yosemite Avenue at east city limit
Tesla Drive west of Christopher Way
McKinley Avenue south of Lathrop Road
McKinley Avenue at south city limit
Stewart Road west of Manthey Road
The crossings on Louise Avenue west of McKinley Avenue and on Stewart Road also include hardened centerlines up to the railroad tracks, and the crossing on D’Arcy Parkway includes center medians up to the railroad tracks, to physically restrict vehicles from crossing the tracks when arms are down.
Two at‐grade railroad crossings of local railroad spurs serving industrial sites also exist on Howland Road.
These crossings have signage only.
Safety
Collision history for injury collisionsinvolving trucksis presented in the Roadway System section. Asshown in Table 3.14‐4, an average of two collisions per year involving trucks were reported from 2016 through 2020, inclusive. Of those collisions, an average of about 0.4 per year was serious in nature. One collision over that five‐year period resulted in a fatality.
Collision history data for at‐grade railroad crossings in the study area was retrieved from the Federal Railroad Administration Office of Safety Analysis for the years 2016‐2020, inclusive. One collision was CIRCULATION 3.14
3.14-15 Draft Environmental Impact Report – Lathrop General Plan Update reported. This collision, occurring in 2016, was due to a truck being stuck on the crossing on Roth Road west of McKinley Avenue. The driver was not in the vehicle at the time of the collision and no injuries were reported.
When considering the substantial volume of traffic traveling across these 10 crossing each year, and given that only one collision over the five‐year period was reported, the rate of collisions at railroad crossings is extremely low.
3.14.2 REGULATORY SETTING
The City of Lathrop General Plan, along with regional, state, and federal plans, legislation, and policy directives, provide guidelines for the safe operation of streets and transportation facilities in Lathrop.
While the City of Lathrop has primary responsibility for the maintenance and operation of transportation facilities within the City, Lathrop staff works on a continual basis with responsible regional, state, and federal agencies including the County of San Joaquin, the San Joaquin Council of Governments (SJCOG), the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), and others, to maintain, improve, and balance the multi‐modal transportation needs of the community and the region.
FEDERAL
Americans With Disabilities Act
The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) of 1990 provides comprehensive rights and protections to individuals with disabilities. The goal of the ADA is to assure equality of opportunity, full participation, independent living, and economic self‐sufficiency. To implement this goal, the United States Access Board has created accessibility guidelines for public rights‐of‐way. The guidelines address various issues, including roadway design practices, slope and terrain issues, pedestrian access to streets, sidewalks, curb ramps, street furnishings, pedestrian signals, parking, and other components of public rights‐of‐way.
STATE
OPR General Plan Guidelines
The Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR) publishes General Plan Guidelines as for cities and counties developing their general plans. OPR released its updated guidelines in 2017, which includes legislative changes, new guidance, policy recommendations, external links to resource documents, and additional resources. For each general plan element, the guidelines discuss statutory requirements in detail, provide recommended policy language, and include examples of city and county general plans that have adopted similar policies.
Assembly Bill 32, Senate Bill 32, and Senate Bill 375
Assembly Bill (AB) 32, also known as the Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006, committed California to reducing greenhouse gas(GHG) emissionsto 1990 levels by 2020. In 2016, Senate Bill (SB) 32 added a new target: reducing statewide emissions to 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030.
3.14 CIRCULATION
Draft Environmental Impact Report – Lathrop General Plan Update 3.14-16 SB 375 provides guidance for curbing emissions from cars and light trucks to help California comply with AB 32. There are five major components to SB 375:
ARB will guide the adoption of GHG emission targets to be met by each Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) in the state. The MPO for Lathrop is SJCOG. MPOs are required to create a Sustainable Communities Strategy (SCS) that provides a plan for meeting these regional targets. The SCS must be consistent with the Regional Transportation Plan (RTP).
Regional housing elements and transportation plans must be synchronized on eight‐year schedules. Also, the SCS and Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) must be consistent with each other.
CEQA is streamlined for preferred development types such as mixed‐use projects and transit‐ oriented developments (TODs) if they meet specific requirements. MPOs must use transportation and air emission modeling methodologies consistent with California Transportation Commission (CTC) guidelines.
Senate Bill 743
SB 743, passed in 2013, resulted in several statewide CEQA changes. It required the California Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR) to establish new metrics for determining the significance of transportation impacts of projects within transit priority areas (TPAs) and allows OPR to extend use of the metrics beyond TPAs. OPR selected VMT as the preferred transportation impact metric and applied their discretion to require its use statewide. This legislation also established that aesthetic and parking effects of a residential, mixed‐use residential, or employment center projects on an infill site within a TPA are not significant impacts on the environment. The revised CEQA Guidelines that implement this legislation became effective on December 28, 2018, and state that vehicle LOS and similar measures related to delay shall not be used as the sole basis for determining the significance of transportation impacts for land use projects, and that as of July 1, 2020, this requirement shall apply statewide, but that until that date, lead agencies may elect to rely on VMT rather than LOS to analyze transportation impacts.
The OPR “Technical Advisory on Evaluating Transportation Impacts in CEQA” (December 2018) includes specifications for VMT methodology and recommendations for significance thresholds, screening of project that may be presumed to have less than significant impacts, and mitigation.
Screening criteria include:
Small projects: The Technical Advisory concludes that, absent any information to the contrary, projects that generate 110 trips per day or less may be assumed to cause a less‐than‐significant transportation impact.
Projects near transit stations: Projects located within ½ mile of an “existing major transit stop” or an “existing stop along a high‐quality transit corridor” would have a less‐than‐significant impact on VMT.
Affordable residential development: Projects consisting of a high percentage of affordable housing may be assumed to cause a less‐than‐significant transportation impact on VMT because CIRCULATION 3.14
3.14-17 Draft Environmental Impact Report – Lathrop General Plan Update they may improve jobs‐housing balance and/or otherwise generate less VMT than market‐based units.
Redevelopment projects: If a proposed redevelopment project leads to a net overall decrease in VMT (when compared against the VMT of the existing land uses), the project would lead to a less‐ than‐significant transportation impact.
Local‐serving retail: Trip lengths may be shortened and VMT reduced by adding “local‐serving” retail opportunities that improve retail destination proximity. Page 17 of the Technical Advisory generally describes retail development including stores less than 50,000 square feet as local serving. In May 2020, OPR staff indicated during online webinars that any retail building that is 50,000 square feet or less may be considered local serving.
Other key guidance includes:
VMT is the most appropriate metric to evaluate a project’s transportation impact. OPR recommends tour‐ and trip‐based travel models to estimate VMT, but ultimately defers to local agencies to determine the appropriate tools.
OPR recommends measuring VMT for residential and office projects on a “per rate” basis.
Specifically, OPR recommends VMT per capita for residential projects and VMT per employee for office projects.
OPR recommends that a per capita or per employee VMT that is fifteen percent below that of existing development may be a reasonable threshold (page 10). In other words, an office project that generates VMT per employee that is more than 85 percent of the regional VMT per employee could result in a significant impact. OPR notes that this threshold is supported by evidence that connects this level of reduction to the State’s emissions goals (pages 10‐11). For retail projects, OPR recommends measuring the net decrease or increase in VMT in the planning area with and without the project. The recommended impact threshold is any increase in total VMT.
Lead agencies ultimately have the discretion to set or apply their own significance thresholds, provided they are based on significant evidence.
Cities and counties still have the ability to use measures of delay such as LOS for other plans, studies, or network monitoring. However, according to CEQA section 15064.3, Determining the Significance of Transportation Impacts, “effect on automobile delay shall not constitute a significant environmental impact.”
California Air Resources Board 2017 Scoping Plan‐Identified VMT Reductions and Relationship to State Climate Goals
ARB has specific guidance for VMT thresholds in the ARB 2017 “Scoping Plan‐Identified VMT Reductions and Relationship to State Climate Goals” (January 2019). This document provides recommendations for VMT reduction thresholds that would be necessary to achieve the state’s GHG reduction goals and acknowledges that the SCS targets alone are not sufficient to meet climate goals. ARB concluded that a
14.3‐percent reduction in total VMT per capita and a 16.8 percent reduction in light‐duty VMT per capita (over current conditions; 2015‐2018) was needed to meet these goals. The Lathrop travel forecasting model is trip‐based and includes all vehicle trips, thus the total VMT per capita metric is applicable.
3.14 CIRCULATION
Draft Environmental Impact Report – Lathrop General Plan Update 3.14-18 Additionally, the OPR “Technical Advisory” cites this document as support for the 15‐percent reduction threshold.
California Air Resources Board Improved Program Measurement The Improved Program Measurement would help California work more strategically to meet its climate change goals, auditor of the State of California, February 2021.
Recommendations:
1. Measure the Actual GHG Benefits of CARB’s Transportation Programs • With limited time and resources available to meet the State’s GHG goals, CARB must do more to identify the actual emissions reductions its transportation programs achieve.
• Currently, lack of data collection and measurement lead CARB to overstate the reductions from its incentive programs, which receive hundreds of millions of dollars each year from the State’s cap-and-trade fund.
2. Ensure That Programs Provide the Non‐GHG Benefits CARB Claims • Consistent with state law and its own guidelines, CARB operates transportation programs that focus primarily on providing socioeconomic benefits to participants. • However, even though these programs may cost more, CARB has not taken sufficient steps to determine whether they provide the intended benefits—such as improving participants’ financial stability.
3. Provide Better Information to the Legislature to Guide California’s Strategy • For the above reasons, CARB’s current reporting to the Legislature is not adequate. • The State needs better tools to balance its climate change priorities and guide its investments.
California Air Resources Board Mandatory GHG Reporting 2019 Emissions Year FAQs In the “2018 Progress Report, California’s Sustainable Communities and Climate Protection Act” (November 2018), ARB chartsrecent VMT per capita trends and shows VMT per capita increasing in recent years. This trend is inconsistent with RTP/SCS projections across the state forecasting declines.
CIRCULATION 3.14
3.14-19 Draft Environmental Impact Report – Lathrop General Plan Update Source: 2018 Progress Report California’s Sustainable Communities and Climate Protection Act, California Air Resources Board, 2018
The Audit Report is a more recent assessment of ARB’s GHG reduction programs, which also found that VMT and its associated GHG emissions are trending in the wrong direction. Per the Audit Report, the state is not on track to achieve 2030 GHG reduction goals and emissions from transportation have not been declining. Transportation‐related GHG emissions increased between 2013 and 2018. Additionally, ARB’s Mandatory GHG Reporting 2019 Emissions Year FAQs, November 4, 2020, indicated that though transportation‐related emissions declined in 2017, 2018, and 2019, they were still above 2013 levels.
Assembly Bill 417
In October 2013, AB 417 created a statutory CEQA exemption for bicycle plans in urbanized areas. Before the passage of this bill, cities and counties that prepared bicycle plans were required to carry out a CEQA review. AB 417 exempts the following types of bicycle projects in an urbanized area:
Restriping of streets and highways
Bicycle parking and storage
Signal timing to improve intersection operations
Signage for bicycles, pedestrians, and vehicles
However, not all bicycle plans are exempt if certain conditions are met (for example, a new Class I bicycle trail through a sensitive natural area).
3.14 CIRCULATION
Draft Environmental Impact Report – Lathrop General Plan Update 3.14-20 Caltrans Vehicle Miles Traveled‐Focused Transportation Impact Study Guide The Caltrans “Vehicle Miles Traveled‐Focused Transportation Impact Study Guide” (TISG), dated May 20, 2020, was prepared to provide guidance to Caltrans districts, lead agencies, tribal governments, developers, and consultants regarding Caltrans’ review of VMT impact analysis for land use projects and land use plans. Caltrans seeks to reduce single occupancy vehicle trips, provide a safe transportation system, reduce per capita VMT, increase accessibility to destinations via cycling, walking, carpooling, and transit, and reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. The TISG notes that, for land use projects and plans, automobile delay is no longer considered a significant impact on the environment under CEQA. Caltrans’ primary review focus for a land use project’s transportation impacts is now VMT. The TISG generally endorses the OPR “Technical Advisory,” including the thresholds in that document. Caltrans may review VMT thresholds, methodology, and mitigations.
Caltrans Interim Land Development and Intergovernmental Review (LDIGR) Safety Review Practitioners Guidance
The Interim LDIGR Safety Review Practitioners Guidance (July 2020) was developed to provide immediate direction about the safety review while final guidance is being developed. This interim guidance does not establish thresholds of significance for determining safety impacts under CEQA. The guidance notes that the significance of impacts should be determined with careful judgment on the part of a public agency and based, to the greatest extent possible, on scientific and factual data consistent with Caltrans’ CEQA guidance contained in Caltrans’ Standard Environmental Reference. The guidance notes that District traffic safety staff will use available data to determine if the proposed project may influence or contribute to locations identified by traffic safety Investigations generated by network screening or initiated by the district.
Assembly Bill 1358: State of California Complete Streets Act On September 30, 2008, Governor Schwarzenegger signed Assembly Bill (AB) 1358, the California Complete Streets Act of 2008, into law. AB 1358 requires any substantive revision of the circulation element of a city or county’s general plan to identify how they will safely accommodate the circulation of all users of the roadway including pedestrians, bicyclists, children, seniors, individuals with disabilities, and transit riders, as well as motorists.
Caltrans Deputy Directive 64‐R1: Complete Streets – Integrating the Transportation System
In 2001, Caltrans adopted Deputy Directive (DD) 64, a policy directive related to non‐motorized travel throughout the state. In October 2008, DD 64 was strengthened to reflect changing priorities and challenges. DD 64‐R1 states:
The Department views all transportation improvements as opportunities to improve safety, access, and mobility for all travelers in California and recognizes bicycle, pedestrian, and transit modes as integral elements of the transportation system.
The Department develops integrated multimodal projects in balance with community goals, plans, and values. Addressing the safety and mobility needs of bicyclists, pedestrians, and transit users in all projects, CIRCULATION 3.14
3.14-21 Draft Environmental Impact Report – Lathrop General Plan Update regardless of funding, is implicit in these objectives. Bicycle, pedestrian, and transit travel is facilitated by creating “complete streets” beginning early in system planning and continuing through project delivery and maintenance and operations. Developing a network of “complete streets” requires collaboration among all Department functional units and stakeholders to establish effective partnerships.
Providing safe mobility for all users, including motorists, bicyclists, pedestrians and transit riders, contributes to the Department's vision: "Provide a safe, sustainable, integrated and efficient transportation system to enhance California’s economy and livability." Successful long‐term implementation of this policy is intended to result in more options for people to go from one place to another, less traffic congestion and greenhouse gas emissions, more walkable communities (with healthier, more active people), and fewer barriers for older adults, children, and people with disabilities.
Economically, complete streets can help revitalize communities, and they can give families the option to lower transportation costs by using transit, walking or bicycling rather than driving to reach their destinations. The Department is actively engaged in implementing its complete streets policy in all planning, programming, design, construction, operations, and maintenance activities and products on the State Highway System.
Caltrans Director’s Policy 22 (DP‐22): Director’s Policy on Context Sensitive Solutions
Director’s Policy 22, a policy regarding the use of “Context Sensitive Solutions” on all state highways, was adopted by Caltrans in November of 2001. The policy reads:
The Department uses “Context Sensitive Solutions” as an approach to plan, design, construct, maintain, and operate its transportation system. These solutions use innovative and inclusive approaches that integrate and balance community, aesthetic, historic, and environmental values with transportation safety, maintenance, and performance goals. Context sensitive solutions are reached through a collaborative, interdisciplinary approach involving all stakeholders.
The context of all projects and activities is a key factor in reaching decisions. It is considered for all State transportation and support facilities when defining, developing, and evaluating options.
When considering the context, issues such as funding feasibility, maintenance feasibility, traffic demand, impact on alternate routes, impact on safety, and relevant laws, rules, and regulations must be addressed.
The policy recognizes that “in towns and cities across California, the State highway may be the only through street or may function as a local street,” that “these communities desire that their main street be an economic,social, and cultural asset as well as provide for the safe and efficient movement of people and goods,” and that “communities want transportation projects to provide opportunities for enhanced non‐motorized travel and visual quality.” The policy acknowledgesthat addressing these needs will assure that transportation solutions meet more than just traffic and operational objectives.
3.14 CIRCULATION
Draft Environmental Impact Report – Lathrop General Plan Update 3.14-22 Assembly Bill 43
In October 2021, AB 43 created greater freedom for local authorities to reduce speed limits to improve safety. Previously, speed limits were generally required to be based on 85th percentile observed speeds.
Caltrans is now developing guidance for the implementation of the bill.
REGIONAL
SJCOG Regional Transportation Plan and Sustainable Community Strategy The current Regional Transportation Plan and Sustainable Community Strategy (RTP/SCS) produced by SJCOG was adopted in 2018. The RTP/SCS sets forth regional transportation policy and provides capital program planning for all regional, state, and federally funded projects. The RTP/SCS also demonstrates how land use development and transportation can work together to meet greenhouse gas emission reduction targetsfor cars and light trucks. The RTP can be considered the San Joaquin region’s “statement of priorities” for the future transportation system. The RTP/SCS states that it “recognizes the significant impact the transportation network has on the region’s public health, mobility, and economic vitality” and “serves as a guide for achieving public policy decisions that will result in balanced investments for a wide range of multimodal transportation improvements.”
Measure K: San Joaquin County Local Transportation Improvement Plan Measure K, the San Joaquin County Local Transportation Improvement Plan, was passed by San Joaquin County voters in November 1990 and renewed in November 2006. Measure K assesses a half‐cent sales tax on purchases made throughout the County to provide direct funding for local transportation projects.
The funds are dedicated to the specific programs and projects specified in the Measure K expenditure plan, including improved highways and localstreets, new passenger railservice, regional and interregional bus routes, park‐and‐ride lots, new bicycle facilities, and railroad crossings. The renewal of Measure K is estimated to generate $2.552 billion for these transportation programs in the region through the year 2041. Funding from Measure K has been used to construct the Lathrop Road overcrossing of the Union Pacific railroad, among other projects.
SJCOG San Joaquin County Regional Congestion Management Program As the designated Congestion Management Agency (CMA) for San Joaquin County, the San Joaquin Council of Governments (SJCOG) is responsible for updating County’s Regional Congestion Management Program (RCMP) and monitoring its implementation. The 2021 proposed RCMP network includes the following corridors in Lathrop:
I‐5
SR 120
Roth Road
Lathrop Road
Louise Avenue
Golden Valley Parkway
CIRCULATION 3.14
3.14-23 Draft Environmental Impact Report – Lathrop General Plan Update None of these proposed corridors are identified in the program as deficient.
San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (SJVAPCD) SJVAPCD has implemented Rule 9410, Employer Based Trip Reduction. The purpose of this rule is to reduce VMT from private vehicles used by employees to commute to and from their worksites to reduce emissions of NOx, ROG, and particulate matter (PM10 and PM2.5). The rule applies to employers with at least 100 employees. Employers are required to implement an Employer Trip Reduction Implementation Plan (ETRIP) for each worksite with 100 or more eligible employees to meet applicable targets specified in the rule. Employers are required to facilitate the participation of the development of ETRIPs by providing information to its employees explaining the requirements and applicability of this rule.
Employers are required to prepare and submit an ETRIP for each worksite to the District. The ETRIP must be updated annually. Under this rule, employers shall collect information on the modes of transportation used for each eligible employee’s commutes both to and from work for every day of the commute verification period, as defined in using either the mandatory commute verification method or a representative survey method. Annual reporting includes the results of the commute verification for the previous calendar year along with the measures implemented as outlined in the ETRIP and, if necessary, any updates to the ETRIP.
LOCAL
City of Lathrop Specific Plans
Lathrop has developed several Specific Plans that serve as the primary instruments of the City of Lathrop in carrying out policies and proposals of the Lathrop General Plan. As noted in the General Plan, the Specific Plans have several related functions:
1. The interpretive function of the Specific Plan indicates the degree of flexibility which is to be permitted; it provides development standards to be applied to the actions of the City and the private sector; and it provides guidance to the phasing and coordination of development activity.
2. The illustrative function describes and illustrates the ways in which private and public developments may be designed in a manner consistent with the General Plan.
3. The regulatory function sets forth the process of development regulation and even the regulations to be applied to private and public development actions.
The following Specific Plans have been adopted by the City:
Central Lathrop
Crossroads Industrial Park
Lathrop Gateway
West Lathrop
o West Lathrop ‐ Mossdale Village
o West Lathrop ‐ River Islands
South Lathrop
3.14 CIRCULATION
Draft Environmental Impact Report – Lathrop General Plan Update 3.14-24 City of Lathrop VMT Screening Criteria and Thresholds of Significance Resolution No. 20‐4784, adopted by the City Council on September 14, 2020, enacted the following levels of significance for land use projects in the City:
Residential projects: 15 percent below existing (baseline) citywide VMT per household or per resident
Office projects: 15 percent below existing (baseline) citywide VMT per employee Retail projects: A net increase in existing (baseline) citywide VMT per employee Mixed‐use projects: Evaluate each land use separately Baseline VMT is defined as the average VMT per project type for the City of Lathrop under Baseline Year 2020 conditions using the City of Lathrop Travel Demand Model.
The resolution also adopted the following screening criteria to quickly identify when a project should be expected to cause a less than significant VMT impact without conducting a detailed VMT analysis:
Small projects: Generation of less than 110 daily trips Projects located in low‐VMT areas: Projects in areas with low VMT (to be identified as part of the General Plan update), with similar features (i.e., density, mix of uses, and transit accessibility) to the nearby developments
Projects in proximity to a major transit stop: Projects located within a half‐mile of an existing or planned high‐quality transit corridor or major transit station. In Lathrop, this includes the existing Lathrop ACE station, the future Valley Link stations, and at stops for bus routes with headways of 15 minutes or less. This criterion does not apply if a project o Has a floor area ratio (FAR) of less than 0.75;
o Includes more parking than required by the City of Lathrop; o Is inconsistent with the SJCOG RTP/SCS; or
o Replaces affordable residential units with a smaller number of moderate‐ or high‐income residential units.
Affordable housing: Residential projects containing a particular amount of affordable housing (based on local circumstances and substantial evidence as determined by the City). Local‐serving retail: Local‐serving retail projects of less than 50,000 square feet. Staff shall evaluate both the project characteristics and the context of the project location to decide as to whether a given retail project is local serving.
Transportation projects that do not result in an increase in VMT: Transit projects, bicycle and pedestrian projects, and roadway projects that do not result in an increase in vehicle capacity or VMT
City of Lathrop Bicycle Transportation Plan
The 1995 Lathrop Bicycle Transportation Plan, last updated in 2004, was developed to improve and expand bicycling opportunities in Lathrop. The Bicycle Transportation Plan provides an additional level of refinement to the General Plan's Transportation and Circulation Element by providing a detailed set of policies and programs for bicycle circulation improvement. The Plan establishes bicycle goals, objectives, CIRCULATION 3.14
3.14-25 Draft Environmental Impact Report – Lathrop General Plan Update and policies; identifies future bicycle infrastructure projects; and promotes support facilities and educational programs. The following goal and objectives were established by the Plan:
Goal A: To create a bikeway system that provides for convenient and safe bicycle circulation throughout Lathrop and maximizes the number of bicycle commuters.
Objective A.1: Provide a comprehensive network of bikeways that provides access to destination points throughout the community.
Objective A.2: Assure bikeways are fully integrated into all future development occurring within the City's General Plan Sphere.
Objective A.3: Provide route linkages to regional bikeways.
Objective A.4: Provide for a high level of rider safety along all bikeways.
City of Lathrop Truck Route Map
The City of Lathrop Truck Route Map identifies existing and future truck routes within the City. The map includes both STAA truck routes and other City truck routes. In October 2021, the City Council removed truck route designation for Lathrop Road between Harlan Road and McKinley Avenue.
City of Lathrop Transportation Monitoring Program
As part of local development agreements and CEQA mitigation requirements developments within the city require participation in an annual Traffic Monitoring Plan TMP that forecasts street and circulation improvement needs.
The TMP monitors roadway conditions, projects roadway congestion two and four years into the future, and schedules when planned roadway improvements should be constructed to keep congestion at acceptable levels. The TMP is important because it establishes performance standards and details how the operations of the roadway system are to be monitored, as well as how improvements are to be scheduled for construction to avoid the roadway system falling below acceptable standards of operation.
Developers are required to fund the TMP on a continuing basis until all required traffic improvements have been completed.
City of Lathrop Design and Construction Standards
The City’s design and construction standards and standard details provide for coordinated and standardized development of City facilities, including roadways. The standards apply to, regulate, and guide the design and preparation of plans, and the construction of streets, highways, alleys, drainage, traffic signals, site access, and related public improvements. All public roadway infrastructure improvements must be designed and constructed in accordance with the city standards and Caltrans’ Standard Specifications (Caltrans 2018).
3.14 CIRCULATION
Draft Environmental Impact Report – Lathrop General Plan Update 3.14-26
3.14.3 IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
METHODS OF ANALYSIS
The transportation impact analysis assesses how the planning area’stransportation system would operate with the implementation of the proposed General Plan. The potential impacts were identified based on a set ofsignificance criteria based on the CEQA Guidelines. The transportation impact analysis methodology includes a combination of quantitative and qualitative evaluations of the roadway, bicycle, pedestrian, and transit components of the transportation system. All analysis presumes that future background travel options and behaviors remain similar to current conditions and do not explicitly account for potential changes associated with disruptive trends, emerging technologies, and changes in travel choices, which were discussed in the Environmental Setting section.
Analysis Scenarios
The following scenarios were analyzed using the Lathrop travel demand model. Table 3.14‐7 summarizes the major land use in each scenario. Buildout of the existing General Plan was also analyzed in a separate scenario, as discussed in Chapters 2.0 (Project Description) and 5.0 (Alternatives). • 2020 Baseline. The baseline land use described earlier in this chapter. • Proposed General Plan Buildout. Buildout of the land use development in the proposed General Plan.
TABLE 3.14‐7: SCENARIO MAJOR LAND USE
LAND USE UNITS 2020 BASELINE
PROPOSED GENERAL PLAN
BUILDOUT
INCREASE (PROPOSED GENERAL
PLAN VS. 2020 BASELINE)
Single family Dwelling units 6,201 14,110 7,909 (128%)
Multi family Dwelling units 217 10,374 10,157 (4,681%)
Age restricted Dwelling units 249 1,125 876 (352%)
Restaurant Employees 344 1,759 1,415 (411%)
Industrial Employees 6,384 24,216 17,832 (279%)
Office Employees 1,023 19,621 18,598 (1,818%)
Retail Employees 659 11,534 10,875 (1,650%)
All residential Dwelling units 6,667 25,609 18,942 (284%) All employment Employees 9,038 58,996 49,958 (553%)
SOURCE: FEHR & PEERS, 2021
The City is expected to grow substantially from 2020 to buildout. Additional growth during this period could comprise approximately 2.5 million square feet of commercial, 20 million square feet of industrial development, and 5 million square feet of office development, and 2 million square feet of office/commercial mixed use areas as described in Chapter 2.0, Project Description. The growth results in a change in the balance between employment and housing in Lathrop. In the future, a smaller share of residents is expected to leave the City and adjacent areas (such as the City of Lathrop) for employment, but more employees and customers are expected to travel to employment centers in the City. The ratio of employment (all land uses, including major land uses above) to dwelling units is expected to increase from 1.36 in the 2020 baseline scenario to 2.30 in the proposed General Plan buildout, a 70 percent increase. The ratio of commercial (retail and restaurant) employment to dwelling units is expected to CIRCULATION 3.14
3.14-27 Draft Environmental Impact Report – Lathrop General Plan Update increase from 0.15 to 0.52, a 245 percent increase. This is more commercial development than likely needed by local residents. Thus, to match trip productions to attractions, the model assumes a significant percentage of trips come into the City from external origins to visit these retail uses.
Reasonably foreseeable development surrounding the planning area was also assumed for general plan scenarios modeled as part of this effort.
The proposed General Plan Circulation Element’s circulation diagram is shown in Figure 3.14‐9. It includes roadways serving new development and financially constrained roadway projects from the 2018 SJCOG RTP/SCS. Key additions include:
• New roadways and widened roadways supporting the growth of the City • New interchange at McKinley Avenue
• New freeway general purpose lanes on SR 120 and HOV lanes on I‐5 and SR 99 Various widenings of existing roadways and new roadways resulting in an approximately 36 percentincrease in total lane miles on planning area roadways, based on the travel demand model Vehicle Miles Traveled
The Lathrop travel demand model was used to estimate VMT for the City. Two measures of VMT are used in this analysis:
• VMT per dwelling unit, for residential land uses. Includes VMT for trips produced by a dwelling unit’s residents, such as to work, school, or shop, and with one end of the trip at the home, on a typical weekday.
• VMT per employee, for non‐residential land uses. Includes all trips with one end at the land use, including trips by both employees, customers, and deliveries, on a typical weekday.
Additional VMT‐related measures are also provided for informational purposes:
• Total VMT. Includes all trips with at least one end in the planning area on a typical weekday. • VMT per resident. Calculated based on the VMT per dwelling unit described above and the January 1, 2020, California Department of Finance estimate of residents per household. • VMT per service population. Includes all trips with at least one end in the planning area. The service population consists of residents (based on the number of households and the January 1, 2020, California Department of Finance estimate of residents per household) and employees.
Note that the number of residents per household will likely vary in the future due to changes in the demographics of City residents and the mix of housing types. Thus, these estimates are provided for informational purposes only.
Estimates of current VMT and forecasts of future VMT are inherently dependent on the methodology used and are based on a presumption that future travel behavior will be consistent with recent travel behavior. Travel models, including the model used for this analysis, base their forecasts of future behavior on past behavior. Any subsequent changes including changes in usage of transportation network companies (TNCs) such as Uber and Lyft, large changes in fuel prices, public availability of autonomous
3.14 CIRCULATION
Draft Environmental Impact Report – Lathrop General Plan Update 3.14-28 vehicles (AVs), and long‐term COVID‐19 pandemic effects (such as increases in telecommuting) may change future travel behaviors, resulting in future VMT differing from current forecasts. The future effect of these changes is unknown, and thus difficult to model.
THRESHOLDS OF SIGNIFICANCE
For the purposes of this EIR, adoption and/or implementation of the proposed General Plan would result in significant impacts under CEQA, if any of the following would occur:
• Conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines § 15064.3, subdivision (b) • Conflict with a program, plan, ordinance, or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities
• Substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment) • Result in inadequate emergency access
Vehicle Miles Traveled
Based on Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, the General Plan would result in a significant transportation impact if it would conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines § 15064.3, subdivision (b)(1), which states for land use projects, “Vehicle miles traveled exceeding an applicable threshold of significance may indicate a significant impact.” CEQA Guidelines § 15064.3, subdivision (b)(4) states, “A lead agency has discretion to choose the most appropriate methodology to evaluate a project's vehicle miles traveled, including whether to express the change in absolute terms, per capita, per household or in any other measure. A lead agency may use models to estimate a project's vehicle miles traveled and may revise those estimates to reflect professional judgment based on substantial evidence.” The City has selected to measure VMT by land use type:
• VMT per single‐family dwelling unit
• VMT per multi‐family dwelling unit
• VMT per age‐restricted dwelling unit
• VMT per office employee
• VMT per industrial employee
• VMT per retail employee
• VMT per restaurant employee
The 14.3 percent reduction in total VMT per capita identified as necessary to meet State goals in the ARB 2017 “Scoping Plan‐Identified VMT Reductions and Relationship to State Climate Goals” is supported by substantial evidence. Additionally, this document updated data used to develop the OPR “Technical Advisory.” The “Technical Advisory” supports “per rate” reductions of 15 percent compared to existing conditions (page 10). The “Technical Advisory” has been endorsed by Caltrans in their TISG. The City of Lathrop VMT Screening Criteria and Thresholds of Significance adopted by Resolution No. 20‐4784 also uses a reduction of 15 percent below baseline conditions.
CIRCULATION 3.14
3.14-29 Draft Environmental Impact Report – Lathrop General Plan Update With these considerations, the City has selected a threshold of 15 percent below citywide baseline VMT per dwelling unit (for residential land uses) or employee (employment‐related land uses) by land use type.
Therefore, if any of the VMT metrics above under General Plan conditions exceeded 85 percent of the same value under 2020 Baseline Conditions, VMT impacts on transportation may be considered significant. VMT thresholds by land use type are shown in Table 3.14‐8.
TABLE 3.14‐8: VMT THRESHOLD DEVELOPMENT
LAND USE UNITS 2020 BASELINE 85 PERCENT OF BASELINE
Single family VMT per dwelling unit 111.5 94.8
Multi family VMT per dwelling unit 86.0 73.1
Age restricted VMT per dwelling unit 47.5 40.4
Restaurant VMT per employee 215.2 182.9
Industrial VMT per employee 77.8 66.2
Office VMT per employee 36.5 31.0
Retail VMT per employee 135.3 115.0
NOTE: VMT PER EMPLOYEE RATIOS INCLUDE ALL TRIPS BY EMPLOYEES, CUSTOMERS, AND DELIVERIES.
SOURCE: FEHR & PEERS, 2021
Transit, Bicycles, and Pedestrians
Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines indicates that impacts may be significant if a project conflicts with a program, plan, ordinance, or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities. The proposed General Plan would have a significant impact on transit, bicycles, or pedestrians if it would conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs regarding these systems, or create or exacerbate disruptions to the performance or safety of these systems.
Hazards and Emergency Access
Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines indicates that impacts may be significant if a project would substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment). Impacts may also be significant if a project results in inadequate emergency access. The proposed General Plan would have a significant impact on the transportation system if it would increase hazards due to a design feature, incompatible uses, or inadequate emergency access.
IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
Impact 3.14‐1: General Plan implementation may result in VMT per employee that are greater than 85 percent of Baseline conditions (Significant and Unavoidable) Table 3.14‐9 shows the VMT measures per dwelling unit, per employee, per resident, and per service population for General Plan buildout conditions, as well as for the baseline condition. As shown in the table, the proposed General Plan would result in increased VMT for employment‐generating land uses and would also result in an increase in total VMT in comparison to the existing condition as well as in comparison to the baseline scenario.
3.14 CIRCULATION
Draft Environmental Impact Report – Lathrop General Plan Update 3.14-30 TABLE 3.14‐9: VMT PER DWELLING UNIT AND PER EMPLOYEE FOR EXISTING CONDITION AND PROPOSED GENERAL PLAN
LAND USE UNITS
EXISTING
CONDITION
(2020 BASELINE)
THRESHOLD
(85 PERCENT OF
BASELINE)
PROPOSED
GENERAL PLAN6
PROPOSED GENERAL
PLAN VS. EXISTING
CONDITION
Single family VMT per dwelling unit 111.5 94.8 64.5 ‐42.1% Multi family VMT per dwelling unit 86.0 73.1 54.6 ‐36.5% Age restricted VMT per dwelling unit 47.5 40.4 27.3 ‐42.5% Restaurant VMT per employee1 215.2 182.9 248.9 15.6%
Industrial VMT per employee 77.8 66.2 79.1 1.7%
Office VMT per employee 36.5 31.0 47.3 29.5%
Retail VMT per employee 135.3 115.0 211.5 56.3%
All residential VMT per dwelling unit 108.3 NA5 58.9 ‐45.7% All residential VMT per resident2 27.9 NA 15.2 ‐45.7%
All employment VMT per employee 85.8 NA 101.6 18.4%
All land uses VMT per service population2,3 42.9 NA 47.4 10.4% Total VMT VMT 1,497,700 NA 7,503,700 401.0%
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 6BOLD = EXCEEDS THRESHOLD
SOURCE: FEHR & PEERS, 2021
Although not part of the formal impactsignificance criterion, Table 3.14‐9 showsthe total VMT generation under existing conditions and with buildout of the proposed General Plan. As indicated by footnote 4 in this table, this total VMT calculation considers the full length of travel generated by all land uses in the planning area. It shows an expected 401 percent increase in total VMT generation. The reasonableness of this increase can be evaluated by comparing increases in land use. As shown in Table 3.14‐7, residential is expected to increase by 284 percent, restaurant/retail is expected to increase by 1,225 percent, industrial is expected to increase by 279 percent, and office is expected to increase by 1,818 percent. The 401 percent increase in VMT, which includes travel both inside and outside the planning area consistent with the “Technical Advisory”, falls within that range. VMT within the study area will increase 491 percent, also within this range. It is also noted that the proposed roadway improvements within the planning area would result in a 36 percent increase in lane‐miles.
Table 3.14‐10 compares the VMT per dwelling unit and VMT per employee associated with proposed General Plan implementation with the threshold. As shown in the table, the proposed General Plan would exceed VMT thresholds. While the proposed General Plan is not expected to result in VMT per dwelling unit exceeding 85 percent of baseline for residential‐related land uses, the proposed General Plan is expected to result in VMT per employee exceeding 85 percent of baseline for employment‐related land uses.
CIRCULATION 3.14
3.14-31 Draft Environmental Impact Report – Lathrop General Plan Update TABLE 3.14‐10: VMT ANALYSIS
LAND USE UNITS THRESHOLD
PROPOSED GENERAL
PLAN1
REDUCTION NEEDED TO
ACHIEVE THRESHOLD
Single family VMT per dwelling unit 94.8 64.5 ‐
Multi family VMT per dwelling unit 73.1 54.6 ‐
Age restricted VMT per dwelling unit 40.4 27.3 ‐
Restaurant VMT per employee 182.9 248.9 27%
Industrial VMT per employee 66.2 79.1 16%
Office VMT per employee 31.0 47.3 34%
Retail VMT per employee 115.0 211.5 46%
NOTES: 1BOLD = EXCEEDS THRESHOLD
2VMT PER EMPLOYEE RATIOS INCLUDE ALL TRIPS BY EMPLOYEES, CUSTOMERS, AND DELIVERIES.
