attach_2_draft_eir_gp_update_may_2022 — Lathrop City Council, September 19, 2022 (part 1 of 4)

DRAFT

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT

FOR THE

LATHROP GENERAL PLAN UPDATE
(SCH: 2021100139)
MAY 2022
Prepared for:

City of Lathrop
Community Development Department, Planning Division
City of Lathrop
390 Towne Centre Drive
Lathrop, CA 95330
Prepared by:

De Novo Planning Group
1020 Suncast Lane, Suite 106
El Dorado Hills, CA 95762
De Novo Planning Group
A Land Use Planning, Design, and Environmental Firm

DRAFT

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT

FOR THE

LATHROP GENERAL PLAN UPDATE
(SCH: 2021100139)
MAY 2022
Prepared for:

City of Lathrop
Community Development Department, Planning Division
City of Lathrop
390 Towne Centre Drive
Lathrop, CA 95330
[email protected]
209-941-7290
Prepared by:

De Novo Planning Group
1020 Suncast Lane, Suite 106
El Dorado Hills, CA 95762

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Draft Environmental Impact Report – Lathrop General Plan Update TOC-1

DRAFT EIR
Chapter Page Number
Executive Summary..................................................................................................................... ES‐1

1.0 Introduction ......................................................................................................................... 1.0‐1

1.1 Introduction ............................................................................................................ 1.0‐1

1.2 Purpose of the EIR .................................................................................................. 1.0‐3

1.3 Type of EIR .............................................................................................................. 1.0‐3

1.4 Intended Uses of the EIR......................................................................................... 1.0‐4

1.5 Known Responsible and Trustee Agencies............................................................. 1.0‐4

1.6 Environmental Review Process............................................................................... 1.0‐5

1.7 Organization and Scope.......................................................................................... 1.0‐6

1.8 Comments Received on the Notice of Preparation ................................................ 1.0‐8

2.0 Project Description .............................................................................................................. 2.0‐1

2.1 Background and Overview...................................................................................... 2.0‐1

2.2 Project Location ...................................................................................................... 2.0‐5

2.3 Project Objectives................................................................................................... 2.0‐6

2.4 Description of Proposed General Plan Project ....................................................... 2.0‐7

2.5 General Plan Buildout Analysis and Growth Projections......................................2.0‐21

2.6 Uses of the EIR and Required Agency Approvals.................................................. 2.0‐23

3.1 Aesthetics............................................................................................................................. 3.1‐1

3.1.1 Environmental Setting ......................................................................................... 3.1‐3

3.1.2 Regulatory Setting ............................................................................................... 3.1‐7

3.1.3 Impacts and Mitigation Measures....................................................................... 3.1‐8

3.2 Agricultural and Forest Resources....................................................................................... 3.2‐1

3.2.1 Environmental Setting ......................................................................................... 3.2‐1

3.2.2 Regulatory Setting ............................................................................................... 3.2‐8

3.2.3 Impacts and Mitigation Measures..................................................................... 3.2‐13

3.3 Air Quality ........................................................................................................................... 3.3‐1

3.3.1 Existing Setting..................................................................................................... 3.3‐1

TABLE OF CONTENTS
TOC-2 Draft Environmental Impact Report – Lathrop General Plan Update

3.3.2 Regulatory Setting..............................................................................................3.3‐12

3.3.3 Impacts and Mitigation Measures.....................................................................3.3‐22

3.4 Biological Resources............................................................................................................. 3.4‐1

3.4.1 Environmental Setting .........................................................................................3.4‐2

3.4.2 Regulatory Setting..............................................................................................3.4‐19

3.4.3 Impacts and Mitigation Measures.....................................................................3.4‐26

3.5 Cultural and Tribal Cultural Resources.................................................................................3.5‐1

3.5.1 Environmental Setting .........................................................................................3.5‐2

3.5.2 Regulatory Setting..............................................................................................3.5‐14

3.5.3 Impacts and Mitigation Measures.....................................................................3.5‐19

3.6 Geology and Soils................................................................................................................. 3.6‐1

3.6.1 Environmental Setting .........................................................................................3.6‐1

3.6.2 Regulatory Setting..............................................................................................3.6‐13

3.6.3 Impacts and Mitigation Measures.....................................................................3.6‐17

3.7 Greenhouse Gases, Climate Change, and Energy ................................................................3.7‐1

3.7.1 Environmental Setting .........................................................................................3.7‐1

3.7.2 Regulatory Setting................................................................................................3.7‐7

3.7.3 Impacts and Mitigation Measures.....................................................................3.7‐25

3.8 Hazards and Hazardous Materials .......................................................................................3.8‐1

3.8.1 Environmental Setting .........................................................................................3.8‐1

3.8.2 Regulatory Setting..............................................................................................3.8‐12

3.8.3 Impacts and Mitigation Measures.....................................................................3.8‐19

3.9 Hydrology and Water Quality ..............................................................................................3.9‐1

3.9.1 Environmental Setting .........................................................................................3.9‐2

3.9.2 Regulatory Setting..............................................................................................3.9‐12

3.9.3 Impacts and Mitigation Measures.....................................................................3.9‐22

3.10 Land Use, Population, and Housing .................................................................................3.10‐1

3.10.1 Environmental Setting .....................................................................................3.10‐1

3.10.2 Regulatory Setting............................................................................................3.10‐4

3.10.3 Impacts and Mitigation Measures.................................................................3.10‐13

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Draft Environmental Impact Report – Lathrop General Plan Update TOC-3

3.11 Mineral Resources ........................................................................................................... 3.11‐1

3.11.1 Environmental Setting ..................................................................................... 3.11‐1

3.11.2 Regulatory Setting ........................................................................................... 3.11‐3

3.11.3 Impacts and Mitigation Measures................................................................... 3.11‐4

3.12 Noise .............................................................................................................................. 3.12‐1

3.12.1 Environmental Setting ..................................................................................... 3.12‐1

3.12.2 Regulatory Setting ......................................................................................... 3.12‐13

3.12.3 Impacts and Mitigation Measures................................................................. 3.12‐18

3.13 Public Services and Recreation ........................................................................................ 3.13‐1

3.13.1 Environmental Setting ..................................................................................... 3.13‐1

3.13.2 Regulatory Setting ......................................................................................... 3.13‐11

3.13.3 Impacts and Mitigation Measures................................................................. 3.13‐15

3.14 Circulation........................................................................................................................ 3.14‐1

3.14.1 Environmental Setting ..................................................................................... 3.14‐1

3.14.2 Regulatory Setting ......................................................................................... 3.14‐15

3.14.3 Impacts and Mitigation Measures................................................................. 3.14‐26

3.15 Utilities and Services Systems.......................................................................................... 3.15‐1

3.15.1 Water Supplies................................................................................................. 3.15‐1

3.15.2 Wastewater ................................................................................................... 3.15‐18

3.15.3 Stormwater Drainage..................................................................................... 3.15‐32

3.15.4 Solid Waste .................................................................................................... 3.15‐45

3.16 Wildfire ............................................................................................................................ 3.16‐1

3.16.1 Environmental Setting ..................................................................................... 3.16‐1

3.16.2 Regulatory Setting ........................................................................................... 3.16‐2

3.16.3 Impacts and Mitigation Measures................................................................... 3.16‐6

4.0 Other CEQA‐Required Topics............................................................................................... 4.0‐1

4.1 Cumulative Setting and Impact Analysis................................................................. 4.0‐1

4.2 Growth‐Inducing Effects....................................................................................... 4.0‐23

4.3 Significant Irreversible and Adverse Effects ......................................................... 4.0‐26

4.4 Significant and Unavoidable Impacts.................................................................... 4.0‐30

TABLE OF CONTENTS
TOC-4 Draft Environmental Impact Report – Lathrop General Plan Update

5.0 Alternatives.......................................................................................................................... 5.0‐1

5.1 CEQA Requirements................................................................................................5.0‐1

5.2 Alternatives Considered in this EIR.........................................................................5.0‐1

5.3 Environmental Analysis...........................................................................................5.0‐6

6.0 Report Preparers.................................................................................................................. 6.0‐1

7.0 References ........................................................................................................................... 7.0‐1 Table Page Number
Table ES‐1: Comparison of Alternatives to the Proposed Project....................................... ES‐3 Table ES‐2: Project Impacts and Proposed Mitigation Measures ....................................... ES‐4 Table 2.0‐1: Acreage by Land Use Designation in the Proposed Land Use Map ...............2.0‐18 Table 2.0‐2: Comparative Growth Projections, Existing General Plan Land Use Map and Proposed Land Use Map.........................................................................2.0‐21 Table 2.0‐3: Growth Accommodated Under The Proposed General Plan Based Additional Development Projects..................................................................2.0‐21 Table 3.2‐1: Summary of Comparison of Crop Values.........................................................3.2‐1 Table 3.2‐2: Soil Capability Classification.............................................................................3.2‐2 Table 3.2‐3: Soil Classification..............................................................................................3.2‐3 Table 3.2‐4: Farmland Classification....................................................................................3.2‐5 Table 3.2‐5: San Joaquin County Farmland Summary and Change by Land Use Category........................................................................................................... 3.2‐6 Table 3.2‐5: Summary of Williamson Act Contracts............................................................3.2‐7 Table 3.3‐1: Federal and State Ambient Air Quality Standards...........................................3.3‐8 Table 3.3‐2: State and National Attainment Status in San Joaquin County ......................3.3‐10 Table 3.3‐3: Ambient Air Quality Monitoring Data Summary ‐ Ozone (San Joaquin County)...........................................................................................................3.3‐10 Table 3.3‐4: Ambient Air Quality Monitoring Data Summary ‐ PM 10 (San Joaquin County)...........................................................................................................3.3‐10 Table 3.3‐5: Ambient Air Quality Monitoring Data Summary ‐ PM2.5 (San Joaquin County)...........................................................................................................3.3‐11 Table 3.3‐6: Combined Jobs and Housing Growth.............................................................3.3‐25 Table 3.3‐7: Existing and Plus‐Project VMT – Planning Area .............................................3.3‐25 Table 3.4‐1: Cover Types ‐ California Wildlife Habitat Relationship System .......................3.4‐4 Table 3.4‐2: Special Status Plants Present or Potentially Present (Approximately One Mile) .......................................................................................................3.4‐12

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Draft Environmental Impact Report – Lathrop General Plan Update TOC-5 Table 3.4‐3: Special Status Plants Present or Potentially Present (9 Quad)......................3.4‐14 Table 3.4‐4: Special Status Animals Present or Potentially Present (Approximately One Mile) ....................................................................................................... 3.4‐16 Table 3.4‐5: Special Status Animals Present or Potentially Present (9 Quad)...................3.4‐17 Table 3.4‐6: Special Status Invertebrate Animals Present or Potentially Present (9 Quad) ............................................................................................................. 3.4‐18 Table 3.5‐1: Resources Listed with the Central California Information Center File Directory .......................................................................................................... 3.5‐7 Table 3.6‐1: Richter Magnitudes and Effects ...................................................................... 3.6‐2 Table 3.6‐2: Modified Mercalli Intensities and Effects........................................................ 3.6‐2 Table 3.6‐3: Significant Earthquakes in the Region ............................................................. 3.6‐3 Table 3.6‐4: Planning Area Soils........................................................................................... 3.6‐6 Table 3.6‐5: Fault Activity Rating......................................................................................... 3.6‐8 Table 3.7‐1: VMT Summary For The Proposed General Plan ............................................ 3.7‐28 Table 3.8‐1: Lathrop Site Cleanup and Hazardous Facilities List (Envirostor) .....................3.8‐2 Table 3.8‐2: Lathrop LUST Cleanup Sites............................................................................. 3.8‐5 Table 3.8‐3: Lathrop Permitted UST Sites............................................................................ 3.8‐6 Table 3.8‐4: Lathrop Water Board Cleanup Sites ................................................................ 3.8‐6 Table 3.8‐5: CIWMP Facilities/Sites..................................................................................... 3.8‐7 Table 3.8‐6: Public Schools Serving Lathrop...................................................................... 3.8‐23 Table 3.9‐1: State of California Watershed Hierarchy Naming Convention........................3.9‐3 Table 3.9‐2: Planning Area Vicinity Impaired Water Bodies................................................ 3.9‐7 Table 3.10‐1: Population and Household Growth ............................................................... 3.10‐3 Table 3.10‐2: Housing Units................................................................................................. 3.10‐4 Table 3.10‐3: Regional Housing Needs Allocation (2014‐2023 RHNA)................................3.10‐5 Table 3.10‐4: Existing City of Lathrop Land Use Designations ............................................ 3.10‐7 Table 3.10‐5: San Joaquin County Land Use Designations In AOI and SOI........................3.10‐11 Table 3.11‐1: Mineral Resources Classification System....................................................... 3.11‐1 Table 3.11‐2: Mineral Resources within the Planning Area ................................................ 3.11‐3 Table 3.12‐1: Typical Noise Levels....................................................................................... 3.12‐3 Table 3.12‐2: Predicted Existing Traffic Noise Levels .......................................................... 3.12‐6 Table 3.12‐3: Railroad Noise Measurement Results ........................................................... 3.12‐8 Table 3.12‐4: Approximate Distances to the Railroad Noise Contours...............................3.12‐9 Table 3.12‐5: Typical Stationary Source Noise Levels........................................................ 3.12‐10 Table 3.12‐6: Existing Continuous 24‐Hour Ambient Noise Monitoring Results...............3.12‐11

TABLE OF CONTENTS
TOC-6 Draft Environmental Impact Report – Lathrop General Plan Update Table 3.12‐7: Existing Short‐Term Community Noise Monitoring Results........................3.12‐12 Table 3.12‐8: Significance of Changes in Noise Exposure .................................................3.12‐18 Table 3.12‐9: Effects of Vibration on People and Buildings...............................................3.12‐19 Table 3.12‐10: Vibration Source Levels for Construction Equipment..................................3.12‐20 Table 3.12‐11: Existing vs Proposed General Plan...............................................................3.12‐22 Table 3.12‐12: Construction Equipment Noise....................................................................3.12‐32 Table 3.13‐1: Summary of Parks and Recreation Facilities..................................................3.13‐7 Table 3.13‐2: Public Schools Serving Lathrop ......................................................................3.13‐9 Table 3.13‐3: Enrollment by Grade MUSD (2019‐2020)......................................................3.13‐9 Table 3.14‐1: Demographic and Journey to Work Data ......................................................3.14‐3 Table 3.14‐2: Existing Conditions Model Major Land Use ...................................................3.14‐6 Table 3.14‐3: VMT Baseline .................................................................................................3.14‐8 Table 3.14‐4: Injury Collisions..............................................................................................3.14‐8 Table 3.14‐5: Killed Or Serious Injury Collision....................................................................3.14‐9 Table 3.14‐6: Primary Collision Factor.................................................................................3.14‐9 Table 3.14‐7: Scenario Major Land Use .............................................................................3.14‐26 Table 3.14‐8: VMT Threshold Development......................................................................3.14‐29 Table 3.14‐9: VMT per Dwelling Unit and Per Employee ..................................................3.14‐30 Table 3.14‐10: VMT Analysis................................................................................................3.14‐31 Table 3.15‐1: Past And Future Water Supply Capacity And Demand During Normal Years, AFY.......................................................................................................3.15‐6 Table 3.15‐2: Water Use Factors By Land Use Type ............................................................3.15‐8 Table 3.15‐3: Projected Water Demand Of Future Land Uses At Buildout Of The General Plan...................................................................................................3.15‐8 Table 3.15‐4: Summary Of Potable And Raw Water Supply During Hydrologic Normal, Single Dry And Multiple Dry Years...................................................3.15‐9 Table 3.15‐5: Comparison Of Potable And Raw Water Demand Versus Supply During Hydrologic Normal, Single Dry, And Multiple Dry Years..............................3.15‐10 Table 3.15‐6: Future Sewer Capacity, MGD.......................................................................3.15‐20 Table 3.15‐7: Landfills Existing Daily Capacity And Estimates Closure Date......................3.15‐47 Table 3.15‐8: Solid Waste Generation Rates In The City Of Lathrop.................................3.15‐47 Table 4.0‐1: Comparative Growth Projections of Current General Plan Land Use Map and Proposed General Plan Land Use Map .............................................4.0‐3 Table 4.0‐2: Growth Accommodated Under the Proposed General Plan Based Additional Development Projects....................................................................4.0‐3

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Draft Environmental Impact Report – Lathrop General Plan Update TOC-7 Table 4.0‐3: Population and Housing Projections ............................................................... 4.0‐5 Table 5.0‐1: Growth Projections By Alternative .................................................................. 5.0‐5 Table 5.0‐2: Alternative 1 General Plan Land Use Designations......................................... 5.0‐7 Table 5.0‐3: VMT Analysis by Alternative.......................................................................... 5.0‐20 Table 5.0‐4: Comparison of Alternatives to the Proposed Project....................................5.0‐25 Figures
Note: Figures are located at the end of the chapters.

Figure 2.0‐1 Regional Location Map
Figure 2.0‐2 Proposed Land Use Map
Figure 3.2‐1 Important Farmlands
Figure 3.2‐2 Williamson Act Lands
Figure 3.4‐1 Land Cover Types
Figure 3.4‐2 California Natural Diversity Database – 1‐Mile Radius Search Figure 3.4‐3 California Natural Diversity Database – 9‐Quad Search Figure 3.6‐1 USGS Topographic Map
Figure 3.6‐2 Earthquake Faults and Alquist‐Priolo Zones Figure 3.6‐3 Soils Map
Figure 3.6‐4 Shrink‐Swell Potential of Soils
Figure 3.9‐1 Watershed Map
Figure 3.9‐2 FEMA Flood Zone Designations
Figure 3.9‐3 200‐Year Floodplain
Figure 3.9‐4 Dam Inundation Areas
Figure 3.10‐1 Assessed Land Uses
Figure 3.10‐2 San Joaquin County Land Use Map
Figure 3.10‐3 Delta Plan
Figure 3.11‐1 Mineral Resources Zones
Figure 3.12‐1 Noise Measurement Locations
Figure 3.13‐1   Public Facilities
Figure 3.14‐1:   Roadway Network Functional Classification Figure 3.14‐2:   Number of Lanes
Figure 3.14‐3:   Average Daily Traffic
Figure 3.14‐4:   Circulation Diagram
Figure 3.15‐1   Existing Water System Facilities
Figure 3.15‐2 Existing Sewer Collection System Facilities Figure 3.15‐3 Existing Stormwater System Facilities
Figure 5.0‐1   Alternative Existing General Plan Land Use Map

TABLE OF CONTENTS
TOC-8 Draft Environmental Impact Report – Lathrop General Plan Update Appendices
Appendix A – Notice of Preparation and NOP Comments
Appendix B– Continuous and Short‐Term Ambient Noise Measurement Results Appendix C: Traffic Noise Modeling Inputs and Results
Appendix D – Supporting Transportation Data
Appendix E – Water Supply Assessment
Appendix F – Health Risk Model Outputs

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ES
Draft EIR – Lathrop General Plan Update ES-1

PURPOSE
The City of Lathrop (City) aslead agency, determined that the Lathrop General Plan Update (General Plan, or Project) is a "Project" within the definition of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), and requires the preparation of an Environmental Impact Report (EIR). This Draft EIR has been prepared to evaluate the environmental impacts associated with implementation of the Project. This EIR is designed to fully inform decision‐makersin the City, other responsible and trustee agencies, and the general public of the potential environmental consequences of approval and implementation of the General Plan. A detailed description of the proposed Project, including the components and characteristics of the Project, project objectives, and how the EIR will be used, is provided in Chapter 2.0 (Project Description).

AREAS OF CONTROVERSY AND ISSUES TO BE RESOLVED
This Draft EIR addresses environmental impacts associated with the Project that are known to the City, raised during the Notice of Preparation (NOP) scoping process, or were raised during preparation of the Draft EIR. This Draft EIR addresses the potentially significant impacts associated with aesthetics, agriculture and forest resources, air quality, biological resources, cultural and tribal culturalresources, geology, greenhouse gas emissions and energy, hazards and hazardous materials, hydrology and water quality, land use planning and population/housing, mineral resources, noise, public services and recreation, transportation, utilities and service systems, wildfire, and cumulative impacts.

The City received five written comment letters on the NOP. Copies of these letters are provided in Appendix A of this Draft EIR and the comments are summarized in the Executive Summary chapter.

The City received the following comment letters.
 California Department of Conservation (November 1, 2021)  California Valley Miwok Tribe (October 26, 2021)
 Central Valley Water Quality Control Board (November 8, 2021)  Native American Heritage Commission (October 12, 2021)  San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (November 4, 2021)

ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT
The CEQA Guidelines require an EIR to describe a reasonable range of alternatives to the Project or to the location of the Project which would reduce or avoid significant impacts, and which could feasibly accomplish the basic objectives of the proposed Project. The alternatives analyzed in this EIR include the following:

ES EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
ES-2 Draft EIR – Lathrop General Plan Update
 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 changesto 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.  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 densitiesforthe 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.

A comparative analysis of the proposed General Plan and each of the Project alternativesis provided in Table ES‐1 below. The table includes a numerical scoring system, which assigns a score of 1 to 5 to each of the alternatives with respect to how each alternative compares to the proposed Project in terms of the severity of the environmental topics addressed in this EIR. A score of “3” indicates that the alternative would have the same level of impact when compared to the proposed Project.

A score of “1” indicatesthat the alternative would have a better(or reduced) impact when compared to the proposed Project. A Score of “2” indicates that the alternative would have a slightly better (or slightly reduced) impact when compared to the proposed Project. A score of “4” indicates that the alternative would have a slightly worse (or slightly increased) impact when compared to the proposed Project. A score of “5” indicates that the alternative would have a worse (or increased) impact when compared to the proposed Project. The Project alternative with the lowest total score is considered the environmentally superior alternative.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ES
Draft EIR – Lathrop General Plan Update ES-3
TABLE ES‐1: COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT

ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUE

PROPOSED

PROJECT
ALTERNATIVE 1
(NO PROJECT)
ALTERNATIVE 2
(MODIFIED

PROJECT)
ALTERNATIVE 3

BALANCED

DENSITY
(RESIDENTIAL
FOCUS)
Aesthetics 3 – Same 4 – Slightly Worse 3 ‐ Same 3 ‐ Same Agricultural Resources 3 – Same 4 – Slightly Worse 3 – Same 3 ‐ Same Air Quality 3 – Same 4 – Slightly Worse 2 – Slightly Better 1 – Better Biological Resources 3 – Same 4 – Slightly Worse 3 – Same 3 – Same Cultural Resources 3 – Same 4 – Slightly Worse 3 – Same 3 – Same Geology and Soils 3 – Same 4 – Slightly Worse 3 – Same 3 – Same Greenhouse Gases, Climate Change,
and Energy 3 – Same 4 – Slightly Worse 2 – Slightly Better 1 –Better Hazards and Hazardous Materials 3 – Same 4 – Slightly Worse 3 ‐ Same 3 ‐ Same Hydrology and Water Quality 3 – Same 4 – Slightly Worse 3 – Same 3 – Same Land Use and Population 3 – Same 4 – Slightly Worse 3 – Same 3 – Same Mineral Resources 3 – Same 3 – Same 3 – Same 3 – Same
Noise 3 – Same 2 – Slightly Better 1 –Better 2 ‐ Slightly Better Public Services and Recreation 3 – Same 4 – Slightly Worse 4 – Slightly Worse 4 – Slightly Worse Transportation and Circulation 3 – Same 4 – Slightly Worse 2 – Slightly Better 2 – Slightly Better Utilities 3 – Same 4 – Slightly Worse 4 – Slightly Worse 4 – Slightly Worse Wildfire 3 – Same 3 – Same 3 – Same 3 – Same
Irreversible Effects 3 – Same 4 – Slightly Worse 3 – Same 3 – Same SUMMARY 51 64 48 47
Overall, Alternative 3 is the environmentally superior alternative as it is the most effective in terms of overall reductions of impacts compared to the proposed General Plan and all other alternatives.

As such, Alternative 3 is the environmentally superior alternative for the purposes of this EIR analysis. Information related to alternatives and their respective impacts are described in Chapter

5.0 of this DEIR.

SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
In accordance with the CEQA Guidelines, this EIR focuses on the Project’s significant effects on the environment. The CEQA Guidelines defines a significant effect as a substantial adverse change in the physical conditions which exist in the area affected by the proposed Project. A less than significant effect is one in which there is no long or short‐term significant adverse change in environmental conditions. Some impacts are reduced to a less than significant level with the implementation of mitigation measures and/or compliance with policies and regulations. "Beneficial" effect is not defined in the CEQA Guidelines, but for purposes of this EIR a beneficial effect is one in which an environmental condition is enhanced or improved.

The environmental impacts of the proposed Project, and the level of significance are summarized in Table ES‐2.

ES EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
CC – cumulatively considerable LCC – less than cumulatively considerable LS – less than significant PS – potentially significant SU – significant and unavoidable NI – No Impact ES-4 Draft EIR – Lathrop General Plan Update
TABLE ES‐2: PROJECT IMPACTS AND PROPOSED MITIGATION MEASURES

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT

LEVEL OF

SIGNIFICANCE

WITHOUT

MITIGATION

MITIGATION MEASURE

RESULTING

LEVEL OF

SIGNIFICANCE

AESTHETICS AND VISUAL RESOURCES
Impact 3.1‐1: General Plan implementation
would not have a substantial adverse effect on ascenic vista LS None Required LS
Impact 3.1‐2: General Plan implementation
would not substantially damage scenic resources,
including, but not limited to, trees, rock
outcroppings, and historic buildings, within a
State scenic highway
LS None Required LS
Impact 3.1‐3: General Plan implementation
would not, in a non‐urbanized area, substantially
degrade the existing visual character or quality of
public views of the site and its surroundings, or in
an urbanized area, conflict with applicable zoningand other regulations governing scenic quality LS None Required LS
Impact 3.1‐4: General Plan implementation could
result in the creation of new sources of
substantial light or glare which would adversely
affect day or nighttime views in the area
LS None Required LS

AGRICULTURAL AND FOREST RESOURCES
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
PS Minimized to the greatest extent feasible through General Plan Policies and Actions. No feasible mitigation is available. SU Impact 3.2‐2: General Plan Implementation
would conflict with existing zoning for agricultural
use, or a Williamson Act Contract
PS Minimized to the greatest extent feasible through General Plan Policies and Actions. No feasible mitigation is available. SU Impact 3.2‐3: General Plan implementation
would not result in the loss of forest land or
conversion of forest land to non‐forest use
NI None Required NI

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ES
CC – cumulatively considerable LCC – less than cumulatively considerable LS – less than significant PS – potentially significant SU – significant and unavoidable NI – No Impact Draft EIR – Lathrop General Plan Update ES-5

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT

LEVEL OF

SIGNIFICANCE

WITHOUT

MITIGATION

MITIGATION MEASURE

RESULTING

LEVEL OF

SIGNIFICANCE
Impact 3.2‐4: General Plan implementation
would not involve other changes in the existing
environment which, due to their location or
nature, could result in conversion of Farmland to
non‐agricultural use
LS None Required LS

AIR QUALITY
Impact 3.3‐1: General Plan implementationwould conflict with or obstruct implementationof the applicable air quality plan, or result in acumulatively considerable net increase of criteriapollutants PS Minimized to the greatest extent feasible through General Plan Policies and Actions. No feasible mitigation is available. SU Impact 3.3‐2: General Plan implementationwould expose sensitive receptors to substantialpollutant concentrations PS Minimized to the greatest extent feasible through General Plan Policies and Actions. No feasible mitigation is available. SU Impact 3.3‐3: General Plan implementationwould not result in other emissions such as thoseleading to odors adversely affecting a substantialnumber of people LS None Required LS

BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Impact 3.4‐1: General Plan implementation couldhave a substantial adverse effect, either directlyor through habitat modifications, on any speciesidentified as a candidate, sensitive, or specialstatus species in local or regional plans, policies,or regulations, or by the California Department ofFish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service LS None Required LS
Impact 3.4‐2: General Plan implementation couldhave a substantial adverse effect on any riparianhabitat or other sensitive natural communityidentified in local or regional plans, policies,regulations or by the California Department ofFish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service LS None Required LS

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT

LEVEL OF

SIGNIFICANCE

WITHOUT

MITIGATION

MITIGATION MEASURE

RESULTING

LEVEL OF

SIGNIFICANCE
Impact 3.4‐3: General Plan implementation couldhave a substantial adverse effect on state orfederally protected wetlands (including, but notlimited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.)through direct removal, filling, hydrologicalinterruption, or other means LS None Required LS
Impact 3.4‐4: General Plan implementationwould not interfere substantially with themovement of any native resident or migratoryfish or wildlife species or with established nativeresident or migratory wildlife corridors, orimpede the use of native wildlife nursery sites LS None Required LS
Impact 3.4‐5: The General Plan would not conflictwith any local policies or ordinances protectingbiological resources, such as a tree preservationpolicy or ordinance LS None Required LS
Impact 3.4‐6: General Plan implementationwould not conflict with the provisions of anadopted Habitat Conservation Plan, NaturalCommunity Conservation Plan, or other approvedlocal, regional, or State habitat conservation plan LS None Required LS

CULTURAL AND TRIBAL RESOURCES
Impact 3.5‐1: General Plan implementation couldcause a substantial adverse change in thesignificance of a historical or archaeologicalresource pursuant to Section15064.5 LS None Required LS
Impact 3.5‐2: Implementation of the General Plancould lead to the disturbance of any humanremains LS None Required LS
Impact 3.5‐3 : Cause a substantial adverse changein the significance of a tribal cultural resource,defined in Public Resources Code Section 21074,and that is: Listed or eligible for listing in the LS None Required LS

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT

LEVEL OF

SIGNIFICANCE

WITHOUT

MITIGATION

MITIGATION MEASURE

RESULTING

LEVEL OF

SIGNIFICANCE
California Register of Historical Resources, or in alocal register of historical resources as defined inPublic Resources Code Section 5020.1(k), or aresource determined by the lead agency

GEOLOGY AND SOILS
Impact 3.6‐1: General Plan implementation hasthe potential to expose people or structures topotential substantial adverse effects, includingthe risk of loss, injury, or death involving ruptureof a known earthquake fault, strong seismicground shaking, seismic‐related ground failure,including liquefaction, or landslides LS None Required LS
Impact 3.6‐2: General Plan implementation hasthe potential to result in substantial soil erosionor the loss of topsoil LS None Required LS
Impact 3.6‐3: General Plan implementation hasthe potential to result in development located ona geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or thatwould become unstable as a result of the project,and potentially result in on‐ or off‐site landslide,lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction orcollapse LS None Required LS
Impact 3.6‐4: General Plan implementation hasthe potential to result in development onexpansive soil, as defined in Table 18‐1‐B of theUniform Building Code (1994), creatingsubstantial direct or indirect risks to life orproperty LS None Required LS
Impact 3.6‐5: General Plan implementation doesnot have the potential to have soils incapable ofadequately supporting the use of septic tanks oralternative waste water disposal systems where LS None Required LS

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT

LEVEL OF

SIGNIFICANCE

WITHOUT

MITIGATION

MITIGATION MEASURE

RESULTING

LEVEL OF

SIGNIFICANCE
sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewaterImpact 3.6‐6: General Plan implementation hasthe potential to directly or indirectly destroy aunique paleontological resource or site or uniquegeologic feature LS None Required LS

GREENHOUSE GASES, CLIMATE CHANGE AND ENERGY
Impact 3.7‐1: General Plan implementation hasthe potential to generate GHG emissions thatcould have a significant impact on theenvironment and/or conflict with an applicableplan, policy, or regulation adopted for thepurpose of reducing the emissions of greenhousegases PS Minimized to the greatest extent feasible through General Plan Policies and Actions.

No feasible mitigation is available.

SU
Impact 3.7‐2: General Plan implementation hasthe potential to result in a significant impact dueto wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessaryconsumption of energy resources, or conflict withor obstruct a state or local plan for renewableenergy or energy efficiency LS None Required LS

HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
Impact 3.8‐1: General Plan implementation hasthe potential to create a significant hazard to thepublic or the environment through the routinetransport, use, or disposal of hazardousmaterials, or through reasonably foreseeableupset and accident conditions involving therelease of hazardous materials into theenvironment LS None Required LS
Impact 3.8‐2: General Plan implementation hasthe potential to emit hazardous emissions orhandle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, LS None Required LS

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT

LEVEL OF

SIGNIFICANCE

WITHOUT

MITIGATION

MITIGATION MEASURE

RESULTING

LEVEL OF

SIGNIFICANCE
substances, or waste within one‐quarter mile ofan existing or proposed schoolImpact 3.8‐3: General Plan implementation hasthe potential to have projects located on a sitewhich is included on a list of hazardous materialssites compiled pursuant to Government CodeSection 65962.5 LS None Required LS
Impact 3.8‐4: General Plan implementation is notlocated within an airport land use plan, two milesof a public airport or public use airport, and wouldnot result in a safety hazard for people residing orworking in the project area LS None Required LS
Impact 3.8‐5: General Plan implementation hasthe potential to impair implementation of orphysically interfere with an adopted emergencyresponse plan or emergency evacuation plan LS None Required LS
Impact 3.8‐6: General Plan implementation hasthe potential to expose people or structures to asignificant risk of loss, injury or death involvingwildland fires LS None Required LS

HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
Impact 3.9‐1: General Plan implementation couldviolate water quality standards or wastedischarge requirements or otherwisesubstantially degrade water quality or obstructimplementation of a water quality control plan LS None Required LS
Impact 3.9‐2: General Plan implementation couldresult in the depletion of groundwater supplies,interfere substantially with groundwaterrecharge or conflict with a groundwatermanagement plan LS None Required LS
Impact 3.9‐3: General Plan implementation couldalter the existing drainage pattern in a manner LS None Required LS

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT

LEVEL OF

SIGNIFICANCE

WITHOUT

MITIGATION

MITIGATION MEASURE

RESULTING

LEVEL OF

SIGNIFICANCE
which would result in substantial erosion,siltation, flooding, impeded flows, or pollutedrunoffImpact 3.9‐4: General Plan implementationwould not release pollutants due to projectinundation by flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche LS None Required LS

LAND USE, POPULATION AND HOUSING
Impact 3.10‐1: General Plan implementationwould not physically divide an establishedcommunity LS None Required LS
Impact 3.10‐2: General Plan implementationwould not cause a significant environmentalimpact due to a conflict with any land use plan,policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose ofavoiding or mitigating an environmental effect LS None Required LS
Impact 3.10‐3: General Plan implementationwould not induce substantial unplannedpopulation growth in an area, either directly (forexample, by proposing new homes andbusinesses) or indirectly (for example, throughextension of roads or other infrastructure) LS None Required LS
Impact 3.10‐4: General Plan implementationwould not displace substantial numbers ofexisting people or housing, necessitating theconstruction of replacement housing elsewhere LS None Required LS

MINERAL RESOURCES
Impact 3.11‐1: General Plan implementationwould result in the loss of availability of a knownmineral resource that would be of value to theregion and the residents of the state PS Minimized to the greatest extent feasible through General Plan Policies and Actions.

No feasible mitigation is available.

SU
Impact 3.11‐2: General Plan implementationwould result in the loss of availability of a locally‐ PS Minimized to the greatest extent feasible through General Plan Policies and Actions. LSSU

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT

LEVEL OF

SIGNIFICANCE

WITHOUT

MITIGATION

MITIGATION MEASURE

RESULTING

LEVEL OF

SIGNIFICANCE
important mineral resource recovery sitedelineated on a local general plan,specific plan orother land use plan No feasible mitigation is available.

NOISE
Impact 3.12‐1: General Plan implementation mayresult in exposure to significant traffic noisesources PS Minimized to the greatest extent feasible through General Plan Policies and Actions. No feasible mitigation is available. SU Impact 3.12‐2: General Plan implementation mayresult in exposure to excessive railroad noisesources LS None Required LS
Impact 3.12‐3: Implementation of the GeneralPlan could result in the generation of excessivestationary noise sources LS None Required LS
Impact 3.12‐4: General Plan implementation mayresult in an increase in construction noise sources LS None Required LSImpact 3.12‐5: General Plan implementation mayresult in construction vibration LS None Required LSImpact 3.12‐6: General Plan implementation mayresult in exposure to groundborne vibration LS None Required LS

PUBLIC SERVICES AND RECREATION
Impact 3.13‐1: General Plan implementationcould result in adverse physical impacts on theenvironment associated with the need for newgovernmental facilities or the need for new orphysically altered governmental facilities, theconstruction of which could cause significantenvironmental impacts LS None Required LS
Impact 3.13‐2: General Plan implementation mayresult in adverse physical impacts associated withthe deterioration of existing parks and recreationfacilities or the construction of new parks andrecreation facilities LS None Required LS

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT

LEVEL OF

SIGNIFICANCE

WITHOUT

MITIGATION

MITIGATION MEASURE

RESULTING

LEVEL OF

SIGNIFICANCE

TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION
Impact 3.14‐1: General Plan implementation mayresult in VMT per employee that are greater than85 percent of Baseline conditions PS Minimized to the greatest extent feasible through General Plan Policies and Actions. No feasible mitigation is available. SU Impact 3.14‐2: General Plan implementation mayconflict with a program, plan, policy, or ordinanceaddressing the circulation system, includingtransit, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities PS Minimized to the greatest extent feasible through General Plan Policies and Actions. No feasible mitigation is available. SU Impact 3.14‐3: General Plan implementation mayincrease hazards due to a design feature,incompatible uses, or inadequate emergencyaccess PS Minimized to the greatest extent feasible through General Plan Policies and Actions. No feasible mitigation is available. SU

UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
Impact 3.15‐1: General Plan implementationwould not result in sufficient water suppliesavailable to serve the City and reasonablyforeseeable future development during normal,dry and multiple dry years PS Minimized to the greatest extent feasible through General Plan Policies and Actions.

No feasible mitigation is available.

SU
Impact 3.15‐2: General Plan implementationwould not require or result in the construction ofnew water treatment facilities or expansion ofexisting facilities, the construction of which couldcause significant environmental effects LS None Required LS
Impact 3.15‐3: General Plan implementationwould not have the potential to result in adetermination by the wastewater treatmentprovider which serves or may serve the projectthat it does not have adequate capacity to servethe project’s projected demand in addition to theprovider’s existing commitments LS None Required LS

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT

LEVEL OF

SIGNIFICANCE

WITHOUT

MITIGATION

MITIGATION MEASURE

RESULTING

LEVEL OF

SIGNIFICANCE
Impact 3.15‐4: General Plan implementation mayrequire or result in the relocation or constructionof new or expanded wastewater facilities, theconstruction or relocation of which could causesignificant environmental effects LS None Required LS
Impact 3.15‐5: General Plan implementationwould not require or result in the relocation orconstruction of new or expanded storm waterdrainage facilities, the construction or relocationof which could cause significant environmentaleffects LS None Required LS
Impact 3.15‐6: General Plan implementationwould comply with federal, state, and localmanagement and reduction statutes andregulations related to solid waste, would notgenerate solid waste in excess of State or localstandards or otherwise impair the attainment ofsolid waste reduction goals, and would notexceed of the capacity of local infrastructure LS None Required LS

WILDFIRES
Impact 3.16‐1: General Plan implementationwould not have a significant impact related towildfire risks associated with lands in or nearState Responsibility Areas or lands classified asvery high fire hazard severity zones NI None Required NI

OTHER CEQA-REQUIRED TOPICS
Impact 4.1: Cumulative degradation of theexisting visual character of the region LCC None Required LCCImpact 4.2: Cumulative impact to agriculturallands and resources. PS Minimized to the greatest extent feasible through General Plan Policies and Actions. No feasible mitigation is available. CC and SUImpact 4.3: Cumulative impact on the region's airquality PS Minimized to the greatest extent feasible through General Plan Policies and Actions. No feasible mitigation is available. CC and SU

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT

LEVEL OF

SIGNIFICANCE

WITHOUT

MITIGATION

MITIGATION MEASURE

RESULTING

LEVEL OF

SIGNIFICANCE
Impact 4.4: Cumulative loss of biologicalresources, including habitats and special statusspecies LCC None Required LCC
Impact 4.5: Cumulative impacts on known andundiscovered cultural resources LCC None Required LCCImpact 4.6: Cumulative impacts related togeology and soils LCC None Required LCCImpact 4.7: Cumulative impacts related togreenhouse gases, climate change, and energy PS Minimized to the greatest extent feasible through General Plan Policies and Actions. No feasible mitigation is available. CC and SUImpact 4.8: Cumulative impacts related tohazardous materials and human health risks LCC None Required LCCImpact 4.9: Cumulative impacts related tohydrology and water quality LCC None Required LCCImpact 4.10: Cumulative impacts related to localland use, population, and housing LCC None Required LCCImpact 4.11: Cumulative impacts related tomineral resources PS Minimized to the greatest extent feasible through General Plan Policies and Actions. No feasible mitigation is available. CC and SUImpact 4.12: Cumulative impacts related to noise PS Minimized to the greatest extent feasible through General Plan Policies and Actions. No feasible mitigation is available. CC and SUImpact 4.13: Cumulative impacts to publicservices and recreation LCC None Required LCCImpact 4.14: Cumulative impacts on thetransportation network PS Minimized to the greatest extent feasible through General Plan Policies and Actions. No feasible mitigation is available. CC and SUImpact 4.15: Cumulative impacts related toutilities PS Minimized to the greatest extent feasible through General Plan Policies and Actions. No feasible mitigation is available. CC and SUImpact 4.16: Cumulative impact related towildfire LCC None Required LCCImpact 4.17: Irreversible and adverse effects PS Minimized to the greatest extent feasible through General Plan Policies and Actions. No feasible mitigation is available. SU INTRODUCTION 1.0
Draft Environmental Impact Report – Lathrop General Plan Update 1.0-1

1.1 INTRODUCTION
In 2017, Lathrop began a multi‐year process to update the City’s General Plan. State law requires every city and county in California to prepare and maintain a planning document called a general plan. A general plan is a “constitution” or “blueprint” for the future physical development of a county or city. As part of the Lathrop General Plan Update process, a General Plan Existing Conditions Report was prepared to establish a baseline of existing conditions in the city.

The updated Lathrop General Plan includes a framework of goals, policies, and actions that will guide the community toward its common vision. The General Plan is supported with a variety of maps, including a Land Use Map and Circulation Diagram.

LATHROP GENERAL PLAN UPDATE
General Plan
The Lathrop General Plan (General Plan, General Plan Update, or proposed Project) is the overarching policy document that guides land use, housing, transportation, open space, public safety, community services, and other policy decisions throughout the city. The General Plan includes the elements and topics mandated by State law, to the extent that they are relevant locally, including: Land Use, Conservation, Circulation, Housing, Open Space, Safety, and Noise. The City may also address other topics of interest; this General Plan includes topics and elements related to Recreation, Public Facilities and Services, Economic Development, and Health and Environmental Justice. The General Plan sets out the goals, policies, and actions in each of these areas, serves as a policy guide for how the City will make key planning decisions in the future, and guides how the City will interact with San Joaquin County, surrounding cities, and other local, regional, State, and Federal agencies.

Existing Conditions Report
The Existing Conditions Report takes a "snapshot" of Lathrop’s current trends and conditions. It provides a detailed description of a wide range of topics within the city, such as demographic and economic conditions, land use, public facilities, and environmental resources. The Existing Conditions Report provides decision‐makers, the public, and local agencies with context for making policy decisions. The Existing Conditions Report also provides the environmental setting and description contained within this Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR).

Community Profile
Key findings from the Existing Conditions Report were summarized into the Community Profile Report. The Community Profile summarizes key development patterns, natural resources, socioeconomic conditions, and environmental constraints in the city that must be considered when charting the course for Lathrop’s future.

1.0 INTRODUCTION

1.0-2 Draft Environmental Impact Report – Lathrop General Plan Update Vision and Guiding Principles Summary
The City hosted three General Plan Update Visioning Workshops between April and May of 2018.

Each Workshop focused on addressing a different topic and included a brief overview of the General Plan, including why it’s important and why the City is updating its Plan, some background information on the evening’s topic, and a series of facilitated activities to solicit input on key topics or ideas.

Each workshop included a presentation by the General Plan Update team that explained the role of the General Plan, an overview of the General Plan Update process, and an opportunity for the workshop participants to ask questions and seek clarification on the process and the role of the community. Workshop participants were asked to complete activities and exercises in order to provide information to the General Plan Update team. Each workshop focused on different themes and topics to be addressed in the General Plan. At each workshop, participants were provided an opportunity to identify where future land uses should be located within the community, ideas for community design, and transportation priorities. The maps prepared by the Visioning Workshop participants were reviewed and organized by theme, and major themes from the Visioning Workshop mapping activities were considered during the development of the land use Opportunity Areas.

The topics explored in each Workshop along with summaries of what we heard from the community are provided in the Outreach Summary Report.

A fourth community workshop was held in June 2019, which focused on the topic of Environmental Justice. Due to the importance of local Environmental Justice (EJ) issues, the City of Lathrop in an effort to continue to involve and engage the community on local issues of importance, held a standalone workshop focusing specifically on EJ issues in Lathrop. The Environmental Justice Summary Report summarizes the public’s participation and input received during the General Plan Update’s Environmental Justice Workshop conducted on June 27th 2019.

A series of three Newsletters have been published, which provide an overview of the General Plan, and identify opportunities for community participation.

The Lathrop Community Vision is an aspirational statement of what Lathrop wants to become through the implementation of its General Plan. The Vision Statement provides a sense of purpose and mission for the General Plan, and sets the tone for the Plan’s guiding principles and core values to aid in the development of goals, policies and actions that will guide development in the coming years.

Environmental Impact Report
An EIR responds to the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) as set forth in Sections 15126, 15175, and 15176 of the CEQA Guidelines. The Planning Commission and City Council will use the EIR during the General Plan Update process in order to understand the potential environmental implications associated with implementing the General Plan. This EIR was prepared concurrently with the General Plan policy document in order to facilitate the INTRODUCTION 1.0
Draft Environmental Impact Report – Lathrop General Plan Update 1.0-3 development of a General Plan that is largely self‐mitigating. In other words, as environmental impacts associated with the new General Plan, including the Land Use Map, were identified; policies and actions were incorporated into the General Plan policy document in order to reduce or avoid potential environmental impacts.

1.2 PURPOSE OF THE EIR
The City of Lathrop, as lead agency, determined that the Lathrop General Plan Update is a "Project" within the meaning of CEQA. CEQA requires the preparation of an EIR prior to approving any project that may have a significant impact on the environment. For the purposes of CEQA, the term "Project" refers to the whole of an action, which has the potential for resulting in a direct physical change or a reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment (CEQA Guidelines Section 15378[a]).

This Draft EIR has been prepared according to CEQA requirements to evaluate the potential environmental impacts associated with the implementation of the Lathrop General Plan. A copy of the Public Draft General Plan is located on the Lathrop General Plan Update website, at lathrop.generalplan.org. The Draft EIR also discusses alternatives to the General Plan, and identifies any mitigation measures that will offset, minimize, or otherwise avoid potentially significant environmental impacts. This Draft EIR has been prepared in accordance with CEQA, California Resources Code Section 21000 et seq.; the Guidelines for the California Environmental Quality Act (California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Chapter 3); and the rules, regulations, and procedures for implementing CEQA as adopted by the City of Lathrop.

An EIR must disclose the expected direct and indirect environmental impacts associated with a project, including impacts that cannot be avoided, growth‐inducing effects, impacts found not to be significant, and significant cumulative impacts, as well as identify mitigation measures and alternatives to the proposed Project that could reduce or avoid its adverse environmental impacts.

CEQA requires government agencies to consider and, where feasible, minimize significant environmental impacts of proposed development.

1.3 TYPE OF EIR
The State CEQA Guidelines identify several types of EIRs, each applicable to different project circumstances. This EIR has been prepared as a Program EIR pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15168. Section 15168 states:
“A program EIR is an EIR which may be prepared on a series of actions that can be characterized as one large project and are related either:
1) Geographically;
2) As logical parts in the chain of contemplated actions; 3) In connection with issuance of rules, regulations, plans or other general criteria to govern the conduct of a continuing program; or

1.0 INTRODUCTION

1.0-4 Draft Environmental Impact Report – Lathrop General Plan Update 4) As individual activities carried out under the same authorizing statutory or regulatory authority and having generally similar environmental effects which can be mitigated in similar ways.”
The program‐level analysis considers the broad environmental effects of the proposed Project.

This EIR will be used to evaluate subsequent projects and activities under the proposed Project.

This EIR is intended to provide the information and environmental analysis necessary to assist public agency decision‐makers in considering approval of the proposed Project, but not to the level of detail to consider approval of subsequent development projects that may occur after adoption of the General Plan unless they meet conditions set forth in the following paragraph.

Additional environmental review under CEQA may be required for subsequent projects and would be generally based on the subsequent project’s consistency with the General Plan and the analysis in this EIR, as required under CEQA. It may be determined that some future projects or infrastructure improvements may be exempt from further environmental review. When individual subsequent projects or activities under the General Plan are proposed, the lead agency that would approve and/or implement the individual project will examine the projects or activities to determine whether their effects were adequately analyzed in this program EIR (CEQA Guidelines Section 15168). If the projects or activities would have no effects beyond those disclosed in this EIR, no further CEQA compliance would be required.

1.4 INTENDED USES OF THE EIR
The City of Lathrop, as the lead agency, has prepared this EIR to provide the public and responsible and trustee agencies with an objective analysis of the potential environmental impacts resulting from adoption of the Lathrop General Plan and subsequent implementation of the General Plan.

The environmental review process enables interested parties to evaluate the proposed Project in terms of its environmental consequences, to examine and recommend methods to eliminate or reduce potential adverse impacts, and to consider a reasonable range of alternatives to the Project. While CEQA requires that consideration be given to avoiding adverse environmental effects, the lead agency must balance adverse environmental effects against other public objectives, including the economic and social benefits of a project, in determining whether a project should be approved.

This EIR will be used as the primary environmental document to evaluate all subsequent planning and permitting actions associated with the General Plan. Subsequent actions that may be associated with the General Plan are identified in Chapter 2.0, Project Description. This EIR may also be used by other agencies within San Joaquin County.

1.5 KNOWN RESPONSIBLE AND TRUSTEE AGENCIES
The term “Responsible Agency” includes all public agencies other than the Lead Agency that have discretionary approval power over the Project or an aspect of the Project (CEQA Guidelines Section 15381). For the purpose of CEQA, a “Trustee” agency has jurisdiction by law over natural resources that are held in trust for the people of the State of California (CEQA Guidelines Section 15386).