SOURCE: FEHR &PEERS, 2021
This result is due to the change in the balance between jobs and housing in Lathrop, which is based upon the large increases in employment shown in Table 3.14‐7. In the future, a smaller share of residents are expected to leave the City for employment, reducing VMT per dwelling unit, but a greater share of employees and customers are expected to travel from outside the City to employment centers within the City, increasing VMT per employee. If such employment growth does not occur, actual VMT per dwelling unit could be higher and VMT per employee could be lower than estimated for General Plan buildout conditions.
As shown in Table 3.14‐10, the proposed General Plan would result in VMT increases that exceeding the threshold for employment‐related land uses. Therefore, thisimpact issignificant. As previously described, this result is due to the change in the balance between jobs and housing in Lathrop, which is based upon the large increases in employment shown in Table 3.14‐7. In the future, more employees and customers are expected to travel to employment centers, increasing VMT per employee.
The updated General Plan includes policies designed to reduce vehicle travel and vehicle miles traveled.
The Circulation Element addresses providing adequate pedestrian, bicycle, and transit facilities and opportunities, promoting non‐vehicle travel modes, requiring employers with 100 or more employees to implement TDM programs, and ensuring regional coordination on trip and VMT reduction efforts. General Plan policies and actions that contribute to VMT reductions are identified below. These policies and actions would help to reduce the severity of these significant impacts to the greatest extent feasible.
The VMT generated by buildout of the proposed General Plan would exceed the VMT threshold of 85 percent of baseline. Implementing the proposed General Plan policies and actions will help to reduce VMT through encouraging non‐vehicle transportation modes, expanded transit services, and developing TDM program requirementsincluding measuresto reduce VMT associated with new development. The City will also use this EIR and CEQA Section 15183 to streamline VMT analysis for projects consistent with the updated General Plan. However, reductions in VMT per employee from 16 to 46 percent would be required to achieve thresholds as shown in Table 3.14‐10. Additionally, the feasibility and effectiveness of a local or regional VMT impact bank or exchange is unknown at this time. The City cannot demonstrate
3.14 CIRCULATION
Draft Environmental Impact Report – Lathrop General Plan Update 3.14-32 definitively at this time that implementation of these policies would achieve VMT reductions to meet the VMT per employee thresholds. This impact is significant.
The General Plan goals, policies, and implementation measures listed below will achieve meaningful reductions in VMT generated by land uses within the City. However, reductions in VMT per employee from 16 to 46 percent would be required to achieve thresholds as shown in Table 3.14‐10. The City at this time cannot demonstrate that VMT will be reduced to the degree that it meetsthese thresholds. Although large changes in the proposed General Plan land use could potentially reduce VMT of the City further, those changes would also affect the achievement of other goalsthe City seeksto achieve with the General Plan. VMT reduction also depends on factors such as demographic change, household preferences for housing types and locations, the cost of fuel, and the competitiveness ofregional transitrelative to driving, which relates to congestion along vehicular commute routes that are not under the City’s jurisdiction, as well as transit provided by agencies other than the City. The feasibility and effectiveness of a local or regional VMT impact bank or exchange is unknown at this time. Therefore, this impact is considered significant and unavoidable.
GENERAL PLAN GOALS POLICIES AND ACTIONS THAT MINIMIZE POTENTIAL IMPACTS GOAL LU- 1
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-1 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‐1.9 Promote equitable land use patterns to provide all residents in all neighborhoods access to community amenities and transportation choices, and increase safety for walking and biking.
GOAL LU-3
LU‐3 Participate in coordinated local and regional land use planning activities.
LU-3 POLICIES
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.
CIRCULATION 3.14
3.14-33 Draft Environmental Impact Report – Lathrop General Plan Update LU-3 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‐3.e Promote interdepartmental collaboration to ensure Capital Facilities Fee (CFF) projects support local and regional multi‐modal transportation network and infrastructure goals.
GOAL LU-4
LU‐4 Coordinate and integrate land use planning and transportation objectives.
LU-4 POLICIES
LU‐4.2 Emphasize effortsto reduce regional vehicle milestraveled (VMT) by supporting land use patterns and site designs that promote active modes of transportation, and public transit.
LU‐4.4 Asthe city grows, encourage and support the development of a transitsystem with regularservice connecting destinations within the city, to ACE and Valley Link stations, and to adjacent jurisdictions.
LU-4 IMPLEMENTATION ACTIONS
LU‐4.a Implement the policies and actions in the Circulation Element that reinforce and implement land use objectives included within this element.
GOAL CIR-1
CIR‐1 Develop and maintain a roadway system that accommodates all users.
CIR-1 POLICIES
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.
CIR‐1.3 Facility Service Levels. Strive for intersection level of service (LOS) D or better within the City, except where maintaining such levels of service are infeasible:
a. Where maintaining the standard would be a disincentive to walking, bicycling, or transit. b. Where maintaining the standard would be incompatible with adjacent land uses. c. Where constructing facilities would prevent the City from achieving goals for vehicle miles traveled (VMT) or other priorities.
3.14 CIRCULATION
Draft Environmental Impact Report – Lathrop General Plan Update 3.14-34 d. Where constructing facilities with sufficient capacity would be unreasonably expensive.
CIR-1 IMPLEMENTATION ACTIONS
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.
CIR‐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‐1g Evaluate intersection improvements, including signal coordination, leading pedestrian intervals, and crossing times, bike lane signal detection or other innovations to serve all travel modes.
CIR‐1i Work with the San Joaquin Council of Governments and other jurisdictions to revise the Regional Congestion Management Program (RCMP) to be consistent with City LOS and VMT policies and statewide VMT goals. The RCMP network in Lathrop consists of Roth Road, Lathrop Road, Golden Valley Parkway, and the I‐5 freeway ramp intersections at Roth Road, Lathrop Road, and Louise Avenue.
CIR‐1m Require new development to pay a fair share of the costs of street and other transportation improvements in conformance with the goals and policies established in this Circulation Element and the CFF program.
GOAL CIR-2
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-2 POLICIES
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‐2.2 Safety. Improve safety conditions, efficiency, and comfort for bicyclists and pedestrians by providing shade trees and controlling traffic speeds by implementing narrow lanes or other traffic calming measures.
CIRCULATION 3.14
3.14-35 Draft Environmental Impact Report – Lathrop General Plan Update 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-2 IMPLEMENTATION ACTIONS
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 facilitiesto 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‐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 developmentsto provide bicycle parking facilitiesin 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.
3.14 CIRCULATION
Draft Environmental Impact Report – Lathrop General Plan Update 3.14-36 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 safer and more comfortable access to transit including waiting areas, seating, landscaping, lighting, shade and rain cover, trash receptacles, and passenger loading zones.
GOAL CIR-4
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.
CIR-4 POLICIES
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 IMPLEMENTATION ACTIONS
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 CIRCULATION 3.14
3.14-37 Draft Environmental Impact Report – Lathrop General Plan Update 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 basisto a local or regional VMT reduction bank or exchange, as necessary, to reduce net VMT impacts.
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.
GOAL ED-3
ED‐3 Provide diverse workforce housing options
ED-3 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 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.
ED-3 IMPLEMENTATION 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
3.14 CIRCULATION
Draft Environmental Impact Report – Lathrop General Plan Update 3.14-38 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.
GOAL PS-6
PS‐6 Prepare the community to adapt to climate change, including extreme weather events, in order to minimize risks to life, property, the economy, and the environment.
PS-6 POLICIES
PS‐6.10 Vehicle Travel Reducing Development. Encourage and support infill, mixed use, and higher density development, where appropriate, in order to reduce GHG emissions associated with vehicle travel.
PS-6 IMPLEMENTATION ACTIONS
PS‐6a Assess and monitor performance of greenhouse gas emissions reduction efforts.
PS‐6b Consider adopting a Climate Action Plan to establish a formal strategy for reducing GHG emissions, including strategies to reduce vehicle travel.
GOAL RR-1
RR‐1 Provide the community with high‐quality parks and recreational amenities.
RR-1 POLICIES
RR‐1.1 Recreation Types. Provide residents a wide variety of parks, recreational facilities, open space, and trails to foster a comprehensive system that accommodates the uses and recreational needs of a diverse community.
RR‐1.2 Public Park and Trail System. Maintain a public park, open space, and trailsystem that is accessible to all parts of the city.
RR‐1.7 Innovative Design. Maintain and update design standards for public parks, recreational facilities, open space, and trails based on proven best practices and innovations in public safety, active transportation, and recreation planning.
RR‐1.11Trail System. Promote park and open space connectivity by expanding the integrated system of trails within Lathrop to connect local bikeways, equestrian trails, and hiking trailsto regional trails, open space areas, residential neighborhoods, employment centers, and mixed‐use activity centers.
RR‐1.12Funding. Continue to pursue funding from established sources and explore non‐traditional funding options and innovative partnerships to bolster and support the development, improvement, and maintenance of City parks, trails, and recreational amenities.
CIRCULATION 3.14
3.14-39 Draft Environmental Impact Report – Lathrop General Plan Update RR-1 IMPLEMENTATION ACTIONS
RR‐1b Pursue available resources to fund facilities and parkland and trails maintenance, acquisition, and/or development such as General Fund, private donations, gifts and endowments, special districts, and federal and state grants.
RR‐1d Enter into facilitiesimprovement, maintenance and use agreements with San Joaquin County, the South San Joaquin County Water Irrigation District, local school districts, and neighboring cities to improve, maintain and increase access to these open space, park lands and facilities.
RR‐1f Periodically review and update the park in‐lieu fee ordinance as‐necessary to better reflect current costs and needs to address park demand and trails connectivity generated by infill development.
GOAL RR-6
RR‐6 Provide the community with optimal air quality.
RR-6 POLICIES
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 IMPLEMENTATION ACTIONS
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 measuresthat will effectively meet the established GHG reduction targets.
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.
GOAL EJ-1
EJ‐1 Promote land use and development patterns that reduce greenhouse gas emissions, enhance air quality, and reduce climate change impacts in environmental justice communities.
EJ-1 POLICIES
EJ‐1.1 Land Use Patterns. Create land use patterns that are transit, bicycle, and pedestrian‐oriented and have a mix of uses, especially neighborhood serving businesses, within walking distance of homes and workplaces.
3.14 CIRCULATION
Draft Environmental Impact Report – Lathrop General Plan Update 3.14-40 EJ-1 IMPLEMENTATION ACTIONS
EJ‐1.a Implement Actions RR‐6a through RR‐6l in the Recreation and Resources Element as part of the City’s comprehensive approach to reducing GHG emissions and improving local air quality.
GOAL EJ-3
EJ‐3 Ensure that public facilities and services are equitably distributed throughout the city of Lathrop and are available to residents of environmental justice communities.
EJ-3 POLICIES
EJ‐3.3 Support Transit. Encourage local transit providers to establish and maintain routes and services that provide the community with convenient access to regional public facilities, especially health service facilities, where feasible.
EJ‐3.4 Healthy Mobility. Develop a transportation system that supports safe, healthy, and active lifestyles by providing improved public transit and multimodal connectivity between parks, schools, neighborhoods, and other public facilities and community amenities.
GOAL EJ-6
EJ‐6 Promote land use and development patterns that encourage physical activity and improve multimodal access and connectivity to employment, shopping, services, schools, parks, and other destinations.
EJ-6 POLICIES
EJ‐6.2 Active Transportation. Support walking and bicycling by requiring complete streets (i.e. bike lanes, sidewalks separated from the roadway with trees and planted landscaping) in transit priority areas, in environmental justice communities, and in new communities and developments, wherever practicable.
EJ‐6.3 Pedestrian Amenities. Provide more safe, interesting, and convenient environments for pedestrians and bicyclists, including inviting and adequately lit streetscapes, networks of trails, paths, parks, and open spaces that connect residences with key destinations, and encourage regular exercise and the reduction of automobile use.
EJ-6 IMPLEMENTATION ACTIONS
EJ‐6.a Update the Municipal Code to eliminate any barriers to facilitating the development of neighborhoods with access to retail and recreation resources within walking distance of homes.
GOAL EJ-7
EJ‐7 Improve the physical fitness of the city’s residents, particularly those who live in environmental justice communities.
CIRCULATION 3.14
3.14-41 Draft Environmental Impact Report – Lathrop General Plan Update EJ-7 POLICIES
EJ‐7.2 Active Mobility. Promote walking, biking, and other modes of active transportation as easy, healthy, and fun alternatives for all residents to complete local errands and short trips.
Impact 3.14‐2: General Plan implementation may conflict with a program, plan, policy, or ordinance addressing the circulation system, including transit, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities (Significant and Unavoidable)
Implementation of the General Plan could lead to increases in the city’s population and employment that would increase the demand for pedestrian and bicycle facilities and transit facilities and services.
The City adopted a Bicycle Transportation Plan that establishes the City’s goals and objectives for bicycle travel. The Bicycle Transportation Plan establishes standards for bicycle facilities and identifies planned bicycle network facilities to address the City’s bicycle needs. The Circulation Element developed as part of the proposed General Plan contains Policy CIR‐2.1 and Implementation Actions CIR‐2a and CIR‐2g, which support bicycle and pedestrian routes and facilities and creating an active transportation plan supporting the development and funding of bicycle and pedestrian networks. Furthermore, the proposed General Plan contains additional policies and implementing actions that support access to and the performance of transit, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities. These applicable policies and implementing actions are identified below. Further, the Plan includes mixed‐use development that is supportive of active transportation and transit.
General Plan Update includes policies and actions that help make the circulation system, including transit, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities, consistent with applicable programs, plans, policies, and ordinances and address the needs of growth accommodated by the proposed General Plan.
Although the General Plan Update policies and actions help make the circulation system, including transit, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities, consistent with applicable programs, plans, policies, and ordinances and address the needs of growth accommodated by the proposed General Plan, increasing vehicle traffic may increase the number of collisions on Lathrop roadways, including collisions involving transit users, bicyclists, and pedestrians. The City cannot demonstrate definitively at this time that implementation of these policies would maintain the number of collisions for vehicles, pedestrians, and bicyclists at current or lower levels. Therefore, the plan may conflict with policies for safe travel, including by transit users, bicyclists, and pedestrians. These policies include CIR‐2.1 and Implementation Actions CIR‐2.a and CIR‐2g.
This impact is significant.
The General Plan goals, policies, and implementation measures may achieve meaningful reductions in collisions within the City. The City at this time cannot demonstrate that collisions will be reduced to the degree that it meets these thresholds. Collision reduction also depends on factors such as user behavior, demographic change, household preferences for travel, the cost of fuel, and the competitiveness of other transportation modes relative to driving. Therefore, this impact is considered significant and unavoidable.
3.14 CIRCULATION
Draft Environmental Impact Report – Lathrop General Plan Update 3.14-42
GENERAL PLAN GOALS POLICIES AND ACTIONS THAT MINIMIZE POTENTIAL IMPACTS General Plan goals, policies, and implementation actions described in Impact 3.14‐1 and Impact 3.14‐3 also reduce the potential impact of 3.14‐2.
Impact 3.14‐3: General Plan implementation may increase hazards due to a design feature, incompatible uses, or inadequate emergency access (Significant and Unavoidable)
Implementation of the proposed General Plan would result in increased development, which would result in new roadways and would increase the number of users on the city’s transportation system. There will be a need to ensure that hazards are not increased and that adequate emergency access provisions are made to accommodate increased population and growth. As roadways are widened to accommodate increased ADT, accommodations will need to be made for all modes of travel, as part of and with adherence to the Lathrop Design and Construction Standards, Bicycle Transportation Plan Standards, Specific Plan Standards, and other programs.
It is noted that the Plan is a programmatic‐level document, and hazards are typically assessed at the project‐level. Potential hazards associated with future development projects would be analyzed and evaluated in detail through the environmental review process. Additionally, the City’s approach to safety includes:
Compliance with design standards – all modifications of the city’stransportation network whether by City or developer action are required to comply with applicable design standards. The City’s design and construction standards and specifications provide for coordinated and standardized development of City facilities, including roadways, to minimize conflicts and the potential for collisions. The standards apply to, regulate, and guide the design and preparation of plans, and the construction of streets, highways, alleys, drainage, traffic signals, site access, and related public improvements.
Traffic investigations – the City regularly conducts investigation to address traffic safety concerns raised in the community.
Traffic calming – the City’s Neighborhood Traffic Calming Program is used to reduce speeds and create conditions more conducive to walking and bicycling. The program includes speed hump installation when conditions warrant.
Additionally, the Highway Safety Manual (American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, 2010) shows that fatal and injury crash frequencies generally decrease with decreasing speed.
Thus, as congestion increases and vehicle speed decreases, collision rates may decrease. However, there will be periods when the roads are not congested. Additionally, this relationship cannot be shown to hold true under all conditions, and total collisions may increase. Similarly, collisions involving pedestrians and bicyclists may increase. thus, new development will increase the number of vehicles on the roadway network, and the number of collisions in the City may increase for all modes.
CIRCULATION 3.14
3.14-43 Draft Environmental Impact Report – Lathrop General Plan Update Collisions involving trucks may also increase. Industrial employment is estimated to increase 279 percent under general plan buildout conditions as compared to the existing conditions. With the increase in industrial growth, about 24,700 daily truck trips are expected to be generated.
Approximately 0.31 annual injury collision and 0.061 annual killed or serious injury collision per thousand daily truck trips were estimated to be generated in the City under the 2020 baseline condition as described in the Environmental Setting section. Using a constant collision rate per trip, approximately 7.4 annual injury collisions and 1.5 annual killed or serious injury collisions are estimated to be generated in the City under general plan buildout conditions.
The increased level of traffic and delays may increase emergency response times. New development will also result in more people living and working at greater distance from existing fire and police facilities, with potentially longer response times. Additionally, new development will increase traffic at at‐grade rail crossings, potentially increasing collisions.
The proposed General Plan contains policies and actions in support of safe circulation by all modes and adequate emergency access. The Circulation Element includes policies to pursue funding for grade separation. It also includes policies to create a Local Roadway Safety plan and to update the Capital Facilities Fee (CFF) program to include safety improvementsfor all modes and funding for grade‐separated crossings at existing roadways. These applicable policies are listed below.
Although the General Plan policies and actions related to circulation, hazards, and emergency access would reduce the impacts to emergency circulation and access associated with implementation of the General Plan Update, increasing vehicle traffic may increase the number of collisions on Lathrop roadways, and therefore result in an increase in hazards. The City cannot demonstrate definitively at this time that implementation of these policies would maintain the number of collisions for vehicles, pedestrians, and bicyclists at current or lower levels. This impact is significant.
The General Plan goals, policies, and implementation measures listed above may achieve meaningful reductions in collisions within the City. The City at this time cannot demonstrate that collisions will be reduced to the degree that it meets this threshold. Collision reduction also depends on factors such as user behavior, demographic change, household preferences for travel, the cost of fuel, and the competitiveness of other transportation modes relative to driving. Therefore, this impact is considered significant and unavoidable.
GENERAL PLAN GOALS POLICIES AND ACTIONS THAT MINIMIZE POTENTIAL IMPACTS GOAL CIR-1
CIR‐1 Develop and maintain a roadway system that accommodates all users.
CIR-1 POLICIES
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.
3.14 CIRCULATION
Draft Environmental Impact Report – Lathrop General Plan Update 3.14-44 CIR-1 IMPLEMENTATION ACTIONS
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.
CIR‐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‐1j Create a Local Roadway Safety Plan with the goal of reducing traffic fatalities and serious injuries on public roads and to support funding safety improvements. The plan may consider collision history; vehicle, bicycle, and pedestrian volumes; vehicle speeds; and other improvements.
Complete this plan within four years of adoption of this General Plan.
GOAL CIR-2
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-2 POLICIES
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‐2.2 Safety. Improve safety conditions, efficiency, and comfort for bicyclists and pedestrians by providing shade trees and controlling traffic speeds by implementing narrow lanes or other traffic calming measures.
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 IMPLEMENTATION ACTIONS
CIR‐2o Coordinate with transit providers and encourage them to enhance transit amenities for safer and more comfortable access to transit including waiting areas, seating, landscaping, lighting, shade and rain cover, trash receptacles, and passenger loading zones.
CIRCULATION 3.14
3.14-45 Draft Environmental Impact Report – Lathrop General Plan Update GOAL CIR-3
CIR‐3 Support the movement of goods through trucking, rail, and other forms of freight service while maintaining quality of life for city residents.
CIR-3 POLICIES
CIR‐3.3 Railroad Crossings. Support safety improvements at current at‐grade rail crossings.
CIR-3 IMPLEMENTATION ACTIONS
CIR‐3a Support regional efforts that would lead to funding for grade separation and improved at‐grade crossing gates at current at‐grade rail crossings.
GOAL CIR-4
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.
GOAL CIR-4 POLICIES
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 IMPLEMENTATION ACTIONS
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.
GOAL PFS-7
PFS‐7 Provide the community with high‐quality public safety services, facilities, and technology that protects against illicit activities and crime.
PFS-7 POLICIES
PFS‐7.1 Fire and Police Facilities. Encourage the Lathrop Manteca Fire Protection District (LMFD) to maintain adequate staff and equipment to provide efficient, high quality, and responsive fire protection, and emergency medical services to existing and future growth in the city.
PFS‐7.2 Emergency Response Times. Work cooperatively with the LMFD and providers of emergency medical services to ensure acceptable response times in accordance with provider standards.
PFS‐7.4 Roadway Design and Maintenance. Design and maintain roadways to maintain acceptable emergency vehicle response times.
3.14 CIRCULATION
Draft Environmental Impact Report – Lathrop General Plan Update 3.14-46 PFS-7 IMPLEMENTATION 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.
GOAL PS-2
PS‐2 Protect the safety of life and property and prepare for urban and wildfire emergencies.
PS-2 POLICIES
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 and turning movements.
PS-2 IMPLEMENTATION ACTIONS
PS‐2c 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.
GOAL PS-5
PS‐5 Prepare and equip the community to handle emergency situations, in order to minimize loss of life, injury, property damage, and disruption of vital services.
PS-5 POLICIES
PS‐5.5 Emergency Evacuation Routes and Access. Work with the LMFD and the Lathrop Police Department to maintain, update, and regularly exercise emergency access, protocols, and evacuation routes to assess their effectiveness.
PS-5 IMPLEMENTATION ACTIONS
PS‐5e Periodically review, maintain, and repair City roadways and emergency accessroutes, and provide signage, where necessary, to clearly identify emergency access routes.
M a n t h e y R d
S t e w a r t R d
E Lo u is e A v e
M c k in le y A v e
M ckee Blvd
F ift h S t
L a th ro p R d
D e L im a R d
P a ra d is e A v e
W M a n th e y R d
D 'A rc y P k w y
Golden Valley Pkw y
D o s R e is R d
Lakeside Dr
Yo s e m ite A ve
How land Rd
C a m b rid g e D r
S p a r t a n W y
B a r b a ra Te r r y B lv d
Dell Os so Dr
M a n t h e y R d
S H a r la n R d
River Islands Pkw y
C a n a l B l vd
S R o b e r ts R d
W o o d w a rd A v e
Stan ford Crossing
R o th R d
M ulh oll an d Dr
O S t
J S t
S o m e rs to n P k w y
To w n e Cent re
Inland Pas sag e Wy
Brookhurs t Blvd
Sl ate St
Stonebridge Dr Jasper St
H a rla n R d
S an Joaqui n R.
Paradise Cut Circle
Lake
Mi ddle R.
Tom Paine Slough
Old R.
Old R.
San Jo a quin R.
§¨¦5
Walthall Slough
San Joaquin R.
§¨¦5
§¨¦5
UV120
§¨¦205
Í 0 0.25 0.5
Miles
Sources: San Joaquin
County; City of Lathrop.
Map date: 1/5/2022
CITY OF LATHROP GENERAL PLAN
Figure 3.14-1 Functional Classification
Local
Other City Boundary
San Joaquin County
Lathrop City Boundary
Lathrop Sphere of Influence
Functional Classification
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
3.14 CIRCULATION
Draft Environmental Impact Report – Lathrop General Plan Update 3.14-48 This page left intentionally blank.
M a n t h e y R d
S t e w a r t R d
E Lo u is e A v e
M c k in le y A v e
M ckee Blvd
F ift h S t
L a th ro p R d
D e L im a R d
P a ra d is e A v e
W M a n th e y R d
D 'A rc y P k w y
Golden Valley Pkw y
D o s R e is R d
Lakeside Dr
Yo s e m ite A ve
How land Rd
C a m b rid g e D r
S p a r t a n W y
B a r b a ra Te r r y B lv d
Dell Os so Dr
M a n t h e y R d
S H a r la n R d
River Islands Pkw y
C a n a l B l vd
S R o b e r ts R d
W o o d w a rd A v e
Stan ford Crossing
R o th R d
M ulh oll an d Dr
O S t
J S t
S o m e rs to n P k w y
To w n e Cent re
Inland Pas sag e Wy
Brookhurs t Blvd
Sl ate St
Stonebridge Dr Jasper St
H a rla n R d
S an Joaqui n R.
Paradise Cut Circle
Lake
Mi ddle R.
Tom Paine Slough
Old R.
Old R.
San Jo a quin R.
§¨¦5
Walthall Slough
San Joaquin R.
§¨¦5
§¨¦5
UV120
§¨¦205
Í 0 0.25 0.5
Miles
Sources: San Joaquin
County; City of Lathrop.
Map date: 1/6/2022
CITY OF LATHROP GENERAL PLAN
Figure 3.14-2 Number of Lanes
Other City Boundary
San Joaquin County
Lathrop City Boundary
Lathrop Sphere of Influence
All other city roadways are 2-lanes.
Number of Lanes
2 3
4 6
3.14 CIRCULATION
Draft Environmental Impact Report – Lathrop General Plan Update 3.14-50 This page left intentionally blank.
éé
é
é
é
ééé
é
é
é
é
é
é é é
é
é é
é
éé éé é é
é
é
é
é
é
é
éé
é
é
é
é é
é
é
M a n t h e y R d
S t e w a r t R d
E Lo u is e A v e
M c k in le y A v e
M ckee Blvd
F ift h S t
L a th ro p R d
D e L im a R d
P a ra d is e A v e
W M a n th e y R d
D 'A rc y P k w y
Golden Valley Pkw y
D o s R e is R d
Lakeside Dr
Yo s e m ite A ve
How land Rd
C a m b rid g e D r
S p a r t a n W y
B a r b a ra Te r r y B lv d
Dell Os so Dr
M a n t h e y R d
S H a r la n R d
River Islands Pkw y
C a n a l B l vd
S R o b e r ts R d
W o o d w a rd A v e
R o th R d
O S t
J S t
S o m e rs to n P k w y
To w n e Cent re
Inland Pas sag e Wy
Brookhurs t Blvd
Sl ate St
Stonebridge Dr Jasper St
H a rla n R d
0.3 4.1
1.1 2.6 6.7
5.0 2.7
3.2 8.5
1.7 1.4
4.8 2.9 2.8
7.4 2.7 6.5
2.6 4.0
2.1 7.0
5.3 4.2
9.6 7.6 5.3 8.4
17.5 15.0
16.3 12.0
15.3 10.1
10.7 29.7
11.4 16.1
14.4 24.3
17.2 0.1
S an Joaqui n R.
Paradise Cut Circle
Lake
Mi ddle R.
Tom Paine Slough
Old R.
Old R.
San Jo a quin R.
§¨¦5
Walthall Slough
San Joaquin R.
§¨¦5
§¨¦5
UV120
§¨¦205
Í 0 0.25 0.5
Miles
Sources: San Joaquin
County; City of Lathrop.
Map date: 1/6/2022
CITY OF LATHROP GENERAL PLAN
Figure 3.14-3 Average Daily Traffic
1.0 Other City Boundary
San Joaquin County
Lathrop City Boundary
Lathrop Sphere of Influence
Average Daily Traffic Volume (x1,000)
Roadway Level of Service
C
D
E
é
é
é
3.14 CIRCULATION
Draft Environmental Impact Report – Lathrop General Plan Update 3.14-52 This page left intentionally blank.
M a n t h e y R d
S te w a r t R d
E Lo u is e A ve
M c k in le y A v e
M ckee Blvd
F ift h S t
L a th ro p R d
D e L im a R d
P a ra d is e A v e
W M a n th e y R d
D 'A rc y P k w y
Golden Valley Pkw y
D o s R e is R d
Lakeside Dr
Yo s e m ite A v e
How land Rd
C a m b rid g e D r
S p a r ta n W y
B a r b a ra Te r r y B lv d
Dell Os so Dr
M a n t h e y R d
S H a rl a n R d
River Islands Pkw y
C a n a l B lv d
S R o b e r t s R d
W o o d w a rd A v e
R o th R d
O S t
J S t
S o m e rs t o n P k w y
To w n e Cent re
Inland Pas sag e Wy
Brookhurst Blvd
Sl ate St
Stonebridge Dr Jasper St
H a rla n R d
S an Joaqui n R.
Paradise Cut Circle
Lake
Mi ddle R.
Tom Paine Slough
Old R.
Old R.
San Jo a quin R.
§¨¦5
Walthall Slough
San Joaquin R.
§¨¦5
§¨¦5
UV120
§¨¦205
Í 0 0.25 0.5
Miles
Sources: San Joaquin
County; City of Lathrop.
Map date: 3/3/2022
CITY OF LATHROP GENERAL PLAN
Figure 3.14-4: All Collisions Density
Other City Boundary
San Joaquin County
Lathrop Sphere of Influence
Lower Concentration
of Collisions
Higher Concentration
of Collisions
Lathrop City Boundary
3.14 CIRCULATION
Draft Environmental Impact Report – Lathrop General Plan Update 3.14-54 This page left intentionally blank.
@!
@!
@!
@!
@!
@!
@!
@!
@!
@!
@!
@!
@! @!
@!
@!
@!
@!
@!
@!
@!
@!
@!
@!
@!
@!
@!
@!
@!
@!
@!
@!
@!
@!
@!
@!
M a n t h e y R d
S te w a r t R d
E Lo u is e A ve
M c k in le y A v e
M ckee Blvd
F ift h S t
L a th ro p R d
D e L im a R d
P a ra d is e A v e
W M a n th e y R d
D 'A rc y P k w y
Golden Valley Pkw y
D o s R e is R d
Lakeside Dr
Yo s e m ite A v e
How land Rd
C a m b rid g e D r
S p a r ta n W y
B a r b a ra Te r r y B lv d
Dell Os so Dr
M a n t h e y R d
S H a rl a n R d
River Islands Pkw y
C a n a l B lv d
S R o b e r t s R d
W o o d w a rd A v e
R o th R d
O S t
J S t
S o m e rs t o n P k w y
To w n e Cent re
Inland Pas sag e Wy
Brookhurst Blvd
Sl ate St
Stonebridge Dr Jasper St
H a rla n R d
S an Joaqui n R.
Paradise Cut Circle
Lake
Mi ddle R.
Tom Paine Slough
Old R.
Old R.
San Jo a quin R.
§¨¦5
Walthall Slough
San Joaquin R.
§¨¦5
§¨¦5
UV120
§¨¦205
Í 0 0.25 0.5
Miles
Sources: San Joaquin
County; City of Lathrop.
Map date: 3/3/2022
CITY OF LATHROP GENERAL PLAN
Figure 3.14-5: KSI Collisions
Other City Boundary
San Joaquin County
Lathrop Sphere of Influence
Lathrop City Boundary
@! KSI Collisions
3.14 CIRCULATION
Draft Environmental Impact Report – Lathrop General Plan Update 3.14-56 This page left intentionally blank
@!
@!
@!
@!
@!
@!
@!
@!
@!
@!
@!
@!
@!
@!
@!
@!
@!
M a n t h e y R d
S te w a r t R d
E Lo u is e A ve
M c k in le y A v e
M ckee Blvd
F ift h S t
L a th ro p R d
D e L im a R d
P a ra d is e A v e
W M a n th e y R d
D 'A rc y P k w y
Golden Valley Pkw y
D o s R e is R d
Lakeside Dr
Yo s e m ite A v e
How land Rd
C a m b rid g e D r
S p a r ta n W y
B a r b a ra Te r r y B lv d
Dell Os so Dr
M a n t h e y R d
S H a rl a n R d
River Islands Pkw y
C a n a l B lv d
S R o b e r t s R d
W o o d w a rd A v e
R o th R d
O S t
J S t
S o m e rs t o n P k w y
To w n e Cent re
Inland Pas sag e Wy
Brookhurst Blvd
Sl ate St
Stonebridge Dr Jasper St
H a rla n R d
S an Joaqui n R.
Paradise Cut Circle
Lake
Mi ddle R.
Tom Paine Slough
Old R.
Old R.
San Jo a quin R.
§¨¦5
Walthall Slough
San Joaquin R.
§¨¦5
§¨¦5
UV120
§¨¦205
Í 0 0.25 0.5
Miles
Sources: San Joaquin
County; City of Lathrop.
Map date: 3/3/2022
CITY OF LATHROP GENERAL PLAN
Figure 3.14-6: Pedestrian Collisions
Other City Boundary
San Joaquin County
Lathrop Sphere of Influence
Lathrop City Boundary
@! KSI Pedestrian Collision
@! Non-KSI Pedestrian Collision
3.14 CIRCULATION
Draft Environmental Impact Report – Lathrop General Plan Update 3.14-58 This page left intentionally blank
@!
@!
@!
@!
@!
@!
@!
@!
@!
@!
@!
M a n t h e y R d
S te w a r t R d
E Lo u is e A ve
M c k in le y A v e
M ckee Blvd
F ift h S t
L a th ro p R d
D e L im a R d
P a ra d is e A v e
W M a n th e y R d
D 'A rc y P k w y
Golden Valley Pkw y
D o s R e is R d
Lakeside Dr
Yo s e m ite A v e
How land Rd
C a m b rid g e D r
S p a r ta n W y
B a r b a ra Te r r y B lv d
Dell Os so Dr
M a n t h e y R d
S H a rl a n R d
River Islands Pkw y
C a n a l B lv d
S R o b e r t s R d
W o o d w a rd A v e
R o th R d
O S t
J S t
S o m e rs t o n P k w y
To w n e Cent re
Inland Pas sag e Wy
Brookhurst Blvd
Sl ate St
Stonebridge Dr Jasper St
H a rla n R d
S an Joaqui n R.
Paradise Cut Circle
Lake
Mi ddle R.
Tom Paine Slough
Old R.
Old R.
San Jo a quin R.
§¨¦5
Walthall Slough
San Joaquin R.
§¨¦5
§¨¦5
UV120
§¨¦205
Í 0 0.25 0.5
Miles
Sources: San Joaquin
County; City of Lathrop.
Map date: 3/3/2022
CITY OF LATHROP GENERAL PLAN
Figure 3.14-7: Bicycle Collisions
Other City Boundary
San Joaquin County
Lathrop Sphere of Influence
Lathrop City Boundary
@! Non-KSI Bicyclist Collision
3.14 CIRCULATION
Draft Environmental Impact Report – Lathrop General Plan Update 3.14-60 This page left intentionally blank
@!
@!
@!
@!
@!
@!
@!
@!
@!
@!
@!
@!
@@!!
@!
@!
@!
@!
M a n t h e y R d
S te w a r t R d
E Lo u is e A ve
M c k in le y A v e
M ckee Blvd
F ift h S t
L a th ro p R d
D e L im a R d
P a ra d is e A v e
W M a n th e y R d
D 'A rc y P k w y
Golden Valley Pkw y
D o s R e is R d
L
a
keside Dr
Yo s e m ite A v e How land Rd
C a m b rid g e D r
S p a r ta n W y
B a r b a ra Te r r y B lv d
Dell Os so Dr
M a n t h e y R d
S H a rl a n R d
River Islands Pkw y
C a n a l B lv d
S R o b e r t s R d
W o o d w a rd A v e
R o th R d
O S t
J S t
S o m e rs t o n P k w y
To w
n
e
C
e
n
t
r
e
Inland Pas sag e Wy
B
r
o
o
k
h
u
r
s
t
B
lv
d
Sl a
te
St
S
t
o
n
e
b
r
i
d
g
e
D
r
Jasper St
H a rla n R d
S an 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
Walthall Slough
San Joaquin R.
§¨¦5
§¨¦5
UV120
§¨¦205
Í
0 0.25 0.5
Miles
Sources: San Joaquin
County; City of Lathrop.
Map date: 3/3/2022
CITY OF LATHROP GENERAL PLAN
Figure 3.14-8: Truck Collisions
Other City Boundary
San Joaquin County
Lathrop Sphere of Influence
Lathrop City Boundary
@! KSI Truck Collision @! Non-KSI Truck Collision
3.14 CIRCULATION
Draft Environmental Impact Report – Lathrop General Plan Update 3.14-62 This page left intentionally blank
M a n th e y R d
E Lo u i s e A v e
M c k i n le y A v e
M cke e B lvd
F if t h S t
L a th r o p R d
D e L im a R d
P a r a d is e A v e
W M a n t h e y R d
D 'A r c y P k w y
G olden Valley Pk w y
D o s R e is R d
La k es id e Dr
Yo s e m it e A v e
H o w lan d R d
C a m b r id g e D r
S p a r t a n W y
B a r b a r a Te r r y B lv d
Dell Osso Dr
M a n th e y R d
S H a r la n R d
River Islands Pk w y
B S t
Sto rno w ay Av e
C a m b a y P k w y
A S t
L a k e s id e D r
R iver Islands Pk w y
Golden Valle y Pk w y
C a n a l B lv d
S R o b e r t s R d
W o o d w a r d A v e
Stan ford C ro ssing
R o th R d
M ulh o ll a n d D r
O S t
J S t
S o m e r s to n P k w y
To w n e Cent re
Inlan d P as sag e Wy
Broo k hur st B lvd
Sl ate St
Sto ne br id ge Dr Jasper S t
H a r la n R d
S an Joaqui n R.
Paradise Cut Circle
Lake
M i dd le R.
Tom Paine Slough
Old R.
Old R.
San Jo a quin R.
5 Walthall Slough
San Joaquin R.
5 5
120
205
0 0.25 0.5
Miles
Sources: San Joaquin
County; City of Lathrop.