INTRODUCTION 1.0
Draft Environmental Impact Report – Lathrop General Plan Update 1.0-5 While no Responsible Agencies or Trustee Agencies are responsible for approvals associated with adoption of the Lathrop General Plan, implementation of future projects within Lathrop may require permits and approvals from such agencies, which may include the following:
 California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW);
 California Department of Transportation (Caltrans);
 Regional (Central Valley) Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB);  U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE);
 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS);
 San Joaquin County Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO);  SJCOG San Joaquin County Multi‐Species Habitat Conservation and Open Space Plan (SJMSCP);
 San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (SJVAPCD); and  San Joaquin Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC).

1.6 ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW PROCESS
The review and certification process for the EIR has involved, or will involve, the following general procedural steps:

NOTICE OF PREPARATION
The City of Lathrop circulated a Notice of Preparation (NOP) of an EIR for the proposed Project on October 8, 2021 to trustee and responsible agencies, the State Clearinghouse, and the public. A scoping meeting was held on October 27, 2021 at the City of Lathrop City Hall. Oral comments on the NOP related to the EIR were presented during the scoping meeting. Additionally, during the 30‐day public review period for the NOP, which ended on November 8, 2021, five written comment letters were received on the NOP. A summary of the NOP comments is provided later in this chapter. The NOP and all comments received on the NOP are presented in Appendix A.

DRAFT EIR
This document constitutes the Draft EIR. The Draft EIR contains a description of the Project, description of the environmental setting, identification of the Project’s direct and indirect impacts on the environment and any mitigation measures for impacts found to be significant, as well as an analysis of Project alternatives, identification of significant irreversible environmental changes, growth‐inducing impacts, and cumulative impacts. This Draft EIR identifies issues determined to have no impact or a less than significant impact, and provides detailed analysis of potentially significant and significant impacts. Comments received in response to the NOP were considered in preparing the analysis in this EIR. Upon completion of the Draft EIR, the City of Lathrop will file the Notice of Completion (NOC) with the State Clearinghouse of the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research to begin the public review period.

1.0 INTRODUCTION

1.0-6 Draft Environmental Impact Report – Lathrop General Plan Update

PUBLIC NOTICE/PUBLIC REVIEW
Concurrent with the NOC, the City of Lathrop will provide a public notice of availability for the Draft EIR, and invite comment from the general public, agencies, organizations, and other interested parties. Consistent with CEQA requirements, the review period for this Draft EIR is forty‐ five (45) days. Public comment on the Draft EIR will be accepted in written form. All comments or questions regarding the Draft EIR should be addressed to:

Mark Meissner
Community Development Director
Community Development Department, Planning Division
City of Lathrop
390 Towne Centre Drive
Lathrop, CA 95330
[email protected]

RESPONSE TO COMMENTS/FINAL EIR
Following the public review period, a Final EIR will be prepared. The Final EIR will respond to comments received during the public review period.

CERTIFICATION OF THE EIR/PROJECT CONSIDERATION
The City of Lathrop City Council will review and consider the Final EIR, and any Planning Commission recommendations. If the City finds that the Final EIR is "adequate and complete," the City Council may certify the Final EIR in accordance with CEQA. As set forth by CEQA Guidelines Section 15151, the standards of adequacy require an EIR to provide a sufficient degree of analysis to allow decisions to be made regarding the proposed Project that intelligently take account of environmental consequences.

Upon review and consideration of the Final EIR, the City Council may take action to approve, revise, or deny the Project. It the EIR determines that the Project would result in significant adverse impacts to the environment that cannot be mitigated to less than significant levels, the City Council would be required to adopt a statement of overriding considerations as well as written findings in accordance with State CEQA Guidelines Sections 15091 and 15093. If additional mitigation measures are required (beyond the General Plan policies and actions that reduce potentially significant impacts, as identified throughout this EIR), a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) would also be adopted in accordance with Public Resources Code Section 21081.6(a) and CEQA Guidelines Section 15097 for mitigation measures that have been incorporated into or imposed upon the project to reduce or avoid significant effects on the environment. The MMRP would be designed to ensure that these measures are carried out during project implementation, in a manner that is consistent with the EIR.

INTRODUCTION 1.0
Draft Environmental Impact Report – Lathrop General Plan Update 1.0-7

1.7 ORGANIZATION AND SCOPE
Sections 15122 through 15132 of the State CEQA Guidelines identify the content requirements for Draft and Final EIRs. An EIR must include a description of the environmental setting, an environmental impact analysis, significant impacts, alternatives, significant irreversible environmental changes, growth‐inducing impacts, and cumulative impacts. The EIR reviews environmental and planning documentation developed for the project, environmental and planning documentation prepared for recent projects located within the City of Lathrop, and responses to the Notice of Preparation (NOP).

This Draft EIR is organized in the following manner:

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Executive Summary summarizes the characteristics of the proposed Project, known areas of controversy and issues to be resolved, and provides a concise summary matrix of the Project’s environmental impacts and possible mitigation measures. This chapter identifies alternatives that reduce or avoid at least one significant environmental effect of the proposed Project.

CHAPTER 1.0 - INTRODUCTION
Chapter 1.0 briefly describes the proposed project, the purpose of the environmental evaluation, identifies the lead, trustee, and responsible agencies, summarizes the process associated with preparation and certification of an EIR, identifies the scope and organization of the Draft EIR, and summarizes comments received on the NOP.

CHAPTER 2.0 - PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Chapter 2.0 provides a detailed description of the proposed Project, including the location, intended objectives, background information, the physical and technical characteristics, including the decisions subject to CEQA, subsequent projects and activities, and a list of related agency action requirements.

CHAPTER 3.0 - ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING, IMPACTS, AND

MITIGATION MEASURES
Chapter 3.0 contains an analysis of environmental topic areas as identified below. Each subchapter addressing a topical area is organized as follows:

Environmental Setting. A description of the existing environment as it pertains to the topical area.

Regulatory Setting. A description of the regulatory environment that may be applicable to the project.

Impacts and Mitigation Measures. Identification of the thresholds of significance by which impacts are determined, a description of project‐related impacts associated with the

1.0 INTRODUCTION

1.0-8 Draft Environmental Impact Report – Lathrop General Plan Update environmental topic, identification of appropriate mitigation measures, and a conclusion as to the significance of each impact.

The following environmental topics are addressed in this section:
 Aesthetics
 Agricultural Resources
 Air Quality
 Biological Resources
 Cultural and Tribal Cultural Resources
 Geology and Soils
 Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Climate Change, and Energy
 Hazards and Hazardous Materials
 Hydrology and Water Quality
 Land Use and Planning and Population/Housing
 Mineral Resources
 Noise
 Public Services and Recreation
 Transportation
 Utilities and Service Systems
 Wildfire
CHAPTER 4.0 - OTHER CEQA-REQUIRED TOPICS
Chapter 4.0 evaluates and describes the following CEQA required topics: impacts considered less‐ than‐significant, significant and irreversible impacts, growth‐inducing effects, cumulative impacts, and significant and unavoidable environmental effects.

CHAPTER 5.0 - ALTERNATIVES
Chapter 5.0 provides a comparative analysis between the merits of the proposed Project and the selected alternatives. State CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6 requires that an EIR describe a range of reasonable alternatives to the Project, which could feasibly attain the basic objectives of the project and avoid and/or lessen any significant environmental effects of the Project.

CHAPTER 6.0 - REPORT PREPARERS
Chapter 6.0 lists all authors and agencies that assisted in the preparation of the Draft EIR, by name, title, and company or agency affiliation.

APPENDICES
This section includes all notices and other procedural documents pertinent to the Draft EIR, as well as technical material prepared to support the analysis.

INTRODUCTION 1.0
Draft Environmental Impact Report – Lathrop General Plan Update 1.0-9

1.8 COMMENTS RECEIVED ON THE NOTICE OF PREPARATION
The City received five written comment letters on the NOP. Copies of these letters are provided in Appendix A of this Draft EIR and the comments are summarized in the Executive Summary chapter.

1.0 INTRODUCTION

1.0-10 Draft Environmental Impact Report – Lathrop General Plan Update

This page left intentionally blank.

PROJECT DESCRIPTION 2.0
Draft Environmental Impact Report – Lathrop General Plan 2.0-1

2.1 BACKGROUND AND OVERVIEW

CALIFORNIA GENERAL PLAN LAW
State planning and zoning law (California Government Code Section 65000 et seq.) requires all counties and cities to prepare and maintain a general plan for the long‐term growth, development, and management of the land within the jurisdiction’s planning boundaries. The general plan acts as a “constitution” for development and is the jurisdiction’s lead legal document in relation to growth, development, and resource management issues. Development regulations (e.g., zoning and subdivision standards) are required by law to be consistent with the general plan.

General plans must address a broad range of topics, including, at a minimum, the following mandatory elements: land use, circulation, housing, conservation, open space, noise, and safety.

General Plans must also address the topics of environmental justice, climate change, and resiliency planning, either as separate elements or as part of other required elements. At the discretion of each jurisdiction, the general plan may combine these elements and may add optional elements relevant to the physical features of the jurisdiction.

General plans must also be comprehensive, internally consistent, and plan for the long term. The general plan should be clearly written, easy to administer, and available to all those concerned with the community’s development.

State planning and zoning law also establishes that zoning ordinances are required to be consistent with the general plan and any applicable specific plans, area plans, master plans, and other related planning documents. When amendments to the general plan are made, corresponding changes in the zoning ordinance may be required within a reasonable time to ensure consistency between the revised land use designations in the general plan (if any) and the permitted uses or development standards of the zoning ordinance (Gov. Code Section 65860, subd. [c]).

GENERAL PLAN UPDATE PROCESS
Lathrop’s current General Plan was last comprehensively updated in 1991, with amendments in 1992, 1997, 2001, 2003, 2004, 2006, 2010, 2011, 2013, 2015, 2016, and 2018. Lathrop’s 5th Cycle Housing Element was adopted in 2019.

In 2017, the City of Lathrop embarked on a multi‐year process to comprehensively update its General Plan. Specifically, the General Plan provides policy guidance on land use, housing, transportation, infrastructure, community design, conservation, and other development‐related topics. State law requires every city and county in California to prepare and maintain a general plan planning document.

2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION

2.0-2 Draft Environmental Impact Report – Lathrop General Plan

USING THE GENERAL PLAN
The General Plan is used by the City Council, Planning Commission, and City staff on a regular basis to make decisions with direct and indirect land use implications. It also provides a framework for inter‐jurisdictional coordination of planning efforts among officials and staff of the City and other government agencies such as the County and State and Federal agencies.

The General Plan is the basis for a variety of regulatory mechanisms and administrative procedures.

California planning law requires consistency between the General Plan and its implementation programs. Implementation programs and regulatory systems of the General Plan include zoning and subdivision ordinances, capital improvement programs, specific plans, environmental impact procedures, and building and housing codes.

Overtime, the City’s population will change, its goals will be redefined, and the physical environment in which its residents live and work will be altered. In order for the General Plan to be a useful document, it must be monitored and periodically revised to respond to and reflect changing conditions and needs. As such, a general plan should be comprehensively updated approximately every 10‐15 years to reflect current conditions and emerging trends.

The City’s General Plan should also be user‐friendly. To this end, the Lathrop General Plan Update will be divided into two primary documents: the Existing Conditions Report and the General Plan Goals and Policy document (or “General Plan”).

The Existing Conditions Report provides a summary of a range of conditions in Lathrop and provides the baseline framework for the development of the General Plan’s goals, policies, and implementation programs.

The General Plan Goals and Policies document is the essence of the General Plan. It contains the goals and policies that will guide future decisions within the City. It also identifies a full set of implementation programs that will ensure the goals and policies in the General Plan are carried out.

COMMUNITY OUTREACH AND PARTICIPATION
Gathering public and community input was of paramount importance to the City of during the development of the General Plan.

A brief summary of the community outreach and public participation process is provided below.

Outreach Objectives
Objectives established for the comprehensive outreach program are to:
● Educate the public on the City’s history, existing conditions,socioeconomic trends, and fiscal health
● Develop a long‐term vision for Lathrop
● Engage a broad spectrum of the City’s community members PROJECT DESCRIPTION 2.0
Draft Environmental Impact Report – Lathrop General Plan 2.0-3 ● Establish a greater connection to current planning issues Community Outreach and Visioning Workshops
The City hosted three General Plan Update Visioning Workshops between April and May of 2018.

The topics explored in each Workshop along with summaries of what we heard from the community are provided in the Outreach Summary Report.

A series of three Newsletters have been published, which provide an overview of the General Plan, and identify opportunities for community participation.

Existing Conditions Analysis
The Existing Conditions Report takes a "snapshot" of Lathrop’s current trends and conditions. It provides a detailed description of a wide range of topics within the city, such as demographic and

2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION

2.0-4 Draft Environmental Impact Report – Lathrop General Plan economic conditions, land use, public facilities, and environmental resources. The Existing Conditions Report provides decision‐makers, the public, and local agencies with context for making policy decisions.

The Community Profile summarizes key development patterns, natural resources, socioeconomic conditions, and environmental constraints in the city that must be considered when charting the course for Lathrop’s future.

General Plan Steering Committee
The General Plan Steering Committee, which consisted city staff, stakeholders, collaborated with City staff and the General Plan Update team to identify potential issues and opportunities related to the development of the preferred land use map. Local expertise on issues of utilities and infrastructure, land use conflicts and recent and proposed developments ensures that the General Plan update team is able to stay up to date on planning and building activities within the city, as well as local implementation issues and opportunities for improvements. Meeting were generally technical in nature and the TAC was asked to review potential map changes.

City Council Input
The City Council received periodic briefings from City staff and the consultant team to review and receive information relevant to the specific topics, and provide direction and guidance to staff and the consultant team regarding the Land Use map which is analyzed in this Environmental Impact Report.

During the July 7th, 2021 City Council Meeting, the Council provided direction on land use mapping concepts to be included and analyzed relating to the preferred land use map that is analyzed in this Draft EIR.

Community Open House on Draft General Plan
A community outreach effort is scheduled to coincide with the public review period for this Draft EIR. The City will host a public workshop to answer questions about the General Plan, and receive community feedback.

Other Outreach Opportunities and Tools
For all public workshops and meetings, the City conducted extensive outreach, using a wide variety of methods and tools, to inform and encourage the community to participate in the General Plan Update process. The following is a list of methods and tools used to inform the public of meetings, workshops, and the status of the General Plan Update work efforts. ● General Plan Website: The City maintains a website (www.lathrop.generalplan.org) devoted to informing the public about, and encouraging participation in, the General Plan Update process. The website includes notices, all workshop materials, and presentations given to PROJECT DESCRIPTION 2.0
Draft Environmental Impact Report – Lathrop General Plan 2.0-5 the Steering Committee, Planning Commission, and City Council, background materials, policy documents, and draft versions of the General Plan Land Use Map. ● E‐mail distribution list: This list was developed and maintained over time, and included agencies, organizations, stakeholders, and individuals. ● Social Media: The City posts meeting notices and project updates to its social media platform, Facebook.
● GP Newsletters (3)
● Also include a statement about City staff making public announcements during PC and CC meetings of upcoming major milestones.
● Also various Manteca Bulletin articles were written regarding the City’s GP Update effort. ● Announcements on City Newsletters and Utility Bill Inserts

2.2 PROJECT LOCATION

REGIONAL SETTING
The Plan Area is located in San Joaquin County along the San Joaquin River generally east of the City of Tracy and west of the City of Manteca. The Plan Area, includes all incorporated lands within the Lathrop City Limits and Sphere of Influence (SOI).

The City of Lathrop islocated 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. The Altamont Corridor Express (ACE) rail service connects Lathrop to San Jose and the Bay Area and also connects Stockton to Lathrop Figure 2.0‐1 shows Lathrop’s regional location.

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT STUDY AREA
There are several key boundaries addressed by the General Plan, which make up the study area for the General Plan Environmental Impact Report (EIR). These include the city limits, Sphere of Influence (SOI), Area of Interest, and the Planning Area, as shown on Figure 2.0‐2 and described below.

City Limits: The City Limits include all area within the City’s corporate boundary, over which the City exercises land use authority and provides public services.

Sphere of Influence: A Sphere of Influence (SOI) is the probable physical boundary and service area of a local agency, as adopted by a Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO). A SOI includes both

2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION

2.0-6 Draft Environmental Impact Report – Lathrop General Plan incorporated and unincorporated areas within which a city or special district will have primary responsibility for the provision of public facilities and services.

Area of Interest (AOI): The Area of Interest (AOI) is a geographic area beyond the sphere of influence in which land use decisions or other governmental actions of one local agency (the “Acting Agency”) impact directly or indirectly upon another local agency (“the Concerned Agency”). The AOI includes land in the northwest portion of the Planning Area north of the city limits and SOI, and areas in the Stewart Tract outside of the existing City Limits and SOI. Lands within the northwest portion of the Planning Area had previously been included within the SOI and was subsequently removed during the 2016 Municipal Services Review Sphere Amendment. All lands currently within the AOI are outside of the Lathrop City Limits and SOI.

Specific Plan Areas: Specific Plan Areas within Lathrop include: West Lathrop Specific Plan, Central Lathrop Specific Plan, South Lathrop Specific Plan, and Lathrop Gateway Business Park Specific Plan.

The Specific Plans guiding development in these areas aim to integrate development and allow for the coordination of planning efforts between many property owners, and allow for infrastructure cost sharing arrangements.

All new development occurring within each of the Specific Plan Areas of the city must adhere to the General Plan and also to the development standards and guidelines established by the relevant Specific Plan.

Planning Area: For the purposes of the General Plan, the Planning Area is defined as the city limits, SOI, and AOI that isincluded in the analysis and planning for the 20‐year horizon of the General Plan.

2.3 PROJECT OBJECTIVES
The Lathrop General Plan is intended to reflect the desires and vision of residents, businesses, and City Council. The following objectives are identified for the proposed update to the 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 fiscal sustainability and continue to provide efficient and adequate public services;
● Address new requirements of State law; and
● Address emerging transportation, housing, and employment trends.

PROJECT DESCRIPTION 2.0
Draft Environmental Impact Report – Lathrop General Plan 2.0-7

2.4 DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED GENERAL PLAN PROJECT
The City of Lathrop is preparing a comprehensive update to its existing General Plan, which was last comprehensively updated in 1991. The General Plan Update is expected to be complete in 2022.

The City’s General Plan includes a broad goal policy framework that guides land use and planning decisions within the city. The overall purpose of the General Plan is to create a policy framework that articulates a vision for the City’s long‐term physical form and development, while preserving and enhancing the quality of life for residents and increasing opportunities for high‐quality local job growth and housing options. The key components of the General Plan will include broad goals for the future of Lathrop, and specific policies and actions that will help implement the stated goals.

GENERAL PLAN ELEMENTS
The Lathrop General Plan includes a comprehensive set of goals, policies, and actions (implementation measures), as well as a revised Land Use Map (Figure 2.0‐2). The State requires that the General Plan contain seven mandatory elements: Land Use, Circulation, Housing, Open Space, Noise, Safety, and Conservation, as well as address issues related to climate change and resiliency planning, and environmental justice either as separate elements or as components of the required element framework. The Lathrop General Plan includes all of the State‐mandated topics and elements, as well as optional elements and issue areas, including, Public Facilities and Services, Economic Development, and Health and Environmental Justice. • The Land Use Element designates the general distribution and intensity of residential, commercial, industrial, open space, public/semi‐public, and other categories of public and private land uses. The Land Use Element includes the Land Use Map, which identifies land use designations for each parcel in the city limits and Planning Area (Figure 2.0‐2). • The Circulation Element correlates closely with the Land Use Element and identifies the general locations and extent of existing and proposed major thoroughfares, transportation routes, and alternative transportation facilities necessary to support a multi‐modal transportation system. This element is intended to facilitate mobility of people and goods throughout Lathrop by a variety of transportation modes, including bicycle, pedestrian, and transit.
• The Economic Development Element provides tools and strategies to strengthen and diversify the local economy and ensures the City maintains adequate revenues to provide quality public services. This element seeks to sustain and diversify the City’s economy, recognizing the importance of supporting existing and local businesses while broadening and expanding the employment base and economic opportunities within the city. • The Recreation and Resources Element (Conservation and Open Space Element) addresses conservation topics including: development and use of natural resources, and protections for riparian environments, native plant and animal species, soils, cultural/historical resources, air quality, and opportunities for energy conservation.

2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION

2.0-8 Draft Environmental Impact Report – Lathrop General Plan • The Public Facilities and Services Element establishes policies and programs that address public services and facilities.  While not specifically required by State law for inclusion in the General Plan, the Utilities and Public Facilities and Services Element is a critical component in meeting the infrastructure and utility services needs of businesses and residents.
• The Safety Element provides the framework to reduce risks associated with a range of environmental and human‐caused hazards that may pose a risk to life and property in Lathrop.   This element addresses hazards such as fires, geologic hazards, as well as hazardous materials, climate resiliency and adaptation
• The Noise Element addresses noise‐generating and noise‐sensitive uses such as residences and schools.  This element also addresses the required topics related to noise, including standards and policies to protect the community from the harmful and annoying effects of exposure to excessive noise levels.   This element includes strategies to reduce land use conflicts that may result in exposure to unacceptable noise levels. • The Health and Environmental Justice Element acknowledges the profound effects of the built environment on travel choices, access to food, levels of physical activity, and exposure to risk from accidents or pollution. The Element addresses the topics of active living, and environmental justice.
• The Housing Element has not been updated as part of the larger General Plan Update process.

PROJECT DESCRIPTION 2.0
Draft Environmental Impact Report – Lathrop General Plan 2.0-9

GOALS, POLICIES, AND ACTIONS
Each element of the General Plan contains a series of goals, policies, and actions. The goals, policies, and actions provide guidance to the City on how to direct change, manage growth, and manage resources over the approximate 20‐year life of the General Plan. The following provides a description of each and explains the relationship of each:
● A goal is a description of the general desired result that the City seeks to create through the implementation of the General Plan.
● A policy is a specific statement that guides decision‐making as the City works to achieve its goals. Once adopted, policies represent statements of City regulations. The General Plan’s policies set out the standards that will be used by City staff, the Planning Commission, and the City Council in their review of land development projects, resource protection activities, infrastructure improvements, and other City actions. Policies are on‐going and don’t necessarily require specific action on behalf of the City. ● An action is an implementation measure, procedure, technique, or specific program to be undertaken by the City to help achieve a specified goal or implement an adopted policy. The City must take additional steps to implement each action in the General Plan. An action is something that can and will be completed.

GENERAL PLAN LAND USE MAP
The General Plan Land Use Map identifies land use designations for each parcel within the City’s Planning Area. The proposed General Plan Land Use Map is shown on Figure 2.0‐2.

2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION

2.0-10 Draft Environmental Impact Report – Lathrop General Plan

GENERAL PLAN LAND USE DESIGNATIONS
The Land Use Element of the Lathrop General Plan defines various land use designations by their allowable uses and maximum development densities and intensities. The following describes the proposed land use designations for the General Plan. Table 2.0‐1 shows the total acreage for each land use designation shown on the proposed Land Use Map.

City Proper Land Use Designations
Lands included within the city proper planning area include all lands east of Interstaste‐5 north of Vierra Rd and S Howland Rd, as well as lands to the west of Interstate 5 within the west Lathrop Specific Plans (WLSP) Mossdale Village Project Area.

LD‐ Low Density Residential (1‐7 du/A)
Low Density Residential development will typically involve single‐family detached housing on individual lots although developments at the higher range of the allowed development densities may accommodate clustered developments as part of a Planned Development.

MD‐ Medium Density Residential (8‐15 du/A)
Medium Density Residential provides for a wide variety of housing types including zero lot line, multiplexes, homes on lots with reduced front yard setbacks, garden apartments, condominiums, townhouses, and mobile homes in mobile home parks.

HD‐ High Density Residential (16‐25 du/A)
This designation provides for multi‐family development in structures of two to three stories. This density range accommodates a variety of multi‐family housing types, ranging from row houses to triplexes and fourplexes, stacked townhouses, walk‐up garden apartments, and multi‐family apartments and condominiums.

VC‐ Village Center (Max FAR 0.85) (16‐25 du/A)
The Village Center designation provides for a variety of commercial, professional, civic and residential uses. Projects in these areas should be pedestrian‐oriented developments typical of a traditional main street with storefronts and residential entryways oriented toward public streets.

Projects may consist of wholly residential uses, wholly non‐residential uses, or a mix of both residential and non‐residential uses. Residential densities within this category shall fall within the HDR density range (16‐25 du/A). Sites developed with a mix of uses, or non‐residential uses, must adhere to a FAR maximum of up to 0.85. The FAR calculation is not inclusive of the residential component.

NC‐ Neighborhood Commercial (Max FAR 0.35)
PROJECT DESCRIPTION 2.0
Draft Environmental Impact Report – Lathrop General Plan 2.0-11 The Neighborhood Commercial classification is designed to encourage the location of smaller local‐ serving commercial uses and centers near residential areas. Neighborhood Commercial uses generally include retail stores, offices and service establishments which supply goods or provide services primarily to meet the convenience of residents of one or more residential neighborhoods.

Usesshould be compatible with surrounding neighborhoods, and propertiesshould be accessible by automobile, bicycle, and by foot.