Map date: 5/18/2022
CITY OF LATHROP GENERAL PLAN
Figure 3.14-9 Circulation Diagram
San Joaquin
County
Other City
Boundary Lathrop CityBoundary
Lathrop Sphere
of Influence
4 Lanes
6 Lanes
Number of Lanes
Arterial
Collector
New Road
Removed Road
2 Lanes
Local
3 Lanes
n
Existing Grade
Separation
3.14 CIRCULATION
Draft Environmental Impact Report – Lathrop General Plan Update 3.14-64 This page left intentionally blank
UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS 3.15
Draft Environmental Impact Report – Lathrop General Plan Update 3.15-1 Utilities are critical to providing safe drinking water, disposal and treatment of wastewater, stormwater drainage, and solid waste disposal. This section provides a background discussion of the utility systems in Lathrop including water supplies, wastewater, storm drainage, and solid waste. 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
3.15.1 WATER SUPPLIES
KEY TERMS
Acre feet: The volume of one acre of water to a depth of one foot. Each acre‐foot of water is equal to approximately 325,851.4 gallons.
BGS: Below ground surface.
GPD: Gallons per day.
GPM: Gallons per minute.
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.
3.15 UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
3.15-2 Draft Environmental Impact Report – Lathrop General Plan Update Groundwater is naturally replenished by surface water from precipitation, streams, and rivers when this recharge reaches the water table.
MG: Million gallons
MGD: Million gallons per day
Surface water: Water collected on the ground or from a stream, river, lake, wetland, or ocean.
Surface water is replenished naturally through precipitation, but is lost naturally through evaporation and seepage into soil.
POTABLE WATER SYSTEM
Water System
The City of Lathrop provides water service to 6,308 residential, commercial, agricultural and industrial service connections from surface and groundwater supplies. In addition, private wells are utilized by two major industrial facilities within the City. The City’s surface water supply is delivered fully treated from the Stanislaus River by the South County Water Supply Project (SCWSP). The SCWSP is owned and operated by the South San Joaquin Irrigation District (SSJID).
In addition to surface water, five groundwater wells supply water to City residents, with a sixth that is currently not in operation. Groundwater from Wells 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10 are treated to state and federal drinking water standards at the Louise Avenue Water Treatment Facility (LAWTF).
The City’s potable water system service area reflects the City limits with the inclusion of select industrial areas, as shown in Figure 3.15‐1.
Groundwater Facilities
In 2018 a jurisdictional groundwater basin boundary modification request was approved by DWR to modify the boundaries of the Eastern San Joaquin (ESJ) Subbasin and the Tracy Subbasin to align with the City of Lathrop's (City's) City Limit to be fully encompassed within the Tracy Subbasin. The former basin boundaries split the City's service area between two groundwater basins (roughly bisecting the city along the San Joaquin River), requiring two Groundwater Sustainability Agencies (GSAs) (i.e., the City of Lathrop GSA and the Stewart Tract GSA) to cover the City, and the development and implementation of two Groundwater Sustainability Plans (GSPs). This boundary modification demonstrates that the modification promotes continued sustainable groundwater management. This commitment is articulated in the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the City and Reclamation District (RD) 2062 (i.e., the Stewart Tract GSA) that formalizes their intent to form a joint GSA covering the entire City and to coordinate GSP development within the Tracy Subbasin.
The City owns and operates groundwater wells that pump from the Tracy Groundwater Sub‐basin of the San Joaquin Valley Groundwater Basin. Currently, five groundwater wells supply potable water to City connections including Wells 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10. Well 21 and the Well 21 water treatment facility have remained inactive from elevated uranium and arsenic since November UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS 3.15
Draft Environmental Impact Report – Lathrop General Plan Update 3.15-3 2003. The City plans to both upgrade the Well 21 treatment facility and dilute the well water to meet state and federal drinking water standards (West Yost Associates, 2018). The Well 21 water treatment facility Phase I pipeline is scheduled to be completed as early as 2023 and the Phase II tank by 2025. Groundwater from Wells 6, 7, 8, 9, and 10 is conveyed via 12‐inch and 16‐inch diameter water mains along the eastern border of the City along the railroad tracks to the LAWTF, where the groundwater is treated to remove arsenic.
Brought online in 2012, the Louise Avenue Water Treatment Facility (LAWTF) treats all groundwater for arsenic through a ferric chloride coagulation and filtration process. Removed compounds are disposed of in an approved landfill. The City recently installed solids handling improvements at the LAWTF, including concrete drying beds to better facilitate sludge de‐watering and disposal.
Surface Water Facilities
In 2005, SSJID began providing treated surface water from the Stanislaus River to the Cities of Lathrop, Manteca, and Tracy, as part of the SCWSP. SSJID's supply is the Stanislaus River and is based on pre‐1914 water rights and post‐1914 appropriative water rights for direct diversion to storage. SSJID's surface water rights are subject to a 1988 Agreement and Stipulation with the United States Bureau of Reclamation regarding the New Melones Reservoir operation.
The SCWSP provides treated surface water from the Stanislaus River via Woodward Reservoir under a 300,000 acre‐foot per year (AFY) entitlement. The supply is treated at SSJID’s Nick C.
DeGroot Water Treatment Plant which includes air floatation clarification and a submerged membrane filtration system. There are three large storage tanks and four pump stations that deliver the water over 20 miles to the City via SSJID’s Drinking Water Pipeline.
Recycled Non‐Potable Water Facilities
The Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board (CV‐RWQCB) regulates the Lathrop Consolidated Treatment Facility (LCTF) and the use of recycled water. The City currently uses recycled water for irrigation of agricultural lands, irrigation of public landscape areas, and percolation basins. The City is in the process of expanding its use of recycled water in the future to offset potable water demands. For example, the City has expanded its recycled water distribution system to meet disposal requirements for the Phase II expansion of the LCTF. Phase II increased the treatment capacity of the LCTF to 2.5 million gallons per day (mgd), which equates to 2,800 AFY. Additionally, new developments such as Mossdale Landing, River Islands and Central Lathrop, are being constructed with purple pipes to encourage the future use of reclaimed water for urban landscapes.
Distribution System Facilities
The City’s water distribution system consists of a single pressure zone and approximately 142 miles of distribution pipelines ranging from 2 inches to 30 inches in diameter. The following list describes the major components of the City's water distribution system facilities; these facilities include
3.15 UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
3.15-4 Draft Environmental Impact Report – Lathrop General Plan Update City‐owned or City‐operated infrastructure required to serve groundwater, surface water, and recycled water supplies, and are shown on Figure 3.15‐1:
The City of Lathrop has an emergency intertie with the City of Stockton for potable supply. The City receives SSJID treated surface water at SSJID Turnout 1, which includes a 1.0 MG tank and 7.5 mgd peak capacity. Turnout 1 is not owned by the City, and is therefore not included in the City’s water storage. A second SSJID turnout is near completion in the River Islands area with a 1.0 MG treated storage tank.
The City has 4.6 MG of storage divided between five ground‐level storage tanks. Each tank has an associated booster pump station, and all but Booster Pump Station (BPS)‐1 have variable frequency drive pumps. The City’s tanks are used to help meet system demands during peak hours, provide emergency storage, and provide fire flow storage. In total, the City has approximately 37.4 mgd of domestic supply pump capacity, and an additional 13.8 mgd of fire pump capacity.
Water Demands and Supplies (Water System Master Plan)
According to the Water System Master Plan, total potable water use was 3,646 acre‐feet (AF) in 2016, with a per capita water use of 147 gallons per capita per day (GPCD). Given future water use projections provided in the WSMP, the City is expected to have a net surplus of 416 AFY of water in 2035, as shown in Table 3.15‐1. As part of the SCWSP, the City signed a Water Supply Development Agreement in 1995 with SSJID for potable water lasting through to December 2029.
The Water Supply Development Agreement allots the City a maximum total of 8,007 AFY in Phase I and 11,791 AFY of treated potable water during Phase II of the project. In August of 2013, the City Council agreed to sell 1,120 AFY of SSJID Phase I allocation to the City of Tracy, reducing the maximum Phase I allocation for Lathrop to 6,887 AFY. After Phase II is implemented, the City’s allocation after sale will be 10,671 AFY, as shown in Table 3.15‐1. The SSJID has experienced increased demand in recent years and is exploring options to expand their distribution system, although the schedule for these expansions are uncertain.
Although the City is projected to experience a 5 percent shortfall in normal years after 2040, further additional supply from planned improvements to Well 21, LCTF and construction of the Phase II SCWSP, increased non‐potable water supply generated from the LCTF, and future unaccounted‐for conservation measures are expected to provide the City with adequate supplies through 2040 during normal water years (West Yost Associates, 2018).
LAWTF has a current treatment capacity of 9 mgd, equating to 5,040 AFY. Currently, the capacity of all groundwater wells totals 5,850 AFY, but the potable supply is limited by the LAWTF treatment capacity. The City is currently installing solids handling improvements at the LAWTF to better facilitate sludge de‐watering and disposal that will increase future capacity.
Reclaimed water usage has increase from 485 AFY in 2011 to 609 AFY in 2016 as shown in Table
3.15‐1, and is projected to increase significantly with completion of new developments, including River Islands, where new infrastructure is already in place to utilize this future supply. It is important to note that the City’s projection of future recycled water availability assumes increases UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS 3.15
Draft Environmental Impact Report – Lathrop General Plan Update 3.15-5 to the treatment capacity of the LCTF that will keep pace with production. During 2020, the City recycled 934 AF of tertiary effluent from the LCTF.
The State of California’s SBx7‐7 Water Conservation Act of 2009 requires water retailers to establish and meet a water use reduction target of 20 percent by the year 2020 from a calculated baseline water use. The target is measured in total GPCD, rather than the residential water use divided by the population. The City adopted its 2020 SBx7‐7 target of 188 GPCD in 2012, but exceeded the goal through voluntary water conservation measures and increases in non‐potable water use.
UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS 3.15
Draft Environmental Impact Report – Lathrop General Plan Update 3.15-6 TABLE 3.15‐1: PAST AND FUTURE WATER SUPPLY CAPACITY AND DEMAND DURING NORMAL YEARS, AFY
ACTUAL PROJECTED
ANNUAL WATERDEMAND
2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2025 2030 2035 2040 BUILDOUT Potable Water
Demand 3,798 4,332 4,686 4,008 3,445 3,646 9,711 11,965 13,531 15,185 18,616 Recycled Non‐
Potable Demand 485 437 465 519 546 609 2,439 3,398 4,112 4,815 6,284 Total Demand 4,283 4,769 5,151 4,527 3,991 4,255 12,150 15,363 17,643 20,000 24,900 Available
Surface Water
Capacity
8,007 8,007 8,007 6,887 6,887 6,887 6,887 6,887 6,887 10,671 10,671 Groundwater
Pumping
Capacity
5,850 5,850 5,850 5,850 5,850 5,850 7,060 7,060 7,060 7,060 7,060 Total Potable
Capacity 13,857 13,857 13,857 12,737 12,737 12,737 13,947 13,947 13,947 17,731 17,731 Recycled Non‐
Potable Supply 485 437 465 519 546 609 2,439 3,398 4,112 4,815 6,284 Total Water
Supply 14,342 14,294 14,322 13,256 13,283 13,346 16,386 17,345 18,059 22,546 24,015 Surplus or
Deficit 10,059 9,525 9,171 8,729 9,292 9,091 4,236 1,982 416 2,546 (885) SOURCE: WEST YOST ASSOCIATES, 2018. NOTES:1. POTABLE WATER DEMANDS FROM 2011‐2016 FROM WSMP, 2018, TABLE 4‐1.; 2. POTABLE WATER DEMANDS FROM 2020‐BUILDOUT FROM WSMP, 2018, TABLE 5‐11.; 3. RECYCLED WATERDEMAND ASSUMES ALL WASTEWATER GENERATED WILL CONTINUE TO BE USED.; 4. AVAILABLE SURFACE WATER CAPACITY FROM WSMP, 2018, TABLE 5‐4.; 5. THE CITY'S TOTAL PHASE I ALLOTMENT OFSCWSP WATER, FOLLOWING THE 2013 SALE TO THE CITY OF TRACY OF 1,120 AFY, IS 6,887 AFY.; 6. GROUNDWATER CAPACITY FROM 2011‐2016 IS BASED ON ANNUAL YIELD OF WELLS 6‐10 NOT LIMITED BY LAWTF CAPACITY (WSMP, TABLE 5‐3).; 7. GROUNDWATER CAPACITY FROM 2020‐2040 IS FROM WSMP, 2018, TABLE 5‐7.; 8. RECYCLED NON‐POTABLE PRODUCTION FROM 2011‐2015 IS BASED ON THE HISTORICAL LCTF AVERAGE ANNUAL FLOW (DRAFT 2018 WWMP), TABLE 4‐1.; 9. RECYCLED NON‐POTABLE PRODUCTION FROM 2016‐BUILDOUT IS BASED ON RWMP, 2018, TABLE 4‐1,
CONVERTED TO AFY AND ASSUMES FUTURE TREATMENT CAPACITY AT LCTF UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS 3.15
Draft Environmental Impact Report – Lathrop General Plan Update 3.15-7 This page left intentionally blank
UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS 3.15
Draft Environmental Impact Report – Lathrop General Plan Update 3.15-8 Water Demands and Supplies (Proposed Project Water Supply Analysis) In November 2021, West Yost developed a Water Supply Analysis (WSA) for the City of Lathrop General Plan Update. In the WSA, West Yost summarized the land uses in the General Plan Update, projected future demand at Buildout (in 2040) and compared the projected water demand to the water supply documented in the City’s 2020 UWMP, and the SSJID 2020 UWMP.
PROJECTED WATER DEMAND
The projected water demands were calculated by West Yost based on a sum of existing 2020 water demands, planned General Plan growth demand (excluding River Islands) and planned River Island Phase 2 demand. The demand for the future land use areas for the proposed General Plan Growth (excluding River Islands) was calculated by multiplying the proposed Project projected land uses by the applicable land use‐based water demand factors shown in Table 3.15‐2, below.
TABLE 3.15‐2. WATER USE FACTORS BY LAND USE TYPE
Land Use Designation
Water Use Factor
2021 Urban Water Management Plan(a)
City Wide River Islands Units
Low Density Residential (LDR) 330 315 gpd/du
Medium Density Residential (MDR) 250 235 gpd/du
High Density Residential (HDR) 135 ‐‐ gpd/du
General Commercial 860 ‐‐ gpd/ac
Industrial 1200 ‐‐ gpd/ac
Parks 2,450 ‐‐ gpd/ac
Public/Institutional 1500 ‐‐ gpd/ac
(a) Based on unit water demand factors used in the 2020 Urban Water Management Plan (EKI, June 2021). These factors were developed using unit water factors presented in the 2019 Water System Master Plan but updated based on additional water use data for 2017 to 2019.
The resulting water demand projection is shown in Table 3.15‐3, below.
TABLE 3.15‐3. PROJECTED WATER DEMAND OF FUTURE LAND USES AT BUILDOUT OF THE GENERAL PLAN Proposed Land Use
Future Land Use
at Buildout, Water Demand Factor
Water Demand,
acre‐feet
DU, acres(a) gpd per DU,
gpd per acre(b)
Future Water Demand
Low Density Residential 7,454 330 2,755
Medium Density Residential 1,589 250 445
High Density Residential 573 135 87
General Commercial(c) 136 860 131
Industrial(c) 360 1,200 484
Public/Institutional 324 2,450 890
Landscape 234 2,450 644
River Islands Phase 2 Development ‐‐ ‐‐ 3,798
UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS 3.15
Draft Environmental Impact Report – Lathrop General Plan Update 3.15-9 Proposed Land Use
Future Land Use
at Buildout, Water Demand Factor
Water Demand,
acre‐feet
DU, acres(a) gpd per DU,
gpd per acre(b)
Future Water Demand
Subtotal 10,111 ‐‐ 9,233
Unaccounted‐for Water(d) ‐‐ ‐‐ 369
Existing Water Demands(e) ‐‐ ‐‐ 4,487
Total ‐‐ ‐‐ 14,089
Based on the analysis above, the projected potable and raw water demand at buildout of the General Plan is 14,089 AFY. It should be noted that City potable demand in 2020 was significantly higher than in previous years which may have been caused by a higher daytime population in Lathrop than normal due to stay‐at‐home orders and mandated closure of non‐essential businesses in response to the COVID‐19 pandemic.
WATER SUPPLY SUMMARY
The City’s water supplies are documented in the 2020 UWMP and the SSJID 2020 UWMP and are summarized below. However, reliability projections presented in the SSJID 2020 UWMP do not take into consideration the impacts of the Water Quality Control Plan for the San Francisco Bay/Sacramento‐San Joaquin Delta Estuary (“Bay‐Delta Plan”). If implemented, the Bay‐Delta Plan would have significant impacts on the minimum projected supply amounts available for SSJID to distribute. The Bay‐Delta Plan remains uncertain due to pending litigation and based on these uncertainties SSJID has opted to make no near‐term planning assumptions and should conditions change, a revision to the 2020 SSJID UWMP would impact this water supply analysis.
The City’s total potable and raw water supply is shown in Table 3.15‐4, below.
TABLE 3.15‐4. SUMMARY OF POTABLE AND RAW WATER SUPPLY DURING HYDROLOGIC NORMAL, SINGLE‐DRY AND MULTIPLE‐DRY YEARS(a)
Hydrologic Condition Potable and Raw Water Supply at Buildout of the General Plan Area, AFY
Normal Year 15,391
Single Dry Year 13,759
Multiple Dry Year 1 15,391
Multiple Dry Year 2 15,391
Multiple Dry Year 3 13,759
Multiple Dry Year 4 13,759
Multiple Dry Year 5 15,391
The City of Lathrop currently uses disinfected tertiary recycled water to irrigate fodder crops, landscape areas, and for percolation into the ground. However, there is no infrastructure in place to deliver tertiary treated recycled water to retail customers to offset potable demand. Therefore, recycled water supplies are not assumed to be an available water supply for this analysis.
3.15 UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
3.15-10 Draft Environmental Impact Report – Lathrop General Plan Update
COMPARISON OF WATER SUPPLY AND DEMAND AT BUILDOUT
A comparison of the available water supply and projected demands at buildout of the General Plan is shown in Table 3.15‐5 (West Yost, 2021).
TABLE 3.15‐5. COMPARISON OF POTABLE AND RAW WATER DEMAND VERSUS SUPPLY DURING HYDROLOGIC
NORMAL, SINGLE DRY, AND MULTIPLE DRY YEARS
Hydrologic Condition Supply and Demand Comparison, AFY
Buildout of General Plan Area
Normal Year
Available Potable and Raw Water Supply(a) 15,391
Total Water Demand(b) 14,089
Potential Surplus (Deficit)(c) 1,302
Supply Surplus/Shortfall, Percent of Demand 9%
Single Dry Year
Available Potable and Raw Water Supply(a) 13,759
Total Water Demand(b) 14,089
Potential Surplus (Deficit)(c) (330)
Supply Surplus/Shortfall, Percent of Demand ‐2%
Multiple Dry Year
Multiple Dry Year 1
Available Potable and Raw Water Supply(a) 15,391
Total Water Demand(b) 14,089
Potential Surplus (Deficit)(c) 1,302
Supply Surplus/Shortfall, Percent of Demand 9%
Multiple Dry Year 2
Available Potable and Raw Water Supply(a) 15,391
Total Water Demand(b) 14,089
Potential Surplus (Deficit)(c) 1,302
Supply Surplus/Shortfall, Percent of Demand 9%
Multiple Dry Year 3
Available Potable and Raw Water Supply(a) 13,759
Total Water Demand(b) 14,089
Potential Surplus (Deficit)(c) (330)
Supply Surplus/Shortfall, Percent of Demand ‐2%
Multiple Dry Year 4
Available Potable and Raw Water Supply(a) 13,759
Total Water Demand(b) 14,089
Potential Surplus (Deficit)(c) (330)
Supply Surplus/Shortfall, Percent of Demand ‐2%
Multiple Dry Year 5
Available Potable and Raw Water Supply(a) 15,391
Total Water Demand(b) 14,089
Potential Surplus (Deficit)(c) 1,302
Supply Surplus/Shortfall, Percent of Demand 9%
As indicated in Table 3.15‐5, above, based on the assumptions presented in this report, the City would have a 2 percent deficiency in water supplies to serve development of the proposed Project land uses during some dry years (i.e during dry year 3 and dry year 4).
UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS 3.15
Draft Environmental Impact Report – Lathrop General Plan Update 3.15-11 REGULATORY SETTING – WATER SUPPLIES
State
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.
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.
CONSUMER CONFIDENCE REPORT REQUIREMENTS
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.
URBAN WATER MANAGEMENT PLANNING ACT
The Urban Water Management Planning Act has as its objectives the management of urban water demands and the efficient use of urban water. Under its provisions, every urban water supplier is required to prepare and adopt an urban water management plan. An “urban water supplier” is a public or private water supplier that provides water for municipal purposes either directly or indirectly to more than 3,000 customers or supplying more than 3,000 acre‐feet of water annually.
The plan must identify and quantify the existing and planned sources of water available to the supplier, quantify the projected water use for a period of 20 years, and describe the supplier’s water demand management measures. The urban water supplier should make every effort to ensure the appropriate level of reliability in its water service sufficient to meet the needs of its various categories of customers during normal, dry, and multiple dry years. The Department of Water Resources must receive a copy of an adopted urban water management plan.
3.15 UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
3.15-12 Draft Environmental Impact Report – Lathrop General Plan Update SENATE BILL (SB) 610 AND ASSEMBLY BILL (AB) 901
The State Legislature passed SB 610 and AB 901 in 2001. Both measures modified the Urban Water Management Planning Act.
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 (SB) 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.
EXECUTIVE ORDER B-37-16
In May 2016, Governor Edmund G. Brown, Junior, signed Executive Order B‐37‐16 (Executive Order), Making Water Conservation a California Way of Life. The Executive Order directed DWR to work with the State Water Resources Control Board (State Water Board) to develop new water use targets as part of a permanent conservation framework for urban water agencies. The targets will build upon requirements established in the 2009 Water Conservation Act, but will strengthen standards for indoor residential per capita water use, outdoor irrigation, commercial, industrial and institutional (CII) water use, and water lost through leaks. DWR will be establishing interim water use targets by 2018, with final standards to be published by 2021. Agencies will need to demonstrate progress towards achieving final compliance in 2025 (DWR, 2017).
UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS 3.15
Draft Environmental Impact Report – Lathrop General Plan Update 3.15-13 Local
CITY OF LATHROP URBAN WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN
The City’s 2020 Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP) is an individual UWMP that describes how the current and future water resources and demands within the City’s service area will be managed to provide an adequate and reliable water supply. Additionally, the City’s UWMP reflects the following significant revisions to the UWMP ACT that have been made since 2015. The UWMP has been prepared in general accordance with the format suggested in DWR’s 2020 Urban Water Management Plans Guidebook for Urban Water Suppliers.
CITY OF LATHROP WATER SYSTEM MASTER PLAN
Updates to the City’s Water, Wastewater and Recycled Water Master Plans are needed for compliance with legislation, to condition development and ensure public health and safety through effective planning and management of the City’s water, wastewater and recycled water systems. Collectively, these documents are referred to as the Integrated Water Resources Master Plan (IWRMP). The IWRMP is used to plan future capital improvement projects and serves as the basis for regulatory compliance documents. The IWRMP serves as the planning document used to provide water infrastructure needed for the City to develop to its General Plan, and for the environmental determination to meet California Environmental Quality Act Requirements.
CITY OF LATHROP MUNICIPAL CODE
The Lathrop Municipal Code contains ordinances regulating potable and non‐potable water within the City of Lathrop. Chapter 3.20 provides for the City’s Impact Fee Ordinance, which requires development impact fees to be charged to fund improvements to the City’s infrastructure. Chapter
12.22 provides for rules and restrictions on water play areas in city parks. Chapter 13.08 describes the City’s water conservation and rationing provisions. Chapter 13.09 describes the City’s water recycling policy. Chapter 13.12 describes the cross‐connection controls of the City’s water system.
Chapter 13.16 provides restrictions on the location of the City’s sewer and water pipes. Chapter
16.28 provides that developers of subdivisions shall provide adequate water supply and fire suppression improvements to the City’s water system. Chapter 17.92 provides the City’s Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance.
THRESHOLDS OF SIGNIFICANCE
Consistent with Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, the Project will have a significant impact on the environment associated with Utilities and Service Systems if it will:
Require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects; and/or Have insufficient water supplies available to serve the project and reasonably foreseeable future development during normal, dry and multiple dry years;
3.15 UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
3.15-14 Draft Environmental Impact Report – Lathrop General Plan Update
IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
Impact 3.15‐1: General Plan implementation would not result in sufficient water supplies available to serve the City and reasonably foreseeable future development during normal, dry and multiple dry years (Significant and Unavoidable)
Implementation of the General Plan would result in increased population and employment growth within the Planning Area, and a corresponding increase in the demand for additional water supplies.
In November 2021, West Yost developed a WSA for the City of Lathrop General Plan Update. In the WSA, West Yost summarized the land uses in the General Plan Update, projected future demand at Buildout (projected in 2040) and compared the projected water demand to the water supply documented in the City’s 2020 Urban Water Management Plan UWMP, and the SSJID 2020 UWMP. A comparison of the available water supply and projected demands at buildout of the General Plan is shown in Table 3.15‐5.
As indicated in Table 3.15‐5, above, based on the assumptions presented in the WSA, the City would have a 2 percent deficiency in water supplies to serve development of the proposed Project land uses during some dry years (i.e during dry year 3 and dry year 4).
While the 2020 UWMP water use projections are the best available currently, water use projections will be re‐evaluated in future UWMP updates, based on the new regulations. If the City’s growth projections and/or allocation of land use are updated based on the current General Plan update, then the ability to serve new growth may need to be re‐evaluated. The proposed General Plan includes a range of policies and actions (listed below) to ensure that the City’s water supply plans are updated to address development and land use changes in order to ensure that future supply levels meet demands. For example, Policy PFS‐2.1 requires the City to manage the water system to ensure that the water supply is adequate to meet the needs of existing and future development and is utilized in a sustainable manner. Nevertheless, based the available data, the City is anticipated to have a slight deficit of water supplies during dry years 3 and 4 if the levels of potential new growth analyzed in this EIR occur by 2040.
The proposed General Plan includes a range of policies designed to ensure an adequate water supply for development and to minimize the potential adverse effects of increased water use.
Projected water demands associated with General Plan buildout would not exceed the projected available water supplies during normal years, and the proposed General Plan includes a comprehensive set of goals, policies, and actions to ensure an adequate and reliable source of clean potable water. Nevertheless, as described in the WSA, it is anticipated that the City, with implementation of the General Plan Update, would have a slight deficiency in water supplies during multiple dry years 3 and 4. Therefore, impacts associated with sufficient water supplies are considered to be significant and unavoidable.
UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS 3.15
Draft Environmental Impact Report – Lathrop General Plan Update 3.15-15
GENERAL PLAN GOALS, POLICIES, AND ACTIONS THAT MINIMIZE POTENTIAL IMPACTS GOALS
PFS‐2 Provide existing and projected development with reliable, adequate access to clean, safe, and potable water.
POLICIES
PFS‐2.1 Water System and Supply. Manage the water system to ensure that the water supply is adequate to meet the needs of existing and future development and is utilized in a sustainable manner.
PFS‐2.2 Integrated Water Resources Master Plan. Continue to update and implement the Integrated Water Resources Master Plan (IWRMP).
PFS‐2.3 Coordination with the South San Joaquin Irrigation District. Coordinate with South San Joaquin Irrigation District (SSJID) when considering land use changes in order to assist the District in planning for adequate capacity to accommodate future growth.
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‐2.6 Fair Share Cost. Ensure that all new development provides for and funds a fair share of the costs for adequate water source, distribution, including line extensions, easements, and water treatment plant expansions.
PFS‐2.7 Drinking Water. Ensure safe drinking water, consistent with federal and state standards, is available throughout the community.
PFS‐2.8 Water Conservation. Support water conservation measures that comply with state and federal legislation and that are consistent with measures adopted in the City’s Integrated Water Resources Master Plan and Urban Water Management Plan.
PFS‐2.9 Emerging Technologies. Encourage service providers to explore the use of new technologies in the acquisition, treatment, distribution, and consumption of water including monitoring technologies, and other best practices.
IMPLEMENTING ACTIONS
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.
3.15 UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
3.15-16 Draft Environmental Impact Report – Lathrop General Plan Update PFS‐2c Develop new water sources, storage facilities, and major distribution lines as necessary to serve new development.
PFS‐2d Continue to support the conversion of agricultural water rights to urban use, where appropriate, to support new development.
PFS‐2e Continue to require, as part of the development review process, project applicants to demonstrate sufficient access to water resources to service the project area. Require, as a condition of project approval, dedication of land and easements, or payment of appropriate fees and exactions, to help offset municipal costs of expansion of water treatment facilities and delivery systems.
PFS‐2f Regularly review and update the City’s water conservation measures to be consistent with current State regulations, best management practices for water conservation, considering measures recommended by the State Department of Water Resources, and the California Urban Water Conservation Council.
PFS‐2g Continue to assess a water development fee on all new commercial, industrial, and residential development sufficient to fund system‐wide capacity improvements.
PFS‐2h Continuously monitor water flows through the City’s water system to identify areas of potential water loss and instances of under billing for water service, and make improvements to the system and billing assessments as necessary.
PFS‐2i Continue educational outreach designed to increase public participation in water conservation and water quality awareness through printed material and the City’s website and social media accounts.
PFS‐2j Continue to implement and update as necessary Chapter 13.08 – Water Conservation and Rationing of the Lathrop Municipal Code.
PFS‐2k Institute a remote monitoring program for the city’s water system and replace faulty meters in the system as necessary. The City will continue the practice of identifying and replacing faulty meters at service connections on an ongoing basis.
PFS‐2l Regularly monitor water quality in the water system and wells and take necessary measures to prevent contamination and reduce known contaminants to acceptable levels.
Impact 3.15‐2: General Plan implementation would not require or result in the construction of new water treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects (Less than Significant)
Development and growth in the City under the proposed General Plan would result in increased demand for water supplies, including water conveyance and treatment infrastructure. The proposed General Plan includes policies and actions to ensure that water supplies are provided at acceptable levels and to ensure that development and growth does not outpace the provision of available water supplies.
UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS 3.15
Draft Environmental Impact Report – Lathrop General Plan Update 3.15-17 As described under Impact 3.15‐1, the projected 2040 water supplies are not projected to be adequate to meet demand that would be generated by buildout of the General Plan, for some multiple dry years. As such, implementation and buildout of the General Plan has the potential to result in the need to construct or expand water treatment facilities that have not already been described and accounted for in the City’s relevant water master plans, which include the Water Master Plan and the UWMP.
It is anticipated that water supply infrastructure will need to be extended to serve future development. Future development in the Planning Area would be required to connect to existing water distribution infrastructure in the vicinity of each site, pay the applicable water system connection fees, and pay the applicable water usage rates. Future projects may be required to implement site specific and limited off‐site improvements to the water distribution system in order to connect new project sites to the existing water infrastructure network.
As future development and infrastructure projects are considered by the City, each project will be evaluated for conformance with the General Plan, Municipal Code, and other applicable regulations. Subsequent development and infrastructure projects would also be analyzed for potential environmental impacts, consistent with the requirements of CEQA. The specific impacts of providing new and expanded waster distribution infrastructure cannot be determined at this time, as the General Plan does not propose or authorize any specific development projects or include details on any future development projects.
However, any future improvements to the existing water distribution infrastructure would be primarily provided on sites with land use designations that allow for urbanized land uses, and the environmental impacts of constructing and operating the new water distribution infrastructure are anticipated to be similar to those associated with new development, redevelopment, and infrastructure projects under the proposed General Plan, as discussed in Chapters 3.1 through
3.14, 3.16, and 4.0 of this Draft EIR. Therefore, this impact is considered less than significant and no additional mitigation is necessary.
3.15 UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
3.15-18 Draft Environmental Impact Report – Lathrop General Plan Update
3.15.2 WASTEWATER
This section describes the City of Lathrop’s wastewater infrastructure, wastewater flows, treatment plant permit requirements, and previous infrastructure planning. Figure 3.15‐2 provides the existing sewer system within the City of Lathrop. Wastewater service is provided by Lathrop via their network of collection infrastructure and the Manteca Water Quality Control Facility (MWQCF) and the Lathrop Consolidated Treatment Facility (LCTF).
KEY TERMS
Effluent: Effluent is an outflowing of water from a natural body of water, or from a man‐made structure. Effluent in the man‐made sense is generally considered to be water pollution, such as the outflow from a sewage treatment facility or the wastewater discharge from industrial facilities.
In the context of waste water treatment plants, effluent that has been treated is sometimes called secondary effluent, or treated effluent.
NPDES: Water pollution degrades surface waters making them unsafe for drinking, fishing, swimming, and other activities. As authorized by the Clean Water Act, the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit program controls water pollution by regulating point sources that discharge pollutants into waters of the United States. Point sources are discrete conveyances such as pipes or man‐made ditches. Individual homes that are connected to a municipal system, use a septic system, or do not have a surface discharge do not need an NPDES permit; however, industrial, municipal, and other facilities must obtain permits if their discharges go directly to surface waters.
WWTP: Wastewater treatment plant. Treatment of wastewater may include the following processes: screening to remove large waste items; grit removal to allow sand, gravel, and sediment to settle out; primary sedimentation where sludge can settle out of the wastewater; secondary treatment to substantially degrade the biological content of the sewage; tertiary treatment to raise the quality of the effluent before it is discharged; and, discharge.
SEWER COLLECTION SYSTEM AND WASTEWATER TREATMENT
Wastewater System Overview
Wastewater from the City of Lathrop is currently treated at the MWQCF and the 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. Delineation of the sewer sheds can be found in Figure 3.1‐2. 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.
UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS 3.15
Draft Environmental Impact Report – Lathrop General Plan Update 3.15-19 Wastewater Collection System
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 (West Yost Associates, 2018). 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.
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. A map of wastewater infrastructure is shown in Figure 3.15‐2.
Wastewater Treatment Facilities
Wastewater treatment facilities that serve the City include the MWQCF and the LCTF. These facilities are described below.
MANTECA WATER QUALITY CONTROL FACILITY
The City of Lathrop 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, and as listed in Table 3.15‐6, 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.
3.15 UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
3.15-20 Draft Environmental Impact Report – Lathrop General Plan Update TABLE 3.15‐6: FUTURE SEWER CAPACITY, MGD
Year 2016 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040
BUILDOUT
2050
DEMAND
MWQCF
Projected ADWF
1.08 1.23 1.36 1.37 1.38 1.39 1.47
LCTF Projected
ADWF
0.61 1.33 2.18 3.03 3.67 4.30 5.61
ADWF Total 1.69 2.56 3.54 4.40 5.05 5.69 7.08
TREATMENT CAPACITY
MWQCF 1.45 1.45 1.45 1.45 1.45 1.45 1.45
MWCQF
Improvements
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
LCTF 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75
LCTF Phase I 0.25(a) 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25
LCTF Phase II Not Complete(b) 1.33(b) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 LCTF Phase III Not
Complete(C) 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0
LCTF Phase IV(d) 2.0 2.0 2.0
Treatment Total 2.45 3.78 5.45 5.45 7.45 7.45 7.45
SOURCE: WEST YOST ASSOCIATES, 2018. NOTES:
(A) COMPLETED IN 2017
(B) FACILITY IS SUBSTANTIALLY COMPLETED AS OF JUNE, 2018. FULL TREATMENT CAPACITY OF 1.5 MGD WILL BE AVAILABLE WHEN RIVER DISCHARGE BEGINS OPERATION IN LATE 2022, AS STORAGE AND DISPOSAL LIMITS WILL BE ELIMINATED, BUT WILL BE REDUCED TO 1.0 DUE TO
HIGH BOD LOADING
(C) FACILITY IS UNDER DESIGN AND WILL BE AVAILABLE BY 2024 (D) LCTF PHASE IV IS EXPECTED TO BE AVAILABLE BY 2035
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, UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS 3.15
Draft Environmental Impact Report – Lathrop General Plan Update 3.15-21 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 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.
3.15 UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
3.15-22 Draft Environmental Impact Report – Lathrop General Plan Update 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 Historic 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.
Major Wastewater System Issues and Opportunities
The City’s collection system is primarily assessed against the capacity criteria, including depth to diameter (d/D) ratio in gravity mains and maximum velocity in force mains. Approximately seven percent of City’s existing gravity mains will not meet the capacity criteria by 2040. Approximately 43 percent of the City’s existing gravity mains do not meet the minimum velocity and slope criteria which does not trigger an improvement unless capacity criteria are not met beyond 2040 (West Yost Associates, 2018).
The LCTF with Phase II expansion is projected to have sufficient treatment capacity for existing and new development through 2026. The City’s current capacity allocation at MWQCF is projected to be sufficient to meet projected flows from Historic Lathrop through 2040 with additional capacity needed by buildout. The gravity collection system in the Mossdale Landing will not be able to accommodate the anticipated peak wastewater flow from River Islands and Central Lathrop areas by 2025. Correspondingly, an upgrade to the Central Lathrop Pump Station will be required before 2025. The River Islands Permanent Pump Station and improvements to the Woodfield Lift Station became operational in 2022. Deficiencies at the Stonebridge Lift Station are noted in multiple buildout scenarios (West Yost Associates, 2018).
REGULATORY SETTING - WASTEWATER
Federal
CLEAN WATER ACT (CWA) / NATIONAL POLLUTANT DISCHARGE ELIMINATION SYSTEM (NPDES)
PERMITS
The CWA is the cornerstone of water quality protection in the United States. The statute employs a variety of regulatory and non‐regulatory tools to sharply reduce direct pollutant discharges into waterways, finance municipal wastewater treatment facilities, and manage polluted runoff. These tools are employed to achieve the broader goal of restoring and maintaining the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the nation’s waters so that they can support “the protection and propagation of fish, shellfish, and wildlife and recreation in and on the water.” The CWA regulates discharges from “non‐point source” and traditional “point source” facilities, such as municipal sewage plants and industrial facilities. Section 402 of the Act creates the NPDES regulatory program which makes it illegal to discharge pollutants from a point source to the waters UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS 3.15
Draft Environmental Impact Report – Lathrop General Plan Update 3.15-23 of the United States without a permit. Point sources must obtain a discharge permit from the proper authority (usually a state, sometimes EPA, a tribe, or a territory). NPDES permits cover industrial and municipal discharges, discharges from storm sewer systems in larger cities, storm water associated with numerous kinds of industrial activity, runoff from construction sites disturbing more than one acre, mining operations, and animal feedlots and aquaculture facilities above certain thresholds.