CC‐ Community Commercial (Max FAR 0.5)
The Community Commercial designation provides for a wide range of retail sales, shopping centers, office uses, and personal and business services, accessed primarily by automobile, and intended to serve the community and the surrounding areas. Residential dwellings are conditionally allowed within this designation, provided they are constructed over a permitted use. Residential densities shall be in accordance with density requirements established within the HDR density range (16‐25 du/A).

SC‐ Service Commercial (Max FAR 0.65)
Service Commercial areas provide for the location of service‐oriented uses such as auto sales and repairs, building materials supply, equipment service, and storage. The service commercial designation is intended primarily for establishments engaged in servicing equipment, materials and products, but which do not require the manufacturing, assembly, packaging or processing of articles or merchandise for distribution and retail sale.

FC‐ Freeway Commercial (Max FAR 0.65)
Freeway Commercial uses cater primarily to the needs of the highway traveler, and include but are not limited to hotels, motels, inns, restaurants and auto services, auto and truck sales and service, fuel stations, auto repair, sales and service.

LI‐ Limited Industrial (Max FAR 1.0)
The Limited Industrial designation accommodates a wide range of jobs‐generating uses, including business parks; clean light industrial; research and development (R&D); science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM); tech/biotech manufacturing; high‐tech services that incorporate some combination of assembly, warehousing, and/or sales, hospitals and other health care‐related uses, warehouses and distribution centers.

GI‐ General Industrial (Max FAR 0.75)
General Industrial areas provide opportunities for large‐scale industries requiring substantial acreage, with access to rail and freeway facilities. The term "general" implies industrial operations which are relatively high in intensity of operation and which may require special conditions such as noise attenuation equipment or emission controls to mitigate potential adverse impacts.

2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION

2.0-12 Draft Environmental Impact Report – Lathrop General Plan P/QP‐ Public/Quasi‐Public
This broad category of land use includes government offices and utility service yards, drainage basins, hospitals, schools, and religious institutions.

P‐ Park
The Park designation provides for neighborhood, community and regional parks, greenways, golf courses, and other outdoor recreational facilities within urban development. Specific uses include public recreation sites, including ball fields, tot lots and play apparatus, adult softball and soccer playing fields, swimming pools, community center buildings, meeting facilities, libraries, art centers, after school care facilities, art in public places, facilities for night‐time recreation, trails benches, interpretive markers, picnic areas, barbecue facilities, landscaping, irrigation, city wells, trees and natural habitat areas. Parks also may be designed to accommodate multi‐level storm drainage detention basins that will allow recreation use of areas not needed for detention during a given storm.

OS‐ Open Space
The Open Space designation identifies areas designated for linear systems along waterways, sensitive habitat areas, groundwater recharge areas, creek corridors, and trails. Development in these areas shall be limited to such structures that support the uses described above. Examples of acceptable buildings and structures may include park facilities, restrooms, trails,signage and utilities infrastructure.

Central Lathrop Land Use Designations
The Central Lathrop area is located west of the I‐5 freeway, north of the West Lathrop Specific Plan area, and east of the San Joaquin River. This area’s development is guided by the Central Lathrop Specific Plan, approved in 2004. The area was annexed into the City in May 2005.

VR‐CL‐ Variable Density Residential (3‐16 du/A)
The Variable Density Residential designation usesinclude single family or multi‐family units provided by way of a variety of product types. These uses are typically scattered throughout the interior of the Plan and may include either detached or attached units. The density range is between 3 and 16 units per acre. Neighborhoods may be designed to accommodate conventional lots, small lots, clusters, duets, zero lot lines, courtyards, townhouses, and other innovative lotting strategies and product types that accommodate the demand for higher density housing products.

HR‐CL‐ High Density Residential (15‐49 du/A)
The High Density Residential designation uses generally require attached units and accommodate a variety of product types such as flats, townhouses, condominiums, live/work, lofts, and apartments.

These uses are typically located in the core of a project, adjacent to higher intensity services and PROJECT DESCRIPTION 2.0
Draft Environmental Impact Report – Lathrop General Plan 2.0-13 streets to provide active walkable areas with convenient access to services while acting as a buffer between commercial areas and less dense neighborhoods.

R/MU‐CL‐ Residential/Mixed Use (0.17‐0.6 FAR) (10‐40 du/A) The Residential/Mixed‐use designation can accommodate all commercial uses, all residential uses, or a mixture of the two. This designation permits a wide variety of uses to occur and provides flexibility to respond to market demand. While various residential and commercial uses are permitted, no one use is required. Mixed‐use development provides a wide range of lively and convenient interactions between different land uses. Commercial uses within this category are generally more local serving in nature.

OC‐CL‐ Office Commercial 0.6 FAR
The Office Commercial designation provides for regional as well as local serving retail and business/professional workspace. Typical uses include a wide variety of shopping including grocery/drug, large floor plate stores, smaller specialty retail, restaurants and fast food, as well as professional offices, incubator and research and development space, and small business flex space.

Hotels are also a permitted use. Any mix of office and commercial uses are permitted within this designation. Standalone residential dwellings are conditionally allowed within this designation.

Residential densities shall be in accordance with density requirements established within the High Density Residential designation of 16‐25 units per acre.

NC‐CL‐ Neighborhood Commercial 0.45 FAR
The Neighborhood Commercial designation allows for convenience shopping for goods and services necessary to provide for local residents as well as smaller scale local serving office development.

Standalone residential uses are conditionally allowed within this designation. Residential densities shall be in accordance with density requirements established within the High Density Residential designation of 16‐25 units per acre.

P/QP ‐CL‐ Public/Quasi‐Public
The Public/Quasi‐Public designation permits the development of civic, cultural, and governmental uses that serve the community. These uses typically are provided by the City or other public entity, and may include a civic center, library, fire station, police station, animal shelter, cultural center, senior center, schools, or boys and girls center.

2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION

2.0-14 Draft Environmental Impact Report – Lathrop General Plan P‐CL‐ Park
The Park designation provides for neighborhood, community and regional parks, greenways, golf courses, and other outdoor recreational facilities within urban development. Specific uses include public recreation sites, including ball fields, tot lots and play apparatus, adult softball and soccer playing fields, swimming pools, community center buildings, meeting facilities, libraries, art centers, after school care facilities, art in public places, facilities for night‐time recreation, trails benches, interpretive markers, picnic areas, barbecue facilities, landscaping, irrigation, city wells, trees and natural habitat areas. Parks also may be designed to accommodate multi‐level storm drainage detention basins that will allow recreation use of areas not needed for detention during a given storm.

OS‐CL‐ Open Space
Open Space designations encompass a large variety of natural features, buffers, storm water and water quality management, natural habitat preservation and maintenance, and active or passive recreational opportunities which include the river, associated lands along the river and levee, drainage corridors, and other usessuch as boat launches, picnic facilities, and fishing sites. Permitted uses include passive and active recreation, linear detention basins and other storm water and water quality features, and trails.

Lathrop Gateway Land Use Designations
The Lathrop Gateway area islocated south of Vierra Road and Yosemite Avenue, between two Union Pacific Railroad tracks that pass through southern Lathrop, east of the I‐5 freeway and north of SR‐ 120. This area is immediately south of the City Proper. This area’s development is guided primarily by the Gateway Specific Plan (adopted May 16, 2011).

CO‐LG‐ Commercial Office ‐ maximum FAR 0.60
The Commercial Office designation includes administrative, educational, bio‐tech, medical, R&D and other professional and commercial office uses, with retail commercial and highway‐oriented uses near and along the SR 120 Corridor. Supporting lodging and eating services are also envisioned within this designation.

SC‐LG‐ Service Commercial ‐ maximum FAR 0.66
The Service Commercial designation is characterized by a variety of service‐oriented uses, including large‐scale service and sales centers, communication centers, storage/warehousing, energy production centers, equipmentsales and otherservice centers, with allowance for a limited number of small support retail stores, and locally‐serving eating shops and stores. In addition, other uses may also include professional and administrative support services, automotive, truck, boat, and other vehicle sales and services, building materials businesses, reproduction services, carpenters’ shops, communications equipment shops, freight forwarding terminals, and wine‐oriented businesses and service.

PROJECT DESCRIPTION 2.0
Draft Environmental Impact Report – Lathrop General Plan 2.0-15 LI‐LG‐ Limited Industrial ‐ maximum FAR 0.65
The Limited Industrial designation, is envisioned as an important employment‐generating land use, intended to provide for well‐designed groupings of buildings for manufacturing, assembling, construction, maintenance, administrative office, research and development, bio‐tech, warehousing, distribution, and service commercial uses
South Lathrop Land Use Designations
The South Lathrop land use area is located east of the I‐5 freeway and south of SR‐120 and the Lathrop Gateway Specific Plan Area. This area’s development is guided primarily by the South Lathrop Specific Plan (SLSP) (adopted July 20, 2015).

CO‐SL‐ Commercial Office FAR maximum 0.60
The Commercial Office designation includes administrative, educational, bio‐tech, medical, R&D and other professional and commercial office uses, with retail commercial and highway‐oriented uses near and along the SR 120 Corridor. Supporting lodging, eating services, and clean light industrial are also envisioned. within this designation.

LI‐SL‐ Limited Industrial ‐ maximum FAR 0.65
The Limited Industrial designation, is envisioned as an important employment‐generating land use, intended to provide for well‐designed groupings of buildings for manufacturing, assembling, construction, maintenance, administrative office, research and development, bio‐tech, warehousing, distribution, and service commercial uses.

P/QP‐SL‐ Public/Quasi‐Public
The Public/Quasi Public designation includes detention and retention facilities for stormwater and public easements for sanitary sewer and storm drain pump stations.

OS‐SL‐ Open Space River/Levee Park
The Open Space designation is envisioned to connect the City’s levee/open space/trail network. The open space corridor along the San Joaquin River is intended as a local community wide facility with the possibility of regional linkage. This Open Space Corridor would also provide the ability to connect the South Lathrop Specific Plan with the West Lathrop Specific Plan Area and other development to the north. provision isfor the construction and use of outdoor recreation facilitiessuch asrecreation fields, fitness equipment and courses, or other such uses intended for the physical recreation and wellbeing of the community and/or the employee users may also be allowed in this area.

Refer to the South Lathrop Specific Plan for the full range of permitted uses under this land use category.

2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION

2.0-16 Draft Environmental Impact Report – Lathrop General Plan River Islands Land Use Designations
The River Islands area (adopted in 2003 with subsequent addendums through May 14, 2015), is located within the West Lathrop Specific Plan Area, west of I‐5 and the San Joaquin River and north of I‐205. Encompassing nearly 5,000 acres, River Islands provides a waterfront master‐planned community with a mix of housing types, and commercial uses. On July 14, 2021 RiverIslandsreceived City approval for an updated Phase 2 project area. This action added 4,010 additional residential units bringing the total to 15,010 units, created a “town center” mixed‐use area at Paradise Road (Paradise Cut Village Center), added a mixed‐use Transit Oriented Development (TOD) area to complement the future planned Valley Link transit station, and changed the circulation pattern for the Phase 2 area.

RL‐R‐ Residential Low (3‐9 du/A)
The Residential Low designation is intended to provide for and protect neighborhoods comprised of single‐family dwellings, two‐family residences, duplexes, water‐oriented residential uses and residential use types compatible with single‐family neighborhood communities.

RM‐RI‐ Residential Medium (6‐20 du/A)
The Residential Medium designation is intended to provide for and protect neighborhoods comprised of single‐family dwellings (both attached and detached), two‐family residences, multi‐ family residences, water‐oriented residential uses and residential use types compatible with medium density neighborhoods.

RH‐RI‐ Residential High (15‐40 du/A)
The Residential High designation is intended to provide for and protect neighborhoods comprised of two‐family residences, multi‐family residences, water‐oriented residential uses and residential use types compatible with higher density neighborhoods, such as apartments and condominiums.

TOD‐RI‐ Transit‐Oriented Development (6‐40 du/A)
The purpose of the Transit Oriented Development designation is to establish higher density residential uses within ½ mile of the proposed transitstation, for the Valley Link system, at the Union Pacific Railroad and provide the opportunity for these residential uses to be adjacent to or near mixed use commercial, service and office uses in a horizontal or vertical mixed‐use orientation. The TOD area will provide a walkable residential village in close proximity to the transit station that will allow residents to minimize their use of automobiles and have easy access to employment centers in the Bay Area via Valley Link’s connection to BART. Parking areas shall be designed to provide opportunities for others who live in Lathrop or the surrounding area to utilize the transit station, as well as complementary service retail and commercial uses.

MU‐RI‐ Mixed Use ‐ (6‐40 DU/AC)
PROJECT DESCRIPTION 2.0
Draft Environmental Impact Report – Lathrop General Plan 2.0-17 The Mixed Use designation allows for the integration in a single project of both residential and commercial uses. Housing is permitted but not required. The mixed use designation allows the placement of residential units over street level businesses, as well as development of residential uses adjacent to compatible commercial, office and recreational uses. Within areas designated mixed use, project densities up to 40 units per acre will be allowed.

RC‐RI‐ Regional Commercial ‐ Maximum FAR of 0.5
The Regional Commercial designation is intended to provide primarily office and employment‐ generating uses within the River Islands Employment Center (Business Park). The Regional Commercial use designation allows a broad range of commercial uses including regional‐ and community‐serving retail, service, and office uses. This land use category allows professional office uses and service uses, such as local, community, and regional serving retail uses, real estate, accounting, legal, technology oriented, healthcare, education, and other similar uses. It can also allow more typical community‐oriented retail uses such as laundries, dry cleaners, beauty salons, finance, restaurants and bars; recreation‐oriented commercial uses such as gyms, marinas, or golf courses, hotels, bed and breakfast inns; and, entertainment and cultural facilities. The RC‐RI does not allow industrial and warehousing uses.

OS‐RI‐ Open Space
The Open Space designation applies to open space areas within River Islands which are outside of Paradise Cut. The OS area differs from the RCOS designation for Paradise Cut in that these lands interface with adjacent development areas, and some transitional uses, such as parks and recreational uses, are allowed.

RCOS‐RI‐ Resource Conservation‐Open Space
The Resource Conservation designation is intended to provide for habitat restoration and preservation‐related activities within Paradise Cut.

Stewart Tract Land Use Designations
The Stewart Tract Land Use Area is bisected by I‐5 and is bound to the south and east by Paradise Cut and the San Joaquin River, and to the north by the Union Pacific Railroad tracks.

R‐ST‐ Residential ‐ Stewart Tract (1‐7 du/A)
The Residential designation is intended primarily to provide low density, detached and clustered single‐family dwellings.

RC‐ST‐ Recreation Commercial maximum FAR of 0.5
The Recreation Commercial designation allows for theme parks, agricultural entertainment (“agri‐ tainment”), retail‐oriented agricultural operations such as “U‐Pick” produce and farmstands, retail entertainment, participatory activities, spectator events, commercial lodging, and high density

2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION

2.0-18 Draft Environmental Impact Report – Lathrop General Plan residential at a density of 15‐40 units per acre. This category embraces a wide variety of uses which reflect the dynamic character of the market for commercial recreation and entertainment related activities.

RCO‐ST‐ Resource Conservation
The Resource/Conservation designation includes agricultural land, wildlife habitat, watershed areas, rangeland, and conservation areas of.

UR‐ST‐ Urban Reserve
The purpose of the Urban Reserve designation is to hold in reserve those areas designated by the general plan to be held in reserve for future urban expansion and to preserve the availability of agricultural land and vacant land required for future urban expansion and to prevent the premature development of land where the range of municipal‐type services are not yet available.

PROJECT DESCRIPTION 2.0
Draft Environmental Impact Report – Lathrop General Plan 2.0-19 Table 2.0‐1: Proposed General Plan Land Use Designation Acreages Land Use Acres ‐ AOI Acres ‐ City
Limits Acres ‐ SOI Total
City Proper 4,519.76 4,519.76 120.49 120.49 4,640.25 4,640.25 CC 52.72   52.72
FC 97.45 54.54 152.00
GI 1,096.56   1,096.56
HD 33.54   33.54
LD 955.04   955.04
LI 1,442.84 65.94 1,508.79
MD 180.42   180.42
NC 8.32   8.32
OS 66.87   66.87
P 82.38   82.38
P/QP 69.29   69.29
ROW 251.12   251.12
SC 157.48   157.48
VC 25.74   25.74
Central Lathrop 1,373.62 1,373.62
HR‐CL   13.65   13.65
LI   673.90   673.90
NC‐CL   12.02   12.02
OC‐CL   167.54   167.54
OS   9.69   9.69
OS‐CL   33.69   33.69
P   12.01   12.01
P/QP‐CL   54.69   54.69
P‐CL   77.04   77.04
R/MU‐CL   62.76   62.76
ROW‐CL   1.00   1.00
VR‐CL   255.63   255.63
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

2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION

2.0-20 Draft Environmental Impact Report – Lathrop General Plan South Lathrop 301.83 301.83
CO‐SL   15.56   15.56
LI‐SL   240.13   240.13
OS‐SL   12.79   12.79
P/QP‐SL   18.40   18.40
ROW‐SL   14.94   14.94
River Islands 4,412.46 4,412.46
MU‐RI   332.68   332.68
OS/P‐RI   379.24   379.24
RCO/OS‐RI   694.07   694.07
RC‐RI   304.88   304.88
RH‐RI   30.51   30.51
RL‐RI   2,151.86   2,151.86
RM‐RI   222.32   222.32
ROW‐RI   170.45   170.45
TOD‐RI   126.45   126.45
Stewart Tract 737.11 737.11
RCO‐ST   181.37   181.37
RC‐ST   67.40   67.40
ROW‐ST   44.50   58.10
R‐ST   13.59   13.59
UR‐ST   430.25   430.25
AOI – North/South 2,554.68 2,122.16
AOI‐N 2,122.16   2,122.16
AOI‐S 432.52
Grand Total 2,554.68 11,648.75 183.28 14,386.70
SOURCE: DE NOVO PLANNING GROUP, 2021. NOTE:  ROUNDING MAY IMPACT TOTALS PROJECT DESCRIPTION 2.0
Draft Environmental Impact Report – Lathrop General Plan 2.0-21

2.5 GENERAL PLAN BUILDOUT ANALYSIS
Table 2.0‐2 includes a comparison overview of existing conditions, the current General Plan Land Use Map, and the proposed General Plan Land Use Map in terms of population, housing units, nonresidential development square footage, jobs, and the jobs‐to‐housing ratio.

Growth projections shown in Table 2.0‐2 represent an estimate of new growth potential under the existing General Plan and the proposed General Plan, and are based on several factors, including the availability of vacant and underutilized parcels and historical growth trends. Given that actual development rates and growth rates are likely to be significantly lower than the maximum allowed development under the General Plan (if every parcel in the City developed or redeveloped to its full potential) over a 20‐year planning horizon, these projections likely overestimate potential growth.

However, these growth projections are intended to provide a meaningful estimate of the level of growth that could potentially occur.

Growth projections should not be considered a prediction for growth, as the actual amount of development that will occur throughout the planning horizon of the General Plan is based on many factors outside of the City’s control. Actual future development would depend on future real estate and labor market conditions, property owner preferences and decisions, site‐specific constraints, and other factors. New development and growth are largely dictated by existing development conditions, market conditions, and land turnover rates. Very few communities in California actually develop to the full potential allowed in their respective General Plans during the planning horizon.

While no specific development projects are proposed as part of the Lathrop General Plan Update, the General Plan will accommodate future growth in Lathrop, including new businesses, expansion of existing businesses, and new residential uses. The buildout analysis assumes an approximate 20‐ year horizon, and 2040 is assumed to be the buildout year of the General Plan.

2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION

2.0-22 Draft Environmental Impact Report – Lathrop General Plan TABLE 2.0‐2: 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.

As shown in Table 2.0‐2, buildout of the proposed General Plan could lead to new growth that yields 17,379 housing units, and 66,562 in additional population, 30,630,722 square feet of non‐residential building square footage, and 49,250 jobs within the Planning Area. As shown in Table 2.0‐3, this represents development growth over the existing general plan in terms of jobs and nonresidential square footage.

The proposed General Plan accommodates an additional 17,379 dwelling units including 7,454 single‐family units and 9,925 multi‐family units, while the existing General Plan accommodates more single‐family units (10,951), but a reduced amount of multifamily units (8,097).

GENERAL PLAN BUILDOUT BY TYPE OF GROWTH
Table 2.0‐3 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 2.0‐3 buildout of the proposed General Plan may yield 17,379 dwelling units, and 49,250 jobs.

TABLE 2.0‐3: 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.

PROJECT DESCRIPTION 2.0
Draft Environmental Impact Report – Lathrop General Plan 2.0-23

2.6 USES OF THE EIR AND REQUIRED AGENCY APPROVALS
This EIR may be used for the following direct and indirect approvals and permits associated with adoption and implementation of the proposed Project.

CITY OF LATHROP
The City of Lathrop is the lead agency for the proposed Project. The updated Lathrop General Plan will be presented to the Planning Commission for review and recommendation and to the City Council for comment, review, and consideration for adoption. The City Council has the sole discretionary authority to approve and adopt the Lathrop General Plan. In order to approve the proposed project, the City Council would consider the following actions:
● Certification of the General Plan EIR;
● Adoption of required CEQA findings for the above action; ● Adoption of a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program; and ● Approval of the General Plan Update.

SUBSEQUENT USE OF THE EIR
This EIR provides a review of environmental effects associated with implementation of the proposed General Plan. When considering approval ofsubsequent activities under the proposed General Plan, the City of Lathrop would utilize this EIR as the basis in determining potential environmental effects and the appropriate level of environmental review, if any, of a subsequent activity. Projects or activities successive to this EIR may include, but are not limited to, the following:
● Approval and funding of major projects and capital improvements; ● Future Specific Plan, Planned Unit Development, or Master Plan approvals; ● Revision to the Lathrop Zoning Ordinance & updates to Specific Plans/Design Guidelines to be consistent with GP?;
● Development plan approvals, such as tentative subdivision maps, variances, conditional use permits, and other land use permits;
● Development Agreements;
● Property rezoning consistent with the General Plan;
● Permit issuances and other approvals necessary for public and private development projects;
● Issuance of permits and other approvals necessary for implementation of the General Plan; ● Sphere of Influence (SOI) updates prepared by LAFCO; and ● Annexations processed by LAFCO.

2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION

2.0-24 Draft Environmental Impact Report – Lathrop General Plan

OTHER GOVERNMENTAL AGENCY APPROVALS
City approval of the proposed project would not require any actions or approvals by other public agencies. Subsequent projects and other actionsto support implementation of the proposed project would require actions, including permits and approvals, by other public agencies that may include, but are not necessarily limited to:
● California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) approval of projects and encroachment permits for projects affecting State highway facilities. ● Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) approval for National Pollution Discharge Elimination System compliance, including permits and Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan approval and monitoring.
● San Joaquin County Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) approvals for annexation of any lands into the boundaries of the City of Lathrop. ● San Joaquin Council of Governments. San Joaquin County Multi‐Species Habitat Conservation and Open Space Plan (SJMSCP).
● California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) approval of potential future streambed alteration agreements, pursuant to Fish and Game Code. Approval of any future potential take of State‐listed wildlife and plant species covered under the California Endangered Species Act.
● U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) approvals involving any future potential take of Federally listed wildlife and plant species and their habitats, pursuant to the Federal Endangered Species Act.
● SJVAPCD
● ALUC

!.
!.
!.
!. !.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!. !.
!.

P
a
c i f i c O
c
e
a
n
Clear
Lake
NEVADA

CALIFORNIA
LAKE
MERCED

TUOLUMNE
PLACER
YOLO
SONOMA

EL DORADO
NAPA
COLUSA

MARIPOSA STANISLAUS
SOLANO

SAN JOAQUIN
ALPINE

SANTA CLARA
MARIN

CALAVERAS

ALAMEDA
SUTTER

SACRAMENTO AMADOR

CONTRA COSTA

SAN MATEO

SANTA CRUZ

SAN FRANCISCO
§¨¦ §¨¦5 80
§¨¦680
§¨¦580
§¨¦280
§¨¦880
§¨¦505
§¨¦205
§¨¦780
§¨¦380
§¨¦5
§¨¦580
§¨¦680
£¤50
£¤101
£¤101
£¤101
£¤101
£¤101
£¤50
£¤50
UV4
UV88
UV20
UV99
UV16
UV1
UV132 UV49
UV35
UV128
UV152
UV165
UV140
UV108
UV84
UV33
UV45
UV26
UV120
UV160
UV113
UV89
UV193
UV140
UV140
UV16
UV1
UV4
UV26
UV99
UV99
UV99
UV99
UV1
UV4
Lodi
Tracy
Ripon
Lathrop Oakland Manteca Escalon
Modesto
Fremont
Stockton
San Jose
Sacramento
San Francisco
Lathrop General Plan Update
Figure 2.0-1: Regional Location Map
D e N o v o P l a n n i n g G r o u p
A Land Use Planning, Design, and Environmental Firm
Data source: California Spatial Information Library.

Lake
Tahoe
§¨¦5
§¨¦5
San Pablo
Bay
San
Francisco
Bay
Suisun
Bay
Project
Location
1:1,500,000
0 10 20
Miles
³
^_
^_
Project
Location

2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION

2.0-26 Draft Environmental Impact Report – Lathrop General Plan This page left intentionally blank.
!(
!(
!(
Sa n Joaquin R.