Permit requirements for treatment are expressed as end‐of‐pipe conditions. This set of numbers reflects levels of three key parameters: (1) biochemical oxygen demand (BOD), (2) total suspended solids (TSS), and (3) pH acid/base balance. These levels can be achieved by well‐operated sewage plants employing "secondary" treatment. Primary treatment involves screening and settling, while secondary treatment uses biological treatment in the form of "activated sludge." All so‐called "indirect" dischargers are not required to obtain NPDES permits. An indirect discharger is one that sends its wastewater into a city sewer system, so it eventually goes to a sewage treatment plant. Although not regulated under NPDES, "indirect" discharges are covered by another CWA program called pretreatment. "Indirect" dischargers send their wastewater into a city sewer system, which carries it to the municipal sewage treatment plant, through which it passes before entering surface water.
State
STATE WATER RESOURCES CONTROL BOARD/REGIONAL WATER QUALITY CONTROL BOARD In California, all wastewater treatment and disposal systems fall under the overall regulatory authority of the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) and the nine California Regional Water Quality Control Boards (RWQCBs), who are charged with the responsibility of protecting beneficial uses of State waters (ground and surface) from a variety of waste discharges, including wastewater from individual and municipal systems. The City of Lathrop falls within the jurisdiction of the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board.
The RWQCB’s regulatory role often involves the formation and implementation of basic water protection policies. These are reflected in the individual RWQCB’s Basin Plan, generally in the form of guidelines, criteria and/or prohibitions related to the siting, design, construction, and maintenance of on‐site sewage disposal systems. The RWQCB’s role has historically been one of providing overall direction, organizational and technical assistance, and a communications link to the State legislature.
The RWQCBs may waive or delegate regulatory authority for on‐site sewage disposal systems to counties, cities or special districts. Although not mandatory, it is commonly done and has proven to be administratively efficient. In some cases, this is accomplished through a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU), whereby the local agency commits to enforcing the Basin Plan requirements or other specified standards that may be more restrictive. The RWQCBs generally elect to retain permitting authority over large and/or commercial or industrial on‐site sewage disposal systems, depending on the volume and character of the wastewater.
3.15 UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
3.15-24 Draft Environmental Impact Report – Lathrop General Plan Update
PORTER-COLOGNE WATER QUALITY CONTROL ACT
The Porter‐Cologne Water Quality Control Act is California’s statutory authority for the protection of water quality. Under the Porter‐Cologne Act, the State is required to adopt policies, plans, and objectives that will protect the State’s waters for the use by and enjoyment of Californians. In California, the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) has the authority and responsibility for establishing policy related to the State’s water quality. Regional authority is delegated by the SWRCB to a Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB). The Porter‐Cologne Act authorizes the SWRCB and RWQCB to issue NPDES permits.
Under the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board (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 Local
CITY OF LATHROP SEWER SYSTEM MANAGEMENT PLAN
The City of Lathrop Sewer System Management Plan (SSMP) was prepared in compliance with the requirements contained in the SWRCB General Order No. 2006‐003‐DWQ. An SSMP is a document that describes the activities the City of Lathrop uses to manage its wastewater collection system effectively. Effective management of a wastewater collection system includes: (1) Maintaining or improving the condition of the collection system infrastructure in order to provide reliable service into the future; (2) Cost‐effectively minimizing infiltration/inflow (I/I) and providing adequate sewer capacity to accommodate design storm flows; and (3) minimizing the number of sanitary sewer overflows that occur. The Lathrop SSMP was originally adopted in July 2009 and was updated in 2013, 2016, and 2018.
CITY OF LATHROP WATER SYSTEM MASTER PLAN
Updates to the City’s Water, Wastewater and Recycled Water Master Plans are needed for compliance with legislation, to condition development and ensure public health and safety through effective planning and management of the City’s water, wastewater and recycled water systems. Collectively, these documents are referred to as the IWRMP. The IWRMP is used to plan future capital improvement projects and serves as the basis for regulatory compliance documents.
The IWRMP serves as the planning document used to provide water infrastructure needed for the City to develop to its General Plan, and for the environmental determination to meet California Environmental Quality Act Requirements.
CITY OF LATHROP MUNICIPAL CODE
The Lathrop Municipal Code contains ordinances regulating wastewater within the City of Lathrop.
Chapter 3.20 provides for the City’s Impact Fee Ordinance, which requires development impact fees to be charged to fund improvements to the City’s infrastructure. Chapter 13.16 provides restrictions on the location of the City’s sewer and water pipes. Chapter 13.26 provides the City’s sewer and industrial wastewater regulations. Chapter 3.20 provides for the City’s Impact Fee UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS 3.15
Draft Environmental Impact Report – Lathrop General Plan Update 3.15-25 Ordinance, which requires development impact fees to be charged to fund improvements to the City’s infrastructure.
3.15 UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
3.15-26 Draft Environmental Impact Report – Lathrop General Plan Update
THRESHOLDS OF SIGNIFICANCE
Consistent with Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, the proposed Project will have a significant impact on the environment associated with Utilities and Service Systems if it would:
Require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded wastewater facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects; and/or
Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the Project that it does not have adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the providers existing commitments.
IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
Impact 3.15‐3: General Plan implementation would not have the potential to result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the Project that it does not have adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments (Less than Significant)
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 (West Yost Associates, 2018). 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.
Updates to the City’s Water, Wastewater and Recycled Water Master Plans are needed for compliance with legislation, to condition development and ensure public health and safety through effective planning and management of the City’s water, wastewater and recycled water systems. Collectively, these documents are referred to as the IWRMP. The IWRMP is used to plan future capital improvement projects and serves as the basis for regulatory compliance documents.
The IWRMP serves as the planning document used to provide water infrastructure needed for the City to develop its General Plan, and for the environmental determination to meet California Environmental Quality Act Requirements.
UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS 3.15
Draft Environmental Impact Report – Lathrop General Plan Update 3.15-27 Wastewater treatment facilities that serve the City include the MWQCF and the LCTF. 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. A map of wastewater infrastructure is shown in Figure 3.15‐2.
As Lathrop continues to develop in the future, there will be an increased need for water and wastewater services, including a reliable source of recycled water. These needs have been addressed in the City’s IWRMP and will require that the city continue to implement phased improvements to some pump stations, sewer mains, and the various wastewater treatment plants when triggered by growth.
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 ADWF varied between 60 and 69 gallons of wastewater per capita per day. As described in the City’s Sewer System Management Plan, based on the City’s existing General Plan, the City’s total ADWF in 2040 was anticipated be 5.69 mgd, and increase to 7.07 mgd in 2050. Of this total, the MWQCF is projected to treat ADWFs of 1.39 mgd from Historic 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.
The proposed General Plan Update would develop fewer residential dwelling units than the existing General Plan, while non‐residential square footage would be higher than provided in the existing General Plan. The projected flows of the proposed General Plan for the MWQCF and LCTF are not expected to exceed the treatment capacity available for treatment, under the General Plan Update. Moreover, if full buildout of the proposed General Plan Update increases the existing treatment demand at the City’s treatment plants compared with the demand anticipated under the existing General Plan, the proposed General Plan Update includes a range of policies designed to ensure an adequate wastewater treatment capacity for development. For example, Policy PFS‐
3.5 requires that the City review new development applications in order to ensure that new growth does not exceed the availability of adequate sewage treatment capacity or predate the presence of necessary infrastructure. Additionally, implementing action PFS‐3a requires the City to update the IWRMP regarding wastewater collection and treatment every five years, or as needed; the update is also required to be reviewed annually for adequacy and consistency with the General Plan.
As described above, the City must also periodically review and update their applicable master plans, and as growth continues to occur within the Planning Area, the City will identify necessary system upgrades and capacity enhancements to meet growth, prior to the approval of new development. Given that projected wastewater generation volumes associated with General Plan buildout is not anticipated to exceed the capacity of the wastewater treatment provider to have adequate capacity, this impact would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required.
3.15 UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
3.15-28 Draft Environmental Impact Report – Lathrop General Plan Update However, the proposed General Plan includes a comprehensive set of goals, policies, and actions to ensure an adequate and reliable wastewater collection and treatment system. The policies and actions listed below would further assist in ensuring that adequate wastewater treatment and conveyance infrastructure is available to serve new growth projected under the proposed General Plan.
GENERAL PLAN GOALS, POLICIES, AND ACTIONS THAT MINIMIZE POTENTIAL IMPACTS GOALS
PFS‐3 Provide the community with a wastewater system that is efficient, safe, cost‐effective, and able to meet the needs of existing and future development.
POLICIES
PFS‐3.1 Wastewater Infrastructure. Ensure adequate wastewater collection and treatment infrastructure to serve existing and future development.
PFS‐3.2 Peak Flow. Maintain the ability to handle peak discharge flow as per the State Regional Water Quality Control Board requirements established in the current Waste Discharge Requirements (WDRs) Order for the Lathrop Consolidated Wastewater Treatment Facility.
PFS‐3.3 Statewide Requirements. Maintain compliance with the current Statewide General Waste Discharge Requirements concerning the operation and maintenance of sanitary sewer collection systems.
PFS‐3.4 Sewer Disposal Best Practices. Identify and implement best practices and feasible technologies for wastewater collection and treatment, including those that reduce the amount of wastewater requiring treatment, prevent contamination, maintain the highest possible energy efficiency, and reduce costs and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions.
PFS‐3.5 Development Review. Review new development applications in order to ensure that new growth does not exceed the availability of adequate sewage treatment capacity or predate the presence of necessary infrastructure.
PFS‐3.6 Fair Share Cost. Ensure that all new developments provide for and fund their fair share of the costs for adequate sewer collection, treatment, and disposal, including line extensions, easements, and dedications.
PFS‐3.7 Reduced System Demand. Reduce wastewater system demand by encouraging water conserving designs and equipment, encouraging water‐conserving devices, and designing wastewater systems to minimize inflow and infiltration.
PFS‐3.8 Septic Systems. Only allow the development of individual septic systems where it is not feasible to provide public sewer service. Such systems shall only be used until such time as City sewer service becomes available and meet the minimum standards of the San Joaquin County Health Department.
UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS 3.15
Draft Environmental Impact Report – Lathrop General Plan Update 3.15-29 PFS‐3.9 Public Education. Continue development and implementation of a public education and outreach program that teaches residents and businesses how to help maintain a safe and clean wastewater system, such as by limiting the amount of oils, pesticides, and toxic chemicals entering the sewer system.
IMPLEMENTING ACTIONS
PFS‐3a Update the IWRMP regarding wastewater collection and treatment every five years, or as needed. The update shall be reviewed periodically for adequacy and consistency with the General Plan.
PFS‐3b Require new development to provide for and fund a fair share distribution, including line extensions, easements, and plant expansions.
PFS‐3c Require all wastewater generators within the City’s service area to connect to the City’s system, except those areas where on‐site treatment and disposal facilities are deemed appropriate.
PFS‐3d Continue development and implementation of an industrial pretreatment program for business parks and other industrial uses in accordance with state and federal requirements.
PFS‐3e Continue to monitor the effluent generation rates citywide, and ensure that the City retains adequate capacity allocations at the Lathrop Consolidated Treatment Facility, and the Manteca Water Quality Control Facility to meet existing and projected demand.
PFS‐3f Promote reduced wastewater system demand through efficient water use by:
A. Requiring water conserving design and equipment in new construction; B. Encouraging retrofitting with water conserving devices; C. Designing wastewater systems to minimize inflow and infiltration to the extent economically feasible; and
D. Maintaining a Citywide map of all sewer collection system components and monitoring the condition of the system on a regular basis.
3.15 UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
3.15-30 Draft Environmental Impact Report – Lathrop General Plan Update Impact 3.15‐4: General Plan implementation may require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded wastewater facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects (Less than Significant)
Development contemplated under the proposed General Plan would result in increased wastewater flows, resulting in the need for additional or expanded wastewater treatment facilities and conveyance infrastructure.
Wastewater treatment and conveyance facilities would be evaluated at the project‐level in association with subsequent development projects. However, the facilities would be primarily provided on sites with land use designations that allow such uses and the environmental impacts of constructing and operating the facilities would likely be similar to those associated with new development, redevelopment, and infrastructure projects under the General Plan. As future development and infrastructure projects are considered by the City, each project will be evaluated for conformance with the General Plan, Municipal Code, and other applicable regulations.
Subsequent development and infrastructure projects would also be analyzed for potential environmental impacts, consistent with the requirements of CEQA. As such, this impact would be less than significant, and no additional mitigation is required.
The proposed General Plan includes policies and actions designed to ensure adequate wastewater treatment capacity is available to serve development and to minimize the potential adverse effects of wastewater treatment. These policies and actions are listed below.
GENERAL PLAN GOALS, POLICIES, AND ACTIONS THAT MINIMIZE POTENTIAL IMPACTS GOALS
PFS‐3 Provide the community with a wastewater system that is efficient, safe, cost‐effective, and able to meet the needs of existing and future development.
POLICIES
PFS‐3.1 Wastewater Infrastructure. Ensure adequate wastewater collection and treatment infrastructure to serve existing and future development.
PFS‐3.2 Peak Flow. Maintain the ability to handle peak discharge flow as per the State Regional Water Quality Control Board requirements established in the current Waste Discharge Requirements (WDRs) Order for the Lathrop Consolidated Wastewater Treatment Facility.
PFS‐3.3 Statewide Requirements. Maintain compliance with the current Statewide General Waste Discharge Requirements concerning the operation and maintenance of sanitary sewer collection systems.
PFS‐3.4 Sewer Disposal Best Practices. Identify and implement best practices and feasible technologies for wastewater collection and treatment, including those that reduce the amount of wastewater requiring treatment, prevent contamination, maintain the highest possible energy efficiency, and reduce costs and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions.
UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS 3.15
Draft Environmental Impact Report – Lathrop General Plan Update 3.15-31 PFS‐3.5 Development Review. Review new development applications in order to ensure that new growth does not exceed the availability of adequate sewage treatment capacity or predate the presence of necessary infrastructure.
PFS‐3.6 Fair Share Cost. Ensure that all new developments provide for and fund their fair share of the costs for adequate sewer collection, treatment, and disposal, including line extensions, easements, and dedications.
PFS‐3.7 Reduced System Demand. Reduce wastewater system demand by encouraging water conserving designs and equipment, encouraging water‐conserving devices, and designing wastewater systems to minimize inflow and infiltration.
PFS‐3.8 Septic Systems. Only allow the development of individual septic systems where it is not feasible to provide public sewer service. Such systems shall only be used until such time as City sewer service becomes available and meet the minimum standards of the San Joaquin County Health Department.
PFS‐3.9 Public Education. Continue development and implementation of a public education and outreach program that teaches residents and businesses how to help maintain a safe and clean wastewater system, such as by limiting the amount of oils, pesticides, and toxic chemicals entering the sewer system.
IMPLEMENTING ACTIONS
PFS‐3a Update the IWRMP regarding wastewater collection and treatment every five years, or as needed. The update shall be reviewed periodically for adequacy and consistency with the General Plan
PFS‐3b Require new development to provide for and fund a fair share distribution, including line extensions, easements, and plant expansions.
PFS‐3c Require all wastewater generators within the City’s service area to connect to the City’s system, except those areas where on‐site treatment and disposal facilities are deemed appropriate.
PFS‐3d Continue development and implementation of an industrial pretreatment program for business parks and other industrial uses in accordance with state and federal requirements.
PFS‐3e Continue to monitor the effluent generation rates citywide, and ensure that the City retains adequate capacity allocations at the Lathrop Consolidated Treatment Facility, and the Manteca Water Quality Control Facility to meet existing and projected demand.
PFS‐3f Promote reduced wastewater system demand through efficient water use by:
A. Requiring water conserving design and equipment in new construction; B. Encouraging retrofitting with water conserving devices; C. Designing wastewater systems to minimize inflow and infiltration to the extent economically feasible; and
3.15 UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
3.15-32 Draft Environmental Impact Report – Lathrop General Plan Update D. Maintaining a Citywide map of all sewer collection system components and monitoring the condition of the system on a regular basis.
3.15.3 STORMWATER DRAINAGE
The information in this section focuses on the potential for the General Plan to result in the demand for new or expanded stormwater drainage facilities. Section 3.10 (Hydrology) includes an expanded analysis of water quality, flooding, and other stormwater related issues.
STORM DRAINAGE SYSTEM
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.
The City references three documents to address water quality: the General Permit for Waste Discharge Requirements for Storm Water Discharges from Small Municipal Separate Storm Sewer Systems Order No. 2013‐0001‐DWQ, the Multi‐Agency Post‐Construction Stormwater Standards Manual, and the City of Lathrop Department of Public Works Design and Construction Standards.
The Best Management Practices required by these documents are intended to assure that outfall discharges meet Clean Water Act National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) requirements. New developments within the City are also required to mitigate stormwater discharge rate increases caused by development, as noted in the City of Lathrop Design and Construction Standards.
Area‐Specific Drainage Master Plans
The last comprehensive City storm drain master plan was published in 1992 and covers facilities in and adjacent to historic Lathrop. As development has occurred, specific plans have become the most current source of information on drainage facilities in each new development. These specific plans include Central Lathrop, Crossroads Business Park, Historic Lathrop, Mossdale Landing, North Lathrop, River Islands and South Lathrop areas. The specific plan areas are described below and are discussed in further detail in the City’s Municipal Service Review and Sphere of Influence Plan.
Some planning areas have changed since the original area‐specific plans were developed. The areas covered by each area‐specific plan described below correspond to the most recent available information on drainage zones, asshown on Figure 3.15‐3.
CENTRAL LATHROP
The Central Lathrop Specific Plan proposes future development of 1,520 acres located west of I‐5.
The Specific Plan proposes low, medium, and high density residential units, commercial land uses, two schools and 200 acres of recreational land use and open space. The Central Lathrop Specific Plan identifies pre‐development drainage as a system of shallow agricultural ditches that discharge into the San Joaquin River by small, privately‐owned pumps. The planned drainage system south o Dos Reis Road has been constructed for this area, including inlets, storm drains, detention, a pump UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS 3.15
Draft Environmental Impact Report – Lathrop General Plan Update 3.15-33 station and outfall, with full development expected by 2050, although no mapping of utility completion is available. The system will mitigate increased runoff volume and peak flow rates produced by the development. Infiltration from high groundwater into the collection system will be a concern.
CROSSROADS BUSINESS PARK
The Crossroads Business Park area is a commercial and industrial development area. The area historically included a large amount of impervious pavement with a single stormwater detention facility. A new drainage system comprised of gravity mains, detention, pump stations and outfalls has been constructed to mitigate increased runoff volume and peak flow rates produced by development. On‐lot detention for 100‐year storm volume is also required as noted in the Crossroads Storm Drainage Master Plan. As of June 2018, the Crossroads Business Park is nearly fully developed as envisioned by the Crossroads Storm Drainage Master Plan. However, mapping of drainage infrastructure is not yet available.
HISTORIC LATHROP
The 1,500‐acre portion of the City east of I‐5 is anticipated to continue increasing in density, as it has historically. The primary storm drainage system within the study area consists of pipe networks draining to detention basins and pump stations. Detention basins are used to increase the capacity of the system through peak flow reduction, as peak flow rates are greater than the current pumping capacity. Drainage facilities vary widely in adequacy with newer areas having improved effectiveness. Densification and redevelopment are ongoing in the area.
LATHROP INDUSTRIAL AREA
The Lathrop Industrial Area is a large commercial and industrial area that includes the Sharpe Army Depot, and McKinley Corridor. The Sharpe Army Depot was included within the city limits in 1989 and has water, sewer, and storm drainage services solely provided by the U.S. Army. The City is constructing water and sewer systems to serve portions of the Sharpe Army Depot. An emergency water intertie already exists. Future drainage facilities will include a forcemain to pass through Gateway and South Lathrop, servicing McKinley Corridor, and a collection system for the Roth Road corridor, connected to the Stonebridge pump station. Many of the existing Lathrop Industrial Area developments are currently required to maintain on‐site detention facilities.
MOSSDALE LANDING
Mossdale Landing is a mixed‐use master planned community that is anticipated to be completed by 2030. The Mossdale Village planning area is relatively flat, with runoff directed through a series of ditches and basins that are ultimately pumped into the San Joaquin River. Because high water elevations in the San Joaquin River during storm events are higher than anticipated grades within the development area, pump stations have been constructed to remove runoff. Underground detention basins were also constructed to mitigate potential increases in peak runoff during large events and to provide water quality treatment; this development is partially complete.
3.15 UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
3.15-34 Draft Environmental Impact Report – Lathrop General Plan Update
NORTHERN LATHROP
The majority of the north area AOI (2,101 acres) located north of the Central Lathrop area and west of I‐5 has been removed from Lathrop’s Sphere of Influence and is not expected to be served by Lathrop. The Northern Area Portion Master Plan of Drainage was developed to identify the facilities required to provide 100‐year flood protection for the Stonebridge development. The Stonebridge development was fully constructed in 2006, meets current City criteria, and has a constructed stormwater outfall to the San Joaquin River.
RIVER ISLANDS
The 4,995‐acre River Islands development is located west of the San Joaquin River and east of Paradise Cut on the Stewart Tract. The development proposes a mixture of low, medium, and high density residential units, which are currently under construction in phases. The project’s estimated completion date is 2040. The original plan to develop this area was approved in 1996 and noted that the predominate drainage mechanisms were historically roadside ditches pumped to Paradise Cut. The report noted that Paradise Cut water surface elevations are influenced by other agricultural discharges, the San Joaquin River, and Old River. Under the guidance of the updated 2003 West Lathrop Specific Plan, and the approved Phase 2 Vesting Tentative Map, public storm drain facilities are currently under construction to serve the proposed development, as it is constructed. The new collection system is comprised of gravity mains, detention lakes, pump stations and outfalls that will manage drainage and mitigate runoff volume, peak flow rates, and water quality impacts of the development. About 2,800 low density residential units were constructed and occupied by mid‐2021.
SOUTH LATHROP
The area described as South Lathrop in the City of Lathrop Storm Drain Master Plan has since been broken into two planning areas: the Lathrop Gateway Business Park Specific Plan proposes commercial and industrial development of 384 acres north of Highway 120 and the South Lathrop Specific Plan that includes approximately 300 acres south of Highway 120 are both slated to be built out by 2035. The plans outline existing drainage facilities as a series of agricultural ditches, roadside ditches and retention basins. Public storm drain facilities were constructed in the fall of 2018 for South Lathrop and winter of 2018 for Lathrop Gateway Business Park to serve the proposed developments. The new drainage systems are comprised of gravity mains, detention facilities, pump stations with adjoining force mains, and outfalls. Infiltration from high groundwater into the collection system is a concern.
REGIONAL FLOOD CONTROL
Due to its central location in the Sacramento‐San Joaquin Delta, the City is threatened by seasonal flooding from surrounding waterways, including the San Joaquin River, Old River, and Paradise Cut.
High flows in the San Joaquin River system can occur during intense precipitation events occurring between November and April. High river flows may also be sustained during upstream reservoir release periods during snowmelt from April through June. The most significant mapped flood hazard is the San Joaquin River, which flows from south to north, along the western edge of the City. The rivers surrounding the City are leveed, and although the City of Lathrop is outside of the UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS 3.15
Draft Environmental Impact Report – Lathrop General Plan Update 3.15-35 Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) 100‐year Special Flood Hazard Area, as shown on Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs) 06077C0585‐0620, it may be subject to flooding in the event of a levee failure. Protection from regional flooding is a collaborative effort between Federal, State, and local entities.
The City’s primary flood protection facilities are levees constructed by the US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) and local interests, and maintained and improved by Reclamation Districts (RD) 17, RD 2107, and RD 2062. The USACE and other upstream reservoirs operators, control river flows. The USAE own the Lower San Joaquin River and Tributaries “Project levees”, which were constructed before 1966. In addition to the USACE “Project levees”, there are two segments of “non‐project levees” located in RDs 17 and 2062 that protect the City.
In partnership with the regional San Joaquin Area Flood Control Agency (SJAFCA), the Reclamation Districts have primary responsibility for operating, inspecting and correcting problems with levees and other structures. Operation and maintenance costs are covered by property taxes, but the costs of major improvements must be met with State and federal funding managed through cooperative agreements. RD 2107 includes Dell’Osso Farms and other areas south of the Union Pacific Railroad and southeast of I‐5. RD 2062 includes the River Islands master planned community located on the Stewart Tract. RD 17 includes land east of the San Joaquin River in the Cities of Lathrop, Manteca, Stockton, and San Joaquin County. Figure 3.15‐4 shows the flood control infrastructure within the city; the Reclamation District boundaries are provided in Figure
3.15‐4.
Major Drainage Issues and Opportunities
The City’s planned urban expansion will require extensive improvements to the existing drainage system. The City’s current system of development‐driven specific planning presents a challenge to the City’s ability to assess and plan for storm drainage issues on a City‐wide level. Although the City does not have complete data on existing storm drainage infrastructure, Specific Plan level designs confirm that sufficient capacity will be available for buildout.
Two significant shifts in policy have impacted levees in recent years: in 2006, FEMA undertook a map modernization process in the area to better reflect the risks posed by inadequate levee maintenance, and in 2007, the State of California adopted a new standard of flood protection in urban areas. Both of these changes have resulted in strengthening and raising regional levees to reduce flood risk. The impacts of these changes are described below.
FEMA’S MAP MODERNIZATION
During FEMA’s map modernization process, SJAFCA and the local RDs were required to provide data and information to verify that levees that were shown on FEMA’s FIRMs provide 100‐year protection. Over a period from 2006 to 2010, compliance was demonstrated for levees protecting developed areas of the city. However, the areas south and east of River Islands have never been accredited, as shown on the updated FIRMs, published in 2009. Flood protection for new development in these areas is a concern. Additionally, it should be noted that recently issued FEMA LOMR has taken River Islands out of the FEAM 100‐year flood plain.
3.15 UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
3.15-36 Draft Environmental Impact Report – Lathrop General Plan Update SENATE BILL 5
In 2007, the State of California approved Senate Bill 5 (SB5) establishing the State Standard for Flood Protection in urban areas within the Central Valley, mandating protection from the 200‐year flood event. This level of protection is known as the Urban Level of Protection (ULOP). SB5, requires 200‐year flood protection for urban and urbanizing areas no later than 2025. An urban area is defined as “a developed area in which there are 10,000 residents or more.” An urbanizing area as “a developed area or an area outside a developed area that is planned or anticipated to have 10,000 residents or more within the next 10 years.” After July 2016, new development exposed to more than three feet of potential flood depth during the 200‐year event is prohibited unless the local land use agency certifies that protection has been provided or that “adequate progress” has been made toward provision of 200‐year flood protection by 2025. The City of Lathrop, City of Manteca, RD 17, and RD 2062 are in the process of evaluating flooding risk, existing levee protection, and improvements that may supplement current infrastructure to provide a 200‐year level of protection. The status of the evaluation of each area is as follows:
The existing RD 17 levees currently do not meet the DWR Urban Levee Design Criteria (ULDC) standards adopted in May 2012, and the existing levees are not currently certified to provide 200-year protection. Accordingly, Lathrop and Manteca, in coordination with RD 17, jointly pursued efforts to achieve ULOP by 2025. The RD 17 Area: 2017 Annual Adequate Progress Report Update outlines the plan for flood protection through the year 2025 consisting of ongoing Levee Seepage Repair Project and other improvements that will achieve the 200-year requirements. Lathrop and Manteca joined the San Joaquin Area Flood Control Agency (SJAFCA), and SJAFCA took on the responsibility of completing the 200‐year flood improvements in areas protected by RD 17, now known as the Mossdale Tract. The State Legislature approved a time extension for the Mossdale Tract to achieve ULOP, from 2025 to 2028. A Finding of Adequate Progress toward providing ULOP has been made by Lathrop every year since 2016.
Similarly, the existing RD 2062 levees do not currently meet the DWR ULDC standards. As outlined in the RD 2062 River Islands at Lathrop Phase I Area Report of Adequate Progress Towards an Urban Level of Flood Protection, the developers of this area have decided on a staged approach to flood control. As buildout is achieved in phases, the protected area likewise will increase in advance of each new development phase. New levees designed to provide ULOP 200‐year protection has been constructed. FEMA approved several Letters of Map Revision to confirm the new levees met FEMA 100‐year standards. The developers plan to certify that the levees provide 200‐year flood protection by the year 2025. RD 2107 is not currently protected from the 100‐year flood, does not include existing or planned urban areas and so does not intend to provide ULOP. The existing levees provide an approximate 50‐year level of flood protection.
UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS 3.15
Draft Environmental Impact Report – Lathrop General Plan Update 3.15-37
REGULATORY SETTING - STORMWATER DRAINAGE
Federal
CLEAN WATER ACT (CWA)
The Clean Water Act (CWA) regulates the water quality of all discharges into waters of the United States including wetlands, perennial and intermittent stream channels. Section 401, Title 33, Section 1341 of the CWA sets forth water quality certification requirements for “any applicant applying for a federal license or permit to conduct any activity including, but not limited to, the construction or operation of facilities, which may result in any discharge into the navigable waters.” Section 404, Title 33, Section 1344 of the CWA in part authorizes the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to:
Set requirements and standards pertaining to such discharges: subparagraph (e); Issue permits “for the discharge of dredged or fill material into the navigable waters at specified disposal sites”: subparagraph (a);
Specify the disposal sites for such permits: subparagraph (b); Deny or restrict the use of specified disposal sites if “the discharge of such materials into such area will have an unacceptable adverse effect on municipal water supplies and fishery areas”: subparagraph (c);
Specify type of and conditions for non‐prohibited discharges: subparagraph (f); Provide for individual State or interstate compact administration of general permit programs: subparagraphs (g), (h), and (j);
Withdraw approval of such State or interstate permit programs: subparagraph (i); Ensure public availability of permits and permit applications: subparagraph (o); Exempt certain Federal or State projects from regulation under this Section: subparagraph (r); and,
Determine conditions and penalties for violation of permit conditions or limitations:
subparagraph (s).
Section 401 certification is required prior to final issuance of Section 404 permits from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.
The California State Water Resources Control Board and RWQCBs enforce State of California statutes that are equivalent to or more stringent than the Federal statutes. RWQCBs are responsible for establishing water quality standards and objectives that protect the beneficial uses of various waters including the San Joaquin River, and other waters in the Lathrop Planning Area.
In the Lathrop Planning Area the RWQCB is responsible for protecting surface and groundwater from both point and non‐point sources of pollution. Water quality objectives for all of the water bodies within the Lathrop Planning Area were established by the RWQCB and are listed in its Basin Plan.
FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY (FEMA)
San Joaquin County is a participant in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP), a Federal program administered by FEMA. Participants in the NFIP must satisfy certain mandated floodplain
3.15 UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
3.15-38 Draft Environmental Impact Report – Lathrop General Plan Update 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 Department of Water Resources to insure the proper implementation of FEMA floodplain management regulations.
NATIONAL POLLUTANT DISCHARGE ELIMINATION SYSTEM (NPDES) National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permits are required for discharges of pollutants to navigable waters of the United States, which includes any discharge to surface waters, including lakes, rivers, streams, bays, the ocean, dry stream beds, wetlands, and storm sewers that are tributary to any surface water body. NPDES permits are issued under the Federal Clean Water Act, 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 Environmental Protection Agency Regional Administrator. The terms of these NPDES permits implement pertinent provisions of the Federal Clean Water Act 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 Clean Water Act’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 Central Valley Region can be covered under these general permits, which are administered jointly by the SWRCB and RWQCB.
A new Phase II Small Municipal Separate Storm Sewer (MS4) General Permit was adopted by the State Water Resources Control Board on April 17, 2015 became effective June 1, 2015. The Permit has numerous new components and the City is required to implement these components in stages over the five‐year period of the Permit.
State
DEPARTMENT OF WATER RESOURCES
The Department of Water Resources’ (DWR) major responsibilities include preparing and updating the California Water Plan to guide development and management of the State's water resources, UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS 3.15
Draft Environmental Impact Report – Lathrop General Plan Update 3.15-39 planning, designing, constructing, operating, and maintaining the State Water Resources Development System, protecting and restoring the Sacramento‐San Joaquin Delta, regulating dams, providing flood protection, assisting in emergency management to safeguard life and property, educating the public, and serving local water needs by providing technical assistance. In addition, the DWR cooperates with local agencies on water resources investigations; supports watershed and river restoration programs; encourages water conservation; explores conjunctive use of ground and surface water; facilitates voluntary water transfers; and, when needed, operates a State drought water bank.
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 State Water Resource Control Board (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 Clean Water Act. 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.
The Water Code Section 13260 requires all dischargers of waste that may affect water quality in waters of the state to prepare and provide a water quality discharge report to the RWQCB. Section 13260a‐c is as follows:
(a) Each of the following persons shall file with the appropriate regional board a report of the discharge, containing the information that may be required by the regional board:
(1) A person discharging waste, or proposing to discharge waste, within any region that could affect the quality of the waters of the state, other than into a community sewer system.
(2) A person who is a citizen, domiciliary, or political agency or entity of this state discharging waste, or proposing to discharge waste, outside the boundaries of the state in a manner that could affect the quality of the waters of the state within any region.
(3) A person operating, or proposing to construct, an injection well. (b) No report of waste discharge need be filed pursuant to subdivision (a) if the requirement is waived pursuant to Section 13269.
3.15 UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
3.15-40 Draft Environmental Impact Report – Lathrop General Plan Update (c) Each person subject to subdivision (a) shall file with the appropriate regional board a report of waste discharge relative to any material change or proposed change in the character, location, or volume of the discharge.
WATER QUALITY CONTROL PLAN (BASIN PLAN) FOR THE CENTRAL VALLEY REGION The Water Quality Control Plan for the Central Valley Region (Basin Plan) includes a summary of beneficial water uses, water quality objectives needed to protect the identified beneficial uses, and implementation measures. The Basin Plan establishes water quality standards for all the ground and surface waters of the region. The term “water quality standards,” as used in the Federal Clean Water Act, includes both the beneficial uses of specific water bodies and the levels of quality that must be met and maintained to protect those uses. The Basin Plan includes an implementation plan describing the actions by the RWQCB and others that are necessary to achieve and maintain the water quality standards.
The RWQCB regulates waste discharges to minimize and control their effects on the quality of the region’s ground and surface water. Permits are issued under a number of programs and authorities. The terms and conditions of these discharge permits are enforced through a variety of technical, administrative, and legal means. Water quality problems in the region are listed in the Basin Plan, along with the causes, where they are known. For water bodies with quality below the levels necessary to allow all the beneficial uses of the water to be met, plans for improving water quality are included. The Basin Plan reflects, incorporates, and implements applicable portions of a number of national and statewide water quality plans and policies, including the California Water Code and the Clean Water Act.
STATE WATER RESOURCE CONTROL BOARD (STATE WATER 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. The Storm Water Strategy developed guiding principles to serve as the foundation of the storm water program; identified issues that support or inhibit the program from aligning with the guiding principles; and proposed and prioritized 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
MULTI-AGENCY POST-CONSTRUCTION STANDARDS (LID)
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 in implementing the requirements under the Statewide Small MS4 NPDES permit (2013‐0001‐DWQ). The guidance provides tools to address the following objectives:
UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS 3.15
Draft Environmental Impact Report – Lathrop General Plan Update 3.15-41 Establish the methodology to consider the effects of stormwater runoff from a new development or redevelopment project during the project planning phase; Minimize contiguously‐connected impervious surfaces in areas of new development and redevelopment, and where feasible, to maximize on‐site infiltration of stormwater runoff; Implement site design measures to preserve, create, or restore areas that provide important water quality benefits such as riparian corridors, wetlands, stream and buffers, and maintain, protect, and improve underlying soil quality; Provide source control measures to minimize the transport of and/or eliminate potential sources of pollution to stormwater runoff or run‐on into the MS4 and receiving waters; Implement Low Impact Development (LID) control measures to reduce and/or eliminate the volume of stormwater runoff and pollutants leaving the project site; Control post‐construction peak stormwater runoff discharge volumes and velocities (hydromodification) to mitigate impacts from downstream erosion and to protect downstream habitat; and
Develop tools for effectively operating, managing, and maintaining stormwater control measures.
CITY OF LATHROP SEWER SYSTEM MANAGEMENT PLAN
The City of Lathrop Sewer System Management Plan (SSMP) (March 2018) was prepared in compliance with the State Water Resource Board (SWRCB) General Order No. 2006‐0003‐DWQ.
This order mandated the development of an SSMP and the reporting of sewer system overflows using an electronic reporting system. The City of Lathrop SSMP was originally adopted in 2009 and was updated in 2013, 2016, and 2018. The SSMP describes the City’s wastewater collection system consists of approximately 72 miles of gravity mains, 21 miles of force mains, as well as 12 lift and pump stations. The Plan describes that the City has a supervisory control and data acquisition (SCADA) system for control and monitoring of facilities.
CITY OF LATHROP SB 5 200-YEAR FLOOD PROTECTION GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT On March 25, 2015, the City of Lathrop drafted a General Plan Amendment to adhere to State of California Senate Bill 5, which were designed to set new flood protection standards for urban areas. SB 5 established the State standard for flood protection in urban areas as protection from the 200‐year frequency flood. Under SB 5, urban and urbanizing areas must be provided with the 200‐year flood protection no later than 2025. This General Plan Amendment amends the Safety Element of the City of Lathrop General Plan to comply with the provisions established under SB 5.