Paradise Cut Circle
Lake
Middle R.

Tom Paine Slough
Old R.

Old R.

San J oa quin R. §¨¦5
W Woodward Ave
W Roth Rd
S Mckinley Ave
D Arcy Pk Bizzibe St
Mckee Blvd
E Roth Rd
Fifth St
Cambridge Dr
W Yosemite Ave
E Louise Ave
Thomsen Rd
O St
S Yosemite Ave
J St
Mckinley Ave
S Airport Way
N Macarthur Dr
N Airport Way
Harlan Rd
E Lathrop Rd
River Islands Pk
S
Manthey Rd
Golden Valley Pk
Golden Valley Pkwy
Roth Rd
Tesla Dr
W Eleventh St
W How
R
Howland Rd
Barbara Terry Blvd
Walthall Slough
§¨¦5
§¨¦5
UV120
§¨¦205
CITY
d

OF LATHROP GENERAL PLAN
Figure 2.0-2:

Proposed General Plan Map
San Joaqu ni R.

UV120
Land Use Designations
Legend
Assessor Parcel Boundary
City of Lathrop
City of Manteca
Lathrop Sphere of Influence
Manteca Sphere of Influence
Area of Interest
Potential TOD Areas
!( Existing ACE Station
!( Future Valley Link Station
Dos Reis Rd
De Lima Rd
Í 0 ¼ ½
Miles
Seventh St
City
Proper

CITY PROPER
LD: Low Density Residential (1-7 du/A)
MD: Medium Density Residential (8-15 du/A)
HD: High Density Residential (16-25 du/A)
NC: Neighborhood Commercial
VC: Village Center
CC: Community Center
SC: Service Commercial
FC: Freeway Commercial
LI: Limited Industrial
GI: General Industrial
P/QP: Public/Quasi-Public
P: Park
OS: Open Space

CENTRAL LATHROP
VR-CL: Variable Density Residential (3-16 du/A)
HR-CL: High Density Residential (15-49 du/A)
R/MU-CL: Residential Mixed Use (10-40 du/A)
OC-CL: Office Commercial
NC-CL: Neighborhood Commercial
LI-CL: Limited Industrial
P/QP-CL: Public/Quasi-Public
P-CL: Park
OS-CL: Open Space

LATHROP GATEWAY
CO-LG: Commerical Office
SC-LG: Service Commercial
LI-LG: Limited Industrial

SOUTH LATHROP SPECIFIC PLAN
CO-SL: Commercial Office
LI-SL: Limited Industrial
P/QP-SL: Public/Quasi-Public
OS-SL: Open Space River/Levee Park

RIVER ISLANDS
RL-RI: Residential Low (3-9 du/A)
RM-RI: Residential Medium (6-20 du/A)
RH-RI: Residential High (15-40 du/A)
RC-RI: Regional Commercial
TOD-RI: Transit-Oriented Development
MU-RI: Mixed Use
RCO/OS-RI: Resource Conservation/Open Space
OS/P-RI: Open Space/Public Uses

STEWART TRACT
R-ST: Residential
RC-ST: Recreation Commercial
RCO-ST: Resource Conservation
UR-ST: Urban Reserve
Stewart
Tract
River
Islands
South
Lathrop
Specific
Plan
Lathrop
Gateway
Central
Lathrop
Sources: San Joaquin County
Parcels 1/7/2021;
City of Lathrop. DMSParcels_V7.

Map date: November 23, 2021.

2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION

2.0-28 Draft Environmental Impact Report – Lathrop General Plan This page left intentionally blank.

AESTHETICS AND VISUAL RESOURCES 3.1
Draft Environmental Impact Report – Lathrop General Plan Update 3.1-1 The City of Lathrop and the surrounding areas possess numerous scenic resources, many of which are found in the natural areas within the unincorporated areas of San Joaquin County and along the San Joaquin River corridor. Visual resources enhance the quality of life for residents, and provide for outdoor recreational, agricultural, and tourist‐generating uses. Landscapes can be defined as a combination of four visual elements: landforms, water, vegetation, and man‐made structures. Scenic resource quality is an assessment of the uniqueness or desirability of a visual element.

This section was prepared based on existing reports and literature for Lathrop and the surrounding areas in San Joaquin County. Additional sources of information included the California Department of Transportation’s (Caltrans) Designated Scenic Route map for San Joaquin County.

This section provides a background discussion of resources including scenic highways and corridors, and natural scenic resources such as open space areas, and prominent visual features found in the Lathrop Planning Area. This section is organized with an existing setting, regulatory setting, and impact analysis.

There were no comments received during the NOP comment period related to this environmental topic.

CONCEPTS AND TERMINOLOGY
The aesthetic value of an area is a measure of its visual character and quality, combined with the viewer response to the area. Scenic quality can best be described as the overall impression that an individual viewer retains after driving through, walking through, or flying over an area. Viewer response is a combination of viewer exposure and viewer sensitivity. Viewer exposure is a function of the number of viewers, number of views seen, distance of the viewers, and viewing duration.

Viewer sensitivity relates to the extent of the public’s concern for a particular viewshed. These terms and criteria are described in detail below.

Visual Character. Natural and artificial landscape features contribute to the visual character of an area or view. Visual character is influenced by geologic, hydrologic, botanical, wildlife, recreational, and urban features. Urban features include those associated with landscape settlements and development, including roads, utilities, structures, earthworks, and the results of other human activities. The perception of visual character can vary significantly seasonally, even hourly, as weather, light, shadow, and elements that compose the viewshed change. The basic components used to describe visual character for most visual assessments are the elements of form, line, color, and texture of the landscape features. The appearance of the landscape is described in terms of the dominance of each of these components.

Visual Quality. Visual quality is evaluated using the well‐established approach to visual analysis adopted by the Federal Highway Administration, employing the concepts of vividness, intactness, and unity, which are described below.

3.1 AESTHETICS AND VISUAL RESOURCES

3.1-2 Draft Environmental Impact Report – Lathrop General Plan Update  Vividness is the visual power or memorability of landscape components as they combine in striking and distinctive visual patterns.
 Intactness is the visual integrity of the natural and human‐built landscape and its freedom from encroaching elements; this factor can be present in well‐kept urban and rural landscapes, and in natural settings.
 Unity is the visual coherence and compositional harmony of the landscape considered as a whole; it frequently attests to the careful design of individual components in the landscape.

Visual quality is evaluated based on the relative degree of vividness, intactness, and unity, as modified by visual sensitivity. High‐quality views are highly vivid, relatively intact, and exhibit a high degree of visual unity. Low‐quality views lack vividness, are not visually intact, and possess a low degree of visual unity.

Viewer Exposure and Sensitivity. The measure of the quality of a view must be tempered by the overall sensitivity of the viewer. Viewer sensitivity or concern is based on the visibility of resources in the landscape, proximity of viewers to the visual resource, elevation of viewers relative to the visual resource, frequency and duration of views, number of viewers, and type and expectations of individuals and viewer groups.

The importance of a view is related, in part, to the position of the viewer to the resource; therefore, visibility and visual dominance of landscape elements depend on their placement within the viewshed. A viewshed is defined as all of the surface area visible from a particular location (e.g., an overlook) or sequence of locations (e.g., a roadway or trail). To identify the importance of views of a resource, a viewshed must be broken into distance zones of foreground, middle ground, and background. Generally, the closer a resource is to the viewer, the more dominant it is and the greater its importance to the viewer. Although distance zones in a viewshed may vary between different geographic region or types of terrain, the standard foreground zone is 0.25 to 0.5 mile from the viewer, the middle ground zone is from the foreground zone to 3 to 5 miles from the viewer, and the background zone is from the middle ground to infinity.

Visual sensitivity depends on the number and type of viewers and the frequency and duration of views. Visual sensitivity is also modified by viewer activity, awareness, and visual expectations in relation to the number of viewers and viewing duration. For example, visual sensitivity is generally higher for views seen by people who are driving for pleasure, people engaging in recreational activities such as hiking, biking, or camping, and homeowners. Sensitivity tends to be lower for views seen by people driving to and from work or as part of their work. Commuters and non‐ recreational travelers have generally fleeting views and tend to focus on commute traffic, not on surrounding scenery; therefore, they are generally considered to have low visual sensitivity.

Residential viewers typically have extended viewing periods and are concerned about changes in the views from their homes; therefore, they are generally considered to have high visual sensitivity. Viewers using recreation trails and areas, scenic highways, and scenic overlooks are usually assessed as having high visual sensitivity.

AESTHETICS AND VISUAL RESOURCES 3.1
Draft Environmental Impact Report – Lathrop General Plan Update 3.1-3 Judgments of visual quality and viewer response must be made based on a regional frame of reference. The same landform or visual resource appearing in different geographic areas could have a different degree of visual quality and sensitivity in each setting. For example, a small hill may be a significant visual element on a flat landscape but have very little significance in mountainous terrain.

Scenic Highway Corridor. The area outside of a highway right‐of‐way that is generally visible to persons traveling on the highway.

Scenic Highway/Scenic Route. A highway, road, drive, or street that, in addition to its transportation function, provides opportunities for the enjoyment of natural and human‐made scenic resources and access or direct views to areas or scenes of exceptional beauty (including those of historic or cultural interest). The aesthetic values of scenic routes often are protected and enhanced by regulations governing the development of property or the placement of outdoor advertising. Until the mid‐1980’s, general plans in California were required to include a Scenic Highways Element.

View Corridor. A view corridor is a highway, road, trail, or other linear feature that offers travelers a vista of scenic areas within a city or county.

3.1.1 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING

REGIONAL SCENIC RESOURCES
Visual resources are generally classified into two categories: scenic views and scenic resources.

Scenic views are elements of the broader viewshed such as mountain ranges, valleys, and ridgelines. They are usually mid‐ground or background elements of a viewshed that can be seen from a range of viewpoints, often along a roadway or other corridor. Scenic resources are specific features of a viewing area (or viewshed) such as trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings.

They are specific features that act as the focal point of a viewshed and are usually foreground elements.

Aesthetically significant features occur in a diverse array of environments within the region, ranging in character from urban centers to rural agricultural lands to natural water bodies.

Features of the built environment that may also have visual significance include individual or groups of structures that are distinctive due to their aesthetic, historical, social, or cultural significance or characteristics. Examples of the visually significant built environment may include bridges or overpasses, architecturally appealing buildings or groups of buildings, landscaped freeways, and a location where a historic event occurred.

SCENIC HIGHWAYS AND CORRIDORS
Scenic highways and corridors make major contributions to the quality of life enjoyed by the residents of a region. The development of community pride, the enhancement of property values, and the protection of aesthetically pleasing open spaces reflecting a preference for the local lifestyle are all ways in which scenic corridors are valuable to residents.

3.1 AESTHETICS AND VISUAL RESOURCES

3.1-4 Draft Environmental Impact Report – Lathrop General Plan Update Scenic highways and corridors can also strengthen the tourist industry. For many visitors, highway corridors will provide their only experience of the region. Enhancement and protection of these corridors ensures that the tourist experience continues to be a positive one and, consequently, provides support for the tourist‐related activities of the region's economy.

Scenic Highways
A scenic highway is generally defined by Caltrans as a public highway that traverses an area of outstanding scenic quality, containing striking views, flora, geology, or other unique natural attributes. A highway may be designated scenic depending upon how much of the natural landscape can be seen by travelers, the scenic quality of the landscape, and the extent to which development intrudes upon the traveler's enjoyment of the view.

Only one highway section in San Joaquin County is listed as a Designated Scenic Highway by the Caltrans Scenic Highway Mapping System; the segment of Interstate 580 from Interstate 5 to State Route 205 (generally located southwest of the City of Tracy). This route traverses the edge of the Coast Range to the west and Central Valley to the east. The City of Lathrop is not visible from this roadway segment.

Scenic Corridors
A scenic corridor is the view from the road that may include a distant panorama and/or the immediate roadside area. A scenic corridor encompasses the outstanding natural features and landscapes that are considered scenic. It is the visual quality of the man‐made or natural environments within a scenic corridor that are responsible for its scenic value. Commonly, the physical limits of a scenic corridor are broken down into foreground views (zero to one quarter mile) and distant views (over one quarter mile). In addition to distinct foreground and distant views, the visual quality of a scenic corridor is defined by special features, which include:
• Focal points ‐ prominent natural or man‐made features which immediately catch the eye. • Transition areas ‐ locations where the visual environment changes dramatically. • Gateways ‐ locations which mark the entrance to a community or geographic area.

The City of Lathrop General Plan does not designate any scenic corridors or viewsheds. As identified in the Open Space Element of the San Joaquin County General Plan, designated scenic routes in the county include Interstate 5 from the Sacramento County line south to Stockton. The City of Lathrop is located south of Stockton, and Lathrop is not visible from this segment of Interstate 5.

Visual Character and Other Scenic Resources Areas
The City of Lathrop’s visual character is defined by its agricultural heritage and suburban development pattern. The city is a mixture of urbanized areas with commercial, residential, and industrial uses concentrated along the Interstate 5 corridor and other major roadway corridors, including S. Harlan Road, Golden Valley Parkway, Lathrop Road and Louise Avenue. Residential neighborhoods, including parks and schools, occupy the remainder of the city’s urbanized area east of Interstate 5 with more recent residential patterns emerging west of Interstate 5. Much of AESTHETICS AND VISUAL RESOURCES 3.1
Draft Environmental Impact Report – Lathrop General Plan Update 3.1-5 the undeveloped land within the Planning Area surrounding the developed portion of Lathrop is predominantly farmland, including alfalfa, orchards, row crops, and pasture, and rural residential uses.

Farmland and open space, interspersed with rural residential, agricultural, and industrial uses, generally border the city to the north, south, and west. To the west, the city is bordered by agricultural land and the San Joaquin River. The City of Stockton lies to the north and the City of Manteca to the east.

Much of the undeveloped land within the City Limits, Sphere of Influence (SOI), Planning Area, and areas surrounding the urbanized portion of Lathrop is predominantly farmland, including alfalfa, orchards, row crops, and pasture. Agricultural lands have become important visual resources that contribute to the community identity of Lathrop, and the Central Valley region. Agricultural lands provide for visual relief form urbanized areas and act as green space to nearby urban areas.

Water resources are important visual resources that draw tourists to the area for recreational opportunities, provide critical habitat, and provide for scenic areas within and surrounding urban areas. The most visually significant water body in the region is the San Joaquin River and the Old River located along the western and southern borders of the city and the Planning Area.

LIGHT AND GLARE
During the day, sunlight reflecting from structures is a primary source of glare, while nighttime light and glare can be divided into both stationary and mobile sources. Stationary sources of nighttime light include structure illumination, interior lighting, decorative landscape lighting, and streetlights. The principal mobile source of nighttime light and glare is vehicle headlamp illumination. This ambient light environment can be accentuated during periods of low clouds or fog.

The variety of urban land uses in the Planning Area are the main source of daytime and nighttime light and glare. They are typified by single and multi‐family residences, commercial structures, industrial areas, and streetlights. These areas and their associated human activities (inclusive of vehicular traffic) characterize the existing light and glare environment present during daytime and nighttime hours in the urbanized portions of the Planning Area. Areas to the north, east and south, outside of the city limits and near the fringes of the Planning Area, are characterized primarily by open spaces, agricultural and lower intensity residential development, and generally have lower levels of ambient nighttime lighting and daytime glare. However, areas along the Interstate 5 corridor of the city generally have more sources of glare.

Sources of glare in urbanized portions of the Planning Area come from light reflecting off surfaces, including glass, and certain siding and paving materials, as well as metal roofing. The urbanized areas of Lathrop contain sidewalks and paved parking areas which reflect street and vehicle lights.

The existing light environment found in the Planning Area is considered typical of a developing suburban area.

Sky glow is the effect created by light reflecting into the night sky. Sky glow is of particular concern in areas surrounding observatories, where darker night sky conditions are necessary, but is also of

3.1 AESTHETICS AND VISUAL RESOURCES

3.1-6 Draft Environmental Impact Report – Lathrop General Plan Update concern in more rural or natural areas where a darker night sky is either the norm or is important to wildlife. Due to existing developments in and around the city, a number of existing light sources affect residential areas and illuminate the night sky. Isolating individual impacts of particular sources of light or glare is therefore not appropriate or feasible for the Project at the plan level however, individual development projects are reviewed for potential light and glare impacts.

3.1.2 REGULATORY SETTING

FEDERAL
There are no Federal regulations that apply to the proposed Project related to visual resources in the study area.

STATE
Caltrans California Scenic Highway Program
California's Scenic Highway Program was created by the Legislature in 1963 to preserve and protect scenic highway corridors from change, which would diminish the aesthetic value of lands adjacent to highways. The State laws governing the Scenic Highway Program are found in the Streets and Highways Code, Section 260 et seq. As previously described, there are no scenic highways in the Planning Area or with views of the Planning Area.

LOCAL
City of Lathrop Zoning Ordinance
Chapter 17.92, Landscaping and Screening Standards, of the City Zoning Ordinance contains several sections that regulate aesthetic or visual standards for development in the city. These include standards for landscaping of commercial and industrial developments; requirements for the contents of landscape plans; street, road, and parkway landscaping standards; requirements for a tree and shrub schedule; and planting and maintenance standards. Some of these standards would be applicable to the proposed Project, including the following:
 A landscape plan is required for all new residential, commercial, and industrial developments. These plans would include landscape materials, trees, shrubs, groundcover, etc.
 Parking lots located on the proposed project site shall include a landscape strip buffer installed continuously along the property line.
 All outside storage areas shall be screened so as not to be visible from adjacent properties and public rights‐of‐way. Screening shall be a minimum of six feet in height, and consist of a solid material. Outside storage is not permitted in front or street side yards, or in front of structures.

AESTHETICS AND VISUAL RESOURCES 3.1
Draft Environmental Impact Report – Lathrop General Plan Update 3.1-7  Roof mounted mechanical equipment, tanks, ventilating fans and similar equipment shall be screened from the view of adjacent properties and public rights‐of‐way at grade. The required screens shall be architecturally compatible with the building or structure on which they are used. All streets, roads, and parkways within the city shall meet the following standards:
 In residential, commercial and industrial zones, trees shall be planted in accordance with the landscape and screening standards.

City of Lathrop Specific Plans and Development Plans
The City of Lathrop currently has seven approved Specific Plans and Development Plans: Central Lathrop Specific Plan, West Lathrop Specific Plan, South Lathrop Specific Plan, River Islands at Lathrop, Mossdale Village, Lathrop Gateway Business Park, and Crossroads Industrial Park. Each of these plans contains design elements approved by the City of Lathrop. Guidelines related to lighting and glare, signage, streetscapes and gateways all identify design elements which preserve the aesthetics and character of the City of Lathrop. Any project proposed within the City of Lathrop and the Specific Plan areas are subject to design review to ensure that these projects maintain and enhance the overall aesthetic of the City of Lathrop.

3.1.3 IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES

THRESHOLDS OF SIGNIFICANCE
Consistent with Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, the proposed Project will have a significant impact on aesthetics if it will:
• Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista;
• Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a State scenic highway; • In non‐urbanized areas, substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of public views of the site and its surroundings (Public views are those that are experienced from publicly accessible vantage point). If the project is in an urbanized area, would the project conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality; and/or
• Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area.

3.1 AESTHETICS AND VISUAL RESOURCES

3.1-8 Draft Environmental Impact Report – Lathrop General Plan Update

IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
Impact 3.1‐1: General Plan implementation would not have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista (Less than Significant) 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 above, there are no officially designated scenic highways located in the vicinity of Lathrop. The most significant visual features within or 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.

The city is mostly urbanized with commercial, residential, and industrial uses concentrated along the Interstate 5 corridor and other major roadway corridors, including S. Harlan Road, Golden Valley Parkway, Lathrop Road, and Louise Avenue and residential neighborhoods occupying most other developed areas. Much of the undeveloped land within the Planning Area surrounding the urbanized portion of Lathrop is predominantly farmland, including alfalfa, orchards, row crops, and pasture, and rural residential uses.

Implementation of the proposed General Plan will lead to new and expanded urban and suburban development throughout the city and Planning Area, particularly in areas designated for residential, commercial, professional, industrial, mixed use, and public/quasi‐public uses by the Land Use Map (Figure 2.0‐2). Future development would be required to be consistent with the proposed General Plan. A central theme of the General Plan is to preserve and protect the city’s natural resources and scenic resources, including designating open space lands along the Old River and San Joaquin River in the western and southwestern portion of the Planning Area. Other General Plan policies promote open space within the Planning Area, maintenance of the existing open space within the city, and visually‐appropriate on‐site design and amenities, such as design and maintenance standards for City amenities. Moreover, other policies promote the installation of specific visual features, such as context planning and design integration. Other policies are directed more generally at integrating land uses and visual quality between land uses, such as major corridors, walkability, massing, and connectivity.

The Lathrop General Plan has been developed to preserve areas of open space and to ensure that new development is located in and around existing and planned urbanized areas, thus ensuring that new development is primarily an extension of the existing urban landscape, and minimizes interruption of views of nearby visual features.

Additionally, the General Plan includes polices that seek to ensure that new development fits within the existing community setting and is compatible with surrounding uses, supports the preservation and protection of the city’s existing neighborhoods, maintain homes, structures, and property at high standards, and promote the city visually through design and physical features.

The implementation of the policies and actions contained in the General Plan listed below would ensure open space uses are preserved consistent with the General Plan Land Use Map, that new development in the Lathrop Planning Area is compatible with nearby agricultural and other open AESTHETICS AND VISUAL RESOURCES 3.1
Draft Environmental Impact Report – Lathrop General Plan Update 3.1-9 space resources. Additionally, the implementation of the policies and actions contained in the Land Use Element would further ensure that new development is designed in a way that enhances the visual quality of the community, compliments the visual character of the city, and that adverse effects on public views are minimized. Additionally, as described previously there are no designated scenic vistas or viewpoint within the city. Therefore, the impact on scenic vistas would be less than significant.

GENERAL PLAN GOALS, POLICIES, AND ACTIONS THAT MINIMIZE POTENTIAL IMPACTS GOALS
Goal RR‐2: Protect and manage natural open space areas to provide scenic beauty and community enjoyment.

POLICIES
RR‐1.6 Design and Maintenance. Promote implementation of established design, construction, and facility maintenance standards to ensure that existing and future parks, recreational facilities, open space, and trails are of high quality in regard to safety, utility, environmental stewardship, and aesthetic quality.

RR‐2.1 Open Space Boundaries. Maintain existing open space lands within the city by carefully considering the impact of new development in established open space areas.

RR‐2.2 Regional Partners. Coordinate with regional partners to maintain and preserve open space areas under overlapping jurisdiction or within nearby communities to protect all local and regional opportunities for recreation available to Lathrop residents.

RR‐2.3 Scenic Resources. 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.

RR‐2.4 Education. Work with state, federal, and community partners to develop educational and other materials that promote the preservation and conservation of the city’s natural resources.

RR‐4.4 Natural Water Bodies and Drainage Systems. Limit the disturbance of natural water bodies and drainage systems in Lathrop by conserving natural open space areas, protecting channels, and minimizing the impacts from stormwater and urban runoff.

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

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

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

3.1 AESTHETICS AND VISUAL RESOURCES

3.1-10 Draft Environmental Impact Report – Lathrop General Plan Update LU‐7.1 Encourage San Joaquin County to retain existing agricultural land use designations in areas outside of the Lathrop SOI.

LU‐7.2 Support the continuation of agricultural operations and activities on lands adjacent to the SOI and within the City’s Area of Influence.

LU‐7.3 Allow and support the continuation of agricultural operations on lands within the City limits which are designed for urban uses until such time as urban development is proposed for the land.

LU‐7.4 Ensure that new urban uses which are proposed adjacent to lands designated for agricultural uses include adequate buffers to reduce potential land use conflicts and nuisance impacts to sensitive receptors.

IMPLEMENTATION ACTIONS
RR‐2a Prepare and distribute in electronic and hard‐copy format resource guides regarding public access to regional and local open space.

RR‐2b Periodically coordinate with neighboring jurisdictions to share plans regarding open space protection and access.

LU‐5.a Through the development review process, screen development proposals for land use and transportation network compatibility with existing surrounding or abutting development or neighborhoods.

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

LU‐7.a Continue to implement the City’s Agricultural Land Preservation Ordinance in order to protect existing agricultural operations from nuisance complaints, and to reduce impacts to future sensitive receptors proposed in close proximity to agricultural operations.

LU‐7.b Consider requiring buffering features between new urban uses and commercial agricultural uses, including but not limited to, landscaping, trails, gardens, solar arrays, and open spaces.

AESTHETICS AND VISUAL RESOURCES 3.1
Draft Environmental Impact Report – Lathrop General Plan Update 3.1-11 Impact 3.1‐2: General Plan implementation would not substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings, within a State scenic highway (Less than Significant)
As discussed in the Existing Setting section, no adopted State scenic highway is located in Lathrop.

Only one highway section in San Joaquin County is listed as a Designated Scenic Highway by the Caltrans Scenic Highway Mapping System; the segment of Interstate 580 from Interstate 5 to Interstate 205 (generally located southwest of the City of Tracy). This route traverses the edge of the Coast Range to the west and Central Valley to the east. However, this officially designated scenic highway does not provide views of Lathrop or the immediate surrounding areas, and there are no sections of highway in the Lathrop vicinity eligible for Scenic Highway designation.

As previously described, the County has designated one scenic route, which is Interstate 5 from the Sacramento County line south to Stockton and does not provide views of the Planning Area.

Given that no adopted State scenic highways are located within the Planning Area or provide views of the Planning Area, State scenic highway impacts associated with General Plan implementation would be less than significant.

3.1 AESTHETICS AND VISUAL RESOURCES

3.1-12 Draft Environmental Impact Report – Lathrop General Plan Update Impact 3.1‐3: General Plan implementation would not, in a non‐urbanized area, substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of public views of the site and its surroundings, or in an urbanized area, conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality (Less than Significant)
CEQA Guidelines Section 15387 defines an urbanized area as a central city or a group of contiguous cities with a population of 50,000 or more, together with adjacent densely populated areas having a population density of at least 1,000 persons per square mile. The Planning Area consists of the City of Lathrop, which is an urbanized area, as well as various rural residential, agricultural, industrial, and open space uses located in the unincorporated and non‐urbanized portion of the Planning Area.

As described under Impact 3.1‐3, the city is largely developed with commercial, residential, and industrial uses concentrated along the Interstate 5 corridor and other major roadway corridors, including S. Harlan Road, Golden Valley Parkway, Lathrop Road, and Louise Avenue and residential neighborhoods occupying most other developed areas. Much of the undeveloped land within the Planning Area surrounding the urbanized portion of Lathrop is predominantly farmland, including alfalfa, orchards, row crops, and pasture, and rural residential uses.

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, professional, industrial, mixed use, and public/quasi‐public uses by the Land Use Map (Figure 2.0‐2).

Policies in the proposed General Plan are intended to complement and further the intent of these provisions regulating scenic quality and resources, and any development occurring under the proposed General Plan would be subject to compliance with these guidelines, as well as the applicable regulations set forth in the Lathrop Municipal Code. The General Plan includes policies and actions to promote land use compatibility, ensure that new development is consistent with design guidelines and compatible with surrounding uses, protect and conserve open space, agricultural, riparian habitats, and other scenic and natural resources, ensure that in‐fill development is designed to be sensitive to surrounding uses, and to strengthen the qualities of the city’s neighborhoods, districts, and downtown. The City’s Zoning Ordinance (City of Lathrop Municipal Code Title 17) is the primary tool meant to implement the General Plan. It consists of a zoning map defining the location of districts and code sections detailing requirements for each district. The Zoning Ordinance establishes specific, enforceable standards with which development must comply such as minimum lot size, maximum building height, minimum building setback, and a list of allowable uses. Zoning applies lot‐by‐lot, whereas the General Plan has a community‐wide perspective. Provisions pertaining to visual resources such as site‐specific design standards, preservation of open space, landscaping, trees, and signs, are addressed. State law requires the City’s Zoning Code to be consistent with the General Plan. Development as a result of the proposed General Plan will be required to be consistent with the zoning code. The proposed General Plan would therefore not substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of public views of the SOI and its surroundings. Scenic quality‐related impacts associated with the AESTHETICS AND VISUAL RESOURCES 3.1
Draft Environmental Impact Report – Lathrop General Plan Update 3.1-13 General Plan implementation would thus be less than significant. In order to further ensure that future development allowed under the General Plan would not degrade the existing visual character of the environment, the City has included the following policies and actions in the General Plan.

GENERAL PLAN GOALS, POLICIES, AND ACTIONS THAT MINIMIZE POTENTIAL IMPACTS GOALS
Goal LU‐5: Ensure that new development is compatible with existing development, Goal RR‐2: Protect and manage natural open space areas to provide scenic beauty and community enjoyment.

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

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

LU‐5.6 In considering land use change requests, consider factors such as compatibility with surrounding uses in terms of privacy, noise, and changes in traffic levels.

RR‐1.6 Design and Maintenance. Promote implementation of established design, construction, and facility maintenance standards to ensure that existing and future parks, recreational facilities, open space, and trails are of high quality in regard to safety, utility, environmental stewardship, and aesthetic quality.

RR‐2.1 Open Space Boundaries. Maintain existing open space lands within the city by carefully considering the impact of new development in established open space areas.

RR‐2.4 Education. Work with state, federal, and community partners to develop educational and other materials that promote the preservation and conservation of the city’s natural resources.

3.1 AESTHETICS AND VISUAL RESOURCES

3.1-14 Draft Environmental Impact Report – Lathrop General Plan Update

IMPLEMENTATION ACTIONS
LU‐5.a Through the development review process, screen development proposals for land use and transportation network compatibility with existing surrounding or abutting development or neighborhoods.

Impact 3.1‐4: General Plan implementation could result in the creation of new sources of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area (Less than Significant)
The primary sources of daytime glare are generally sunlight reflecting from structures and other reflective surfaces and windows. Implementation of the proposed General Plan would introduce new sources of daytime glare into previously undeveloped areas of the Planning Area and increase the amount of daytime glare in existing urbanized areas. The General Plan Land Use Map identifies areas for the future development of residential, commercial, industrial, recreational, and public uses. Such uses may utilize materials that produce glare. Daytime glare impacts would be most severe in the areas of the city that have not been previously disturbed, including vacant parcels designated for urbanized land uses, and in areas that receive a high level of daily viewership.

The primary sources of nighttime lighting are generally from exterior building lights, street lights, and vehicle headlights. Exterior lighting around commercial and industrial areas may be present throughout the night to facilitate extended employee work hours, ensure worker safety, and to provide security lighting around structures and facilities. Nighttime lighting impacts would be most severe in areas that do not currently experience high levels of nighttime lighting. Increased nighttime lighting can reduce visibility of the night sky, resulting in fewer stars being visible and generally detracting from the quality of life in Lathrop.

Future development would be required to be consistent with the General Plan, as well as lighting and design requirements in the City of Lathrop Municipal Code Title 17. Additionally, improvements such as landscape and street lighting, are subject to Site Plan and Architectural Design Review. Design Review procedures will be conducted for future development projects in compliance with 17.100 and 17.104 of the Lathrop Municipal Code. The proposed General Plan contains policies and actions, listed below, related to the regulation and reduction of daytime glare and nighttime lighting, including policies and actions related to compatible land uses and review requirements that will ensure future development projects are reviewed and required to limit potential impacts related to light and glare. Policy LU‐5.1 requires new development to be compatible, complementary and, where appropriate, well integrated with existing residential areas. Policy LU‐5.3 requires that new residential development be designed to protect residents from potential conflicts with adjacent land uses, and other features including rail corridors, and high‐volume roadways.

AESTHETICS AND VISUAL RESOURCES 3.1
Draft Environmental Impact Report – Lathrop General Plan Update 3.1-15 Through the implementation of policies and actions, contained in the General Plan, and adherence to zoning and review requirements during the development review process, the City can ensure that adverse impacts associated with daytime glare and nighttime lighting would be less than significant.

GENERAL PLAN GOALS, POLICIES, AND ACTIONS THAT MINIMIZE POTENTIAL IMPACTS Goal LU‐5: Ensure that new development is compatible with existing development

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

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

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

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

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

LU‐5.6 In considering land use change requests, consider factors such as compatibility with surrounding uses in terms of privacy, noise, and changes in traffic levels.

3.1 AESTHETICS AND VISUAL RESOURCES

3.1-16 Draft Environmental Impact Report – Lathrop General Plan Update

AGRICULTURAL AND FOREST RESOURCES 3.2
Draft Environmental Impact Report – Lathrop General Plan Update 3.2-1 This section provides a background discussion of agricultural lands, agricultural resources, and forest/timber resources found in the Lathrop Planning Area. This section is organized with an environmental setting, regulatory setting, and impact analysis.

One comment on this environmental topic were received during the NOP comment period from the California Department of Conservation.

The Department recommends discussion of the following issues:
• Type, amount, and location of farmland conversion resulting directly and indirectly from implementation of the proposed Project.
• Impacts on any current and future agricultural operations in the vicinity; e.g., land‐use conflicts, increases in land values and taxes, loss of agricultural support infrastructure such as processing facilities, etc.
• Incremental impacts leading to cumulative impacts on agricultural land. This would include impacts from the proposed Project, as well as impacts from past, current, and likely future projects.
• Proposed mitigation measures for all impacted agricultural lands within the proposed Project area.
• Projects compatibility with lands within an agricultural preserve and/or enrolled in a Williamson Act contract.
• If applicable, notification of Williamson Act contract non‐renewal and/or cancellation.

All comments received during the NOP comment period are included in Appendix A.

3.2.1 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING

AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES
San Joaquin County occupies a central location in California’s vast agricultural heartland, the San Joaquin Valley. The County’s Agricultural Commissioner’s most recent published Agricultural Reports (2017 and 2018) contains the following information relating to agriculture in the county.

San Joaquin County has a total land area of 1,391 square miles. The total acreage of crop land in the county is approximately 784,800. The gross value of agricultural production in San Joaquin County for 2018 was $2,594,246,000 which represents a 2.6 percent increase from 2017 when gross production value totaled $2,527,989,000. Table 3.2‐1 lists the top eight commodities in San Joaquin County in 2017 and 2018.

3.2 AGRICULTURAL AND FOREST RESOURCES

3.2-2 Draft Environmental Impact Report – Lathrop General Plan Update TABLE 3.2‐1: SUMMARY COMPARISON OF CROP VALUES
PRODUCT TYPE 2017 VALUE IN DOLLARS 2018 VALUE IN DOLLARS Field Crops $208,839,000.00 $200,369,000
Vegetable Crops $255,928,000.00 $245,902,000
Fruit and Nut Crops $1,362,531,000.00 $1,403,768,000
Nursery Products $117,294,000.00 $120,004,000
Livestock and Poultry $122,270,000.00 $120,100,000
Livestock and Poultry Products $429,910,000.00 $467,289,000 Seed Crops $4,671,000.00 $3,904,000
Apiary Products $26,546,000.00 $32,910,000
SOURCE: SAN JOAQUIN COUNTY AGRICULTURAL REPORT, 2017 AND 2018.

Agricultural Capability
The California Department of Conservation Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program identifies lands that have agriculture value and maintains a statewide map of these lands called the Important Farmlands Inventory (IFI). IFI classifies land based upon the productive capabilities of the land, rather than the mere presence of ideal soil conditions.

The suitability of soils for agricultural use is just one factor for determining the productive capabilities of land. Suitability is determined based on many characteristics, including fertility, slope, texture, drainage, depth, and salt content. A variety of classification systems have been devised by the state to categorize soil capabilities. The two most widely used systems are the Capability Classification System and the Storie Index. The Capability Classification System classifies soils from Class I to Class VIII based on their ability to support agriculture with Class I being the highest quality soil. The Storie Index considers other factors such as slope and texture to arrive at a rating. The IFI is in part based upon both of these two classification systems.

Soil Capability Classification
The Soil Capability Classification System takes into consideration soil limitations, the risk of damage when soils are used, and the way in which soils respond to treatment. Capability classes range from Class 1 soils, which have few limitations for agriculture, to Class 8 soils that are unsuitable for agriculture. Generally, as the rating of the capability classification increases, yields and profits are more difficult to obtain. A general description of soil classifications, as defined by the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) is provided in Table 3.2‐2 below.

A Custom Soil Survey was completed for the Planning Area using the NRCS Web Soil Survey program. Table 3.2‐3 identifies the soils and soil classifications found in the Planning Area. The NRCS Soils Map is provided on Figure 3.6‐3.

AGRICULTURAL AND FOREST RESOURCES 3.2
Draft Environmental Impact Report – Lathrop General Plan Update 3.2-3 TABLE 3.2‐2: SOIL CAPABILITY CLASSIFICATION

CLASS DEFINITION
1 Soils have slight limitations that restrict their use. 2 Soils have moderate limitations that restrict choice plants or that require moderate conservation practices.
3 Soils have severe limitations that restrict the choice of plants or that require special conservation practices, or both.
4 Soils have very severe limitations that restrict the choice of plants or that require very careful management, or both.
5 Soils are not likely to erode but have other limitations; impractical to remove that limits their use largely to pasture or range, woodland, or wildlife habitat. 6 Soils have severe limitations that make them generally unsuited to cultivation and limit their use largely to pasture or range, woodland, or wildlife habitat. 7 Soils have very severe limitations that make them unsuited to cultivation and that restrict their use largely to pasture or range, woodland, or wildlife habitat. 8 Soils and landforms have limitations that preclude their use for commercial plans and restrict their use to recreation, wildlife habitat, water supply, or aesthetic purposes.

SOURCE: USDA SOIL CONSERVATION SERVICE.

TABLE 3.2‐3: SOIL CLASSIFICATION

NAME ACRES

PERCENT OF

PLANNING AREA

CAPABILITY
CLASSIFICATION*
Bisgani loamy coarse sand, partially drained, 0 to 2 percent slopes 162.1 1.2% 3‐4
Boggiano clay loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes 5.4 0.0% 2‐4
Columbia fine sandy loam, channeled, partially drained, 0 to 2 percent slopes, frequently flooded 79.8 0.6% 2‐4
Columbia fine sandy loam, clayey substratum, partially
drained, 0 to 2 percent slopes 1,385.8 10.2% 2‐4
Columbia fine sandy loam, drained, 0 to 2 percent slopes 127.0 0.9% 4‐4 Columbia fine sandy loam, partially drained, 0 to 2 percent slopes, occasionally flooded 328.7 2.4% 2‐4
Delhi loamy sand, 0 to 2 percent slopes, MLRA 17 226.3 1.7% 3‐4 Dello clay loam, drained, 0 to 2 percent slopes, overwashed 109.3 0.8% 3‐4 Dello loamy sand, drained, 0 to 2 percent slopes 50.5 0.4% 3‐4 Dello sand, partially drained, 0 to 2 percent slopes,
occasionally flooded 14.5 0.1% 3‐4
Dello sandy loam, clayey substratum, drained, 0 to 2 percent slopes 267.5 2.0% 3‐4
Egbert silty clay loam, partially drained, 0 to 2 percent slopes 2,356.8 17.4% 2‐4 Grangeville clay loam, partially drained, 0 to 2 percent slopes 330.5 2.4% 2‐4 Grangeville fine sandy loam, partially drained, 0 to 2 percent slopes 333.1 2.5% 2‐4
Guard clay loam, drained, 0 to 2 percent slopes 148.9 1.1% 2‐4 Honcut sandy loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes 17.1 0.1% 2‐4
Manteca fine sandy loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes 653.2 4.8% 3‐4 Merritt silty clay loam, partially drained, 0 to 2 percent slopes 1,266.0 9.3% 2‐4

3.2 AGRICULTURAL AND FOREST RESOURCES

3.2-4 Draft Environmental Impact Report – Lathrop General Plan Update

NAME ACRES

PERCENT OF

PLANNING AREA

CAPABILITY
CLASSIFICATION*
Merritt silty clay loam, partially drained, 0 to 2 percent slopes, occasionally flooded 307.7 2.3% 2‐4
Scribner clay loam, partially drained, 0 to 2 percent slopes 121.0 0.9% 2‐3 Timor loamy sand, 0 to 2 percent slopes 471.9 3.5% 3‐4
Tinnin loamy coarse sand, 0 to 2 percent slopes 1,588.5 11.7% 3‐4 Urban land 1,164.7 8.6% 8‐8
Valdez silt loam, organic substratum, partially drained, 0 to 2 percent slopes 66.5 0.5% 3‐4
Veritas fine sandy loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes 1,560.8 11.5% 2‐4 Water 433.7 3.2% ‐‐
Total 13,577.3 100.0%
* DEPICTS IRRIGATED VS NON IRRIGATED CAPABILITY RATING
SOURCE: NRCS CUSTOM WEB SOIL SURVEY, 2018.

Important Farmlands
The California Department of Conservation (DOC), as part of its Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program (FMMP), prepares Important Farmland Maps indicating the potential value of land for agricultural production. The San Joaquin County Important Farmland Map identifies five agriculture‐related categories and three non‐agricultural categories:

Prime Farmland: Prime farmland is land with the best combination of physical and chemical features able to sustain long term agricultural production. This land has the soil quality, growing season, and moisture supply needed to produce sustained high yields. The land must have been used for irrigated agricultural production at some time during the four years prior to the mapping date.

Farmland of Statewide Importance: Farmland of statewide importance is farmland similar to Prime Farmland but with minor shortcomings, such as greater slopes or less ability to store soil moisture. The land must have been used for irrigated agricultural production at some time during the four years prior to the mapping date.

Unique Farmland: Unique farmland is farmland of lesser quality soils used for the production of the state's leading agricultural crops. This land is usually irrigated, but may include nonirrigated orchards or vineyards as found in some climatic zones in California. Land must have been cropped at some time during the four years prior to the mapping date.

Farmland of Local Importance: Farmland of local importance is considered land important to the local agricultural economy but does not meet the criteria of Prime Farmland, Farmland of Statewide Importance, or Unique Farmland. This includes land that is or has been used for irrigated pasture, dryland farming, confined livestock or dairy facilities, aquaculture, poultry facilities, and dry grazing. It also includes soils previously designated by soil characteristics as "Prime Farmland," "Farmland of Statewide Importance," and "Unique Farmland" that has since become idle.

AGRICULTURAL AND FOREST RESOURCES 3.2
Draft Environmental Impact Report – Lathrop General Plan Update 3.2-5 Grazing Land: Grazing land is land on which the existing vegetation is suitable for the grazing of livestock. This category was developed in cooperation with the California Cattlemen's Association, University of California Cooperative Extension, and other groups interested in the extent of grazing activities. The minimum mapping unit for this category is 40 acres.

Important Farmlands in Planning Area
The State of California Department of Conservation Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program and San Joaquin County GIS data were used to illustrate the farmland characteristics for the Planning Area. Farmlands in the Planning Area are identified in Table 3.2‐4 and are shown on Figure 3.2‐1. The farmland classifications for the site and surrounding area are described below.

TABLE 3.2‐4: FARMLAND CLASSIFICATION
LAND CLASSIFICATION CITY SOI TOTAL % OF TOTAL
D ‐ Urban/Built Up Land 4,220.8 221.7 4,442.50 33%
L ‐ Farmland of Local Importance 2,612.1 182.1 2,794.20 21% NV – Nonagricultural or Natural Vegetation 276.5 2.3 278.80 2% P – Prime Farmland 4,179.5 104.4 4,283.90 32%
R – Rural Residential 66.5 9.8 76.30 1%
S – Farmland of Statewide Importance 823.9 85.3 909.20 7% U ‐ Unique Farmland 172.4 1.1 173.50 1%
sAC ‐ Semi‐agricultural and Rural Commercial Land 261.8 51.6 313.40 2% V ‐ Vacant or Disturbed Land 270.1 30.0 300.10 2%
SOURCE: CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF CONSERVATION; NRCS CUSTOM WEB SOIL SURVEY, 2018.

Prime Farmland is farmland with the best combination of physical and chemical features able to sustain long term agricultural production. This land has the soil quality, growing season, and moisture supply needed to produce sustained high yields. Land must have been used for irrigated agricultural production at some time during the four years prior to the mapping date.

Approximately 4,283.90 acres of Prime Farmland is located within the Planning Area.

Farmland of Statewide Importance is farmland with characteristics similar to those of prime farmland but with minor shortcomings, such as greater slopes or less ability to store soil moisture.

Land must have been used for irrigated agricultural production at some time during the four years prior to the mapping date. Approximately 909.20 acres of Farmland of Statewide Importance is located within the Planning Area.

Unique Farmland is land which does not meet the criteria for Prime Farmland or Farmland of Statewide Importance, that has been used for the production of specific high economic value crops at some time during the two update cycles prior to the mapping date. It has the special combination of soil quality, location, growing season, and moisture supply needed to produce sustained high quality and/or high yields of a specific crop when treated and managed according to current farming methods. Examples of such crops may include oranges, olives, avocados, rice, grapes, and cut flowers. It does not include publicly owned lands for which there is an adopted policy preventing agricultural use. Approximately 173.50 acres of Unique Farmland is located within the Planning Area.

3.2 AGRICULTURAL AND FOREST RESOURCES

3.2-6 Draft Environmental Impact Report – Lathrop General Plan Update Farmland of Local Importance is land of importance to the local agricultural economy, as determined by each county's board of supervisors and a local advisory committee. Approximately 2,794.20 acres of Farmland of Local Importance is located within the Planning Area.

Urban and Built‐up Land includes Land occupied by structures with a building density of at least 1 unit to 1.5 acres, or approximately 6 structures to a 10‐acre parcel. This land is used for residential, industrial, commercial, construction, institutional, public administration, railroad and other transportation yards, cemeteries, airports, golf courses, sanitary landfills, sewage treatment, water control structures, and other developed purposes. Approximately 4,442.50 acres of Urban and Built‐Up Land is located within the Planning Area.

Rural Residential Land has a building density of less than 1 structure per 1.5 acres, but with at least one structure per 10 acres. Approximately 76.30 acres of Rural Residential Land is located within the Planning Area.

Vacant or Disturbed Land consists of open field areas that do not qualify for an agricultural category, mineral and oil extraction areas, and rural freeway interchanges. Approximately 300.10 acres of Vacant or Disturbed Land is located within the Planning Area.

Nonagricultural and Natural Vegetation covers heavily wooded, rocky or barren areas, riparian and wetland areas, grassland areas which do not qualify for Grazing Land due to their size or land management restrictions, and small water bodies. Constructed wetlands are also included in this category. Approximately 278.80 acres of Nonagricultural and Natural Vegetation Land is located within the Planning Area.

Semi‐Agricultural and Rural Commercial Land includes farmsteads, agricultural storage and packing sheds, unpaved parking areas, composting facilities, equine facilities, firewood lots, and campgrounds. Approximately 313.40 acres of Semi‐Agricultural and Rural Commercial Land is located within the Planning Area.

Farmland Conversion
Data from the Department of Conservation indicates that approximately 762 acres of Prime Farmland in the County was developed for other uses between 2014 and 2016, resulting in an existing total of 382,879 acres of Prime Farmland (42 percent of agricultural land). The remaining agricultural land is comprised of Farmland of Statewide Importance (9 percent), Unique Farmland (9 percent), Farmland of Local Importance (8 percent), and Grazing Land (14 percent). The types and acreages of farmland in 2014 and 2016 are shown below in Table 3.2‐5.

AGRICULTURAL AND FOREST RESOURCES 3.2
Draft Environmental Impact Report – Lathrop General Plan Update 3.2-7 TABLE 3.2‐5: SAN JOAQUIN COUNTY FARMLANDS SUMMARY AND CHANGE BY LAND USE CATEGORY

LAND USE CATEGORY
2014‐2016 ACREAGE CHANGES

TOTAL ACREAGE INVENTORIED

ACRES ACRES TOTAL NET

LOST GAINED ACREAGE

CHANGED

ACREAGE

CHANGED
2014 2016 (‐) (+) Acres Percent Acres Percent
Prime Farmland 382,879   42% 381,634   42% 4,338   3,093   7,431   ‐1,245 Farmland of
Statewide
Importance
82,271   9% 82,618   9% 1,189   1,536   2,725   347
Unique Farmland 76,415   8% 81,920   9% 830   6,335   7,165   5,505 Farmland of Local
Importance 73,429   8% 68,903   8% 9,150   4,624   13,774   ‐4,526

IMPORTANT

FARMLAND

SUBTOTAL
614,994 67% 615,075 67% 15,507 15,588 31,095 81 Grazing Land 132,950 15% 129,760 14% 3,385 195 3,580 ‐3,190

AGRICULTURAL LAND
SUBTOTAL 747,944 82% 744,835 82% 18,892 15,783 34,675 ‐3,109 Urban and Built‐up
Land 93,888 10% 95,329 10% 365 1,806 2,171 1,441 Other Land 59,004 6% 60,602 7% 1,482 3,080 4,562 1,598 Water Area 11,766 1% 11,836 1% 235 305 540 70

TOTAL AREA
INVENTORIED 912,602 100% 912,602 100% 20,974 20,974 41,948 0 SOURCE: CA DEPARTMENT OF CONSERVATION, DIVISION OF LAND RESOURCE PROTECTION TABLE A‐30, 2016.

Farmland Preservation
The Williamson Act authorizes each County to establish an agricultural preserve. Land that is within the agricultural preserve is eligible to be placed under a contract between the property owner and County that would restrict the use of the land to agriculture in exchange for a tax assessment that is based on the yearly production yield. The contracts have a 10‐year term that is automatically renewed each year, unless the property owner requests a non‐renewal or the contract is cancelled. If the contract is cancelled the property owner is assessed a fee of up to 12.5 percent of the property value.

Table 3.2‐6 shows lands within the city and SOI that are under a Williamson Act contract and the status of the contract. Figure 3.2‐2 shows Williamson Act Contracts within the city and Planning Area.

TABLE 3.2‐6: SUMMARY OF WILLIAMSON ACT CONTRACTS (CITY LIMITS AND SOI) CONTRACT LOCATION AND TYPE TOTAL ACRES
WA‐Non‐Prime 228.9
Total 228.9
SOURCE: CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF CONSERVATION, SAN JOAQUIN COUNTY, WILLIAMSON ACT Agricultural Zoning
No lands within the City of Lathrop are designated or zoned exclusively for agricultural uses.