CITY OF LATHROP MUNICIPAL CODE
The Lathrop Municipal Code contains ordinances regulating stormwater/drainage and flood control within the City of Lathrop. Chapter 3.20 provides for the City’s Impact Fee Ordinance, which requires development impact fees to be charged to fund improvements to the City’s infrastructure. Chapter 3.20 provides for the City’s Impact Fee Ordinance, which requires development impact fees to be charged to fund improvements to the City’s infrastructure. Chapter
3.23 provides the City’s interim urban level of flood protection levee impact fee. Chapter 13.28 provides the City’s Stormwater Management and Discharge Control Ordinance. Chapter 15.56 describes methods of reducing flood losses. Chapter 16.10 provides that subdivisions in flood hazard zones shall not be approved until applicable findings required in Chapter 17.17 of Lathrop
3.15 UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
3.15-42 Draft Environmental Impact Report – Lathrop General Plan Update Municipal Code are made. Chapter 17.17 describes the 200‐year flood protection requirements for new development.
THRESHOLDS OF SIGNIFICANCE
Consistent with Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, the proposed Project will have a significant impact on the environment associated with Utilities if it would:
Require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded storm water drainage facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects.
IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
Impact 3.15‐5: General Plan implementation would not require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded storm water drainage facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects (Less than Significant) Development under the proposed General Plan would result in increased areas of impervious surfaces throughout the Planning Area, resulting in the need for additional or expanded stormwater drainage, conveyance, and retention infrastructure. The infrastructure and facilities necessary to serve new growth would involve development of some facilities on‐site within new development projects, some facilities off‐site on appropriately designated land, and may also involve improvements to existing facilities and disturbance of existing rights‐of‐way. The specific impacts of providing new and expanded drainage facilities cannot be determined at this time, as the General Plan does not propose or approve any specific development project nor does it designate specific sites for new or expanded public facilities.
Stormwater drainage and conveyance facilities would be evaluated at the project‐level in association with subsequent development projects. However, the facilities would be primarily provided on sites with land use designations that allow such uses and the environmental impacts of constructing and operating the facilities would likely be similar to those associated with new development, redevelopment, and infrastructure projects under the General Plan as discussed throughout this Draft EIR, including in Chapters 3.1 through 3.14 and 3.16 through 4.0.
As future development and infrastructure projects are considered by the City, each project will be evaluated for conformance with the General Plan, Municipal Code, and other applicable regulations. Subsequent development and infrastructure projects would also be analyzed for potential environmental impacts, consistent with the requirements of CEQA. As such, this is a less than significant impact and no additional mitigation is required.
The policies and actions listed below would further ensure that there is adequate stormwater drainage and flood control infrastructure to serve future development under the General Plan, and would ensure that future drainage and flood control infrastructure projects do not result in adverse environmental impacts.
UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS 3.15
Draft Environmental Impact Report – Lathrop General Plan Update 3.15-43
GENERAL PLAN GOALS, POLICIES, AND ACTIONS THAT MINIMIZE POTENTIAL IMPACTS GOALS
PFS‐4 Provide the Community with an efficient, attractive, and environmentally sound stormwater system to accommodate runoff from existing and new development and prevent property damage due to flooding.
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:
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 rain water 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.
3.15 UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
3.15-44 Draft Environmental Impact Report – Lathrop General Plan Update 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.
IMPLEMENTING 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.
UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS 3.15
Draft Environmental Impact Report – Lathrop General Plan Update 3.15-45
3.15.4 SOLID WASTE
Republic Services, a private garbage collection company, provides residential (single family and multi‐family) and commercial garbage, recycling, and green waste collection services within the city limits. Solid waste from Lathrop is primarily landfilled at the Forward Sanitary Landfill.
KEY TERMS
Class I landfill: A landfill that accepts for disposal 20 tons or more of municipal solid waste daily (based on an annual average); or one that does not qualify as a Class II or Class III municipal solid waste landfill.
Class II landfill: A landfill that (1) accepts less than 20 tons daily of municipal solid waste (based on an annual average); (2) is located on a site where there is no evidence of groundwater pollution caused or contributed by the landfill; (3) is not connected by road to a Class I municipal solid waste landfill, or, if connected by road, is located more than 50 miles from a Class I municipal solid waste landfill; and (4) serves a community that experiences (for at least three months each year) an interruption in access to surface transportation, preventing access to a Class I landfill, or a community with no practicable waste management alternative.
Class III landfill: A landfill that is not connected by road to a Class I landfill or a landfill that is located at least 50 miles from a Class I landfill. Class III landfills can accept no more than an average of one ton daily of ash from incinerated municipal solid waste or less than five tons daily of municipal solid waste.
Transfer station: A facility for the temporary deposition of some wastes. Transfer stations are often used as places where local waste collection vehicles will deposit their waste cargo prior to loading into larger vehicles. These larger vehicles will transport the waste to the end point of disposal or treatment.
Waste Management Plan: A Waste Management Plan (WMP) is a completed WMP form, approved by the City for the purpose of compliance with Chapter 8.40 of the Municipal Code, submitted by the applicant for any covered project. Prior to project start, the WMP shall identify the types of construction and demolition (C&D) debris materials that will be generated for disposal and recycling. A completed WMP contains actual weight or volume of the material disposed recycled receipts.
WASTE COLLECTION SERVICES
The City of Lathrop has an exclusive contract with Republic Services to collect solid waste, recycling, and green waste from the residential and commercial sector. Republic Services is a private garbage collection company, provides residential (single family and multi‐family) and commercial garbage, recycling, and green waste collection services within the city limits. Republic Services is the second largest provider of non‐hazardous solid waste collection, transfer, disposal, recycling, and energy services in the United States, as measured by revenue. Republic Services operates in 41 states and Puerto Rico through 340 collection operations, 201 transfer stations, 193
3.15 UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
3.15-46 Draft Environmental Impact Report – Lathrop General Plan Update active landfills, 67 recycling centers, 8 treatment, recovery and disposal facilities, and 12 salt water disposal wells. Republic also operated 69 landfill gas and renewable energy projects and had post‐ closure responsibility for 126 closed landfills. Republic Services serves 14 million customers in total (throughout the United States). Refuse, recycling, and green waste bins are picked up once per week in the City of Lathrop.
The City of Lathrop has a three (3) cart system for the collection of garbage, recycling and green waste. The three‐cart system was established to enable residents to assist in reducing the amount of waste that is dumped in landfills. Garbage service is mandatory within the City of Lathrop and Republic Services provides residential garbage service to City of Lathrop residents. Recycling service is provided for newspapers, cardboard (including cereal boxes, soda boxes, etc.), glass bottles and jars, aluminum, tin, steel, plastic containers, and all junk mail and phone books.
WASTE DISPOSAL FACILITIES
The vast majority (77%) of landfill disposal from the City of Lathrop in 2016 (the latest year of information available) went to Forward Landfill. Other landfills that received relatively small amounts of waste from the City of Lathrop in 2016 included:
Altamont Landfill & Resource Recovery;
Azusa Land Reclamation Company Landfill;
Fink Road Landfill;
Foothill Sanitary Landfill;
L and D Landfill;
North County Landfill & Recycling Center;
Potrero Hills Landfill;
Recology Hay Road;
Sacramento County Landfill (Kiefer).
Forward Landfill
The Forward Landfill is a solid waste disposal site, located at 9999 South Austin Road in Manteca.
The landfill operates under Permit 39‐AA‐0015 (July 16, 2021). The Forward Landfill is owned and operated by Forward, Inc. (an Allied Waste North America subsidiary), and contains a total of 371.8 acres of disposal acreage. Forward Landfill has a remaining landfill capacity of over 22,100,000 tons, and has a current maximum permitted throughput of 8,668 tons per day. It has a total maximum capacity of 59,160,000 cubic yards. The landfill has a permitted traffic volume of 620 vehicles per day. The landfill has a cease operation date of 2039.
Other Landfills
The nine other landfills that received solid waste from the City of Lathrop in 2016 are shown in Table 3.15‐7. Three landfills received Alternative Daily Cover (ADC) from Lathrop (Fink Road Landfill, L & D Landfill, and Vasco Road Sanitary Landfill). Alternative daily cover (ADC) means cover material other than earthen material placed on the surface of the active face of a municipal solid waste landfill at the end of each operating day to control vectors, fires, odors, blowing litter, and scavenging.
UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS 3.15
Draft Environmental Impact Report – Lathrop General Plan Update 3.15-47 TABLE 3.15‐7: LANDFILLS EXISTING DAILY CAPACITY AND ESTIMATES CLOSURE DATE
LANDFILL
DAILY
CAPACITY
(TONS/DAY)
ANNUAL TONNAGE DISPOSED
BY LATHROP IN 2016 ESTIMATED CLOSURE DATE
Altamont Landfill & Resource
Recovery 11,150
227 1/01/2025
Azusa Land Reclamation Co. Landfill 8,000 1 1/01/2045
Fink Road Landfill 2,400 436 12/01/2023
Foothill Sanitary Landfill 1,500 6,456 12/31/2082
Forward Landfill, Inc. 8,668 26,228 01/01/2039
L and D Landfill 4,125 125 01/01/2023
North County Landfill & Recycling
Center
825 9 12/31/2048
Potrero Hills Landfill 4,330 451 02/14/2048
Recology Hay Road 2,400 20 01/01/2077
Sacramento County Landfill (Kiefer) No data 156 No data SOURCE: HTTP://WWW.CALRECYCLE.CA.GOV/SWFACILITIES/DIRECTORY/SEARCH.ASPX. ACCESSED APRIL 2018.
SOLID WASTE GENERATION RATES AND VOLUMES
The California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle) tracks and monitors solid waste generation rates on a per capita basis. Per capita solid waste generation rates and total annual solid waste disposal volumes for the City of Lathrop between 2014 and 2019 are shown in Table 3.15‐8 below.
TABLE 3.15‐8: SOLID WASTE GENERATION RATES IN THE CITY OF LATHROP YEAR
WASTE GENERATION RATES
(POUNDS/PERSON/DAY) TOTAL DISPOSAL TONNAGE
(TONS/YEAR) PER RESIDENT PER EMPLOYEE
2014 8.7 23.9 31,486
2015 8.0 19.8 29,691
2016 8.5 22.4 34,296
2017 6.9 18.4 29,378
2018 8.8 21.3 37,997
2019 5.9 13.7 26,778
SOURCE:
HTTPS://WWW2.CALRECYCLE.CA.GOV/LGCENTRAL/ANNUALREPORTING/DISPOSALRATECALC ULATOR ACCESSED FEBRUARY 2022.
As shown in the above table, for the years 2014 through 2019 (the latest year of data available), the per capita waste generation rate in the City of Lathrop was at the lowest level in 2019; the per employee waste generation rate was at the lowest level in 2019; and the total annual disposal tonnage in Lathrop was at their lowest level (during this period) in 2019. The City of Lathrop complied with State requirements to reduce the volume of solid waste through recycling and reuse of solid waste. The City of Lathrop achieved the City’s per capita disposal target rates for 2011‐
3.15 UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
3.15-48 Draft Environmental Impact Report – Lathrop General Plan Update 2019 of 20.4 and 41.0 pounds per person per day for residents and employees, respectively, as established by CalRecycle.
REGULATORY SETTING – SOLID WASTE
Federal
RESOURCE CONSERVATION AND RECOVERY ACT
The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) was enacted in 1976 to address the huge volumes of municipal and industrial solid waste generated nationwide. After several amendments, the current Act governs the management of solid and hazardous waste and underground storage tanks (USTs). RCRA was an amendment to the Solid Waste Disposal Act of 1965. RCRA has been amended several times, most significantly by the Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments (HSWA) of 1984. RCRA is a combination of the first solid waste statutes and all subsequent amendments.
RCRA authorizes the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to regulate waste management activities. RCRA authorizes states to develop and enforce their own waste management programs, in lieu of the Federal program, if a state's waste management program is substantially equivalent to, consistent with, and no less stringent than the Federal program.
State
CALIFORNIA INTEGRATED WASTE MANAGEMENT ACT (AB 939 AND SB 1322) The California Integrated Waste Management Act of 1989 (AB 939 and SB 1322) requires every city and county in the state to prepare a Source Reduction and Recycling Element to its Solid Waste Management Plan that identifies how each jurisdiction will meet the mandatory state waste diversion goals of 25% by 1995 and 50% by 2000. The purpose of AB 939 and SB 1322 is to “reduce, recycle, and re‐use solid waste generated in the state to the maximum extent feasible.” The term “integrated waste management” refers to the use of a variety of waste management practices to safely and effectively handle the municipal solid waste stream with the least adverse impact on human health and the environment. The Act has established a waste management hierarchy, as follows: Source Reduction; Recycling; Composting; Transformation; and Disposal.
CALIFORNIA INTEGRATED WASTE MANAGEMENT BOARD MODEL ORDINANCE Subsequent to the Integrated Waste Management Act, additional legislation was passed to assist local jurisdictions in accomplishing the goals of AB 939. The California Solid Waste Re‐use and Recycling Access Act of 1991 (§42900‐42911 of the Public Resources Code) directs the California Integrated Waste Management Board (CIWMB) to draft a “model ordinance” relating to adequate areas for collecting and loading recyclable materials in development projects. The model ordinance requires that any new development project, for which an application is submitted on or after September 1, 1994, include “adequate, accessible, and convenient areas for collecting and loading recyclable materials.” For subdivisions of single family detached homes, recycling areas are required to serve only the needs of the homes within that subdivision.
UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS 3.15
Draft Environmental Impact Report – Lathrop General Plan Update 3.15-49
CALIFORNIA GREEN BUILDING STANDARDS CODE (CALGREEN)
CALGreen requires the diversion of at least 50 percent of the construction waste generated during most new construction projects (CALGreen Sections 4.408 and 5.408) and some additions and alterations to nonresidential building projects.
CALIFORNIA MANDATORY COMMERCIAL RECYCLING LAW (AB 341)
Assembly Bill (AB) 341 directed CalRecycle to develop and adopt regulations for mandatory commercial recycling. CalRecycle initiated formal rulemaking with a 45‐day comment period beginning Oct. 28, 2011. The final regulation was approved by the Office of Administrative Law on May 7, 2012. The purpose of AB 341 is to reduce GHG emissions by diverting commercial solid waste to recycling efforts and to expand the opportunity for additional recycling services and recycling manufacturing facilities in California.
Beginning on July 1, 2012, businesses have been required to recycle, and each jurisdiction has implemented programs that include education, outreach, and monitoring. Jurisdictions were required to start reporting on their 2012 Electronic Annual Report (due August 1, 2013) on their initial education, outreach, and monitoring efforts, and, if applicable, on any enforcement activities or exemptions implemented by the jurisdiction.
In addition to Mandatory Commercial Recycling, AB 341 sets a statewide goal for 75 percent disposal reduction by the year 2020. This is not written as a 75 percent diversion mandate for each jurisdiction. The 50 percent disposal reduction mandate still stands for cities, counties, and State agencies (including community colleges) under AB 939. CalRecycle continues to evaluate program implementation as it has in the past through the Annual Report review process for entities subject to either AB 939.
ASSEMBLY BILL 1826 MANDATORY COMMERCIAL ORGANICS RECYCLING In October 2014 Governor Brown signed AB 1826, requiring businesses to recycle their organic waste on and after April 1, 2016, depending on the amount of waste they generate per week. This law also requires that on and after January 1, 2016, local jurisdictions across the state implement an organic waste recycling program to divert organic waste generated by businesses, including multifamily residential dwellings that consist of five or more units (please note, however, that multi‐family dwellings are not required to have a food waste diversion program). Organic waste (also referred to as organics) means food waste, green waste, landscape and pruning waste, nonhazardous wood waste, and food‐soiled paper waste that is mixed in with food waste. This law phases in the mandatory recycling of commercial organics over time, while also offering an exemption process for rural counties. In particular, the minimum threshold of organic waste generation by businesses decreases over time, which means an increasingly greater proportion of the commercial sector will be required to comply.
Starting on January 1, 2019, businesses that generate 4 cubic yards or more of commercial solid waste per week shall arrange for organic waste recycling services. By Summer/Fall 2021, if CalRecycle determines that the statewide disposal of organic waste in 2020 has not been reduced by 50 percent of the level of disposal during 2014, the organic recycling requirements on
3.15 UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
3.15-50 Draft Environmental Impact Report – Lathrop General Plan Update businesses will expand to cover businesses that generate 2 cubic yards or more of commercial solid waste per week. Additionally, certain exemptions may no longer be available if this target is not met.
SB 1374 (CONSTRUCTION AND DEMOLITION WASTE MATERIALS DIVERSION) Senate Bill 1374 (SB 1374), Construction and Demolition Waste Materials Diversion Requirements, requires that jurisdictions summarize their progress realized in diverting construction and demolition waste from the waste stream in their annual AB 939 reports. SB 1374 required the CIWMB to adopt a model construction and demolition ordinance for voluntary implementation by local jurisdictions.
AB 2176 (MONTANEZ, CHAPTER 879, STATUES OF 2004)
This law requires the largest venue facilities and events (as defined) in each city and county to plan and implement solid waste diversion programs, and annually report the progress of those upon the request of their local government. In turn, local jurisdictions must report to the CIWMB waste diversion information for the top 10 percent of venues and events by waste generation.
A large event is defined as:
1. Serves an average of more than 2,000 individuals per day of operation (both people attending the event and those working at it—including volunteers—are included in this number); and
2. Charges an admission price or is run by a local agency.
The bill specifically includes public, nonprofit, or privately owned parks, parking lots, golf courses, street systems, or other open space when being used for an event, including, but not limited to, a sporting event or a flea market in addition to events that meet both of the above.
A large venue is defined as:
A permanent facility that annually seats or serves an average of more than 2,000 individuals within the grounds of the facility per day of operation (both people attending the event and those working at it—including volunteers too—are included in this number).
Venues include, but are not limited to airports, amphitheaters, amusement parks, aquariums, arenas, conference or civic centers, fairgrounds, museums, halls, horse tracks, performing arts centers, racetracks, stadiums, theaters, zoos, and other public attraction facilities.
SENATE BILL 1383 SHORT-LIVED CLIMATE POLLUTANTS: ORGANIC WASTE METHANE EMISSIONS
REDUCTIONS
In September 2016, Governor Brown signed SB 1383, establishing methane emissions reduction targets in a statewide effort to reduce emissions of short‐lived climate pollutants (SLCP) in various sectors of California’s economy. The bill codifies the California Air Resources Board’s Short‐Lived Climate Pollutant Reduction Strategy, established pursuant to SB 605, in order to achieve UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS 3.15
Draft Environmental Impact Report – Lathrop General Plan Update 3.15-51 reductions in the statewide emissions of short‐lived climate pollutants. Actions to reduce short‐ lived climate pollutants are essential to address the many impacts of climate change on human health, especially in California’s most at‐risk communities, and on the environment.
As it pertains to solid waste, SB 1383 establishes targets to achieve a 50 percent reduction in the level of the statewide disposal of organic waste from the 2014 level by 2020 and a 75 percent reduction by 2025. The law grants CalRecycle the regulatory authority required to achieve the organic waste disposal reduction targets and establishes an additional target that not less than 20 percent of currently disposed edible food is recovered for human consumption by 2025.
Local
LATHROP MUNICIPAL CODE, CHAPTER 8.16: GARBAGE COLLECTION AND DISPOSAL Section 8.16 of the Lathrop Municipal Code provides rules and regulations regarding garbage collection and disposal. It includes a list of hazardous materials (8.16.050), prohibitions on the burning and burial of solid waste (8.16.060), rights of the City related to solid waste collection and transportation (8.16.090), a list of requirements for the contractor for solid waste collection and transportation (8.16.100), restrictions on solid waste collection and transportation (8.16.110), a description of billing and collection fees (8.16.160), the garbage collection rate schedule (8.16.170), permit requirements (8.16.190), and a description of fees and other requirements.
THRESHOLDS OF SIGNIFICANCE
Consistent with Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, the proposed Project will have a significant impact on the environment associated with Utilities if it would:
Generate solid waste in excess of State or local standards, or in excess of the capacity of local infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals; and/or
Comply with federal, state, and local management and reduction statutes and regulations related to solid waste.
3.15 UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
3.15-52 Draft Environmental Impact Report – Lathrop General Plan Update
IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
Impact 3.15‐6: General Plan implementation would comply with federal, state, and local management and reduction statutes and regulations related to solid waste, would not generate solid waste in excess of State or local standards or otherwise impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals, and would not exceed of the capacity of local infrastructure (Less than Significant)
The development of future land uses under the proposed General Plan would increase solid waste disposal needs and could have the potential to require the construction of new landfill facilities, or expansion of existing facilities.
Future development of projects as contemplated under the proposed General Plan may increase the population within the Planning Area by approximately 66,562 persons. As described above, the City of Lathrop has achieved a disposal rate of 5.9 PPD per resident in 2019. Assuming these disposal rates remain constant throughout the life of the General Plan, the new growth under General Plan buildout would result in an increase of approximately 392,716 pounds per day of solid waste, which equals 196.4 tons per day or 71,670 tons of solid waste per year.
Forward Landfill has a cease operation date of 2039 and has sufficient capacity to serve the City of Lathrop. Forward Landfill has a remaining landfill capacity of over 22,100,000 tons, and has a current maximum permitted throughput of 8,668 tons per day. It has a total maximum capacity of 59,160,000 cubic yards. The landfill has a permitted traffic volume of 620 vehicles per day.
Other landfills that received relatively small amounts of waste from the City of Lathrop in include:
Altamont Landfill & Resource Recovery;
Azusa Land Reclamation Company Landfill;
Fink Road Landfill;
Foothill Sanitary Landfill;
L and D Landfill;
North County Landfill & Recycling Center;
Potrero Hills Landfill;
Recology Hay Road;
Sacramento County Landfill (Kiefer).
The City’s solid waste per capita generation has decreased since 2007 due to the waste diversion efforts of the City. The additional solid waste generation associated with the proposed General Plan, approximately 196.4 tons per day at total buildout, to the Forward Landfill would not exceed the landfill’s remaining and additional capacity until landfill closure in 2039. The City will need to secure a new location or expand existing facilities when the Forward Landfill is ultimately closed, if a new permit is not issued at a later date for a cease operation date beyond 2039. There are several options that the City will have to consider for solid waste disposal at that time, including the construction of new facilities or expansion of existing facilities.
UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS 3.15
Draft Environmental Impact Report – Lathrop General Plan Update 3.15-53 If the Forward Landfill were to close in 2039, the City can potentially utilize other landfills such as the Foothill Landfill and the North County Landfill, as locations for solid waste disposal. The permitted maximum disposal at the Foothill Landfill is 1,500 tons per day and the North County Landfill is 825 tons per day. The remaining capacity of these landfills include 125 million cubic yards of solid waste at the Foothill Landfill, with an estimated cease operation date of 2054, and
35.4 million cubic yards of solid waste at the North County Landfill, which has an estimated cease operation date of 2035. The addition of solid waste associated with the proposed Project to the Foothill Landfill and North County Landfill would not exceed the combined landfills’ remaining capacity of 160.4 cubic yards. While there are no plans for landfill construction or expansion associated with the proposed General Plan, development of new solid waste disposal facilities could result in environmental effects in areas such as traffic, hydrology, biology, air quality, greenhouse gases, and noise. Any future construction projects in would be required to conduct environmental review pursuant to CEQA prior to approval. As future development and infrastructure projects are considered by the City, each project will be evaluated for conformance with the General Plan, Municipal Code, and other applicable regulations associated with solid waste. Subsequent development and infrastructure projects would also be analyzed for potential environmental impacts, consistent with the requirements of CEQA. As such, this impact would be less than significant, and no additional mitigation is required.
The proposed General Plan includes actions to further reduce the project’s impact on solid waste services, as identified below. With the implementation of the following policies and payment of a solid waste connection fees for project within the Planning Area, potential solid waste impacts would be reduced to less than significant impact.
GENERAL PLAN GOALS, POLICIES, AND ACTIONS THAT MINIMIZE POTENTIAL IMPACTS GOALS
PFS‐1 Provide the community with environmentally responsible waste disposal and recycling services that minimize the generation and disposal of solid waste.
POLICIES
PFS‐9.1 Refuse Collection. Continue to require mandatory refuse collection throughout the city.
PFS‐9.2 Source Reduction and Recycling Program. Implement and enforce the provisions of the City’s Source Reduction and Recycling Program.
PFS‐9.3 Compliance with State Legislation. Continue to comply with all State regulations regarding waste diversion, source reduction, recycling, and composting.
PFS‐9.4 Municipal Code. Enforce and periodically update Chapter 8.16 (Garbage Collection and Disposal) of the LMC.
PFS‐9.5 Waste Service Performance and Collection Facilities. Support efforts of the solid waste service provider to maintain adequate residential, commercial, and industrial solid waste and mixed recycling collection service levels and solid waste facilities in accordance with state law, and periodically review waste collection performance to verify adequacy of service.
3.15 UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
3.15-54 Draft Environmental Impact Report – Lathrop General Plan Update PFS‐9.6 Landfill Capacity. Continue to coordinate with San Joaquin County to ensure adequate landfill capacity in the region.
PFS‐9.7 Municipal Waste. Increase the City’s role in the source reduction and recycling components of waste management through recycling programs at City facilities to reduce the quantity of City‐generated waste.
PFS‐9.8 Fees and Funding. Work with the solid waste service provider to periodically review collection, recycling, and disposal fees to achieve state and federal mandates, meet community expectations, and reflect cost efficiencies or increases for service delivery.
PFS‐9.9 Hazardous Waste. Promote the proper disposal of hazardous waste—including paint, tires, medications, medical sharps, infectious waste, asbestos waste, construction waste, and electronic waste; encourage materials to be recycled or disposed of in a manner that is safe for the environment, residents, and visitors to the city consistent with the Public Safety Element.
PFS‐9.10 Public Education. Promote citywide educational programs to inform citizens of the benefits of recycling and appropriate recycling options and locations.
IMPLEMENTING ACTIONS
PFS‐9a Continue to implement and update as necessary Chapter 8.16 (Garbage Collection and Disposal) of the LMC.
PFS‐9b Regularly monitory the level of service provided by waste and recycling collection contractors to ensure that service levels meet the terms of the contract.
PFS‐9c Include standard language in requests for services and in City agreements requiring waste haulers to use best management practices to maximize diversion of waste from the landfill in order to meet the City’s specified diversion rates.
PFS‐9d Encourage recycling, reuse, and appropriate disposal of hazardous materials, including the following:
A. Increased participation in single family and multifamily residential curbside recycling programs;
B. Increased participation in commercial and industrial recycling programs for paper, cardboard, and plastics;
C. Reduce yard and landscaping waste through methods such as composting, grass recycling, and using resource efficient landscaping techniques; D. Expand the provision of recycling collection containers and services to all City facilities, including parks; and
E. Encourage local businesses to provide electronic waste (e‐waste) drop‐off services and encourage residents and businesses to properly dispose of, or recycle, e‐waste.
PFS‐9e Pursue public funding sources, such as grants, to implement recycling and reuse programs.
S
S
S
S
T
T
S
SP
PS
P
#
Sa n J oaquin R.
Paradise Cut Circle
Lake
Mi dd le R.
Tom Paine Slough
Old R.
Old R.
San J o a quin R.
§¨¦5
River Isla nds Pk
Well No.6
Well No.7
Well No.9
Well No.8
Well No.21
Well No.10
Walthall Slough
Grant Line Canal
§¨¦5
§¨¦5
UV120
§¨¦205
CITY OF LATHROP GENERAL PLAN UPDATE
Figure 3.15-1: Existing Water Facilities
Í 0 0.25 0.5
Miles
Sources: San Joaquin County;
City of Lathrop.
Map date: June 2018
San Joaquin R.
Notes:
Water meters, water valves, fire hydrants, and water repair locations are not shown on this map.
SSJID Turnout 1
SSJID Turnout 2
(Under Construction)
Legend
Lathrop Sphere of Influence
Lathrop City Boundary
Groundwater Subbasins
Eastern San Joaquin
Tracy
Water Pipe Size
Diameter
7" - 12"
13" - 18"
19" - 30"
Water Facilities
T Treatment Plant
Turnout
# Emergency Intertie
S Enclosed Storage Facility
P Pump Station
Well Locations
6" and Less
3.15 UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
3.15-56 Draft Environmental Impact Report – Lathrop General Plan Update This page left intentionally blank.
")P
")P
")P
")P
)"P
")P
)"P
")P
"")P)T
")P )"P
)"P
")P
")P
)"P
)"T
")P
)"P ")P
")P
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 Isla nds Pk
Walthall Slough
Grant Line Canal
§¨¦5
§¨¦5
UV120
§¨¦205
Legend
Lathrop City Boundary
Lathrop Sphere of
Influence
Wastewater Gravity
Pipe
Diameter
6" and Less
7" - 18"
19" - 36"
37" and Greater
Wastewater
Forcemain Pipe
Diameter
6" amd Less
7" - 18"
18" and Greater
Wastewater
Facilities
")P Pump Station
")T Treatment Plant
Wastewater Control
Valve
Pumped Sewer
Sheds
CLSP
Crossroads
Easy Ct
J St
Manteca
McKinley
Mossdale
O St
River Islands
Stonebridge
Valley Crossing
Woodfield
MWQCF Collection
System
Lathrop CTF
Collection System
Í 0 0.25 0.5
Miles
Sources: San Joaquin County;
City of Lathrop.
Map date: June 2018
San Joaquin R.
Notes:
Privately owned wastewater structures and all wastewater manholes not shown on this map.
CITY OF LATHROP GENERAL PLAN
Figure 3.15-2: Existing Sewer Facilities
3.15 UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
3.15-58 Draft Environmental Impact Report – Lathrop General Plan Update This page left intentionally blank.
#*
#*
#*
#*
P
P
P P
P
P
P P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P P
P
P
P
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 Isla nds Pk
Notes:
Storm drain manholes and inlets not shown on this map.
Walthall Slough
Grant Line Canal
§¨¦5
§¨¦5
UV120
§¨¦205
CITY OF LATHROP GENERAL PLAN
Figure 3.15-3: Storm Drain System
Legend
Lathrop City Boundary
Lathrop Sphere of Influence
Storm Gravity Pipes
Diameter
15" and Less
16" - 27"
28" - 42"
43" -60"
61" and Greater
Not documented
Storm Drainage Zones
Drainage Zone
Central Lathrop
Crossroads Business Park
Historic Lathrop
Lathrop Gateway Business
Park
Lathrop Industrial
Mossdale
North Lathrop
River Islands
South Lathrop
Storm Drain Facility
P Pump Station
Storm Detention Basin
#* Outfalls
Í 0 0.25 0.5
Miles
Sources: San Joaquin County;
City of Lathrop.
Map date: June 2018
San Joaquin R.
3.15 UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
3.15-60 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 Paine Slough
Old R.
Old R.
San J o aquin R.
§¨¦5
River Isla nds Pk
Walthall Slough
Grant Line Canal
§¨¦5
§¨¦5
UV120
§¨¦205
CITY OF LATHROP GENERAL PLAN
Figure 3.15-4: Flood Control
Legend
Lathrop City Boundary
Lathrop Sphere of Influence
200-Year Floodplain
0' TO 3' FLOOD DEPTH
>3' FLOOD DEPTH
Reclamation Districts
RD 0017
RD 2062
RD 2107
State/Federal Project Levees by RD
RD 0017
RD 2062
RD 2107
Other State/Federal Projct Levees
Non Project Levees
Í 0 0.25 0.5
Miles
Sources: San Joaquin County;
City of Lathrop.
Map date: June 2018
San Joaquin R.
3.15 UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
3.15-62 Draft Environmental Impact Report – Lathrop General Plan Update This page left intentionally blank.
WILDFIRES 3.16
Draft Environmental Impact Report – Lathrop General Plan Update 3.16-1 This section provides a background discussion of the hazards associated with wildfires in the Planning Area. Additional information related to fire hazards including the discussion of fire suppression resources is located within Chapter 3.13, Public Services and Recreation, of this report.
No comments were received during the NOP comment period regrading this environmental topic.
3.16.1 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
FIRE HAZARD SEVERITY ZONES
The state has charged the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CalFire)with the identification of Fire Hazard Severity Zones (FHSZ) within State Responsibility Areas (SRAs). In addition, CalFire must recommend Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones (VHFHSZ) identified within any Local Responsibility Areas (LRAs). The FHSZ maps are used by the State Fire Marshall as a basis for the adoption of applicable building code standards.
The Planning Area includes LRAs and a Federal responsibility area (Sharpe Army Depot). No State Responsibility Areas are included within City boundaries.
Local Responsibility Areas
The majority of the Planning Area is not located within a LRA. The City of Lathrop is not categorized as a "Very High" FHSZ by CalFire. No cities within San Joaquin County are categorized as a "Very High" FHSZ by CalFire.
State Responsibility Areas
There are no SRAs within the vicinity of the Planning Area.
Federal Responsibility Areas
There is one Federal Responsibility Areas (FRAs) area within the Planning Area. (Sharpe Army Depot). This area is generally uncategorized with a small portion containing a moderate rating.
3.16 WILDFIRES
3.16-2 Draft Environmental Impact Report – Lathrop General Plan Update
3.16.2 REGULATORY SETTING
FEDERAL
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.
Disaster Mitigation Act (2000)
Section 104 of the Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000 (Public Law 106‐390) enacted Section 322, Mitigation Planning of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, which created incentives for state and local entities to coordinate hazard mitigation planning and implementation efforts, and is an important source of funding for fuels mitigation efforts through hazard mitigation grants.
National Incident Management System
The City adopted the National Incident Management System (NIMS), which provides a systematic, proactive approach to guide government agencies, nongovernmental organizations, and the private sector to work together to prevent, respond to, recover from, and mitigate the effects of incidents, regardless of cause, size, location, or complexity, in order to reduce the loss of life and property and harm to the environment. NIMS improves the City’s ability to prepare for and respond to potential incidents and hazard scenarios.
National Fire Plan 2000
The summer of 2000 marked a historic milestone in wildland fire records for the United States. Dry conditions (across the western United States), led to destructive wildfire events on an estimated
7.2 million acres, nearly double the 10‐year average. Costs in damages including fire suppression activities were approximately 2.1 billion dollars. Congressional direction called for substantial new appropriations for wildland fire management. This resulted in action plans, interagency strategies, and the Western Governor’s Association’s “A Collaborative Approach for Reducing Wildland Fire Risks to Communities and the Environment ‐ A 10‐Year Comprehensive Strategy ‐ Implementation Plan”, which collectively became known as the National Fire Plan. This plan places a priority on collaborative work within communities to reduce their risk from large‐scale wildfires.
Healthy Forest Initiative 2002/Healthy Forest Restoration ACT 2003 In August 2002, the Healthy Forests Initiative (HFI) was launched with the intent to reduce the severe wildfires risks that threaten people, communities, and the environment. Congress then passed the Healthy Forests Restoration Act (HFRA) on December 3, 2003 to provide the additional administrative tools needed to implement the HFI. The HFRA strengthened efforts to restore healthy forest conditions near communities by authorizing measures such as expedited environmental assessments for hazardous fuels projects on federal land. This Act emphasized the WILDFIRES 3.16
Draft Environmental Impact Report – Lathrop General Plan Update 3.16-3 need for federal agencies to work collaboratively with communities in developing hazardous fuel reduction projects and places priority on fuel treatments identified by communities themselves in their Community Wildfire Protection Plans.
Department of the Interior Department Manual Part 620
Wildland Fire Management. Part 620 of the Department of the Interior Departmental Manual pertains to wildland fire management policies, with the goal of providing an integrated approach to wildland fire management. The guiding principles of the plan emphasize the need for public health and safety considerations, risk management protocols, inter‐agency collaboration, and economic feasibility of wildfire management practices, as well as the ecological role of wildfires.
STATE
California Strategic Fire Plan
This statewide plan is a strategic document, which guides fire policy for much of California. The plan is aimed at reducing wildfire risk through pre‐fire mitigation efforts tailored to local areas through assessments of fuels, hazards, and risks.
California State Multi‐Hazard Mitigation Plan
The purpose of the State Multi‐Hazard Mitigation Plan (SHMP) is to significantly reduce deaths, injuries, and other losses attributed to natural‐ and human‐caused hazards in California. The SHMP provides guidance for hazard mitigation activities emphasizing partnerships among local, state, and federal agencies as well as the private sector.
California Government Code
California Government Code Section 65302.5 requires the State Board of Forestry and Fire Protection to provide recommendations for a local jurisdiction’s General Plan fire safety element when the jurisdiction amends its general plan. While not a direct and binding fire prevention requirement for individuals, general plans that adopt the Board’s recommendations will include goals and policies that provide for contemporary fire prevention standards for the jurisdiction.
While the State Board of Forestry and Fire Protection has not specifically commented on the Proposed General Plan at the time that this EIR was written, the Proposed General Plan has been developed to include best practices to ensure contemporary fire prevention standards, as described in greater detail under the impact discussions below.
California Government Code Section 51175 defines Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones and designates lands considered by the State to be a very high fire hazard.
California Government Code Section 51189 directs the Office of the State Fire Marshal to create building standards for wildland fire resistance. The code includes measures that increase the likelihood of a structure withstanding intrusion by fire (such as building design and construction requirements that use fire‐resistant building materials) and provides protection of structure
3.16 WILDFIRES
3.16-4 Draft Environmental Impact Report – Lathrop General Plan Update projections (such as porches, decks, balconies and eaves), and structure openings (such as attics, eave vents, and windows).
California Public Resource Code
The State’s Fire Safe Regulations are set forth in Public Resources Code Section 4290, which include the establishment of SRAs.
Public Resources Code Section 4291 sets forth defensible space requirements, which are applicable to anyone that …owns, leases, controls, operates, or maintains a building or structure in, upon, or adjoining a mountainous area, forest‐covered lands, brush‐covered lands, grass‐ covered lands, or land that is covered with flammable material (§4291(a)).