However, Land within the city are designated for Reserve Conservation and Open Space District

3.2 AGRICULTURAL AND FOREST RESOURCES

3.2-8 Draft Environmental Impact Report – Lathrop General Plan Update (RCO). This district is intended to provide for permanent open spaces in areas of the community which exhibit significant vegetation or wildlife, wetlands, bodies of water or water courses, mineral resources, scenic qualities or recreation potential, and which are designated as open space, school or college sites or as agriculture by the general plan. This district is further intended to be applied to lands within the city which are subject to an agricultural land conservation contract under provisions of the Williamson Act. (Prior code § 173.01) Lands zoned for agricultural use by San Joaquin County are included within portions of the SOI.

Further, there are lands adjacent the Planning Area that are zoned for agricultural use. These include lands that are designated as General Agriculture by the San Joaquin General Plan and zoned for Agriculture with minimum parcel size of 40 acres (AG‐40).

FOREST RESOURCES
Forest land is defined by Public Resources Code Section 12220(g), and includes "land that can support 10‐percent native tree cover of any species, including hardwoods, under natural conditions, and that allows for management of one or more forest resources, including timber, aesthetics, fish and wildlife, biodiversity, water quality, recreation, and other public benefits.” Timber land is defined by Public Resources Code Section 4526, and means “land, other than land owned by the federal government and land designated by the board as experimental forest land, which is available for, and capable of, growing a crop of trees of a commercial species used to produce lumber and other forest products, including Christmas trees. Commercial species shall be determined by the board on a district basis.”
There are no forest lands or timber lands located within the Lathrop Planning Area.

3.2.2 REGULATORY SETTING

FEDERAL
Farmland Protection Policy Act
The Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), an agency within the U.S. Department of Agriculture, is responsible for implementation of the Farmland Protection Policy Act (FPPA). The purpose of the FPPA is to minimize Federal programs' contribution to the conversion of farmland to non‐agricultural uses by ensuring that Federal programs are administered in a manner that is compatible with state, local, and private programs designed to protect farmland. The NRCS provides technical assistance to Federal agencies, state and local governments, tribes, and nonprofit organizations that desire to develop farmland protection programs and policies. The NRCS summarizes FPPA implementation in an annual report to Congress.

Farm and Ranch Lands Protection Program
The NRCS administers the Farm and Ranch Lands Protection Program (FRPP), a voluntary program aimed at keeping productive farmland in agricultural uses. Under the FRPP, the NRCS provides matching funds to state, local, or tribal government entities and nonprofit organizations with AGRICULTURAL AND FOREST RESOURCES 3.2
Draft Environmental Impact Report – Lathrop General Plan Update 3.2-9 existing farmland protection programs to purchase conservation easements. According to the 1996 Farm Bill, the goal of the program is to protect between 170,000 and 340,000 acres of farmland per year. Participating landowners agree not to convert the land to non‐agricultural use and retain all rights to use the property for agriculture. A conservation plan must be developed for all lands enrolled based upon the standards contained in the NRCS Field Office Technical Guide. A minimum of 30 years is required for conservation easements and priority is given to applications with perpetual easements. The NRCS provides up to 50 percent of the fair market value of the easement being conserved (NRCS, 2004). To qualify for a conservation easement, farm or ranch land must meet several criteria. The land must be:
 Prime, Unique, or other productive soil, as defined by NRCS based on factors such as water moisture regimes, available water capacity, developed irrigation water supply, soil temperature range, acid‐alkali balance, water table, soil sodium content, potential for flooding, erodibility, permeability rate, rock fragment content, and soil rooting depth;  Included in a pending offer to be managed by a nonprofit organization, state, tribal, or local farmland protection program;
 Privately owned;
 Placed under a conservation plan;
 Large enough to sustain agricultural production;
 Accessible to markets for the crop that the land produces; and  Surrounded by parcels of land that can support long‐term agricultural production.

STATE
California Department of Conservation
The DOC administers and supports a number of programs, including the Williamson Act, the California Farmland Conservancy Program (CFCP), the Williamson Act Easement Exchange Program (WAEEP), and the FMMP. These programs are designed to preserve agricultural land and provide data on conversion of agricultural land to urban use. The DOC has authority for the approval of agreements entered into under the WAEEP. Key DOC tools available for land conservation planning are conservation grants, tax incentives to keep land in agriculture or open space, and farmland mapping and monitoring.

Williamson Act
The California Land Conservation Act, also known as the Williamson Act, was adopted in 1965 to encourage the preservation of the state's agricultural lands and to prevent their premature conversion to urban uses. In order to preserve these uses, the Act established an agricultural preserve contract procedure by which any county or city taxes landowners at a lower rate, using a scale based on the actual use of the land for agricultural purposes, as opposed to its unrestricted market value. In return, the owners guarantee that these properties remain under agricultural production for a 10‐year period. The contract is self‐renewing; however, the landowner may notify the county or city at any time of the intent to withdraw the land from its preserve status. There are two means by which the landowner may withdraw the land from its contract preserve status.

3.2 AGRICULTURAL AND FOREST RESOURCES

3.2-10 Draft Environmental Impact Report – Lathrop General Plan Update First, the landowner may seek to cancel the contract. This takes the land out of the contract quickly with a minimal waiting period but the landowner pays a statutory penalty to the State.

Second, the landowner may notice a non‐renewal or seek a partial non‐renewal of the contract.

Land withdrawal through the non‐renewal process involves a 9‐ or 10‐year period (depending on the timing of the notice) of tax adjustment to full market value before protected open space can be converted to urban uses.

Williamson Act subvention payments to local governments have been suspended since the fiscal year 2009‐10 due to the State’s fiscal constraints. The Williamson Act contracts between landowners and local governments remain in force, regardless of the availability of subvention payments.

Farmland Security Zones
A Farmland Security Zone is an area created within an agricultural preserve by a board of supervisors (board) or city council (council) upon request by a landowner or group of landowners.

An agricultural preserve defines the boundary of an area within which a city or county will enter into contracts with landowners. The boundary is designated by resolution of the board or council having jurisdiction. Agricultural preserves must generally be at least 100 acres in size. Farmland Security Zone contracts offer landowners greater property tax reduction. Land restricted by a Farmland Security Zone contract is valued for property assessment purposes at 65% of its Williamson Act valuation or 65% of its Proposition 13 valuation, whichever is lower.

Delta Reform Act
The California Legislature passed the Johnston‐Baker‐Andal‐Boatwright Delta Protection Act of 1992 (Delta Protection Act) on September 23, 1992 and it was updated in 2009 and renamed the Delta Reform Act. The Act provided the means to prepare the Land Use and Resource Management Plan (2010) for the Primary Zone of the Delta. The Management Plan includes policies and recommendations with the overall goal to “protect, maintain, and where possible, enhance and restore the overall quality of the Delta environment, including but not limited to agriculture, wildlife habitat, and recreational activities.” The following are the applicable policies with relation to agriculture:

Policy P‐3. New non‐agriculturally oriented residential, recreational, commercial, habitat, restoration or industrial development shall ensure that appropriate buffer areas are provided by those proposing new development to prevent conflicts between any proposed use and existing adjacent agricultural parcels. Buffers shall adequately protect the integrity of land for existing and future agricultural uses and shall not include uses that conflict with agricultural operations on adjacent agricultural lands. Appropriate buffer setbacks shall be determined in consultation with local Agricultural Commissioners, and shall be based on applicable general plan policies and criteria included in Right‐to‐Farm Ordinances adopted by local jurisdictions.

AGRICULTURAL AND FOREST RESOURCES 3.2
Draft Environmental Impact Report – Lathrop General Plan Update 3.2-11 California Government Code Section 56064
This section of the Government Codes defines “Prime agricultural land” as follows:
 Prime agricultural land means an area of land, whether a single parcel or contiguous parcels, that has not been developed for a use other than an agricultural use and that meets any of the following qualifications:
o Land that qualifies, if irrigated, for rating as class I or class II in the USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service land use capability classification, whether or not land is actually irrigated, provided that irrigation is feasible. o Land that qualifies for rating 80 through 100 Storie Index Rating. o Land that supports livestock used for the production of food and fiber and that has an annual carrying capacity equivalent to at least one animal unit per acre as defined by the United States Department of Agriculture in the National Range and Pasture Handbook, Revision 1, December 2003.
o Land planted with fruit or nut‐bearing trees, vines, bushes, or crops that have a nonbearing period of less than five years and that will re‐turn during the commercial bearing period on an annual basis from the production of unprocessed agricultural plant production not less than four hundred dollars ($400) per acre. o Land that has returned from the production of unprocessed agricultural plant products an annual gross value of not less than four hundred dollars ($400) per acre for three of the previous five calendar years.

Forest Practices Rules
The California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CalFire) implements the laws that regulate timber harvesting on privately‐owned lands. These laws are contained in the Z'berg‐ Nejedly Forest Practice Act of 1973 which established a set of rules known as the Forest Practice Rules (FPRs) to be applied to forest management related activities (i.e., timber harvests, timberland conversions, fire hazard removal, etc.). They are intended to ensure that timber harvesting is conducted in a manner that will preserve and protect fish, wildlife, forests, and streams. Under the Forest Practice Act, a Timber Harvesting Plan (THP) is submitted to CalFire by the landowner outlining what timber is proposed to be harvested, harvesting method, and the steps that will be taken to prevent damage to the environment. If the landowner intends to convert timberland to non‐timberland uses, such as a winery or vineyard, a Timberland Conversion Permit (TCP) is required in addition to the THP. It is CalFire's intent that a THP will not be approved which fails to adopt feasible mitigation measures or alternatives from the range of measures set out or provided for in the Forest Practice Rules, which would substantially lessen or avoid significant adverse environmental impacts resulting from timber harvest activities. THPs are required to be prepared by Registered Professional Foresters (RPFs) who are licensed to prepare these plans (CalFire, 2007). For projects involving TCPs, CalFire acts as lead agency under CEQA, and the county or city acts as a responsible agency.

3.2 AGRICULTURAL AND FOREST RESOURCES

3.2-12 Draft Environmental Impact Report – Lathrop General Plan Update LOCAL
City of Lathrop Municipal Code‐Agricultural Land Preservation (Chapter

15.48)
The City’s Agricultural Land Preservation Chapter (15.48.), was adopted to conserve and protect agricultural land in the city and protect agricultural landowners from nuisance complaints related to cultivation, irrigation, spraying, fertilizing, and other activities related to normal agricultural operations. Per Section 15.48.040, a disclosure statement is required whenever adjacent property is sold or building permit application is submitted, notifying the prospective buyer/applicant of adjacent agricultural land and possible discomforts and nuisance factors related to agricultural operations. The focus of the ordinance is to reduce the loss of agricultural resources in the city by clarifying the circumstances under which agricultural operations may be considered a nuisance.

California Farmland Trust
The California Farmland Trust is a private, non‐profit, regional land trust working in Sacramento, San Joaquin, Stanislaus and Merced Counties of California. The organization works to preserve farmland through the purchase of agricultural conservation easements from willing landowners.

City of Lathrop Agricultural Mitigation
The City of Lathrop adopted an agricultural mitigation program in 2005, as a result of the settlement of a water transfer lawsuit against the cities of Lathrop, Manteca, and Tracy by the Sierra Club. The mitigation program adopted by the City of Lathrop required that future development pay $2,000/acre for agricultural mitigation. Half of the mitigation ($1,000/acre) will be paid to the California Farmland Trust. The other $1,000/acre will be collected by the City of Lathrop and may be passed to the CVFT or other trust, or may be retained by the City of Lathrop to be applied to local easements or other agricultural mitigation. This fee structure included an automatic escalator, so the fee as of March 2022 is $3,183 per gross acre. Since 2005 several developments entered into separate Settlement Agreements related to Agricultural Mitigation which is summarized below (adjusted to 2022 fee):

1. River Islands was required to pay $3,501 per acre.

2. Central Lathrop Specific Plan (CLSP) was required to pay $4,774 per acre.

3. All other developments in the city are required to pay $3,183 per acre.

These Agricultural Mitigation amounts discussed above are in addition to fees imposed as part of the San Joaquin Multi‐Species Conservation Plan (SJMSCP). The adopted SJMSCP includes a commitment to spend 75% of the dollars collected on lands which would benefit agricultural resources. The SJMSCP fees are considered a separate Mitigation Fee obligation from the Agricultural Mitigation fees, but in many cases serve the same purpose. The SJMSCP is a voluntary program in lieu of conducting independent biological assessments. Most development proponents chose to comply with the SJMSCP.

AGRICULTURAL AND FOREST RESOURCES 3.2
Draft Environmental Impact Report – Lathrop General Plan Update 3.2-13 Local Agency Formation Commission Boundary Controls
The San Joaquin Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) is responsible for coordinating orderly amendments to local jurisdictional boundaries, including annexations. Annexation to the City of Lathrop would be subject to LAFCO approval, and LAFCO’s decision is governed by state law (Gov’t Code § 56001 et seq.) and the local LAFCO Policies and Procedures. State law requires LAFCOs to consider agricultural land and open space preservation in all decisions related to expansion of urban development. LAFCO’s definition of Prime agricultural land refers to California Government Code Section 56064.3, which is described above under the State Regulatory Setting.

San Joaquin County Multi‐Species Habitat Conservation and Open Space Plan (SJMSCP)
The SJMSCP provides comprehensive measures for compensation and avoidance of impacts on various biological resources, which includes ancillary benefits to agricultural resources. For instance, many of the habitat easements that are purchased or facilitated by the SJMSCP program are targeted for the protection of Swainson’s hawk or other sensitive species habitat that are dependent on agricultural lands. The biological mitigation for these species through the SJMSCP includes the purchase of certain conservation easements for habitat purposes; however, the conservation easements are placed over agricultural land, such as alfalfa and row crops (not vines or orchards). As such, SJMSCP fees paid to SJCOG as administrator of the SJMSCP will result in the preservation of agricultural lands in perpetuity.

3.2.3 IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES

THRESHOLDS OF SIGNIFICANCE
Consistent with Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, the proposed Project will have a significant impact on agricultural and forest resources if it will:
 Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non‐agricultural use;  Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract;  Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code section 12220(g)) or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined in Public Resources Code section 51104 (g));
 Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non‐forest use; or  Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non‐agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non‐forest use.

There are no forest lands or timber lands located within the Planning Area. There are also no parcels that are currently zoned as forest land, timber, or timber production. Therefore, implementation of the proposed General Plan would have no impact on forest land, timber, or timber production and this impact will not be discussed further.

3.2 AGRICULTURAL AND FOREST RESOURCES

3.2-14 Draft Environmental Impact Report – Lathrop General Plan Update

IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
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)
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 Urban and Built‐Up.

While the proposed General Plan Land Use Map specifically identifies a range of land use designations that would not result in urban development or the future conversion of prime farmlands, including Urban Reserve, Resource Conservation, and Open Space, it also designates a range of residential, commercial, industrial, public/quasi‐public, and other uses that would convert identified prime farmland to urban and built up land. Therefore, the proposed Lathrop General Plan has the potential to convert farmland to non‐agricultural uses.

It is important to note that there are no designated agricultural land uses within the Lathrop City Limits, and that nearly all of the land within the Lathrop Planning Area is currently designated for urban land uses (i.e., residential single family, multi‐family, public and institutional, mixed use and commercial). Land uses surrounding the Planning Area consist largely of agricultural lands and other similar non‐urban land uses, none of which are proposed for designation as a non‐ agricultural use.

The Planning Area does contain prime soils as defined by the California Department of Conservation, Agricultural Conservation and Mitigation Program. According to the Agricultural Conservation and Mitigation Program Farmland shall be considered prime farmland if it meets the definition of "prime agricultural land" in Government Code Section 51201. Government Code Section 51201 states that prime agricultural land means any of the following:
(1) All land that qualifies for rating as class I or class II in the Natural Resource Conservation Service land use capability classifications.
(2) Land which qualifies for rating 80 through 100 in the Storie Index Rating. (3) Land which supports livestock used for the production of food and fiber and which has an annual carrying capacity equivalent to at least one animal unit per acre as defined by the United States Department of Agriculture.
(4) Land planted with fruit‐ or nut‐bearing trees, vines, bushes, or crops which have a nonbearing period of less than five years and which will normally return during the commercial bearing period on an annual basis from the production of unprocessed agricultural plant production not less than two hundred dollars ($200) per acre.

AGRICULTURAL AND FOREST RESOURCES 3.2
Draft Environmental Impact Report – Lathrop General Plan Update 3.2-15 (5) Land which has returned from the production of unprocessed agricultural plant products an annual gross value of not less than two hundred dollars ($200) per acre for three of the previous five years.

Conversion of farmland as a result of Plan implementation is considered a significant impact. The proposed General Plan includes policies and action, identified below, that are intended to reduce the impacts to farmlands, including Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, and Farmland of Statewide Importance. These include policies that discourage the conversion of agricultural lands surrounding the city (within the unincorporated areas of San Joaquin County) and ensuring that urban development near existing agricultural lands will not unnecessarily constrain agricultural practices or adversely affect the economic viability of nearby agricultural operations. Overall, the policies and actions included in the proposed General Plan are intended to support and preserve the agricultural heritage of Lathrop as development continues to occur within the Planning Area.

In addition to the proposed General Plan’s policies and actions, the City implements other programs and regulations aimed at protecting agricultural lands throughout the Planning Area. For example, as described previously the City of Lathrop adopted an agricultural mitigation program that includes the City’s agricultural land mitigation requirements. In order to mitigate and offset the loss of valuable farmland resources, the City requires an agricultural mitigation fee for projects that permanently change agricultural land over one acre in size within the City’s jurisdiction to non‐agricultural uses. The in lieu fee, paid to the City, is placed in a trust account and used for farmland mitigation purposes. Additionally, the SJMSCP provides for the preservation of productive agriculture and is administered by the San Joaquin Council of Governments (SJCOG). In conformance with the SJMSCP, the General Plan recognizes that agricultural use of the Plan Area would be phased out as the Plan Area develops with residential, governmental, industrial and commercial uses and requires that project applicants pay fees to SJCOG on a per‐acre basis for designated agricultural lands that are converted to urban use. SJCOG will then use these funds to purchase conservation easements on agricultural and habitat lands in the project vicinity.

The proposed General Plan would accommodate development that would result in the conversion of farmlands within the Planning Area to non‐agricultural uses. The conversion of these farmlands requires mitigation through the City of Lathrop agricultural mitigation program, as described previously. While the above‐identified impact would be reduced through preservation of agricultural land through complacence with the City’s’ mitigation program and SJMSCP requirements, the impact would not be reduced to a less‐than‐significant level due to the fact that active agricultural land would still be permanently converted to urban uses. Policies and actions included within the proposed General Plan would reduce impacts to agricultural operations by supporting agricultural uses, reducing land use conflicts, and collecting development impacts fees for the conversions of Farmlands. The proposed General Plan Land Use Map does not designate any new areas of the city or planning area for urban development that were not already identified and designated for developed uses. Therefore, impacts to the conversion of agricultural lands would remain. Therefore, the impact would remain significant and unavoidable.

3.2 AGRICULTURAL AND FOREST RESOURCES

3.2-16 Draft Environmental Impact Report – Lathrop General Plan Update

GENERAL PLAN POLICIES AND ACTIONS THAT MINIMIZE POTENTIAL IMPACTS

POLICIES
LU‐7.1 Encourage San Joaquin County to retain existing agricultural land use designations in areas outside of the Lathrop SOI.

LU‐7.2 Support the continuation of agricultural operations and activities on lands adjacent to the SOI and within the City’s Area of Influence.

LU‐7.3 Allow and support the continuation of agricultural operations on lands within the City limits which are designed for urban uses until such time as urban development is proposed for the land.

IMPLEMENTATION ACTIONS
LU‐7.a Continue to implement the City’s Agricultural Land Preservation Ordinance in order to protect existing agricultural operations from nuisance complaints, and to reduce impacts to future sensitive receptors proposed in close proximity to agricultural operations.

LU‐7.b Consider requiring buffering features between new urban uses and commercial agricultural uses, including but not limited to, landscaping, trails, gardens, solar arrays, and open spaces.

Impact 3.2‐2: General Plan Implementation would conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act Contract (Significant and Unavoidable)
While lands within the city are not zoned for agricultural use, areas adjacent to the city include lands zoned for agricultural use by San Joaquin County. These include lands that are designated as General Agriculture by the San Joaquin General Plan and zoned for Agriculture uses. Therefore, implementation of the General Plan may have the potential to conflict with lands zoned for agricultural uses. The Planning Area also includes lands that are under a Williamson Act Contract.

Under the proposed General Plan Land Use Map, the approximately 229 acres of Williamson Act Contract land are proposed for residential land uses. Therefore, the implementation of the proposed General Plan could conflict with existing Williamson Act Contracts because non‐agricultural uses are allowed on the existing Contract land. As a result, the proposed Project could result in a significant impact on existing Williamson Act Contract land.

The proposed General Plan includes policies and actions, listed previously under Impact 3.1‐1, that are intended to reduce conflicts between existing agricultural and Williamson Act lands with new development as a result of the proposed General Plan. These include policies which help explicitly minimize conflicts between agricultural and urban land uses including promoting the establishment of adequate buffers between agricultural and urban land uses.

While the potential for conflicts between agricultural uses and non‐agricultural uses would be minimized through the policies, actions, and requirements described previously, the General Plan AGRICULTURAL AND FOREST RESOURCES 3.2
Draft Environmental Impact Report – Lathrop General Plan Update 3.2-17 would allow the conversion of approximately 229 acres of properties with Williamson Act Contracts to be developed with non‐agricultural uses. This is considered a significant and unavoidable impact.

Impact 3.2‐3: General Plan implementation would not result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non‐forest use (No Impact) The Planning Area does not contain parcels designated as forest land and the proposed General Plan does not propose uses that would convert existing forest land to non‐forest use. Therefore, the Project would result in no impact regarding the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non‐forest use.

Impact 3.2‐4: General Plan implementation would not involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland to non‐agricultural use (Less than Significant)
As discussed in Impact 3.2‐1, future development in accordance with the proposed General Plan would result in the conversion of farmland to a non‐agricultural use. The proposed General Plan would allow new urban uses that have the potential to conflict with existing agricultural operations. Future development in areas within the Planning Area may involve other changes in the existing environment that could result in the conversion of farmland. However, as mentioned previously the proposed General Plan includes policies which would reduce the impact of development resulting in the conversion of existing farmland. This includes policies which encourage agricultural land uses in areas outside of Lathrop while supporting the continuation of agricultural operations and activities on lands adjacent to the SOI and with the City’s Area of Influence, and within the city.

Adherence to the policies and actions stated above would ensure that projects include adequate measures to buffer project uses from adjacent agricultural uses and would reduce adverse effects on neighboring agricultural uses, while supporting ongoing agricultural operations in areas within and surrounding the city. Additionally, the City, through the proposed Land Use Map, has ensured that all future growth within Lathrop would occur within the existing city footprint and in areas that are currently designated for developed uses. This inward growth strategy aims to preserve surrounding lands and conservation areas. Therefore, the proposed General Plan would result in a less than significant impact involving other changes in the existing environment that could result in the conversion of farmland.

3.2 AGRICULTURAL AND FOREST RESOURCES

3.2-18 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 Islands Pk
W Woodward Av
W Louise Av
S Mckinley Av
D Arcy Pk
E Roth Rd
W Yosemite Av
E Louise Av
E Lathrop Rd
O St
J St
Mckinley Av
N Airport Wy
Harlan Rd
S Manthey Rd S Manthey Rd
Land Park Dr
Golden Valley Pk
Nestle Wy
W Howard Rd
Howland Rd
Barbara Terry Bl
Mckee Bl
Thomsen Rd
Cambridge Dr
Walthall Slough
Grant Line Canal
§¨¦5
§¨¦5
UV120
§¨¦205

CITY OF LATHROP GENERAL PLAN UPDATE
Figure 3.2-1. Important Farmlands
Legend
Lathrop City Boundary
Manteca City Boundary
Lathrop Sphere of Influence
Prime Farmland
Farmland of Statewide Importance
Unique Farmland
Farmland of Local Importance
Confined Animal Agriculture
Nonagricultural or Natural Vegetation
Vacant or Disturbed Land
Rural Residential Land
Semi-agricultural and Rural Commercial Land
Urban and Built-Up Land
Water Area
Í 0 ¼ ½
Miles
Sources: San Joaquin County;
City of Lathrop; CA Dept of
Conservation, 2014
Map date: January 17, 2018.

San Joaquin R.

Important Farmland Type Acres within City Acres within SOI Prime Farmland 4,179.5 104.4
Farmland of Statewide Importance 823.9 85.3
Unique Farmland 172.4 1.1
Farmland of Local Importance 2,612.1 182.1
Nonagricultural or Natural Vegetation 276.5 2.3
Vacant or Distrubed Land 270.1 30.0
Rural Residential Land 66.5 9.8
Semi-agricultural and Rural Commercial Land 261.8 51.6
Urban and Built-Up Land 4,220.8 221.7

3.2 AGRICULTURAL AND FOREST RESOURCES

3.2-20 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.

CITY OF LATHROP GENERAL PLAN UPDATE
Figure 3.2-2. Williamson Act Land
Legend
Lathrop City Boundary
Manteca City Boundary
Lathrop Sphere of Influence
Williamson Act Lands
Farmland Security Zone
Nonrenewal
Prime
Nonprime (228.9 ac in City Limits)
Urban and Built-Up Land
Í 0 ¼ ½
Miles
Sources: San Joaquin County;
City of Lathrop; CA Dept of
Conservation, 2014
Map date: January 17, 2018.