Public Resources Code Sections 4292‐4296 and 14 CCR 1256, Fire Prevention for Electrical Utilities, address the vegetation clearance standards for electrical utilities. They include the standards for clearing around energy lines and conductors such as power‐line hardware and power poles. These regulations are critical to wildland fire safety because of the substantial number of power lines in wildlands, the historic source of fire ignitions associated with power lines, and the extensive damage that results from power line caused wildfires in severe wind conditions.
Assembly Bill 337
Per Assembly Bill 337, local fire prevention authorities and CalFire are required to identify VHFHSZs in LRAs. Standards related to brush clearance and the use of fire resistant materials in fire hazard severity zones are also established.
Uniform Fire Code
The Uniform Fire Code (UFC) establishes standards related to the design, construction, and maintenance of buildings. The standards set forth in the UFC range from designing for access by firefighters and equipment and minimum requirements for automatic sprinklers and fire hydrants to the appropriate storage and use of combustible materials.
Senate Bill No. 1241
California Senate Bill No. 1241 requires that the Safety Element component of city or county general plans to incorporate fire risk related to SRAs and Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones.
Code of Regulations Title 8 (Cal/OSHA)
In accordance with CCR, Title 8, Section 1270 and Section 6773 (Fire Prevention and Fire Protection and Fire Equipment), the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (Cal OSHA) establishes fire suppression service standards. The standards range from fire hose size requirements to the design of emergency access roads.
Code of Regulations Title 14 (Natural Resources)
Division 1.5 (Department of Forestry and Fire Protection), Title 14 of the CCR establishes a variety of wildfire preparedness, prevention, and response regulations.
WILDFIRES 3.16
Draft Environmental Impact Report – Lathrop General Plan Update 3.16-5 Code of Regulations Title 19 (Public Safety)
Title 19 of the CCR establishes a variety of emergency fire response, fire prevention, and construction and construction materials standards.
LOCAL
San Joaquin Office of Emergency Services
The mission of the Office of Emergency Services (OES) is to minimize or reduce injury, loss of life, environmental and property damage from emergencies within San Joaquin County. OES is the key disaster preparedness office of the County, and has direct responsibility to support and coordinate the efforts of County departments carrying out their functions in the field. To ensure a coordinated response to their disaster needs, OES also provides disaster information, logistical support, facilitates mutual aid requests, and facilitates inter‐jurisdictional coordination with agencies from 7 cities, 120 special districts, and locally‐based State and Federal agencies.
3.16.3 IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
THRESHOLDS OF SIGNIFICANCE
Consistent with Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, the proposed Project will have a significant impact related to wildfires if:
• Located in or near State Responsibility Areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones, the project would:
o Substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan.
o Due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors, exacerbate wildfire risks, and thereby expose project occupants to, pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire.
o Require the installation or maintenance of associated infrastructure (such as roads, fuel breaks, emergency water sources, power lines or other utilities) that may exacerbate fire risk or that may result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment.
o Expose people or structures to significant risks, including downslope or downstream flooding or landslides, as a result of runoff, post‐fire slope instability, or drainage changes.
3.16 WILDFIRES
3.16-6 Draft Environmental Impact Report – Lathrop General Plan Update
IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
Impact 3.16‐1: General Plan implementation would not have a significant impact related to wildfire risks associated with lands in or near State Responsibility Areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones (No Impact)
The Planning Area is not located in or near any State Responsibility Areas and there are no lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones (VHFHSZ) within or near the Planning Area.
Therefore, the General Plan would have no impact related to wildfire risks associated with lands in or near State Responsibility Areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones.
OTHER CEQA-REQUIRED TOPICS 4.0
Draft Environmental Impact Report – Lathrop General Plan Update 4.0-1 CEQA requires an EIR to evaluate a Project's effects in relationship to broader changes that are occurring or that may foreseeably occur, in the surrounding environment. Accordingly, this chapter presents discussion of CEQA‐mandated analysis for cumulative impacts, irreversible impacts, and growth inducement associated with the proposed General Plan.
4.1 CUMULATIVE SETTING AND IMPACT ANALYSIS
INTRODUCTION
CEQA requires that an EIR contain an assessment of the cumulative impacts that could be associated with the General Plan. According to CEQA Guidelines Section 15130(a), “an EIR shall discuss cumulative impacts of a project when the project’s incremental effect is cumulatively considerable.” “Cumulatively considerable,” as defined in section 15065(a)(3), means that “the incremental effects of an individual project are significant when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects” (as defined by Section 15130). As defined in CEQA Guidelines Section 15355, a cumulative impact consists of an impact that is created as a result of the combination of the project evaluated in the EIR together with other projects causing related impacts. A cumulative impact occurs from:
…the change in the environment which results from the incremental impact of the project when added to other closely related past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects. Cumulative impacts can result from individually minor but collectively significant projects taking place over a period of time.
In addition, Section 15130(b) identifies that the following three elements are necessary for an adequate cumulative analysis:
1) Either:
(A) A list of past, present, and probable future projects producing related or cumulative impacts, including, if necessary, those projects outside the control of the agency; or,
(B) A summary of projections contained in an adopted local, regional or statewide plan, or related planning document, that describes or evaluates conditions contributing to the cumulative effect. Such plans may include: a general plan, regional transportation plan, or plans for the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions. A summary of projections may also be contained in an adopted or certified prior environmental document for such a plan. Such projections may be supplemented with additional information such as a regional modeling program.
Any such planning document shall be referenced and made available to the public at a location specified by the lead agency.
4.0 OTHER CEQA-REQUIRED TOPICS
4.0-2 Draft Environmental Impact Report – Lathrop General Plan Update 2) A summary of the expected environmental effects to be produced by those projects with specific reference to additional information stating where that information is available; and
3) A reasonable analysis of the cumulative impacts of the relevant projects. An EIR shall examine reasonable, feasible options for mitigating or avoiding the project’s contribution to any significant cumulative effects.
Where a lead agency is examining a project with an incremental effect that is not “cumulatively considerable,” a lead agency need not consider that effect significant, but shall briefly describe its basis for concluding that the incremental effect is not cumulatively considerable.
CUMULATIVE SETTING
Under CEQA, the discussion of cumulative impacts should focus on the severity of the impacts and the likelihood of their occurrence. The geographic scope for the cumulative analysis covers the entire Lathrop Planning Area, which for the purposes of the General Plan includes 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 and the City’s sphere of influence (SOI) and area of influence (AOI), as shown on Figure 2.0‐2 (see Chapter 2.0: Project Description). It should be noted that, for some environmental topics, the geographic scope for the cumulative analysis also covers the boundaries of San Joaquin County, the San Joaquin Valley Air Basin, and/or other jurisdictional boundaries that are relevant to the particular environmental topic.
In most cases in this EIR, the buildout analysis utilizes a 20‐year horizon, and 2040 is assumed to be the buildout year of the General Plan. The year 2040 is used as the benchmark year for the cumulative analysis contained in this EIR. This year was chosen based on the fact that the General Plan was developed as a 20‐year plan for Lathrop, and the General Plan is scheduled for adoption in 2022.
Growth Projections
Table 4.0‐1 summarizes the range of net growth, including residential units (single family and multifamily) and non‐residential square footage (commercial, office, industrial, governmental, public/quasi‐public) that could occur upon full buildout of the proposed General Plan.
OTHER CEQA-REQUIRED TOPICS 4.0
Draft Environmental Impact Report – Lathrop General Plan Update 4.0-3 TABLE 4.0‐1: COMPARATIVE GROWTH PROJECTIONS, EXISTING GENERAL PLAN LAND USE MAP AND PROPOSED
LAND USE MAP
POPULATION
DWELLING
UNITS
NONRESIDENTIAL
SQUARE FOOTAGE JOBS JOBS PERHOUSING UNIT
EXISTING CONDITIONS
28,503 7,747 13,327,713 9,153 1.18
NEW GROWTH POTENTIAL
Existing General Plan 72,954 19,048 23,812,822 43,459 2.28 Proposed General Plan 66,562 17,379 30,630,722 49,250 2.83 TOTAL GROWTH: EXISTING PLUS NEW GROWTH POTENTIAL
Existing General Plan 101,457 26,795 37,140,535 52,612 1.96 Proposed General Plan 95,065 25,126 43,958,435 58,403 2.32 SOURCES: SAN JOAQUIN COUNTY ASSESSOR 2021; CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE 2021; U.S CENSUS ONTHEMAP; ESRI 2020, DE NOVO PLANNING GROUP 2021.
Table 4.0‐2 identifies growth accommodated by the proposed General Plan grouped into categories by unit type as well as broad categories of non‐residential development. As shown in Table 4.0‐2, buildout of the proposed General Plan may yield 17,379 dwelling units, and 49,250 jobs.
TABLE 4.0‐2: GROWTH ACCOMMODATED UNDER THE PROPOSED GENERAL PLAN BASED ADDITIONAL
DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS
LAND USE TYPE DEVELOPMENT
RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT UNITS
Single Family Units 7,454
Multifamily Units 9,925
Total Housing Units 17,379
NON‐RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT TOTAL KSF TOTAL EMPLOYEES
Commercial 2,476 5,670
Industrial 20,778 22,045
Office 5,219 15,750
Office/Commercial (Mixed) 2,159 5,785
Total Non‐Residential Square
Feet and Employees 30,631 49,250
SOURCES: SAN JOAQUIN COUNTY ASSESSOR 2021; ESRI 2020, DE NOVO PLANNING GROUP 2021.
CUMULATIVE EFFECTS OF THE PROJECT
Method of Analysis
Although the environmental effects of an individual project may not be significant when that project is considered separately, the combined effects of several projects may be significant when considered collectively. Section 15130 of the CEQA Guidelines requires a reasonable analysis of a project's cumulative impacts, which are defined as "two or more individual effects which, when considered together are considerable or which compound or increase other environmental impacts." The cumulative impact that results from several closely related projects is: the change in
4.0 OTHER CEQA-REQUIRED TOPICS
4.0-4 Draft Environmental Impact Report – Lathrop General Plan Update the environment which results from the incremental impact of the project when added to other closely related past, present, and reasonably foreseeable probable future projects. Cumulative impacts can result from individually minor but collectively significant projects taking place over a period of time (State CEQA Guidelines 15355[b]). Cumulative impact analysis may be less detailed than the analysis of the project's individual effects (State CEQA Guidelines 15130[b]).
In order to assess cumulative impacts, an EIR must analyze either a list of past, present, and probable future projects (referred to as the “list approach”) or a summary of projections contained in an adopted general plan or related planning document (referred to as the “projection method”).
Because of the programmatic nature of the Lathrop General Plan, this Draft EIR uses the projection method for the cumulative analysis and considers buildout of the proposed General Plan in addition to buildout of the other General Plans within San Joaquin County, as summarized and addressed in the 2018 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (2018 RTP/SCS). Development of the 2018 RTP/SCS included review of land use plans for each jurisdiction within San Joaquin County, including:
County of San Joaquin
City of Manteca
City of Stockton
City of Tracy
City of Lodi
City of Lathrop
City of Escalon
City of Ripon
Any such planning document shall be referenced and made available to the public at a location specified by the Lead Agency for that specific project.
The 2018 RTP/SCS projects that growth Countywide would result in 343,170 households, 360,328 employees, and a population of 1,094,253 in 2045 (see Figure 1 of the 2018 RTP/SCS). Appendix W of the 2018 RTP/SCS provides more detailed projections of regional growth, estimating a population of 1,323,236, 411,589 households, and 432,168 housing units in 2060. Table 4.0‐3 shows the population and housing forecasts between 2020 and 2045 in San Joaquin County.
OTHER CEQA-REQUIRED TOPICS 4.0
Draft Environmental Impact Report – Lathrop General Plan Update 4.0-5 TABLE 4.0‐3: POPULATION AND HOUSING PROJECTIONS
2020 2025 2030 2040 2045
POPULATION
City of Escalon 7,612 7,889 8,186 8,878 9,257
City of Lathrop 28,896 35,475 42,109 58,969 67,976
City of Lodi 69,219 73,397 77,610 88,317 94,037
City of Manteca 77,018 82,912 88,855 103,958 112,027
City of Ripon 16,525 17,850 19,186 22,582 24,396
City of Stockton 329,729 352,239 374,939 432,627 463,445 City of Tracy 95,040 102,236 109,492 127,933 137,7884
County Total 775,819 829,426 883,484 1,020,862 1,094,253
HOUSING UNITS
City of Escalon 2,674 2,771 2,866 3108 3,230
City of Lathrop 7,440 9,310 11,162 15,441 17,737
City of Lodi 24,756 26,206 27,782 31,406 33,375
City of Manteca 26,570 28,404 30,343 34,975 37,513
City of Ripon 5,702 6,174 6,638 7,745 8,344
City of Stockton 102,702 110,037 117,235 134,504 143,700 City of Tracy 27,767 29,920 32,357 37,539 40,247
County Total 246,715 263,876 280,716 321,379 343,170
SOURCE: SJCOG RTP/SCS DRAFT PROGRAMMATIC EIR, TABLES 33 AND 34.
The Projection Method serves as a guide to determine if the General Plan Update is consistent with the long‐term population, employment, and household projections of the region. If the proposed General Plan Update is generally consistent with regional projections, then it would also generally be consistent with regional efforts to address environmental problems such as air quality and traffic.
Cumulative Impacts
Cumulative impacts for most issue areas are not quantifiable and are therefore discussed in general qualitative terms as they pertain to development patterns in the surrounding region. An exception to this is a topic like traffic, which may be quantified by estimating future traffic patterns, pollutant emitters, etc. and determining the combined effects that may result. In consideration of the cumulative scenario described above, the proposed project may result in the following cumulative impacts.
AESTHETICS AND VISUAL RESOURCES
Impact 4.1: Cumulative degradation of the existing visual character of the region (Less than Cumulatively Considerable)
While the Lathrop Planning Area contains areas and viewsheds with scenic characteristics, such as views of open space and agricultural land, there are no officially designated scenic vista points in the Planning Area. Additionally, as described in Chapter 3.1, there are no officially designated scenic highways located in the vicinity of Lathrop. The most significant visual features within or
4.0 OTHER CEQA-REQUIRED TOPICS
4.0-6 Draft Environmental Impact Report – Lathrop General Plan Update adjacent to the Lathrop Planning Area are the San Joaquin River located to the west of the city and agricultural land and open space located in undeveloped areas within and around the city.
However, as noted in greater detail in the Project Description chapter (Chapter 2.0), implementation of the proposed General Plan could lead to new and expanded urban and suburban development throughout the City and Planning Area, particularly in areas designated for residential, commercial, industrial, mixed use, and public/quasi‐public uses by the Land Use Map.
This new development may result in changes to the skyline throughout the Planning Area, which may obstruct or interfere with views of visual features surrounding the Planning Area.
Furthermore, buildout under the proposed General Plan and implementation of the General Plan Land Use Map has the potential to result in new and expanded development along highway corridors with scenic values, even though these corridors are not officially designated as State Scenic Highways.
While growth is anticipated to occur in the Lathrop Planning Area and within the other cities within San Joaquin County, the majority of growth is anticipated to occur in and around existing urban development. Development of land uses and associated infrastructure is planned to occur in the future to accommodate growth envisioned in the general plans that are effective within the cumulative analysis area, including San Joaquin County and the cities of Stockton, Tracy, Lodi, Lathrop, Escalon, and Ripon.
Regional growth has and will continue to result in a cumulative aesthetic effect by converting undeveloped land into developed and occupied areas and increasing overall levels of nighttime lighting. Cumulative development entails grading/landform alteration, the development of structures, and the installation of roadways and other infrastructure that has altered and will continue to permanently alter the region's existing visual character. Subsequent projects implemented under the proposed General Plan would be required to be consistent with the policies and actions of the proposed General Plan and adopted regulations pertaining to aesthetics and lighting in Lathrop. With implementation of adopted policies and regulations provided in Section 3.1 (Aesthetics and Visual Resources), the proposed General Plan would not considerably contribute to permanent changes in visual character, such as obstruction of scenic views, conversion of existing visual character, and increased lighting. The polices and actions included within the General Plan would reduce the cumulative effect of the General Plan on visual character. Therefore, the proposed General Plan’s incremental contribution to this cumulative impact would be less than cumulatively considerable.
AGRICULTURAL AND FOREST RESOURCES
Impact 4.2: Cumulative impact to agricultural lands and resources (Considerable Contribution and Significant and Unavoidable)
As shown in Table 3.2‐4, there are approximately 7,800 acres of Important Farmlands located within the city, including approximately 4,180 acres of Prime Farmland, 824 acres of Statewide Important Farmland and 2,612 acres of locally important farmland. As shown on Figure 3.2‐1, the Planning Area includes approximately 4,221 acres designated as has Urban and Built‐Up.
OTHER CEQA-REQUIRED TOPICS 4.0
Draft Environmental Impact Report – Lathrop General Plan Update 4.0-7 The General Plan has taken a proactive approach towards focusing new growth and development towards infill locations, and protecting open space areas and agricultural lands throughout the Planning Area to the greatest extent feasible. The applicable policies and actions that provide protection and preservation of agricultural lands are identified under Impact 3.2‐1. The proposed General Plan Land Use Map does not designate any new areas for urban development that were not already designated for urban development under the existing Land Use Map. However, there are currently undeveloped parcels within the City limits that are classified as Prime Farmlands or Important Farmlands, some of which are actively farmed. While these farmlands are not currently designated for agricultural uses, they are still considered to be agricultural resources.
As described in greater detail under Impact 3.2‐1, there is no feasible mitigation available to reduce this impact to a less than significant level. Other conversions of farmland within San Joaquin County over the buildout period is also likely to occur. The policies and actions identified in Section 3.2 would reduce this impact to the greatest extent feasible, and other General Plans in San Joaquin County have also mitigated potential impacts to agricultural resources. Nevertheless, this is considered a cumulatively considerable and significant and unavoidable impact.
AIR QUALITY
Impact 4.3: Cumulative impact on the region's air quality (Considerable Contribution and Significant and Unavoidable)
Construction of the growth anticipated by the proposed General Plan has the potential to temporarily emit criteria air pollutant emissions through the use of heavy‐duty construction equipment, and through vehicle trips generated by workers and haul trucks. In addition, fugitive dust emissions would result from demolition and various soil‐handling activities. Mobile source emissions, primarily NOx and PM emissions (i.e., PM10 and PM2.5), would result from the use of diesel‐powered on‐ and off‐road vehicles and equipment. Construction emissions can vary substantially from day‐to‐day, depending on the level of activity and the specific type of construction activity.
Table 3.3‐6 in Section 3.3 shows the combined population and jobs growth generated by the proposed project, compared to existing levels within the city. Table 3.3‐7 shows the existing baseline VMT and projected VMT following buildout of the proposed project. As shown in the two tables, implementation of the proposed Project would result in an approximately 401.0% increase in citywide VMT, greater than the projected 307.6% increase in combined population and jobs.
Therefore, the growth rate associated with the proposed General Plan is anticipated to be slower than the VMT increase associated with it. Therefore, the proposed project is anticipated to result in VMT increases on a per service population basis.
Table 3.3‐10 in Section 3.3 displays the residential cancer risk and acute and chronic incidence rate results at nearest receptors from the heavy‐duty truck trips anticipated to be generated by Light Industrial Development located north of Dos Reis Road, West of I‐5, at General Plan buildout (including the cumulative impacts associated with the combined impact of proposed segments and interacting segments together). As shown, maximum health risks associated with the worst‐case
4.0 OTHER CEQA-REQUIRED TOPICS
4.0-8 Draft Environmental Impact Report – Lathrop General Plan Update truck route segments that could occur with implementation of the proposed General Plan would exceed the applicable significance threshold for residential cancer risk. The model results do not take into account the potential reductions in emissions exposures to sensitive receptors that would occur following the update and implementation of the Central Lathrop Specific Plan, as called for in Action LU‐5f. The updates would require a reconfiguration of the circulation network in and around new light industrial areas in Lathrop, which would divert traffic from the modeled roadway segments where impacts may occur.
Lastly, with respect to other emissions, future development under the proposed General Plan would be required to comply with Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP), State Implementation Plan (SIP), California Air Resources Board (CARB), San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (SJVAPCD) regulations, Title 24 energy efficiency standards, and the proposed General Plan policies and actions. Nevertheless, based on the above described information, this is considered a cumulatively considerable and significant and unavoidable impact.
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Impact 4.4: Cumulative loss of biological resources, including habitats and special status species (Less than Cumulatively Considerable)
Cumulative development anticipated throughout the greater San Joaquin County region will result in impacts to biological resources, including the permanent loss of habitat for special status species, corridor fragmentation, direct and indirect impacts to special status species, and reduction and degradation of sensitive habitat. Biological resources are a limited resource and the cumulative loss is considered significant.
Subsequent projects implemented under the proposed General Plan would be required to be consistent with the policies and actions of the proposed General Plan. The implementation of an individual project would require a detailed and site‐specific review of the site to determine the presence or absence of movement corridors, special‐status species, and sensitive habitat on a given project site. If movement corridors, special‐status species, or sensitive habitat are present and disturbance is required, Federal and State laws require measures to reduce, avoid, or compensate for impacts to these resources. The requirements of these Federal and State laws are implemented through the permit process. However, as provided under Section 3.4 (Biological Resources), with implementation of the policies and actions included within the General Plan, implementation of the General Plan would not generate a significant impact on biological resources.
Additionally, implementation of the General Plan would not conflict with the provisions of the San Joaquin County Multi‐Species Habitat Conservation and Open Space Plan (SJMSCP), or other approved local, regional, or State habitat conservation plan. The SJMSCP, in accordance with ESA Section 10(a)(1)(B) and CESA Section 2081(b) Incidental Take Permits, provides compensation for the Conversion of Open Space to non‐Open Space uses which affect the plant, fish and wildlife species covered by the Plan, hereinafter referred to as "SJMSCP Covered Species". The 97 SJMSCP Covered Species include 25 state and/or federally listed species. The SJMSCP Covered Species OTHER CEQA-REQUIRED TOPICS 4.0
Draft Environmental Impact Report – Lathrop General Plan Update 4.0-9 include 27 plants (6 listed), 4 fish (2 listed), 4 amphibians (1 listed), 4 reptiles (1 listed), 33 birds (7 listed), 15 mammals (3 listed) and 10 invertebrates (5 listed). The San Joaquin Council of Government uses the collected SJMSCP fees to preserve open space land of comparable types throughout the County, often coordinating with other private or public land trusts to purchase conservation easements or buy land outright for preservation. Compliance with the SJMSCP addresses impacts to biological resources, including special‐status species, on a local and regional level. Therefore, the proposed General Plan’s incremental contribution to this cumulative impact would be less than cumulatively considerable.
CULTURAL AND TRIBAL RESOURCES
Impact 4.5: Cumulative impacts on known and undiscovered cultural resources (Less than Cumulatively Considerable)
Construction of the individual development projects allowed under the land use designations of the proposed General Plan may result in the discovery and removal of cultural resources, including archaeological, paleontological, historical, and Native American resources and human remains. The proposed General Plan policies and actions, as well as State and Federal regulations, will reduce the risk to resources in the region. As discussed in Section 3.5 (Cultural and Tribal Cultural Resources), future projects would require specific surveys for potential resources and the evaluation of any resources discovered during construction activities. Other policies and actions designed to reduce impacts to cultural and tribal cultural resources within the Planning Area and the region as a whole are also provided in Section 3.5 (Cultural and Tribal Cultural Resources).
Adherence to these policies, actions, and regulations will avoid and/or minimize a cumulative loss of these important resources if they are found during project‐specific surveys or construction.
Therefore, the proposed General Plan’s incremental contribution to cumulative cultural resource impacts would be less than cumulatively considerable.
GEOLOGY AND SOILS
Impact 4.6: Cumulative impacts related to geology and soils (Less than Cumulatively Considerable)
Construction of the individual development projects allowed under the land use designations of the proposed General Plan will result in risks associated with geology and soils. For example, there is an ongoing possibility that a fault located anywhere in the state (or region) could rupture and cause seismic ground shaking. Additionally, grading, excavation, removal of vegetation cover, and loading activities associated with construction activities could temporarily increase runoff, erosion, and sedimentation. Other geologic risks such as liquefaction, landsliding, lateral spreading, and soil expansion are also geologic risks that are present.
Geologic impacts are site‐specific and not additive in character. However, cumulative geologic impacts associated with erosion and sedimentation could occur in the County as each individual city and community continues to develop over the next 20 years. While some cumulative erosion‐ related impacts will occur in the region as individual projects are constructed, the proposed General Plan policies and actions, as well as State and Federal regulations, will reduce the project’s
4.0 OTHER CEQA-REQUIRED TOPICS
4.0-10 Draft Environmental Impact Report – Lathrop General Plan Update contribution to the risk to people in the region. Considering the protection granted by local, State, and Federal agencies and their requirements for seismic design, as discussed in Section 3.6 (Geology and Soils), the overall cumulative impact would not be significant. As a result, the proposed General Plan’s incremental contribution to cumulative geologic and soil impacts would be less than cumulatively considerable.
GREENHOUSE GASES, CLIMATE CHANGE, AND ENERGY
Impact 4.7: Cumulative impacts related to greenhouse gases, climate change, and energy (Considerable Contribution and Significant and Unavoidable) Implementation of the Lathrop General Plan would not directly result in the creation of GHG emissions. However, subsequent development allowed under the General Plan would result in new projects that would increase GHG emissions in the Lathrop Planning Area.
There are a variety of ways in which a general plan could contribute to climate change and result in the generation of GHGs. Sprawling land use patterns that place residences far from employment and retail centers can result in increased vehicle miles traveled (VMT), which increase GHG generation. The conversion of forest lands and open space areas into urbanized uses removes vegetation and trees that have positive carbon sequestration value. Imbalances between local jobs and housing can result in increased commute times and increased VMT associated with longer travel distances between home and work.
Cumulative impacts are the collective impacts of one or more past, present, and future projects that, when combined, result in adverse changes to the environment. GHG emissions are cumulative by nature, given that they spread throughout the atmosphere on a global scale. In determining the significance of a project’s contribution to anticipated adverse future conditions, a lead agency should generally undertake a two‐step analysis. The first question is whether the combined effects from both the proposed project and other projects would be cumulatively significant. If the agency answers this inquiry in the affirmative, the second question is whether “the project’s incremental effects are cumulatively considerable” and thus significant in and of themselves. The cumulative project list for this issue (climate change) comprises anthropogenic (i.e., human‐made) GHG emissions sources across the globe and no project alone would reasonably be expected to contribute to a noticeable incremental change to the global climate.
However, legislation and executive orders on the subject of climate change in California have established a statewide context and process for developing an enforceable statewide cap on GHG emissions. Given the nature of environmental consequences from GHGs and global climate change, CEQA requires that lead agencies consider evaluating the cumulative impacts of GHGs.
Small contributions to this cumulative impact (from which significant effects are occurring and are expected to worsen over time) may be potentially considerable and, therefore, significant.
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 OTHER CEQA-REQUIRED TOPICS 4.0
Draft Environmental Impact Report – Lathrop General Plan Update 4.0-11 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.
As future development projects are received and reviewed by the City in subsequent years, those projects will be reviewed for consistency with the General Plan and all relevant State‐level programs and requirements. All future projects must implement the most current version of the Title 24 energy efficiency requirements, as required by State law. Consistency with the General Plan and other mandatory State‐level programs would ensure that future project‐level contributions to global climate change would be less than significant. Moreover, as identified in Section 3.7 (Greenhouse Gases, Climate Change, and Energy), buildout of the General Plan would not be expected to 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.
In general, expanded and new energy and natural gas infrastructure will be needed to serve growth contemplated in the General Plan. The environmental effect of providing the energy and natural gas services is associated with the physical impacts of providing new and expanded facilities. The specific impacts of providing new and expanded facilities cannot be determined at this time, as the General Plan does not propose or authorize development nor does it designate specific sites for new or expanded utilities facilities and infrastructure. However, the facilities would be primarily provided on sites with land use designations that allow such uses and the environmental impacts of constructing and operating the governmental facilities would likely be similar to those associated with new development, redevelopment, and infrastructure projects under the General Plan. These impacts are described in the relevant chapters (Chapters 3.1 through 3.16, and 4.0) of this Draft EIR. Any future development under the General Plan would be required to comply with regulations, policies, and standards included in the General Plan, and would be subject to CEQA review as appropriate.
Nevertheless, 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 a cumulatively considerable and significant and unavoidable impact.
HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
Impact 4.8: Cumulative impacts related to hazardous materials and human health risks. (Less than Cumulatively Considerable)
Construction of the individual development projects allowed under the land use designations of the proposed General Plan may involve the transportation, use, and/or disposal of hazardous materials, which may involve the use of equipment that contains hazardous materials (e.g., solvents and fuels or diesel‐fueled equipment), or the transportation of excavated soil and/or groundwater containing contaminants from areas that are identified as being contaminated.
4.0 OTHER CEQA-REQUIRED TOPICS
4.0-12 Draft Environmental Impact Report – Lathrop General Plan Update Furthermore, because of the regional nature of the General Plan, some future land uses will inevitably transport or use hazardous materials within ¼ mile of a school, or other sensitive receptors such as hospitals and residences.
New development would inevitably increase the use of some hazardous materials within the region, resulting in potential health and safety effects related to hazardous materials use. Any use of hazardous materials must be managed in accordance with federal, State, and local (including Sacramento County) regulations to minimize any risk.
Hazardous materials incidents, if any, are typically site‐specific and involve accidental spills or inadvertent releases. Associated health and safety risks generally are limited to those individuals using the materials or to persons in the immediate vicinity of the materials. Hazard‐related impacts tend to be site‐specific and project‐specific. While some cumulative impacts, such as those associated with increases in the use of hazardous materials in the City associated with additional development, will occur in the region as individual projects are constructed, the proposed General Plan policies and actions, as well as State and Federal regulations, will reduce the project’s contribution to risks to people in the region. Considering the protection granted by local, State, and Federal agencies and their requirements for the use of hazardous materials in the region, as discussed in Section 3.8 (Hazards and Hazardous Materials), the overall cumulative impact for most hazard impacts would not be significant. Therefore, this impact is considered less than cumulatively considerable.
HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
Impact 4.9: Cumulative impacts related to hydrology and water quality. (Less than Cumulatively Considerable)
Construction of the individual development projects allowed under the land use designations of the proposed General Plan has the potential to result in construction‐related water quality impacts, impacts to groundwater recharge, and cause flooding, erosion, or siltation from the alteration of drainage patterns. Further, impacts resulting from buildout of the General Plan and potential development of the Planning Area would include substantial grading, site preparation, and an increase in urbanized development. Increased development in the County, including the Planning Area, would contribute to cumulative water quality impacts.
While some cumulative impacts will occur in the region as individual projects are constructed, the proposed General Plan policies and actions, as well as State and Federal regulations, will substantially reduce the project’s contribution to impacts. Considering the protection granted by local, State, and Federal agencies and their permit and monitoring requirements, as discussed in Section 3.9 (Hydrology and Water Quality), and with implementation of the policies and actions included within the General Plan, the overall cumulative impact would not be significant. As a result, the General Plan's incremental contribution to cumulative hydrology impacts would be less than cumulatively considerable.
OTHER CEQA-REQUIRED TOPICS 4.0
Draft Environmental Impact Report – Lathrop General Plan Update 4.0-13
LAND USE, POPULATION, AND HOUSING
Impact 4.10: Cumulative impacts related to local land use, population, and housing (Less than Cumulatively Considerable)
Cumulative land use and planning impacts, such as the potential for conflicts with adjacent land uses and consistency with adopted plans and regulations, are typically site and project‐specific. It may be determined in the project‐specific design phase of a development project that an individual project may require removal of homes and result in the displacement of people and housing; however, these effects are not cumulatively considerable because there is adequate replacement housing available under the proposed General Plan. Additionally, any removal of homes would require adequate compensation to the homeowner in accordance with Federal and State laws.
The land uses allowed under the proposed General Plan provide opportunities for cohesive new growth at in‐fill locations within existing urbanized areas, as well as new growth within the Planning Area in undeveloped areas currently designated for urban development, but would not create physical division within existing communities. New development and redevelopment projects would be designed to complement the character of existing neighborhoods and provide connectivity between existing development and new development within the cumulative analysis area. The proposed General Plan does not include any new roadways, infrastructure, or other features that would divide existing communities. Moreover, 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. Lastly, General Plan implementation would not displace substantial numbers of existing people or housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere. Therefore, the proposed General Plan's incremental contribution to cumulative land use and population impacts would be less than cumulatively considerable.
MINERAL RESOURCES
Impact 4.11: Cumulative impacts related to mineral resources (Considerable Contribution and 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 Central 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 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
4.0 OTHER CEQA-REQUIRED TOPICS
4.0-14 Draft Environmental Impact Report – Lathrop General Plan Update designated MRZ‐3 is located in the central and south portion of the Planning Area within zones designated for residential, commercial and industrial uses by the existing and proposed General Plans.
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.. 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.
Moreover, 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 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. As a result, the General Plan's incremental contribution to cumulative mineral resource impacts is considered a cumulatively considerable and significant and unavoidable impact.
NOISE
Impact 4.12: Cumulative impacts related to noise (Considerable Contribution and Significant and Unavoidable)
Table 3.12‐11 shows the future noise levels and the increase in noise levels associated with traffic on the local roadway network under the proposed General Plan, versus the existing (Baseline 2020) conditions.
Buildout of the General Plan may contribute to an exceedance of the City’s transportation noise standards and/or result in significant increases in traffic noise levels at existing sensitive receptors.
As indicated by Tables 3.12‐11 in Section 3.12: Noise, the related traffic noise level increases with a 20‐year circulation system buildout of the proposed General Plan are predicted to increase between 0.3 to 28.1 dB versus the existing Baseline (2020) conditions.
In order to reduce these impacts, the use of sound walls or quiet pavements could be employed.
Construction of new sound walls could be a feasible mitigation measure. However, many of the impacted residential uses along the roadway segments listed above are accessed directly via OTHER CEQA-REQUIRED TOPICS 4.0
Draft Environmental Impact Report – Lathrop General Plan Update 4.0-15 driveways off the main roadway or may even already have a sound wall. A new sound wall would require many driveway openings, resulting in partial noise barriers. These openings in the sound wall would substantially reduce the noise barrier performance. Additionally, raising the heights of sound walls, or construction of new noise barriers would result in encroachment into private property. Such encroachment would require private property owners to allow permission to enter their property. Raising sound wall heights would likely require enlarging footings, thereby requiring demolition of existing sound walls. Therefore, use of new sound walls, or modifying sound walls is not considered to be practical.
Quiet pavements have been used to mitigate traffic noise and are typically assumed to provide a 3 to 5 dBA reduction. Assuming a minimum reduction of 3 dBA, quiet pavement placed along sensitive receptor areas on the impacted roadway segments could reduce traffic noise level increases. Many of the noise impacts outlined in the previous tables could potentially be mitigated through the use of quiet pavement. However, not all of the impacted roadway segments could be mitigated through use of quiet pavements due to the magnitude of the traffic noise increases. Additionally, widespread repaving of city streets with quiet pavements would be expensive and impractical.
General Plan Policies N‐1.1 through N‐1.18, and Actions N‐1a through N‐1f, are intended to minimize exposure to excessive noise, including noise associated with traffic. Specifically, Policies N‐1.1 and N‐1.14 support noise‐compatible land uses in the vicinity of traffic noise sources and require that new development and infrastructure projects be reviewed for consistency with the noise standards established in Tables N‐1 and N‐2. The proposed General Plan standards required under Policy N‐1.1, for exposure to traffic noise meet or exceed the noise level standards of the adopted General Plan. Policy N‐1.14 and Actions N‐1c would ensure that new development mitigates potential noise impacts through incorporating the noise control treatments necessary to achieve acceptable noise levels. Policy N‐1.4 sets criteria for evaluating future increases in traffic noise levels. Implementation Action N‐1a would ensure that the Lathrop Municipal Code, including the updated noise ordinance, is consistent with the noise standards established in the General Plan. Implementation Action N‐1d would encourage working with Caltrans to ensure that adequate noise studies are prepared and that noise mitigation measures are considered in State transportation projects. Implementation of the proposed policies and actions of the General Plan will reduce noise and land use compatibility impacts from vehicular traffic noise sources and would ensure that new development is designed to include noise‐attenuating features.
While implementation of the proposed policies and actions of the General Plan will reduce noise and land use compatibility impacts from vehicular traffic noise sources and would ensure that new development is designed to include noise‐attenuating features, as shown in Table 3.12‐11, the traffic noise increases associated with the proposed General Plan exceed the applicable noise exposure criteria. Therefore, this is considered a cumulatively considerable and significant and unavoidable impact.
4.0 OTHER CEQA-REQUIRED TOPICS
4.0-16 Draft Environmental Impact Report – Lathrop General Plan Update
PUBLIC SERVICES AND RECREATION
Impact 4.13: Cumulative impacts to public services and recreation (Less than Cumulatively Considerable)
Development accommodated under the General Plan would result in additional residents and businesses in the City, including new residential, industrial, office, and commercial uses. As described in Chapter 2.0, the General Plan is expected to accommodate up to 17,379 new residential dwelling units and up to 30,630,722 square feet of non‐residential building space within the city at full buildout.
This new growth could increase the City’s population by approximately 66,562 residents and could include approximately 49,250 new jobs. The full development of the new non‐residential uses are shown in Chapter 2.0 (Project Description), Table 2.0‐2.
Development and growth facilitated by the General Plan would result in increased demand for public services, including fire protection, law enforcement, schools, parks, libraries, and other public and governmental services. The General Plan includes policies and actions to ensure that public services are provided at acceptable levels and that the City will maintain and implement public facility master plans, in collaboration with appropriate outside service providers and other agencies, to ensure compliance with appropriate regional, state, and federal laws and to provide efficient public facilities and services to Lathrop.
Cumulative growth that would occur within San Joaquin County and other cities within San Joaquin County over the life of the proposed General Plan will result in increased demand for public services, including fire protection, law enforcement, schools, parks, libraries, and other public and governmental services. As the demand for public services and recreation increases, there will likely be a need to address acceptable service ratios, response times, and other performance standards.
New or expanded service structures (e.g., offices, maintenance and administrative buildings, schools, parks, fire facilities, libraries, etc.) will be needed to provide for adequate staffing, equipment, and appropriate facilities to serve growth within the cumulative analysis area.
New public services and recreation facilities will be needed to serve growth contemplated in the General Plan. The environmental effect of providing the public services and recreation is associated with the physical impacts of providing new and expanded facilities. The specific impacts of providing new and expanded facilities cannot be determined at this time, as the General Plan does not propose or authorize development nor does it designate specific sites for new or expanded public facilities. However, the facilities would be primarily provided on sites with land use designations that allow such uses and the environmental impacts of constructing and operating the governmental facilities would likely be similar to those associated with new development, redevelopment, and infrastructure projects under the General Plan. These impacts are described in the relevant chapters (Chapters 3.1 through 3.16, and 4.0) of this Draft EIR. Any future development under the General Plan would be required to comply with regulations, policies, and standards included in the General Plan, and would be subject to CEQA review as appropriate. The General Plan includes a range of policies and actions to ensure that public OTHER CEQA-REQUIRED TOPICS 4.0
Draft Environmental Impact Report – Lathrop General Plan Update 4.0-17 services are provided in a timely fashion, are adequately funded, are coordinated between the City and appropriate service agency, that new development funds its fair share of services, and that the effects of new development of parks, schools, and other public service facilities are appropriately considered. Payment of applicable impact fees, and ongoing revenues that would come from property taxes, sales taxes, and other revenues generated by the future projects, would ensure that the City maintains acceptable service ratios and that the expansion of public service facilities are adequately funded. The proposed General Plan's incremental contribution to cumulative public services and recreation impacts would be less than cumulatively considerable.
TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION
Impact 4.14: Cumulative impacts on the transportation network (Considerable Contribution and Significant and Unavoidable)
Table 4.0‐4 compares the VMT per dwelling unit and VMT per employee associated with proposed General Plan implementation with the threshold. As shown in the table, the proposed General Plan would exceed VMT thresholds. While the proposed General Plan is not expected to result in VMT per dwelling unit exceeding 85 percent of baseline for residential‐related land uses, the proposed General Plan is expected to result in VMT per employee exceeding 85 percent of baseline for employment‐related land uses.
TABLE 4.0‐4: VMT ANALYSIS
LAND USE UNITS THRESHOLD
PROPOSED GENERAL
PLAN1
REDUCTION NEEDED
TO ACHIEVE
THRESHOLD
Single family VMT per dwelling unit 94.8 64.5 -
Multi family VMT per dwelling unit 73.1 54.6 -
Age restricted VMT per dwelling unit 40.4 27.3 -
Restaurant VMT per employee 182.9 248.9 27%
Industrial VMT per employee 66.2 79.1 16%
Office VMT per employee 31.0 47.3 34%
Retail VMT per employee 115.0 211.5 46%
NOTES: 1BOLD = EXCEEDS THRESHOLD
2 VMT PER EMPLOYEE RATIOS INCLUDE ALL TRIPS BY EMPLOYEES, CUSTOMERS, AND DELIVERIES.
SOURCE: FEHR & PEERS, 2021
As shown in Table 4.0‐4, the proposed General Plan would result in VMT increases exceeding the threshold for employment‐related land uses. As previously described, this result is due to the change in the balance between jobs and housing in Lathrop, which is based upon the large increases in employment shown in Table 3.14‐7 of Section 3.14: Circulation. In the future, more
4.0 OTHER CEQA-REQUIRED TOPICS
4.0-18 Draft Environmental Impact Report – Lathrop General Plan Update employees and customers are expected to travel to employment centers, increasing VMT per employee.
The updated General Plan includes policies designed to reduce vehicle travel and vehicle miles traveled. The Circulation Element addresses providing adequate pedestrian, bicycle, and transit facilities and opportunities, promoting non‐vehicle travel modes, requiring employers with 100 or more employees to implement TDM programs, and ensuring regional coordination on trip and VMT reduction efforts. General Plan policies and actions that contribute to VMT reductions are identified in DEIR Chapters 3.14 (Circulation), and 3.7 (GHG and Climate Change). These policies and actions would help to reduce the severity of these significant impacts to the greatest extent feasible.
The VMT generated by buildout of the proposed General Plan would exceed the VMT threshold of 85 percent of baseline. Implementing the proposed General Plan policies and actions will help to reduce VMT through encouraging non‐vehicle transportation modes, expanded transit services, and developing TDM program requirements including measures to reduce VMT associated with new development. However, reductions in VMT per employee from 16 to 46 percent would be required to achieve thresholds as shown in Table 3.14‐10. Additionally, the feasibility and effectiveness of a local or regional VMT impact bank or exchange is unknown at this time. The City cannot demonstrate definitively at this time that implementation of these policies would achieve VMT reductions to meet the VMT per employee thresholds.
The General Plan goals, policies, and implementation measures will achieve meaningful reductions in VMT generated by land uses within the City. However, reductions in VMT per employee from 16 to 46 percent would be required to achieve thresholds as shown in Table 4.4‐4. The City at this time cannot demonstrate that VMT will be reduced to the degree that it meets these thresholds.
Although large changes in the proposed General Plan land use could potentially reduce VMT of the City further, those changes would also affect the achievement of other goals the City seeks to achieve with the General Plan. VMT reduction also depends on factors such as demographic change, household preferences for housing types and locations, the cost of fuel, and the competitiveness of regional transit relative to driving, which relates to congestion along vehicular commute routes that are not under the City’s jurisdiction, as well as transit provided by agencies other than the City. The feasibility and effectiveness of a local or regional VMT impact bank or exchange is unknown at this time. Therefore, this is considered a cumulatively considerable and significant and unavoidable impact.
UTILITIES
Impact 4.15: Cumulative impacts related to utilities (Considerable Contribution and Significant and Unavoidable)
Cumulative growth that would occur within the service areas for the South San Joaquin Irrigation District’s (SSJID) and the City utilities divisions over the life of the proposed General Plan will result in increased demand for water service, sewer service, and solid waste disposal services.
OTHER CEQA-REQUIRED TOPICS 4.0
Draft Environmental Impact Report – Lathrop General Plan Update 4.0-19 In general, expanded and new utility infrastructure will be needed to serve growth contemplated in the General Plan. The environmental effect of providing the utility services is associated with the physical impacts of providing new and expanded facilities. The specific impacts of providing new and expanded facilities cannot be determined at this time, as the General Plan does not propose or authorize development nor does it designate specific sites for new or expanded facilities and infrastructure associated with utilities. However, the facilities would be primarily provided on sites with land use designations that allow such uses and the environmental impacts of constructing and operating the governmental facilities would likely be similar to those associated with new development, redevelopment, and infrastructure projects under the General Plan. These impacts are described in the relevant chapters (Chapters 3.1 through 3.16, and 4.0) of this Draft EIR. Any future development under the General Plan would be required to comply with regulations, policies, and standards included in the General Plan, and would be subject to CEQA review as appropriate.
Water: Implementation of the General Plan would result in increased population and employment growth within the Planning Area, and a corresponding increase in the demand for additional water supplies.
In November 2021, West Yost developed a Water Supply Assessment (WSA) for the City of Lathrop General Plan Update. In the WSA, West Yost summarized the land uses in the General Plan Update, projected future demand at Buildout (projected in 2040) and compared the projected water demand to the water supply documented in the City’s 2020 Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP), and the SSJID 2020 UWMP. A comparison of the available water supply and projected demands at buildout of the General Plan is shown in Table 3.15‐5 of Section 3.15: Utilities.
As indicated in Table 3.15‐5, based on the assumptions presented in the WSA, the City would have a 2 percent deficiency in water supplies to serve development of the proposed Project land uses during some dry years (i.e during dry year 3 and dry year 4).
While the 2020 UWMP water use projections are the best available currently, water use projections will be re‐evaluated in future UWMP updates, based on the new regulations. If the City’s growth projections and/or allocation of land use are updated based on the current General Plan update, then the ability to serve new growth may need to be re‐evaluated. The proposed General Plan includes a range of policies and actions (listed in DEIR Chapter 3.15) to ensure that the City’s water supply plans are updated to address development and land use changes in order to ensure that future supply levels meet demands. For example, Policy PFS‐2.1 requires the City to manage the water system to ensure that the water supply is adequate to meet the needs of existing and future development and is utilized in a sustainable manner. Nevertheless, based the available data, the City is anticipated to have a slight deficit of water supplies during dry years 3 and 4 if the levels of potential new growth analyzed in this EIR occur by 2040.
The proposed General Plan includes a range of policies designed to ensure an adequate water supply for development and to minimize the potential adverse effects of increased water use.
Projected water demands associated with General Plan buildout would not exceed the projected
4.0 OTHER CEQA-REQUIRED TOPICS
4.0-20 Draft Environmental Impact Report – Lathrop General Plan Update available water supplies during normal years, and the proposed General Plan includes a comprehensive set of goals, policies, and actions to ensure an adequate and reliable source of clean potable water. Nevertheless, as described in the WSA, it is anticipated that the City, with implementation of the General Plan Update, would have a slight deficiency in water supplies during multiple dry years 3 and 4. Therefore, impacts associated with sufficient water supplies are considered to be cumulatively considerable and a significant and unavoidable.
Wastewater: 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, the former Pilkington Glass facility, the former Sharpe Army Depot, and former Carpenter Company facility) and the Next Generation STEAM Academy in River Island have historically self‐managed their wastewater (West Yost Associates, 2018). 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.
Wastewater treatment facilities that serve the City include the MWQCF and the LCTF. 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. A map of wastewater infrastructure is shown in Figure 3.15‐2.
As Lathrop continues to develop in the future, there will be an increased need for water and wastewater services, including a reliable source of recycled water. These needs have been addressed in the City’s IWRMP and will require that the city continue to implement phased improvements to some pump stations, sewer mains, and the various wastewater treatment plants when triggered by growth.
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 ADWF varied between 60 and 69 gallons of wastewater per capita per day. As described in the City’s Sewer System Management Plan, based on the City’s existing General Plan, the City’s total ADWF in 2040 was anticipated be 5.69 mgd, and increase to 7.07 mgd 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 OTHER CEQA-REQUIRED TOPICS 4.0
Draft Environmental Impact Report – Lathrop General Plan Update 4.0-21 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.
Additionally, wastewater treatment and conveyance facilities would be evaluated at the project‐ level in association with subsequent development projects. However, the facilities would be primarily provided on sites with land use designations that allow such uses and the environmental impacts of constructing and operating the facilities would likely be similar to those associated with new development, redevelopment, and infrastructure projects under the General Plan. As future development and infrastructure projects are considered by the City, each project will be evaluated for conformance with the General Plan, Municipal Code, and other applicable regulations.
Subsequent development and infrastructure projects would also be analyzed for potential environmental impacts, consistent with the requirements of CEQA.
Given that projected wastewater generation volumes associated with General Plan buildout is not anticipated to exceed the capacity of the wastewater treatment provider to have adequate capacity, and wastewater treatment and conveyance facilities would be evaluated at the project‐ level in association with subsequent development projects, cumulative wastewater impacts are considered be less than significant and the proposed General Plan's incremental contribution to cumulative wastewater impacts would be less than cumulatively considerable.
Stormwater: Development under the proposed General Plan would result in increased areas of impervious surfaces throughout the Planning Area, resulting in the need for additional or expanded stormwater drainage, conveyance, and retention infrastructure. The infrastructure and facilities necessary to serve new growth would involve development of some facilities on‐site within new development projects, some facilities off‐site on appropriately designated land, and may also involve improvements to existing facilities and disturbance of existing rights‐of‐way. The specific impacts of providing new and expanded drainage facilities cannot be determined at this time, as the General Plan does not propose or approve any specific development project nor does it designate specific sites for new or expanded public facilities.
Stormwater drainage and conveyance facilities would be evaluated at the project‐level in association with subsequent development projects. However, the facilities would be primarily provided on sites with land use designations that allow such uses and the environmental impacts of constructing and operating the facilities would likely be similar to those associated with new development, redevelopment, and infrastructure projects under the General Plan as discussed throughout this Draft EIR, including in Chapters 3.1 through 3.14 and 3.16 through 4.0.
As future development and infrastructure projects are considered by the City, each project will be evaluated for conformance with the General Plan, Municipal Code, and other applicable regulations. Subsequent development and infrastructure projects would also be analyzed for potential environmental impacts, consistent with the requirements of CEQA. As such, this is a less than significant impact and the proposed General Plan's incremental contribution to cumulative wastewater impacts would be less than cumulatively considerable.
4.0 OTHER CEQA-REQUIRED TOPICS
4.0-22 Draft Environmental Impact Report – Lathrop General Plan Update The policies and actions listed in DEIR Chapters 3.9 (Hydrology), and 3.15 (Utilities) would further ensure that there is adequate stormwater drainage and flood control infrastructure to serve future development under the General Plan, and would ensure that future drainage and flood control infrastructure projects do not result in adverse environmental impacts.
Solid Waste: The development of future land uses under the proposed General Plan would increase solid waste disposal needs and could have the potential to require the construction of new landfill facilities, or expansion of existing facilities.
Future development of projects as contemplated under the proposed General Plan may increase the population within the Planning Area by approximately 66,562 persons. As described above, the City of Lathrop has achieved a disposal rate of 5.9 PPD per resident in 2019. Assuming these disposal rates remain constant throughout the life of the General Plan, the new growth under General Plan buildout would result in an increase of approximately 392,716 pounds per day of solid waste, which equals 196.4 tons per day or 71,670 tons of solid waste per year.
Forward Landfill has a cease operation date of 2039 and has sufficient capacity to serve the City of Lathrop. Forward Landfill has a remaining landfill capacity of over 22,100,000 tons, and has a current maximum permitted throughput of 8,668 tons per day. It has a total maximum capacity of 59,160,000 cubic yards. The landfill has a permitted traffic volume of 620 vehicles per day.
Other landfills that received relatively small amounts of waste from the City of Lathrop in include:
Altamont Landfill & Resource Recovery;
Azusa Land Reclamation Company Landfill;
Fink Road Landfill;
Foothill Sanitary Landfill;
L and D Landfill;
North County Landfill & Recycling Center;
Potrero Hills Landfill;
Recology Hay Road;
Sacramento County Landfill (Kiefer).
The City’s solid waste per capita generation has decreased since 2007 due to the waste diversion efforts of the City. The additional solid waste generation associated with the proposed General Plan, approximately 196.4 tons per day at total buildout, to the Forward Landfill would not exceed the landfill’s remaining and additional capacity until landfill closure in 2039. The City will need to secure a new location or expand existing facilities when the Forward Landfill is ultimately closed, if a new permit is not issued at a later date for a cease operation date beyond 2039. There are several options that the City will have to consider for solid waste disposal at that time, including the construction of new facilities or expansion of existing facilities.
OTHER CEQA-REQUIRED TOPICS 4.0
Draft Environmental Impact Report – Lathrop General Plan Update 4.0-23 If the Forward Landfill were to close in 2039, the City can potentially utilize other landfills such as the Foothill Landfill and the North County Landfill, as locations for solid waste disposal. The permitted maximum disposal at the Foothill Landfill is 1,500 tons per day and the North County Landfill is 825 tons per day. The remaining capacity of these landfills include 125 million cubic yards of solid waste at the Foothill Landfill, with an estimated cease operation date of 2054, and
35.4 million cubic yards of solid waste at the North County Landfill, which has an estimated cease operation date of 2035. The addition of solid waste associated with the proposed project to the Foothill Landfill and North County Landfill would not exceed the combined landfills’ remaining capacity of 160.4 cubic yards. While there are no plans for landfill construction or expansion associated with the proposed General Plan, development of new solid waste disposal facilities could result in environmental effects in areas such as traffic, hydrology, biology, air quality, greenhouse gases, and noise. Any future construction projects would be required to conduct environmental review pursuant to CEQA prior to approval. As future development and infrastructure projects are considered by the City, each project will be evaluated for conformance with the General Plan, Municipal Code, and other applicable regulations associated with solid waste. Subsequent development and infrastructure projects would also be analyzed for potential environmental impacts, consistent with the requirements of CEQA. As such, this impact would be less than significant, and no additional mitigation is required.
The proposed General Plan includes actions to further reduce the project’s impact on solid waste services, as identified in Chapter 3.15 (Utilities). With the implementation of these policies and payment of a solid waste connection fees for project within the Planning Area, potential solid waste impacts would be reduced to less than significant impact and the proposed General Plan's incremental contribution to cumulative solid waste impacts would be less than cumulatively considerable.
WILDFIRE
Impact 4.16: Cumulative impact related to wildfire (Less than Cumulatively Considerable)
The Planning Area is not located in or near any State Responsibility Areas and there are no lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones (VHFHSZ) within or near the Planning Area.
Therefore, the General Plan would have no impact related to wildfire risks associated with lands in or near State Responsibility Areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones.
Therefore, the proposed General Plan's incremental contribution to cumulative wildfire impacts would be less than cumulatively considerable.
4.2 GROWTH-INDUCING EFFECTS
INTRODUCTION
Section 15126.2(d) of the CEQA Guidelines requires that an EIR evaluate the growth‐inducing impacts of a proposed action. A growth‐inducing impact is defined by the CEQA Guidelines as:
4.0 OTHER CEQA-REQUIRED TOPICS
4.0-24 Draft Environmental Impact Report – Lathrop General Plan Update The way in which a proposed project could foster economic or population growth, or the construction of additional housing, either directly or indirectly, in the surrounding environment. Included in this are projects which would remove obstacles to population growth…It is not assumed that growth in an area is necessarily beneficial, detrimental, or of little significance to the environment.
Based on the CEQA Guidelines, growth inducement is any growth that exceeds planned growth of an area and results in new development that would not have taken place without implementation of the project. A project can have direct and/or indirect growth inducement potential. Direct growth inducement would result if a project, for example, involved construction of new housing. A project would have indirect growth inducement potential if it established substantial new permanent employment opportunities (e.g., commercial, industrial, or governmental enterprises) or if it would involve a construction effort with substantial short‐term employment opportunities that would indirectly stimulate the need for additional housing and services to support the new employment demand (Napa Citizens for Honest Government v. Napa County Board of Supervisors).
Similarly, a project would indirectly induce growth if it would remove an obstacle to additional growth and development, such as removing a constraint on a required public service. A project providing an increased water supply in an area where water service historically limited growth could be considered growth‐inducing.
The CEQA Guidelines further explain that the environmental effects of induced growth are considered indirect impacts of the proposed action. These indirect impacts or secondary effects of growth may result in significant, adverse environmental impacts. Potential secondary effects of growth include increased demand on other community and public services and infrastructure, increased traffic and noise, and adverse environmental impacts such as degradation of air and water quality, degradation or loss of plant and animal habitat, and conversion of agricultural and open space land to developed uses.
Growth inducement may constitute an adverse impact if the growth is not consistent with or accommodated by the land use plans and growth management plans and policies for the area affected. Local land use plans provide for land use development patterns and growth policies that allow for the orderly expansion of urban development supported by adequate urban public services, such as water supply, roadway infrastructure, sewer service, and solid waste service.
The General Plan is a long‐term plan intended to accommodate projected population, housing, and employment growth, including the appropriate balance among these factors with the necessary public services and infrastructure. The proposed General Plan would serve as a comprehensive, long‐term plan for the physical development of Lathrop. Projected growth is described in Section
3.10 (Land Use, Population, and Housing), and the environmental consequences related to the potential growth are fully assessed in each topical section. By definition, the proposed Lathrop General Plan is intended to provide for and address future growth in the City.
Because the proposed General Plan provides a framework for development through its Land Use Map, land use designations, goals, policies, and actions, it would directly induce population and OTHER CEQA-REQUIRED TOPICS 4.0
Draft Environmental Impact Report – Lathrop General Plan Update 4.0-25 employment growth in the Lathrop Planning Area by designating land for development that is more intense, in some instances, than current designations allow. The analysis of the indirect growth‐inducing impacts for the proposed General Plan focuses on the following factors:
inducement of unanticipated population growth; encouragement of economic growth that leads to jobs and housing growth; elimination of obstacles to population growth; and resulting service, facility, or infrastructure demands in excess of existing and planned growth.
The proposed General Plan accommodates future growth in Lathrop, including new businesses, expansion of existing businesses, and new residential uses. Infrastructure and services would need to accommodate future growth. The General Plan would encourage development of a broader array of businesses, increasing local employment opportunities, and providing residential development as necessary to serve economic growth. The cumulative development scenario addressed in this Draft EIR is the maximum projected development that could occur within the existing city limits and the Planning Area, if every parcel in the city and the Planning Area developed at or near the higher end of densities and intensities allowed under the proposed General Plan.
At buildout, growth associated with the proposed General Plan would yield a total of approximately 95,065 residents and 58,403 jobs. Depending on growth rates, the actual growth during the life of the General Plan could be lower, but would not exceed the buildout described in Chapter 2.0.
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 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. However, growth under the proposed General Plan would remain within the general growth levels projected statewide and would not be anticipated to exceed any applicable growth projections or limitations that have been adopted to avoid an environmental effect. The proposed General Plan is intended to accommodate the City’s fair share of statewide housing needs, based on regional numbers provided by the California Department of Housing and Community Development on a regular basis (every five to eight years).
The proposed General Plan includes policies and actions that reduce environmental impacts associated with growth, such as air quality, noise, traffic, water supply, and water quality.
Additionally, this Draft EIR identifies General Plan policies and actions, where appropriate, that would serve to reduce or eliminate potentially significant impacts associated with specific
4.0 OTHER CEQA-REQUIRED TOPICS
4.0-26 Draft Environmental Impact Report – Lathrop General Plan Update environmental issues associated with growth. Chapters 3.1 through 4.0 provide a discussion of environmental effects associated with development allowed under the proposed General Plan.
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.
Therefore, population and housing growth associated with the proposed General Plan would result a less than significant impact.
4.3 SIGNIFICANT IRREVERSIBLE AND ADVERSE EFFECTS
LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS
CEQA Section 15126.2(c) and Public Resources Code Sections 21100(b)(2) and 21100.1(a), requires that the EIR include a discussion of significant irreversible environmental changes which would be involved in the proposed action should it be implemented. Irreversible environmental effects are described as:
The project would involve a large commitment of nonrenewable resources; The primary and secondary impacts of a project would generally commit future generations to similar uses (e.g., a highway provides access to previously remote area); The project involves uses in which irreversible damage could result from any potential environmental accidents associated with the project; or The phasing of the proposed consumption of resources is not justified (e.g., the project involves the wasteful use of energy).
Determining whether the proposed project would result in significant irreversible effects requires a determination of whether key resources would be degraded or destroyed such that there would be little possibility of restoring them. Irretrievable commitments of resources should be evaluated to assure that such current consumption is justified.
Consumption of Nonrenewable Resources
Consumption of nonrenewable resources refers to the loss of physical features within the natural environment, including the conversion of agricultural lands, loss of access to mining reserves, and nonrenewable energy use. The Lathrop Planning Area has nonrenewable resources, including biological resources, water resources, and agricultural resources.
One of the objectives of the proposed General Plan is to establish a long‐term plan for conservation of resources and future growth and development. Many of the policies and actions aimed at conserving resources are contained within the Resource Conservation Element, and have been identified throughout this EIR. Additionally, the proposed General Plan directs most new development to infill areas, and areas surrounding existing neighborhoods and urbanized areas. As a result, the proposed General Plan will minimize the potential for impacts to the nonrenewable OTHER CEQA-REQUIRED TOPICS 4.0
Draft Environmental Impact Report – Lathrop General Plan Update 4.0-27 resources in the Planning Area, including biological resources, water resources, and agricultural resources, to the greatest extent feasible. More detailed and focused discussions of potential impacts to these nonrenewable resources are contained throughout this Draft EIR.
Nonrenewable agricultural resources such as agricultural land, farmland, and agricultural soils, would be converted during the construction and operation of development projects contemplated under the General Plan buildout. The proposed General Plan includes a variety of policies that seek to conserve and protect agricultural resources. These include policies that encourage the development of vacant lands within City boundaries prior to conversion of agricultural lands and ensure that urban development near existing agricultural lands will not unnecessarily constrain agricultural practices or adversely affect the economic viability of nearby agricultural operations.
Irretrievable Commitments/Irreversible Physical Changes Implementation of the proposed General Plan would result in a commitment of land uses designated for the foreseeable future. Land use and development consistent with the General Plan would result in irretrievable commitments by introducing development onto sites that are presently undeveloped.
The conversion of agricultural lands to urban uses would result in an irretrievable loss of agricultural land, wildlife habitat, and open space.
A variety of resources, including land, energy, water, construction materials, and human resources would be irretrievably committed for development and infrastructure installation associated with uses envisioned by the proposed General Plan. Buildout of the proposed General Plan would require the commitment of a variety of other non‐renewable or slowly renewable natural resources such as lumber and other forest products, sand and gravel, asphalt, petrochemicals, and metals.
Additionally, a variety of resources would be committed to the ongoing operation and life of the uses accommodated by the proposed General Plan. The introduction of new residential, commercial, industrial, recreational, and other uses to the Planning Area will result in an increase energy demand associated with building operations, vehicle travel, equipment operation, and other activities. Fossil fuels are the principal source of energy and the Project will increase consumption of available supplies, including gasoline and diesel fuel, and natural gas. These energy resource demands relate to initial construction, operation, maintenance and the transport of people and goods to and from the Planning Area that would occur with implementation of the proposed General Plan.
Additionally, development will physically change the environment in terms of aesthetics, air emission, noise, traffic, open space, and natural resources. These physical changes are irreversible after development occurs. Therefore, the proposed General Plan would result in changes in land use within the Planning Area that would commit future generations to these uses.
Irreversible Damage
4.0 OTHER CEQA-REQUIRED TOPICS
4.0-28 Draft Environmental Impact Report – Lathrop General Plan Update The General Plan does not involve uses in which irreversible damage could result from any potential environmental accidents associated with future buildout of the Planning Area. Future development, infrastructure, and other projects allowed under the General Plan may involve the transportation, use, and/or disposal of hazardous materials. However, potential environmental accidents would not result in irreversible damage because the future uses in the Planning Area would be subject to applicable requirements of Federal, State, and local regulations and policies.
Additionally, 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.
The General Plan does not propose any uses that are would cause irreversible damage.
Phased Consumption of Resources
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. Buildout would also require commitment of other resources, as discussed above. 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. Additionally, developers would have to comply with proposed General Plan policies and implementing actions that reduce energy usage, promote renewable and/or alternative energy sources, and encourage pedestrian/bicycle modes of transportation.
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 sustainability features of individual development projects could further energy consumption of individual projects.
OTHER CEQA-REQUIRED TOPICS 4.0
Draft Environmental Impact Report – Lathrop General Plan Update 4.0-29 PG&E, the electricity and natural gas provider to the site, 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.
4.0 OTHER CEQA-REQUIRED TOPICS
4.0-30 Draft Environmental Impact Report – Lathrop General Plan Update
MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE
CEQA Guidelines Section 15065 states that a lead agency shall find that a project may have a significant effect on the environment where there is substantial evidence that the project has potential environmental effects that are individually limited but cumulatively considerable. As defined in CEQA Guidelines Section 15065(a)(3), cumulatively considerable means “that the incremental effects of an individual project are significant when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects.” Cumulative impacts are addressed previously in Section 4.1 for each of the environmental topics.
CEQA Guidelines Section 15065(a)(1) states that a lead agency shall find that a project may have a significant effect on the environment where there is substantial evidence that the project has the potential to (1) substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species; (2) cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self‐sustaining levels; or (3) substantially reduce the number or restrict the range of an endangered, rare, or threatened species. These impacts are discussed below.
Additionally, as required by CEQA Guidelines Section 15065(a)(4), a lead agency shall find that a project may have a significant effect on the environment where there is substantial evidence that the project has the potential to cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly. These impacts are discussed below.
Substantial Adverse Effects on Fish, Wildlife, and Plant Species Section 3.4 (Biological Resources) of this Draft EIR fully addresses any impacts that might relate to the reduction of the fish or wildlife habitat, the reduction of fish or wildlife populations, and the reduction or restriction of the range of special‐status species as a result of project implementation.
As described throughout the analysis in this Draft EIR, the proposed General Plan would not result in any significant impacts that would substantially reduce the habitat of fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self‐sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, or reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal to the environment. As described in greater detail in Section 3.4 (Biological Resources) any potentially significant impacts related to plant and animal species would be reduced to a less than significant level through implementation of goals, policies and implementation measures provided in the City’s General Plan as well as through adherence to state and federal regulations. Therefore, this is considered a less than significant impact.
Substantial Adverse Effects on Human Beings
While changes to the environment that could indirectly affect human beings would be represented by all of the designated CEQA issue areas, those that could directly affect human beings include air quality, geology and soils, hazards and hazardous materials, hydrology and water quality, noise, population and housing, public services and recreation, transportation, utilities, and climate change, which are addressed in Section 3.3 (Air Quality), Section 3.6 (Geology and Soils), Section OTHER CEQA-REQUIRED TOPICS 4.0
Draft Environmental Impact Report – Lathrop General Plan Update 4.0-31
3.8 (Hazards and Hazardous Materials), Section 3.9 (Hydrology and Water Quality), Section 3.12 (Noise), Section 3.10 (Land Use, Population and Housing), Section 3.13 (Public Service and Recreation), Section 3.14 (Transportation and Circulation), Section 3.15 (Utilities), and Section 3.7 (Greenhouse Gases, Climate Change and Energy). As described throughout the analysis of this Draft EIR, the proposed General Plan reduces environmental effects including effects that directly and indirectly impact humans through implementation of goals, policies and implementation measures provided in the City’s General Plan. However, several environmental impacts would still be considered significant and unavoidable (listed below in Section 4.4). These impacts include increases in localized noise, considerable increases of criteria pollutants, reduced air quality, and visual degradation, which may cause substantial adverse effects on humans and the way humans interact with their environment. Therefore, this is considered a significant and unavoidable impact.
Impact 4.17: Irreversible and adverse effects (Significant and Unavoidable) In summary, the proposed General Plan includes an extensive policy framework that is designed to address land use and environmental issues to the greatest extent feasible, while allowing growth and economic prosperity for the City. However, even with the policies and actions that will serve to reduce potential significant impacts, the proposed General Plan will result in significant irreversible changes and has the potential to result in adverse effects as described above. This impact is considered a significant and unavoidable impact under CEQA.
4.4 SIGNIFICANT AND UNAVOIDABLE IMPACTS
CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.2(b) requires an EIR to discuss unavoidable significant environmental effects, including those that can be mitigated but not reduced to a level of insignificance. The following significant and unavoidable impacts of the General Plan are discussed in Sections 3.2, 3.3, 3.7, 3.11, 3.12, 3.14, 3‐15, and previously in this chapter (cumulative‐level).
Refer to those discussions for further details and analysis of the significant and unavoidable impacts identified below:
Impact 3.2‐1: General Plan implementation would result in the conversion of farmlands, including Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, and Farmland of Statewide Importance, to non‐agricultural use.
Impact 3.2‐2: General Plan implementation would conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act Contract.
Impact 3.3‐1: General Plan implementation would conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan, or result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of criteria pollutants.
Impact 3.3‐2: General Plan implementation would expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations.
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.
4.0 OTHER CEQA-REQUIRED TOPICS
4.0-32 Draft Environmental Impact Report – Lathrop General Plan Update 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.
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.
Impact 3.12‐1: General Plan implementation may result in exposure to significant traffic noise sources.
Impact 3.14‐1: General Plan implementation may result in VMT per employee that are greater than 85 percent of Baseline conditions.
Impact 3.14‐2: General Plan implementation may conflict with a program, plan, policy, or ordinance addressing the circulation system, including transit, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities.
Impact 3.14‐3: General Plan implementation may increase hazards due to a design feature, incompatible uses, or inadequate emergency access. Impact 3.15‐1: General Plan implementation would not result in sufficient water supplies available to serve the City and reasonably foreseeable future development during normal, dry and multiple dry years.
Impact 4.2: Cumulative impact to agricultural lands and resources. Impact 4.3: Cumulative impact on the region’s air quality. Impact 4.7: Cumulative impacts related to greenhouse gases, climate change, and energy. Impact 4.11: Cumulative impacts related to mineral resources. Impact 4.12: Cumulative impacts related to noise.
Impact 4.14: Cumulative impacts on the transportation network. Impact 4.15: Cumulative impact related to utilities.
Impact 4.17: Irreversible and adverse effects.
ALTERNATIVES 5.0
Draft Environmental Impact Report – Lathrop General Plan 5.0-1
5.1 CEQA REQUIREMENTS
CEQA requires that an EIR analyze a reasonable range of feasible alternatives that meet most or all of the project objectives while potentially reducing or avoiding one or more environmental effects of the project. The range of alternativesrequired in an EIR is governed by a “rule of reason” that requires an EIR to set forth only those alternatives necessary to permit a reasoned choice (CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6[f]). Where a potential alternative was examined but not chosen as one of the range of alternatives, the CEQA Guidelines require that the EIR briefly discuss the reasons the alternative was dismissed.
Alternatives that are evaluated in the EIR must be potentially feasible alternatives. However, not all possible alternatives need to be analyzed. An EIR must “set forth only those alternatives necessary to permit a reasoned choice.” (CEQA Guidelines, Section 15126.6(f).) The CEQA Guidelines provide a definition for a “range of reasonable alternatives” and, thuslimit the number and type of alternatives that need to be evaluated in an EIR. An EIR need not include any action alternatives inconsistent with the lead agency’s fundamental underlying purpose in proposing a project. (In re Bay‐Delta Programmatic Environmental Impact Report Coordinated Proceedings (2008) 43 Cal.4th 1143, 1166.)
First and foremost, alternatives in an EIR must be potentially feasible. In the context of CEQA, “feasible” is defined as:
… capable of being accomplished in a successful manner within a reasonable period of time, taking into account economic, environmental, legal, social and technological factors. (CEQA Guidelines 15364)
5.2 ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED IN THIS EIR
FACTORS GUIDING SELECTION OF ALTERNATIVES
A Notice of Preparation was circulated to the public to solicit recommendations for a reasonable range of alternatives to the proposed Project. Additionally, a public scoping meeting was held during the public review period to solicit recommendations for a reasonable range of alternatives to the proposed Project. No specific alternatives were recommended by commenting agencies or the general public during the NOP public review and comment period.
The alternatives to the General Plan Update selected for analysis in the EIR were developed to minimize significant environmental impacts while fulfilling the basic objectives of the project, and address public and elected officials’ input with respect to potential land use and growth scenarios that may be appropriate for consideration as part of the General Plan Update. Significant impacts are summarized in Chapter 4.0 and described in greater detail in Sections 3.1 through 3.16. As described in Chapter 2.0 (Project Description), the following objectives have been identified for the proposed Project:
5.0 ALTERNATIVES
5.0-2 Draft Environmental Impact Report – Lathrop General Plan Provide a range of high‐quality housing options;
Attract and retain businesses and industries that provide high‐quality and high‐paying jobs;
Continue to maintain and improve multimodal transportation opportunities; Maintain strong fiscalsustainability and continue to provide efficient and adequate public services;
Address new requirements of State law; and
Address emerging transportation, housing, and employment trends.
SIGNIFICANT AND UNAVOIDABLE IMPACTS
The proposed General Plan Update would result in the following significant and unavoidable impacts, which are described in Sections 3.1 through 3.16 and Chapter 4.0:
Impact 3.2‐1: General Plan implementation would result in the conversion of farmlands, including Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, and Farmland of Statewide Importance, to non‐agricultural use (Significant and Unavoidable)
Impact 3.2‐2: General Plan Implementation would conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act Contract (Significant and Unavoidable) Impact 3.3‐1: General Plan implementation would conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan, or result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of criteria pollutants (Significant and Unavoidable) Impact 3.3‐2: General Plan implementation would expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations (Significant and Unavoidable) 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)
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)
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) Impact 3.12‐1: General Plan implementation may result in exposure to significant traffic noise sources (Significant and Unavoidable)
Impact 3.14‐1: General Plan implementation may result in VMT increasesthat are greater than 85 percent of Baseline conditions (Significant and Unavoidable) Impact 3.14‐2: General Plan implementation may conflict with a program, plan, policy, or ordinance addressing the circulation system, including transit, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities (Significant and Unavoidable)
Impact 3.14‐3: General Plan implementation may increase hazards due to a design feature, incompatible uses, or inadequate emergency access (Significant and Unavoidable)
ALTERNATIVES 5.0
Draft Environmental Impact Report – Lathrop General Plan 5.0-3 Impact 3.15‐1: General Plan implementation would result in sufficient water supplies available to serve the City and reasonably foreseeable future development during normal, dry and multiple dry years (Significant and Unavoidable) Impact 4.2: Cumulative impact to agricultural lands and resources (Considerable Contribution and Significant and Unavoidable)
Impact 4.3: Cumulative impact on the region's air quality (Considerable Contribution and Significant and Unavoidable)
Impact 4.7: Cumulative impacts related to greenhouse gases, climate change, and energy (Considerable Contribution and Significant and Unavoidable) Impact 4.11: Cumulative impactsrelated to mineral resources(Considerable Contribution and Significant and Unavoidable)
Impact 4.12: Cumulative impacts related to noise (Considerable Contribution and Significant and Unavoidable)
Impact 4.14: Cumulative impacts on the transportation network (Considerable Contribution and Significant and Unavoidable)
Impact 4.15: Cumulative impacts related to utilities (Considerable Contribution and Significant and Unavoidable)
Impact 4.17: Irreversible Effects (Significant and Unavoidable)
ALTERNATIVES TO THE GENERAL PLAN UPDATE
Three alternatives to the General Plan Update were considered based on the analysis performed to identify the environmental effects of the proposed Project. Since the General Plan Update was prepared with the intent to be a self‐mitigating document, project alternatives focused on amending land uses and standards to potentially address impacts. The alternatives analyzed in this EIR include the following:
Alternative 1: No Project Alternative. Under Alternative 1, the City would not adopt the General Plan Update. The existing Lathrop General Plan would continue to be implemented and no changes to the General Plan, including the Land Use Map, Circulation Diagram, goals, policies, or actions would occur. Subsequent projects, such as amending the Municipal Code (including the zoning map) and the City’s Design Guidelines, would not occur. The Existing General Plan Land Use Map is shown on Figure
5.0‐1.
Alternative 2: Modified Project Alternative. Under Alternative 2, the City would adopt the updated General Plan policy document, but would retain the existing land use map.
This alternative would result in the same growth as the existing General Plan and Alternative 1, but would implement the updated goals, policies, and actions found in the General Plan Update. This Alternative would result in more residential growth, and less non‐residential development than the proposed Project. This alternative was developed to potentially reduce the severity of impacts associated with noise, air quality, and workforce VMT.
5.0 ALTERNATIVES
5.0-4 Draft Environmental Impact Report – Lathrop General Plan Alternative 3: Balanced Density Residential Focused Alternative. Alternative 3 would adopt the General Plan Update, including the proposed General Plan Land Use Map and updated goals, policies, and actions. However, Alternative 3 would place more emphasis on residential development, increasing the allowed densitiesfor the residential land uses, while reducing the intensity of non‐residential development. For comparison it is assumed that this Alternative would result in a 25 percent increase in the number of new residential dwelling units, and a 10 percent decrease in jobs and non‐residential square footage when compared to the proposed Project. This Alternative would result in the most dwelling units compared to all other Alternatives. This Alternative would also result in more non‐residential growth than Alternatives 1 and 2, but 10% less non‐residential growth than the proposed Project. This alternative was developed to create a more equal jobs/housing balance, potentially reducing the severity of impacts related to greenhouse gas emissions and VMT, as new development would be within close proximity to the new job generating uses, which would help to reduce per capita employment VMT. Figure 2.0‐ 2 of Chapter 2 (Project Description) shows the proposed General Plan Land Use Map.
ALTERNATIVES 5.0
Draft Environmental Impact Report – Lathrop General Plan 5.0-5 A summary of the potential growth, including population growth, housing units, jobs, and the resultant job/housing balance for the Project and each Alternative is shown in Table 5.0‐1.
TABLE 5.0‐1: GROWTH PROJECTIONS BY ALTERNATIVE
POPULATION
DWELLING
UNITS
NONRESIDENTIAL
SQUARE FOOTAGE JOBS JOBS PERHOUSING UNIT
EXISTING CONDITIONS
28,503 7,747 13,327,713 9,153 1.18
NEW GROWTH POTENTIAL
Proposed General Plan 66,562 17,379 30,630,722 49,250 2.83 Alternative 1: Existing
General Plan/No
Project
72,954 19,048 23,812,822 43,459 2.28
Alternative 2:
Modified Project
Alternative
72,954 19,048 23,812,822 43,459 2.28
Alternative 3:
Balanced Density
(Residential Focused
Alternative)
83,203 21,724 27,567,650 44,325 2.04
TOTAL GROWTH: EXISTING PLUS NEW GROWTH POTENTIAL
Proposed General Plan 95,065 25,126 43,958,435 58,403 2.32 Alternative 1: Existing
General Plan/No
Project
101,457 26,795 37,140,535 52,612 1.96
Alternative 2:
Modified Project
Alternative
101,457 26,795 37,140,535 52,612 1.96
Alternative 3:
Balanced Density
(Residential Focused
Alternative)
111,706 29,471 40,895,363 53,478 1.81
SOURCE: DE NOVO PLANNING GROUP, 2021
5.0 ALTERNATIVES
5.0-6 Draft Environmental Impact Report – Lathrop General Plan
5.3 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
The alternatives analysis provides a summary of the relative impactlevel ofsignificance associated with each alternative for each of the environmental issue areas analyzed in this EIR. Following the analysis of each alternative, Table 5.0‐4 summarizes the comparative effects of each alternative.
The primary difference between the proposed General Plan and Alternative 2 is the Land Use Maps associated with each of these alternatives while the primary difference between the proposed General Plan and Alternative 3 isthe assumption of a 25 percent increase in the number of dwelling units developed in each residential/mixed use land use, and a 10% reduction on jobs and non‐residential square feet. The goals, policies, and actions contained in the proposed General Plan would also apply and be implemented under Alternatives 2 and 3. Therefore, changes to the Land Use Map and Land Use Descriptions are the only variables that may increase or decrease the severity of one or more of the significant environmental impacts identified in this Draft EIR. It is important to note, however, that all of the Land Use Maps, across all of the Alternatives analyzed in this EIR, include the same urban footprint. In other words, none of the Alternatives introduce new urban land uses within areas of the City that are not already designated for such uses by the existing General Plan.
Throughout the preparation of the General Plan Update, the City Council, Planning Commission, and general plan update team expressed a desire and commitment to ensuring that the General Plan not only reflect the community’s values and priorities, but also serve as a self‐mitigating document and avoid significant environmental impacts to the greatest extent feasible. To further this goal of crafting a self‐mitigating General Plan, the environmental analysis contained in this Draft EIR was completed concurrently with the development of the General Plan elements and Land Use Map in order to foster informed decision making regarding the Land Use Map and the General Plan goals, policies, and actions as they were being developed. As the Land Use Map and policy document was crafted, refined, and revised throughout the course of the General Plan Update, changes were made on a continuous basis in order to incrementally and substantially reduce potentially significant environmental impacts that were identified. The result of this approach and this process is a proposed General Plan that has reduced potentially significant impacts to the environment to the greatest extent feasible, while still meeting the project objectives identified by the City of Lathrop decision makers and stakeholders.
As demonstrated in the discussion below, the Alternative 3 is the environmentally superior alternative, asit was able to reduce as many environmental effects as possible, while still meeting Project objectives. Alternative 3 would be slightly environmentally superior to the proposed Project, as it would slightly reduce impacts related to VMT, Noise, Air Quality and GHG. However, this alternative would not reduce any significant impacts to a less than significant level.
ALTERNATIVES 5.0
Draft Environmental Impact Report – Lathrop General Plan 5.0-7 ALTERNATIVE 1 - NO PROJECT
Under Alternative 1, the City would continue to implement the existing General Plan and no changes would be made to address updated General Plan Guidelines, or the requirements of State law. Since adoption of the existing General Plan, State legislation has been passed requiring the City to address new safety and circulation requirementsin the General Plan and to further address greenhouse gas emissions, energy, safety, and conservation. The General Plan goals, policies, and actions, would not be updated to address the concerns of the city’s residents, property owners, decision‐makers, and other stakeholders that participated in the visioning process, which lead to many of the General Plan’s goals and subsequent policy development.
Alternative 1 would result in the continuation of existing conditions and development levels. New growth would be allowed as envisioned under the existing General Plan, with land uses required to be consistent with the existing General Plan Land Use Map. Table 5.0‐2 shows the acreages of each land use designation for the existing General Plan Land Use Map.
TABLE 5.0‐2: ALTERNATIVE 1 GENERAL PLAN LAND USE DESIGNATIONS
LAND USE AOI CITY LIMITS SOI TOTAL
AOI ‐ North 2,122.16 2,122.16
AOI 2,122.16 2,122.16
Central Lathrop 1,373.62 1,373.62
CP‐CL 80.09 80.09
HR‐CL 75.69 75.69
K‐8‐CL 37.42 37.42
NC‐CL 12.02 12.02
NP‐CL 44.80 44.80
OC‐CL 226.09 226.09
OS‐CL 48.37 48.37
P‐SP‐CL 10.94 10.94
R/MU‐CL 41.41 41.41
ROW‐CL 10.06 10.06
SPC‐CL 7.82 7.82
VR/K‐8/DS‐CL 17.85 17.85
VR‐CL 695.19 695.19
WWTP‐CL 65.88 65.88
City Proper 4,519.76 120.49 4,640.25
CC 59.46 59.46
CP 35.59 35.59
ES 26.37 26.37
FC 132.34 54.54 186.88
FS 8.20 8.20
GI 1,065.37 1,065.37
HD 8.96 8.96
LD 879.61 879.61
LI 1,410.97 65.94 1,476.92
5.0 ALTERNATIVES
5.0-8 Draft Environmental Impact Report – Lathrop General Plan
LAND USE AOI CITY LIMITS SOI TOTAL
MD 177.44 177.44
NC 29.74 29.74
NP 40.33 40.33
OS 57.54 57.54
P 63.55 63.55
PO 15.97 15.97
RecR 54.13 54.13
ROW 251.12 251.12
SC 185.85 185.85
VC 17.23 17.23
Lathrop Gateway 303.97 62.79 366.76
CO‐LG 68.17 68.17
LI‐LG 184.34 184.34
ROW‐LG 13.41 7.02 20.43
SC‐LG 38.05 55.77 93.82
River Islands 4,412.46 4,412.46
MU‐RI 164.58 164.58
NC‐RI 23.38 23.38
RCO‐RI 667.29 667.29
RGC‐RI 500.20 500.20
RH‐RI 34.37 34.37
RL‐RI 2,813.73 2,813.73
RM‐RI 208.91 208.91
South Lathrop 301.83 301.83
CO‐SL 13.00 13.00
LI‐SL 250.75 250.75
OS‐SL 12.79 12.79
P/QP‐SL 10.34 10.34
ROW‐SL 14.94 14.94
Stewart Tract 432.52 737.11 1,169.63
RCO‐ST 181.37 181.37
RC‐ST 273.88 77.03 350.91
ROW‐ST 13.60 44.50 58.10
RR‐ST 145.03 145.03
R‐ST 12.41 12.41
UR‐ST 421.80 421.80
Grand Total 2,554.68 11,648.75 183.28 14,386.70
SOURCE: DE NOVO PLANNING GROUP, 2021
Under Alternative 1 at Project buildout, there would be an increase over existing conditions in residential growth (approximately 19,048 dwelling units) and jobs (approximately 43,459 jobs) within City limits. Under cumulative conditions, development in Planning Area combined under Alternative 1 would result in a population of 101,457 and 52,612 jobs. Under Alternative 1, the existing General Plan policy framework would still be in effect, which would constitute a status ALTERNATIVES 5.0
Draft Environmental Impact Report – Lathrop General Plan 5.0-9 quo approach to land use regulation in the City. The policy framework proposed by the General Plan Update, encourages and aims to achieve a community with a compatible land use pattern that meets the City’s long‐term housing, employment, and civic needs while reducing impacts created by growth through a self‐mitigating approach to the policy framework. Land uses allowed under the proposed General Plan provide opportunities for additional multifamily residential growth at in‐fill locations within existing urbanized areas of the city, as well as new growth adjacent to existing urbanized areas. Additionally, 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.
Alternative 1 would not include updated policies, particularly those related to greenhouse gases, community health, equity/environmental justice and complete streets policies to address safety, access, and mobility for all roadway users, as required by State law. This alternative would not include various policies proposed in the General Plan update to ensure protection of environmental resources, both at a project level and under cumulative conditions, consistent with the objectives of CEQA.
Alternative 1 fails to meet several of the basic project objectives, including addressing new requirements of State law; and addressing emerging transportation, housing, and employment trends.
Therefore, Alternative 1 (No Project) is rejected from further consideration as a CEQA alternative, as it fails to meet several of the project objectives. However, for reference, the environmental effects associated with Alternative 1 are discussed and summarized in Table 5.0‐4 to provide a general comparison between the adopted General Plan (Alternative 1 – No Project), the Proposed Project, and Alternatives 2 and 3.
ALTERNATIVE 2 – MODIFIED PROJECT ALTERNATIVE
Alternative 2 (Modified Project Alternative) would result in the same growth as under the existing General Plan. Under Alternative 2, the City would adopt the updated General Plan policy document, including the revised goals, policies, and actions; however, the City would retain the existing land use map. Alternative 2 would result in more residential and less nonresidential growth than the proposed General Plan, but it would result in the same growth as Alternative 1.
However, Alternative 1 would result in lessresidential and nonresidential growth when compared to Alternative 3. Land use designations would be the same asin Alternative 1 and are summarized in Table 5.0‐2.
5.0 ALTERNATIVES
5.0-10 Draft Environmental Impact Report – Lathrop General Plan The goals, policies, and actions of the General Plan Update would apply to subsequent development, planning, and infrastructure projects under this alternative. As shown previously in Table 5.0‐1, Alternative 2 would result in additional housing units and residents within Lathrop when compared to the proposed General Plan Land Use Map. Nonresidential square feet would be reduced and employment opportunities would be decreased under this alternative, with fewer jobs created within the city limits when compared to the proposed General Plan.
Alternative 2 would provide for additional residential only land uses and fewer light industrial and business park type uses within the Planning Area when compared to the proposed Project.
However, Alternative 2 would also provide for fewer opportunitiesfor multifamily residential land uses.
ALTERNATIVE 3 – BALANCED DENSITY (RESIDENTIAL FOCUSED)
Alternative 3 ‐ Balanced Density (Residential Focused Alternative) provides for a balance of job‐ creating and residential development land uses within the City. Alternative 3 would allow more non‐residential and residential development when compared to the existing General Plan, but Alternative 3 would increase the residential densities providing even more residential development than all other alternatives.
As described previously, Alternative 3 would implement the proposed General Plan Land Use Map as shown in Figure 2.0‐2 of Chapter 2 (Project Description); however, under Alternative 3, it is assumed that the density of residential development would increase by 25 percent, resulting in 4,345 more dwelling units than the proposed Project. The goals, policies, and actions of the General Plan Update would apply to subsequent development, planning and infrastructure projects under this alternative. Alternative 3 would maintain the same acreage of land uses as the proposed Project (asshown in Chapter 2.0 Table 2.0‐1), but would support increased densities for residential developments and slightly reduced commercial and industrial development intensities.
As shown in Table 5.0‐1, Alternative 3 would result in approximately 21,724 new housing units or 4,345 more housing units within the city when compared to the proposed General Plan Land Use Map. Employment opportunities would be slightly reduced when compared to the proposed General Plan, resulting in approximately 44,325 jobs created within the city limits.
Under Project buildout conditions, this alternative would result in a total population within the Planning Area of approximately 111,706, which is higher than the total population projection under the proposed General Plan by approximately 16,641.
ALTERNATIVES 5.0
Draft Environmental Impact Report – Lathrop General Plan 5.0-11
IMPACT COMPARISON
Aesthetics
As described in Chapter 3.1 (Aesthetics and Visual Resources) impacts related to Aesthetics were found be less than significant. All Project Alternatives would result in similar development patterns, and development footprint. As described in Chapter 3.1 (Aesthetics), Lathrop has prepared the proposed General Plan to include numerous policies and actionsrelated to maintain existing open space lands within the city, to coordinate with regional partners to maintain and preserve open space areas, and to protect the city’s scenic resources, including scenic corridors along roads and views of the hillsides, waterways, and other significant natural features, to the extent practical.
Aesthetic impacts would generally be the same under Alternate 2 when compared to the proposed Project and Alternative 3. Slight variations in development types, units, and non‐ residential square footages would be seen throughout these alternatives, however as the development types and the overall development footprint within the planning area would remain substantially the same under all alternatives. The updated policy document under the proposed Project as well as Alternative 2 and 3 would enhance the review of individual development projects and would be a slight improvement when compared to Alternative 1 which does not include an updated policy document.
Agriculture and Forest Resources
As described in Impact 3.2‐1, and 3.2‐2 of Chapter 3.2 (Agriculture and Forest Resources), the proposed General Plan would result in significant and unavoidable impacts related to the conversion of farmlands, including Prime Farmland and Unique Farmland, to non‐agricultural use, as well as conversion of Williamson Act Enrolled Lands.
All Project Alternatives would result in General Plan land use designations, and a land use map that would result in a buildout Planning area and the loss of Important Farmlands. All development Alternatives would designate developed uses throughout the Planning Area with similar development footprints. Therefore, impacts under all alternatives would remain substantially similar for the proposed Project when compared to Alternatives 2 and 3, This impact would remain significant under all of the Alternatives. All Project Alternatives would result in general plan land use designations that would result in similar development patterns.
Therefore, the impact level under all scenarios would remain the same. However due to updated policy guidance as a result of the updated policy document the proposed Project as well as Alternatives 2 and 3 may have a slightly reduced impact when compared to the no project alternative.
As described in Chapter 3.2 (Agricultural Resources), the updated policy document under the proposed Project as well as Alternatives 2 and 3 would include policies and actions related to agricultural uses, compatibility and enhanced coordination that promote agricultural uses and
5.0 ALTERNATIVES
5.0-12 Draft Environmental Impact Report – Lathrop General Plan compatibility and would be a slight improvement when compared to Alternative 1, which does not include an updated policy document.
Air Quality
As described in Chapter 3.3 (Air Quality) Impact 3.3‐1, the proposed General Plan implementation would result in significant impacts to air quality.
As further described in Chapter 3.3, policies and actions included in the proposed General Plan would further the fundamental goals of the SJVAPCD in reducing emissions of criteria pollutants associated with reducing building energy usage, and would increase opportunities for transit ridership in Lathrop and the surrounding areas. The General Plan policies and actions that would work to further criteria pollutant emissions reductions, including reviewing projects for conformance with applicable air quality plans and regulations, reducing energy demands, and implementing methods to reduce vehicle miles traveled. However, even with implementation of the General Plan policies and actionsthat would reduce criteria pollutant emissions, the proposed General Plan would increase VMT at a rate faster than the combined increase in jobs and population growth.
As shown in Chapter 3.3, implementation of the proposed Project would result in an approximately 401.0% increase in citywide VMT, greater than the projected 307.6% increase in combined population and jobs. Therefore, the growth rate associated with the proposed General Plan is anticipated to be slower than the VMT increase associated with it. Additionally, as described in Chapters 3.3, and 3.14 (Circulation), employment VMT increases outpace residential VMT as the city is adding additional jobs that would require workforce commuting from surrounding areas to fill positions. Offsetting workforce VMT impacts could be accomplished through reduced jobs or increased residential populations within the City (or a combination of both) so that local jobs are filled locally, thus reducing the commute lengths and reducing workforce VMT. Asshown in Table 5.0‐1, all alternativesto the proposed Project provide for fewer jobs, and increased residential units with the intent of reducing VMT compared to the proposed Project.
Asshown in Table 5.0‐1 the jobs housing ratio at buildout would be 2.32 for the Proposed General Plan, 1.96 for Alternatives 1 and 2, and 1.81 under Alternative 3. Therefore Alternatives 1 and 2 would have slightly reduced VMT impacts, while Alternative 3 would further reduce impacts as this alternative would support additional housing opportunities that would reduce both residential and workforce VMT to the greatest extent compared to all other alternatives.
Additionally the Proposed General Plan, as well as Alternatives 2 and 3 would include an updated policy document with an extensive list of policies and actions that are specifically aimed at improving air quality. These policies and actions (which are provided in Chapters 3.3, and 3.14), limit impacts to air quality by reducing the number and length of vehicle trips, supporting green and sustainable building development, promoting the use of renewable energy, and encouraging the conservation of resources. As such, the air quality impacts may increase slightly under Alternative 1 and decrease slightly under Alternative 2 when compared to the proposed General ALTERNATIVES 5.0
Draft Environmental Impact Report – Lathrop General Plan 5.0-13 Plan. Moreover, when compared to the proposed Project, Alternative 3 impacts would be reduced when compared to all other Alternatives.
Biological Resources
There are various biological resources, including habitat, that occurs throughout the region. As described in Chapter 3.4 (Biological Resources) General Plan implementation would result in less than significant impacts to biological resources. Approval of the General Plan would not directly approve or entitle any development or infrastructure projects. However, implementation of the General Plan and Land Use Map would allow and facilitate future development in Lathrop, which could result in adverse impacts to special‐status plant and wildlife species, as well as sensitive natural habitat and wildlife movement corridors. Subsequent development projects will be required to comply with the General Plan and adopted Federal, State, and local regulations for the protection of special status plants and animals, including habitat. The development footprint and development types would be similar under all alternatives. The City has prepared the proposed General Plan to include policies and actions intended to protect special status plants and animals, including habitat, from adverse effects associated with future development and improvement projects. The proposed General Plan and Alternatives 2 and 3 would include these updated biological policies and actions aimed at protecting biological resources (as described in detail in Chapter 3.4), while Alternative 1 would rely on the biological policies and actions within the existing General Plan.
Therefore, because Alternatives 2 and 3 would update conservation and biological resource policies consistent with the proposed General Plan, impacts to biological resources would be slightly reduced when compared to the Alternative 1 (No Project Alternative), which does not include an updated policy document. Impacts under Alternative 2 would remain the same when compared to the Alternative 3, which has a comparable development footprint and updated policies consistent with the proposed General Plan.
Cultural and Tribal Cultural Resources
As described in Chapter 3.5 (Cultural and Tribal Cultural Resources) General Plan implementation would result in less than significant impacts to cultural and tribal cultural resources.
All Project Alternatives would result in similar development patterns and a similar development footprint. However, because Alternatives 2 and 3 would update cultural resource policies to include new policies and actions related to agency coordination, consultation, and monitoring consistent with the proposed General Plan Policy Document, impacts to cultural resources would be slightly reduced when compared to the No Project Alternative which does not include additional and updated policiesrelated to cultural resources. The impact under all otherscenarios (the proposed General Plan, and Alternatives 2 and 3) would remain the same.
Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Energy
As described in Chapter 3.7 (Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Energy), Impact 3.7‐1 the proposed General Plan would result in significant impacts as General Plan implementation is considered to
5.0 ALTERNATIVES
5.0-14 Draft Environmental Impact Report – Lathrop General Plan 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.
As stated in Chapter 3.7, 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. Separately, the proposed General Plan would result in an approximately 19.4% increase in per service population vehicle miles traveled compared to the existing General Plan.
As described in Chapter 3.7, the proposed General Plan includes policies and programsthat 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 adoption 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 City 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.
All of these comprehensive policy approaches identified in Chapter 3.7 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.
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.
As described in Chapter 3.7 the VMT per service population is 47.48 under Buildout of the existing General Plan and 48.89 under buildout of the proposed General Plan. Using this metric alone it could be assumed that impacts related to GHG would be reduced slightly under the existing General plan. However, when compared to Alternative 1 (No Project), the proposed General Plan, ALTERNATIVES 5.0
Draft Environmental Impact Report – Lathrop General Plan 5.0-15 Alternative 2 and Alternative 3 all include a range of goals and policies that would reduce GHG emissions, including policies to encourage mixed‐use development, complete streets and multi modal improvements that would further reduce per capita GHG impacts. It is unknown how these policies and actions may offset slight reductions in VMT, but it would be assumed that the proposed updated policy document will further reduction goals over the life of the general plan and thus all alternatives would be a slight improvement when compared to the No Project Alternative that does not include the updated policy document.
Under Alternatives 2, the Planning Area would be developed with the existing General Plan Land Use Map, but would be required to adhere to the same policy guidance and local, state, and regional greenhouse gas measures as the proposed General Plan and Alternative 3. Alternative 2 would result in approximately 1,669 more housing units, and 5,791 fewer jobs within Lathrop when compared to the proposed General Plan Land Use Map. Under Alternative 3 there would also be an increase in residential units (4,345), and a decrease in jobs (4,925) when compared to the proposed General Plan.
The decrease in total jobs may decrease the total greenhouse gas emissions and energy use, while the additional residents may offset these reductions. However, increased unit counts and population increases would generally be seen to decrease per capita GHG emissions levels as additional residents will increase the service population and reduce workforce VMT. As such, the greenhouse gas emissions impact is expected to decrease slightly under Alternative 2 and to a greater extent under Alternative 3 when compared to the proposed General Plan.
Geology
As described in Chapter 3.6 (Geology), the proposed General Plan would result in less than significant impacts to Geology and Soils. All alternatives would result in similar development patterns. The proposed General Plan and Alternatives 2 and 3 would also include updated policies related to geologic hazards, including requirements for project reviews and standards for construction and building practices (as described in detail in Chapter 3.6).
All future projects within the Planning Area will be required to comply with state laws including the preparation ofstormwater plans, and compliance with the provisions of the California Building Standards Code (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. Therefore, impacts related to Geology and Soils would generally remain the same under all alternatives. However, the updated policy document provides for additional policies and action related to geologic hazards and safety when compared to the existing General Plan, therefore the proposed General Plan and Alternatives 2 and 3 would be considered to be slightly superior when compared to Alternative 1.
5.0 ALTERNATIVES
5.0-16 Draft Environmental Impact Report – Lathrop General Plan Hazards and Hazardous Materials
As described in Chapter 3.8 (Hazards and Hazardous Materials), all impactsrelated to hazards and hazardous materials were found to be less than significant. The proposed General Plan and Alternative 2 would include updated policies and actions aimed at protecting the public from hazardous materials and other local hazards. These policies and actions in the General Plan would ensure that potential hazards are identified on a project site specific basis, 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 proposed 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 in detail in Chapter 3.8). Additionally, under all Project Alternatives no development would take place in areas of high wildland fire risk.
All Project Alternatives would result in additional urban uses including commercial, industrial, residential, and mixed‐use and public facility development. The impacts under allscenarios would remain similar, however impacts to hazards and hazardous materials would be slightly reduced when compared to the No Project Alternative Because the proposed General Plan and alternatives 2 and 3 includes the adoption of the updated General Plan policy document, that included additional policies and actions specifically aimed to reduce hazards, and hazardous materials impacts when compared to the existing General Plan.
Hydrology and Water Quality
As described in Chapter 3.9 (Hydrology and Water Quality), under all impact areas, implementation of the proposed General Plan would result in lessthan significant impactsrelated to Hydrology and Water Quality.
All of the alternatives generally would allow development to occur in a manner similar to the proposed General Plan within the same development footprint, where flood control and water quality protection measures are established and enforced. This variation in intensity and land use designation changes would not substantially alter impacts from flooding, or to water quality, or on groundwater supplies because existing federal, State, and local regulations would apply to guard against flood hazards, water quality contamination, or impact on groundwater supplies.
Impact for each alternative, like the proposed Project, would be less than significant.
Alternative 2 and Alternative 1 (No Project) would result in development under the existing General Plan Land Use Map, which resultsin the least amount of non‐residentialsquare feet when compared to the proposed General Plan and Alternative 3. However, Alternative 2 and Alternative 1 would result in an increase in residential units when compared to the proposed General Plan (see table 5.0‐1). Compared to the proposed General Plan, the potential water quality impacts related to construction and operation would be similar under all alternatives. As described in Chapter 3.9, General Plan implementation would not result in construction, or long‐term impacts to surface water quality from urban stormwater runoff. All alternatives would also be required to submit a SWPPP with BMPs to the RWQCB and comply with all storm water sewer system (MS4) ALTERNATIVES 5.0
Draft Environmental Impact Report – Lathrop General Plan 5.0-17 requirements. It would be expected that impacts related to water quality would be similar under Alternatives 2 and Alternative 3 as compared to the Proposed General Plan. The implementation of the General Plan policies and actions, includes policies aimed to enhance stormwater quality and infiltration as well as actionsto review development projectsto identify potentialstormwater and drainage impacts. Additionally the General Plan requires development to include measures to ensure off‐site runoff, is not increased as a beyond pre‐development levels. Without updates to the General Plan’s policy document new and updated policies related to permeable surfaces onsite detention, and infiltration would not be included and may result in increased impacts.
Therefore, thisimpact under the No‐Project Alternative may be slightly increased when compared to all other alternatives.
Land Use Planning and Population/Housing
The proposed General Plan and all alternatives are long‐range land use plans. As described in Chapter 3.10 (Land Use, Population, and Housing) all impacts related to land use, population, and housing were found to be less than significant under the Proposed General Plan. As described previously, the proposed General Plan and Alternatives 2 and 3 would include adoption of the updated policy document consistent with the Proposed General Plan. Numerous programs and policies within the proposed General Plan’s policy document allow for greater consistency with applicable state and regional plans versus the existing General Plan, and would also promote efficiency in the delivery of urban services, and local agency coordination. Therefore, Alternatives 2 and 3 would also result in the same impact level as the proposed General Plan.
Alternative 1 (No Project Alternative) would result in less consistency with pertinent state and regional plansrelative to the proposed General Plan and when compared to all other alternatives, and would not implement changes in State law that address environmental concerns related to climate adaptation, environmental justice, and VMT. Alternatives 2 and 3 are both comparable to the proposed General Plan and would result in similar impacts related to land use, population, and housing.
Mineral Resources
As described in Chapter 3.11, Impact 3.11‐1, the proposed General Plan would result in significant impacts relating to mineral resources. All of the alternatives, like the proposed General Plan, accommodate development generally in the same areas, and these areas are, for the most part, either already urbanized, urbanizing, or are planned for similar development patterns.
The General Plan includes goals, policies, and actions 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 some mineral resources from the Plan Area. Therefore, this impact would remain significant and unavoidable under all alternatives.
5.0 ALTERNATIVES
5.0-18 Draft Environmental Impact Report – Lathrop General Plan Noise
As described in Chapter 3.12, Impact 3.12‐1, and Chapter 4.0, the proposed General Plan would result in significant noise impacts. Buildout of the General Plan would contribute to transportation noise and in increases in traffic noise levels at existing sensitive receptors. The proposed General Plan and Alternatives 2 and 3 include updated General Plan Policies intended to minimize exposure to excessive noise, including noise associated with increased traffic. Policies included within the updated policy document would ensure that new development minimizes potential noise impacts to the greatest extent feasible by incorporating noise control treatments and criteria for evaluating future increases in traffic noise levels; however, this impact would remain significant.
The impact under all scenarios would be substantially similar and all would be expected to result in significant noise impacts when compared to the existing noise environment. However, Alternative 2 which includes an updated policy document, while retaining the existing land use map would likely result in reduced traffic noise levels when compared to all other alternatives due to less areas of the city being identified for Industrial types of development resulting in fewer truck trips. The No Project alternative also retains the existing General Plan Land Use Map; however, without the updated policy document that includes best practices and additional noise minimizing policies and actions this alternative may result in only slightly fewer impacts when compared to the proposed Project and Alternative 3 due to reduced non‐residential development potential. Additionally, Alternative 3 would include reduced non‐residential building intensities and would result in fewer jobs and truck trips when compared to the proposed Project.
Public Services and Recreation
As described in Chapter 3.13, the proposed General Plan would result in less than significant impacts relating to public services and recreation. New development would place increased demands on public services such as police, fire, schools, parks, libraries, and other governmental services. The proposed General Plan includes policies and actions that require payment of impact fees to the City and other public agencies to ensure that additional development allowed does not have adverse impacts on these services and agencies.
When compared to Alternative 1 all project alternatives would be superior as Alternative 1 would not include adoption of the updated General Plan policy document that included policies and actions that support public services and recreational opportunities and service levels throughout the community. Alternatives 2 and 3 would adopt the updated General Plan policy document.
Under all alternatives, the development area and development types would remain similar; however, there would be more dwelling units, and a slightly increased population when compared to the Propose General Plan and thus, impacts to public services (the demand for police, fire and other public services) would be slightly increased and may require additional facilities when compared to the proposed General Plan. Overall, Alternatives 1, 2, and 3 would have a slightly increased impact to public services when compared to the proposed Project.
ALTERNATIVES 5.0
Draft Environmental Impact Report – Lathrop General Plan 5.0-19 Transportation
As described in Chapter 3.14 (Transportation and Circulation) and Chapter 4.0, the proposed General Plan would result in significant and unavoidable impacts related to transportation VMT and circulation and safety. Each are discussed below:
Citywide VMT
As described in Chapter 3.14, Impact 3.14‐1, General Plan implementation may result in VMT per employee that are greater than 85 percent of Baseline conditions and was therefore found to be significant and unavoidable.
The updated General Plan includes policies designed to reduce vehicle travel and vehicle miles traveled. The Circulation Element addresses providing adequate pedestrian, bicycle, and transit facilities and opportunities, promoting non‐vehicle travel modes, requiring employers with 100 or more employees to implement TDM programs, and ensuring regional coordination on trip and VMT reduction efforts. General Plan policies and actions that contribute to VMT reductions are identified below.
Table 5.0‐3 compares VMT for the Proposed General Plan to VMT projected for the existing general plan map, providing VMT by type of use and a VMT summary for VMT generated by households, residents, and service population.
5.0 ALTERNATIVES
5.0-20 Draft Environmental Impact Report – Lathrop General Plan TABLE 5.0‐3: DAILY TOTAL VMT EFFICIENCY COMPARISON BY SCENARIO Land Use Units 2020
Baseline
Threshold
(85 Percent
of Baseline)
Previous
General Plan
Buildout
Proposed
General Plan
Buildout
Previous vs.
Proposed
General Plan
Single family VMT per dwelling unit 111.5 94.8 64.8 64.5 -0.5% Multi family VMT per dwelling unit 86.0 73.1 56.0 54.6 -2.6% Age
restricted VMT per dwelling unit 47.5 40.4 26.9 27.3 1.3% Restaurant VMT per employee 215.2 182.9 247.6 248.9 0.5% Industrial VMT per employee 77.8 66.2 79.0 79.1 0.1%
Office VMT per employee 36.5 31.0 46.5 47.3 1.7%
Retail VMT per employee 135.3 115.0 212.2 211.5 -0.3%
All residential VMT per dwelling unit 108.3 NA3 60.3 58.9 -2.3% All residential VMT per resident1 27.9 NA3 15.5 15.2 -2.3% All
employment VMT per employee 85.8 NA3 106.7 101.6 -4.7%
All land uses VMT per service
population1,2 42.9 NA3 46.0 47.4 3.0%
Total VMT VMT 1,497,700 NA3 7,315,900 7,503,700 2.6%
Notes: 1Based on 3.88 residents/dwelling unit (California Department of Finance, E-5 City/County Population and Housing Estimates, 1/1/2020)
2 Service population includes residents and employees
3 NA = not applicable, metric for informational purposes only 4 Bold = Exceeds proposed General Plan threshold
Source: Fehr & Peers, 2021
Table 5.0‐3 shows the VMT measures per dwelling unit, per employee, per resident, and per service population for General Plan buildout conditions, as well as for the baseline condition. As shown in the table, the proposed General Plan would result in increased VMT for employment‐ generating land uses and would also result in an increase in total VMT in comparison to the existing condition as well as in comparison to the baseline scenario.
While all alternatives would also result in VMT per household that meets the VMT per household threshold, the proposed Project would have a worse employment VMT when compared to all ALTERNATIVES 5.0
Draft Environmental Impact Report – Lathrop General Plan 5.0-21 other alternatives. As shown in Table 5.0‐3, the changes in VMT per dwelling unit or employee range from a 2.6 percent decrease to a 1.7 percent increase. The increase in total VMT is 2.6%.
This result is due to the change in the balance between jobs and housing in Lathrop, which is based upon the large increases in employment shown in Chapter 3.14, Table 3.14‐4. In the future, a smaller share of residents are expected to leave the City for employment, reducing VMT per dwelling unit, but a greatershare of employees and customers are expected to travel from outside the City to employment centers within the City, increasing VMT per employee. If such employment growth does not occur, actual VMT per dwelling unit could be higher and VMT per employee could be lower than estimated for General Plan buildout conditions. As a result, the VMT impacts associated with employment‐based uses allowed by the proposed General Plan were considered significant and unavoidable.
Alternative 2 and Alternative 1 (No Project) would result in development of the existing General Plan Land Use Map; therefore, as stated above, the average residential VMT per capita would be slightly increased; however, the average employment VMT per employee would be decreased.
Under Alternative 2 and Alternative 1, the VMT impacts associated with employment‐based uses would still be considered significant and unavoidable. However, under Alternative 2, the updated policy document would be adopted and future developments would be required to adhere to the same policy guidance and local, state, and regional air quality measures as the Proposed General Plan and Alternative 3. Therefore, when compared to Alternative 1, Alternative 2 would slightly reduce impacts to transportation and circulation. While the proposed General Plan and Alternative 3 would result in a slightly higher average employment VMT per employee than Alternative 2 and Alternative 1, the land use patterns and intensities under Alternative 3 would create a more balanced mixed of residential and employment generating uses and would result in a reduction in workforce VMT through opportunities for trip internalization and less people comminuting to the city for work, and increased opportunities for walking and bicycling due to the updated policy document. Therefore, the transportation impacts related to VMT are slight increased under Alternative 2 when compared to the proposed General Plan and Alternative 3.
Circulation and Safety
As described in Chapter 3.14, Impact 3.14‐2, and Chapter 4.0, the General Plan may conflict with a program, plan, policy, or ordinance addressing the circulation system, including transit, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities so this impact was found to be significant and unavoidable. Additionally, as described under Impact 3.14‐3 the General Plan may increase hazards due to a design feature, incompatible uses, or inadequate emergency access and was also found to be significant and unavoidable.
Although the proposed General Plan’s updated policies and actions help make the circulation system including transit, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities consistent with applicable programs, plans, policies, and ordinances, as well as addressing the needs of growth accommodated by the proposed General Plan; increasing vehicle traffic may increase the number of collisions involving transit users, bicyclists, and pedestrians. Increasing vehicle traffic may increase the number of
5.0 ALTERNATIVES
5.0-22 Draft Environmental Impact Report – Lathrop General Plan collisions on Lathrop roadways, and therefore result in an increase in hazards. The City cannot demonstrate definitively at this time that implementation of these policies would maintain the number of collisions for vehicles, pedestrians, and bicyclists at current or lower levels. For these reasons this impact would remain significant and unavoidable under all alternatives.
The No Project Alternative would not implement updated and additional transportation policies including policies that support complete streets, safe routes to schools, and active transportation principles. Alternatives 2 and 3 would include the updated goals, policies, and programs associated with pedestrian, bicycle, safe route to schools, and alternative transit modes, and would implement the active transportation policies, and would be comparable to the Proposed General Plan. However, Alternatives 2 and 3 would include reduced amounts of non‐residential development, which would result in fewer truck trips that when compared to the proposed Project may result in reduced safety hazards with Alternative 2 having the least overall impact potential.