San Joaquin R.

3.2 AGRICULTURAL AND FOREST RESOURCES

3.2-22 Draft Environmental Impact Report – Lathrop General Plan Update This page left intentionally blank
AIR QUALITY 3.3
Draft Environmental Impact Report – Lathrop General Plan Update 3.3-1 This section describes the regional air quality, current attainment status of the applicable air basin, local sensitive receptors, emission sources, and impacts that are likely to result from the proposed Project’s implementation.

There was one comment letter (San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District– November 2, 2021), and one Notice of Preparation Meeting comment (Mary Meninga/Adriana Lopez) related to this environmental topic during the NOP comment period. All comments received during the NOP comment period are included in Appendix A.

3.3.1 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING

SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY AIR BASIN
The City of Lathrop (City) is in the southern portion of the San Joaquin Air Basin (SJVAB). The SJVAB consists of eight counties: Fresno, Kern (western and central), Kings, Tulare, Madera, Merced, San Joaquin, and Stanislaus. Air pollution from significant activities in the SJVAB includes a variety of industrial‐based sources as well as on‐ and off‐road mobile sources. These sources, coupled with geographical and meteorological conditions unique to the area, stimulate the formation of unhealthy air.

The SJVAB is approximately 250 miles long and an average of 35 miles wide. It is bordered by the Sierra Nevada in the east, the Coast Ranges in the west, and the Tehachapi mountains in the south.

There is a slight downward elevation gradient from Bakersfield in the southeast end (elevation 408 feet) to sea level at the northwest end where the valley opens to the San Francisco Bay at the Carquinez Straits. At its northern end is the Sacramento Valley, which comprises the northern half of California’s Central Valley. The bowl‐shaped topography inhibits movement of pollutants out of the valley (San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (SJVAPCD), 2015).

Climate
The SJVAB is in a Mediterranean climate zone and is influenced by a subtropical high‐pressure cell most of the year. Mediterranean climates are characterized by sparse rainfall, which occurs mainly in winter. Summers are hot and dry. Summertime maximum temperatures often exceed 100°F in the valley.

The subtropical high‐pressure cell is strongest during spring, summer, and fall and produces subsiding air, which can result in temperature inversions in the valley. A temperature inversion can act like a lid, inhibiting vertical mixing of the air mass at the surface. Any emissions of pollutants can be trapped below the inversion. Most of the surrounding mountains are above the normal height of summer inversions (1,500 to 3,000 feet).

Winter‐time high pressure events can often last many weeks, with surface temperatures often lowering into the 30°F. During these events, fog can be present and inversions are extremely strong. These wintertime inversions can inhibit vertical mixing of pollutants to a few hundred feet (SJVAPCD, 2015).

3.3 AIR QUALITY

3.3-2 Draft Environmental Impact Report – Lathrop General Plan Update Wind Patterns
Wind speed and direction play an important role in dispersion and transport of air pollutants.

Wind at the surface and aloft can disperse pollution by mixing and transporting it to other locations.

Especially in summer, winds in the San Joaquin Valley most frequently blow from the northwest.

The region’s topographic features restrict air movement and channel the air mass towards the southeastern end of the valley. Marine air can flow into the basin from the San Joaquin River Delta and over Altamont Pass and Pacheco Pass, where it can flow along the axis of the valley, over the Tehachapi pass, into the Southeast Desert Air Basin. This wind pattern contributes to transporting pollutants from the Sacramento Valley and the Bay Area into the SJVAB. Approximately 27 percent of the total emissions in the northern portion, 11 percent of total emissions in the central region, and 7 percent of total emission in the south valley of the SJVAB are attributed to air pollution transported from these two areas.1 The Coastal Range is a barrier to air movement to the west and the high Sierra Nevada range is a significant barrier to the east (the highest peaks in the southern Sierra Nevada reach almost halfway through the Earth’s atmosphere). Many days in the winter are marked by stagnation events where winds are very weak. Transport of pollutants during winter can be very limited. A secondary but significant summer wind pattern is from the southeast and can be associated with nighttime drainage winds, prefrontal conditions, and summer monsoons.

Two significant diurnal wind cycles that occur frequently in the valley are the sea breeze and mountain‐valley upslope and drainage flows. The sea breeze can accentuate the northwest wind flow, especially on summer afternoons. Nighttime drainage flows can accentuate the southeast movement of air down the valley. In the mountains during periods of weak synoptic scale winds, winds tend to be upslope during the day and downslope at night. Nighttime and drainage flows are especially pronounced during the winter when flow from the easterly direction is enhanced by nighttime cooling in the Sierra Nevada. Eddies can form in the valley wind flow and can recirculate a polluted air mass for an extended period.

Temperature
Solar radiation and temperature are particularly important in the chemistry of ozone formation.

The SJVAB averages over 260 sunny days per year. Photochemical air pollution (primarily ozone) is produced by the atmospheric reaction of organic substances (such as volatile organic compounds) and nitrogen dioxide under the influence of sunlight. Ozone concentrations are very dependent on the amount of solar radiation, especially during late spring, summer, and early fall. Ozone levels typically peak in the afternoon. After the sun goes down, the chemical reaction between nitrous oxide and ozone begins to dominate. This reaction tends to scavenge and remove the ozone in the metropolitan areas through the early morning hours, resulting in the lowest ozone levels, possibly reaching zero at sunrise in areas with high nitrogen oxides emissions. At sunrise, nitrogen oxides

1 SJVAPCD. Frequently Asked Questions,
http://www.valleyair.org/general_info/frequently_asked_questions.htm#What%20is%20being%20done%20 to%20improve%20ai r%20quality%20in%20the%20San%20Joaquin%20Valley, accessed March 3, 2020.

AIR QUALITY 3.3
Draft Environmental Impact Report – Lathrop General Plan Update 3.3-3 tend to peak, partly due to low levels of ozone at this time and also due to the morning commuter vehicle emissions of nitrogen oxides.

Generally, the higher the temperature, the more ozone formed, since reaction rates increase with temperature. However, extremely hot temperatures can “lift” or “break” the inversion layer.

Typically, if the inversion layer does not lift to allow the buildup of contaminants to be dispersed, the ozone levels will peak in the late afternoon. If the inversion layer breaks and the resultant afternoon winds occur, the ozone will peak in the early afternoon and decrease in the late afternoon as the contaminants are dispersed or transported out of the SJVAB.

Ozone levels are low during winter periods when there is much less sunlight to drive the photochemical reaction (SJVAPCD, 2015).

Precipitation, Humidity, and Fog
Precipitation and fog may reduce or limit some pollutant concentrations. Ozone needs sunlight for its formation, and clouds and fog can block the required solar radiation. Wet fogs can cleanse the air during winter as moisture collects on particles and deposits them on the ground. Atmospheric moisture can also increase pollution levels. In fogs with less water content, the moisture acts to form secondary ammonium nitrate particulate matter. This ammonium nitrate is part of the valley’s PM2.5 and PM10 problem. The winds and unstable air conditions experienced during the passage of winter storms result in periods of low pollutant concentrations and excellent visibility.

Between winter storms, high pressure and light winds allow cold moist air to pool on the SJVAB floor. This creates strong low‐level temperature inversions and very stable air conditions, which can lead to tule fog. Wintertime conditions favorable to fog formation are also conditions favorable to high concentrations of PM2.5 and PM10 (SJVAPCD, 2015).

Inversions
The vertical dispersion of air pollutants in the San Joaquin Valley can be limited by persistent temperature inversions. Air temperature in the lowest layer of the atmosphere typically decreases with altitude. A reversal of this atmospheric state, where the air temperature increases with height, is termed an inversion. The height of the base of the inversion is known as the “mixing height.” This is the level to which pollutants can mix vertically. Mixing of air is minimized above and below the inversion base. The inversion base represents an abrupt density change where little air movement occurs.

Inversion layers are significant in determining pollutant concentrations. Concentration levels can be related to the amount of mixing space below the inversion. Temperature inversions that occur on the summer days are usually 2,000 to 2,500 feet above the valley floor. In winter months, overnight inversions occur 500 to 1,500 feet above the valley floor (SJVAPCD, 2015).

CRITERIA POLLUTANTS
All criteria pollutants can have human health and environmental effects at certain concentrations.

The United States Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) uses six "criteria pollutants" as indicators of air quality and has established for each of them a maximum concentration above

3.3 AIR QUALITY

3.3-4 Draft Environmental Impact Report – Lathrop General Plan Update which adverse effects on human health may occur. These threshold concentrations are called National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). In addition, California establishes ambient air quality standards, called California Ambient Air Quality Standards (CAAQS). California law does not require that the CAAQS be met by a specified date as is the case with NAAQS.

The ambient air quality standards for the six criteria pollutants (as shown in Table 3.3‐1) are set to public health and the environment within an adequate margin of safety (as provided under Section 109 of the Federal Clean Air Act). Epidemiological, controlled human exposure, and toxicology studies evaluate potential health and environmental effects of criteria pollutants, and form the scientific basis for new and revised ambient air quality standards. Principal characteristics and possible health and environmental effects from exposure to the six primary criteria pollutants generated by the Project are discussed below.

Ozone (O3) is a photochemical oxidant and the major component of smog. While O3 in the upper atmosphere is beneficial to life by shielding the earth from harmful ultraviolet radiation from the sun, high concentrations of O3 at ground level are a major health and environmental concern. O3 is not emitted directly into the air but is formed through complex chemical reactions between precursor emissions of volatile organic compounds (ROG) and oxides of nitrogen (NOx) in the presence of sunlight. These reactions are stimulated by sunlight and temperature so that peak O3 levels occur typically during the warmer times of the year. Both ROGs and NOx are emitted by transportation and industrial sources. ROGs are emitted from sources as diverse as autos, chemical manufacturing, dry cleaners, paint shops and other sources using solvents. Relatedly, reactive organic compounds (ROG) are defined as the subset of ROGs that are reactive enough to contribute substantially to atmospheric photochemistry.

The reactivity of O3 causes health problems because it damages lung tissue, reduces lung function and sensitizes the lungs to other irritants. Scientific evidence indicates that ambient levels of O3 not only affect people with impaired respiratory systems, such as asthmatics, but healthy adults and children as well. Exposure to O3 for several hours at relatively low concentrations has been found to significantly reduce lung function and induce respiratory inflammation in normal, healthy people during exercise. This decrease in lung function generally is accompanied by symptoms including chest pain, coughing, sneezing and pulmonary congestion.

Studies show associations between short‐term ozone exposure and non‐accidental mortality, including deaths from respiratory issues. Studies also suggest long‐term exposure to ozone may increase the risk of respiratory‐related deaths (U.S. EPA, 2019a). The concentration of ozone at which health effects are observed depends on an individual’s sensitivity, level of exertion (i.e., breathing rate), and duration of exposure. Studies show large individual differences in the intensity of symptomatic responses, with one study finding no symptoms to the least responsive individual after a 2‐hour exposure to 400 parts per billion of ozone and a 50 percent decrement in forced airway volume in the most responsive individual. Although the results vary, evidence suggest that sensitive populations (e.g., asthmatics) may be affected on days when the 8‐hour maximum ozone concentration reaches 80 parts per billion (U.S. EPA, 2019b). The average background level of ozone in the California and Nevada is approximately 48.3 parts per billion, which represents approximately 77 percent of the total ozone in the western region of the U.S. (NASA, 2015).

AIR QUALITY 3.3
Draft Environmental Impact Report – Lathrop General Plan Update 3.3-5 In addition to human health effect, ozone has been tied to crop damage, typically in the form of stunted growth, leaf discoloration, cell damage, and premature death. O3 can also act as a corrosive and oxidant, resulting in property damage such as the degradation of rubber products and other materials.

Carbon monoxide (CO) is a colorless, odorless and poisonous gas produced by incomplete burning of carbon in fuels. Carbon monoxide is harmful because it binds to hemoglobin in the blood, reducing the ability of blood to carry oxygen. This interferes with oxygen delivery to the body’s organs. The most common effects of CO exposure are fatigue, headaches, confusion, and dizziness due to inadequate oxygen delivery to the brain. For people with cardiovascular disease, short‐term CO exposure can further reduce their body’s already compromised ability to respond to the increased oxygen demands of exercise, exertion, or stress. Inadequate oxygen delivery to the heart muscle leads to chest pain and decreased exercise tolerance. Unborn babies whose mothers experience high levels of CO exposure during pregnancy are at risk of adverse developmental effects. Exposure to CO at high concentrations can also cause fatigue, headaches, confusion, dizziness, and chest pain. There are no ecological or environmental effects to ambient CO (CARB, 2019a).

Very high levels of CO are not likely to occur outdoors. However, when CO levels are elevated outdoors, they can be of particular concern for people with some types of heart disease. These people already have a reduced ability for getting oxygenated blood to their hearts in situations where the heart needs more oxygen than usual. They are especially vulnerable to the effects of CO when exercising or under increased stress. In these situations, short‐term exposure to elevated CO may result in reduced oxygen to the heart accompanied by chest pain also known as angina (U.S.

EPA, 2016). Such acute effects may occur under current ambient conditions for some sensitive individuals, while increases in ambient CO levels increases the risk of such incidences.

Nitrogen oxides (NOx) is a brownish, highly reactive gas that is present in all urban atmospheres.

The main effect of increased NO2 is the increased likelihood of respiratory problems. Under ambient conditions, NO2 can irritate the lungs, cause bronchitis and pneumonia, and lower resistance to respiratory infections. Nitrogen oxides are an important precursor both to ozone (O3) and acid rain and may affect both terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems. Longer exposures to elevated concentrations of NO2 may contribute to the development of asthma and potentially increase susceptibility to respiratory infections. People with asthma, as well as children and the elderly are generally at greater risk for the health effects of NO2.

The major mechanism for the formation of NO2 in the atmosphere is the oxidation of the primary air pollutant nitric oxide (NOx). NOx plays a major role, together with ROGs, in the atmospheric reactions that produce O3. NOx forms when fuel is burned at high temperatures. The two major emission sources are transportation and stationary fuel combustion sources such as electric utility and industrial boilers.

Sulfur dioxide (SO2) is one of the multiple gaseous oxidized sulfur species and is formed during the combustion of fuels containing sulfur, primarily coal and oil. The largest anthropogenic source of SO2 emissions in the U.S. is fossil fuel combustion at electric utilities and other industrial facilities.

3.3 AIR QUALITY

3.3-6 Draft Environmental Impact Report – Lathrop General Plan Update SO2 is also emitted from certain manufacturing processes and mobile sources, including locomotives, large ships, and construction equipment.

SO2 affects breathing and may aggravate existing respiratory and cardiovascular disease in high doses. Sensitive populations include asthmatics, individuals with bronchitis or emphysema, children and the elderly. SO2 is also a primary contributor to acid deposition, or acid rain, which causes acidification of lakes and streams and can damage trees, crops, historic buildings and statues. In addition, sulfur compounds in the air contribute to visibility impairment in large parts of the country. This is especially noticeable in national parks. Ambient SO2 results largely from stationary sources such as coal and oil combustion, steel mills, refineries, pulp and paper mills and from nonferrous smelters.

Short‐term exposure to ambient SO2 has been associated with various adverse health effects.

Multiple human clinical studies, epidemiological studies, and toxicological studies support a causal relationship between short‐term exposure to ambient SO2 and respiratory morbidity. The observed health effects include decreased lung function, respiratory symptoms, and increased emergency department visits and hospitalizations for all respiratory causes. These studies further suggest that people with asthma are potentially susceptible or vulnerable to these health effects.

In addition, SO2 reacts with other air pollutants to form sulfate particles, which are constituents of fine particulate matter (PM2.5). Inhalation exposure to PM2.5 has been associated with various cardiovascular and respiratory health effects (U.S. EPA, 2017). Increased ambient SO2 levels would lead to increased risk of such effects.

SO2 emissions that lead to high concentrations of SO2 in the air generally also lead to the formation of other sulfur oxides (SOx). SOx can react with other compounds in the atmosphere to form small particles. These particles contribute to particulate matter (PM) pollution. Small particles may penetrate deeply into the lungs and in sufficient quantity can contribute to health problems.

Particulate matter (PM) includes dust, dirt, soot, smoke and liquid droplets directly emitted into the air by sources such as factories, power plants, cars, construction activity, fires and natural windblown dust. Particles formed in the atmosphere by condensation or the transformation of emitted gases such as SO2 and ROGs are also considered particulate matter. PM is generally categorized based on the diameter of the particulate matter: PM10 is particulate matter 10 micrometers or less in diameter (known as respirable particulate matter), and PM2.5 is particulate matter 2.5 micrometers or less in diameter (known as fine particulate matter).

Based on studies of human populations exposed to high concentrations of particles (sometimes in the presence of SO2) and laboratory studies of animals and humans, there are major effects of concern for human health. These include effects on breathing and respiratory symptoms, aggravation of existing respiratory and cardiovascular disease, alterations in the body's defense systems against foreign materials, damage to lung tissue, carcinogenesis and premature death.

Small particulate pollution causes health impacts even at very low concentrations – indeed no threshold has been identified below which no damage to health is observed.

AIR QUALITY 3.3
Draft Environmental Impact Report – Lathrop General Plan Update 3.3-7 Respirable particulate matter (PM10) consists of small particles, less than 10 microns in diameter, of dust, smoke, or droplets of liquid which penetrate the human respiratory system and cause irritation by themselves, or in combination with other gases. Particulate matter is caused primarily by dust from grading and excavation activities, from agricultural activities (as created by soil preparation activities, fertilizer and pesticide spraying, weed burning and animal husbandry), and from motor vehicles, particularly diesel‐powered vehicles. PM10 causes a greater health risk than larger particles, since these fine particles can more easily penetrate the defenses of the human respiratory system.

PM2.5 consists of fine particles, which are less than 2.5 microns in size. Similar to PM10, these particles are primarily the result of combustion in motor vehicles, particularly diesel engines, as well as from industrial sources and residential/agricultural activities such as burning. It is also formed through the reaction of other pollutants. As with PM10, these particulates can increase the chance of respiratory disease, and cause lung damage and cancer. In 1997, the U.S. EPA created new Federal air quality standards for PM2.5.

The major subgroups of the population that appear to be most sensitive to the effects of particulate matter include individuals with chronic obstructive pulmonary or cardiovascular disease or influenza, asthmatics, the elderly and children. Particulate matter also impacts soils and damages materials and is a major cause of visibility impairment.

Numerous studies have linked PM exposure to premature death in people with preexisting heart or lung disease, nonfatal heart attacks, irregular heartbeat, aggravated asthma, decreased lunch function, and increased respiratory symptoms. Studies show that every 1 microgram per cubic meter reduction in PM2.5 results in a one percent reduction in mortality rate for individuals over 30 years old (Bay Area Air Quality Management District, 2017). Long‐term exposures, such as those experienced by people living for many years in areas with high particle levels, have been associated with problems such as reduced lung function and the development of chronic bronchitis – and even premature death. Additionally, depending on its composition, both PM10 and PM2.5 can also affect water quality and acidity, deplete soil nutrients, damage sensitive forests and crops, affect ecosystem diversity, and contribute to acid rain (U.S. EPA, 2019c).

Lead (Pb) exposure can occur through multiple pathways, including inhalation of air and ingestion of Pb in food, water, soil or dust. Once taken into the body, lead distributes throughout the body in the blood and is accumulated in the bones. Depending on the level of exposure, lead can adversely affect the nervous system, kidney function, immune system, reproductive and developmental systems and the cardiovascular system. Lead exposure also affects the oxygen carrying capacity of the blood. Excessive Pb exposure can cause seizures, mental retardation and/or behavioral disorders. Low doses of Pb can lead to central nervous system damage. Recent studies have also shown that Pb may be a factor in high blood pressure and subsequent heart disease.

Lead is persistent in the environment and can be added to soils and sediments through deposition from sources of lead air pollution. Other sources of lead to ecosystems include direct discharge of waste streams to water bodies and mining. Elevated lead in the environment can result in

3.3 AIR QUALITY

3.3-8 Draft Environmental Impact Report – Lathrop General Plan Update decreased growth and reproductive rates in plants and animals, and neurological effects in vertebrates.

Lead exposure is typically associated with industrial sources; major sources of lead in the air are ore and metals processing and piston‐engine aircraft operating on leaded aviation fuel. Other sources are waste incinerators, utilities, and lead‐acid battery manufacturers. The highest air concentrations of lead are usually found near lead smelters. As a result of the U.S. EPA’s regulatory efforts, including the removal of lead from motor vehicle gasoline, levels of lead in the air decreased by 98 percent between 1980 and 2014 (U.S. EPA, 2019d). Based on this reduction of lead in the air over this period, and since most new developments do not generate an increase in lead exposure, the health impacts of ambient lead levels are not typically monitored by the California Air Resources Board (CARB).

AMBIENT AIR QUALITY STANDARDS
Both the U.S. EPA and the CARB have established ambient air quality standards for common pollutants. These ambient air quality standards represent safe levels of contaminants that avoid specific adverse health effects associated with each pollutant.

The federal and State ambient air quality standards are summarized in Table 3.3‐1 for important pollutants. The federal and State ambient standards were developed independently, although both processes attempted to avoid health‐related effects. As a result, the federal and State standards differ in some cases. In general, the California standards are more stringent. This is particularly true for ozone, PM2.5, and PM10. The U.S. EPA signed a final rule for the federal ozone eight‐hour standard of 0.070 ppm on October 1, 2015, and was effective as of December 28, 2015 (equivalent to the California state ambient air quality eight‐hour standard for ozone).

TABLE 3.3‐1: FEDERAL AND STATE AMBIENT AIR QUALITY STANDARDS

POLLUTANT AVERAGING TIME FEDERAL PRIMARY STANDARD STATE STANDARD Ozone 1‐Hour
8‐Hour
‐‐

0.070 ppm

0.09 ppm

0.070 ppm
Carbon Monoxide 8‐Hour
1‐Hour

9.0 ppm

35.0 ppm

9.0 ppm

20.0 ppm
Nitrogen Dioxide Annual
1‐Hour

0.053 ppm

0.100 ppm

0.03 ppm

0.18 ppm
Sulfur Dioxide
Annual
24‐Hour
1‐Hour

0.03 ppm

0.14 ppm

0.075 ppm
‐‐

0.04 ppm

0.25 ppm
PM10
Annual
24‐Hour
‐‐
150 ug/m3
20 ug/m3
50 ug/m3
PM2.5
Annual
24‐Hour
12 ug/m3
35 ug/m3
12 ug/m3
‐‐
Lead 30‐Day Avg.
3‐Month Avg.
‐‐

0.15 ug/m3

1.5 ug/m3
‐‐
NOTES: PPM = PARTS PER MILLION, UG/M3 = MICROGRAMS PER CUBIC METER SOURCE: CALIFORNIA AIR RESOURCES BOARD, 2019A.

AIR QUALITY 3.3
Draft Environmental Impact Report – Lathrop General Plan Update 3.3-9 In 1997, new national standards for fine particulate matter diameter 2.5 microns or less (PM2.5) were adopted for 24‐hour and annual averaging periods. The existing PM10 standards were retained, but the method and form for determining compliance with the standards were revised.

In addition to the criteria pollutants discussed above, Toxic Air Contaminants (TACs) are another group of pollutants of concern. TACs are injurious in small quantities and are regulated despite the absence of criteria documents. The identification, regulation, and monitoring of TACs is relatively recent compared to that for criteria pollutants. Unlike criteria pollutants, TACs are regulated on the basis of risk rather than specification of safe levels of contamination.

Existing air quality concerns within San Joaquin County and the entire air basin are related to increases of regional criteria air pollutants (e.g., ozone and particulate matter), exposure to toxic air contaminants, odors, and increases in greenhouse gas emissions contributing to climate change. The primary source of ozone (smog) pollution is motor vehicles which account for 70 percent of the ozone in the region. Particulate matter is caused by dust, primarily dust generated from construction and grading activities, and smoke which is emitted from fireplaces, wood‐ burning stoves, and agricultural burning.

Attainment Status
In accordance with the California Clean Air Act (CCAA), the CARB is required to designate areas of the State as attainment, nonattainment, or unclassified with respect to applicable standards. An “attainment” designation for an area signifies that pollutant concentrations did not violate the applicable standard in that area. A “nonattainment” designation indicates that a pollutant concentration violated the applicable standard at least once, excluding those occasions when a violation was caused by an exceptional event, as defined in the criteria.

Depending on the frequency and severity of pollutants exceeding applicable standards, the nonattainment designation can be further classified as serious nonattainment, severe nonattainment, or extreme nonattainment, with extreme nonattainment being the most severe of the classifications. An “unclassified” designation signifies that the data do not support either an attainment or nonattainment status. The CCAA divides districts into moderate, serious, and severe air pollution categories, with increasingly stringent control requirements mandated for each category.

The U.S. EPA designates areas for ozone, carbon monoxide, and nitrogen dioxide as “does not meet the primary standards,” “cannot be classified,” or “better than national standards.” For sulfur dioxide, areas are designated as “does not meet the primary standards,” “does not meet the secondary standards,” “cannot be classified,” or “better than national standards.” However, the CARB terminology of attainment, nonattainment, and unclassified is more frequently used.

San Joaquin County has a State designation Attainment or Unclassified for all criteria pollutants except for ozone, PM10 and PM2.5. San Joaquin County has a national designation of either Unclassified or Attainment for all criteria pollutants except for Ozone and PM2.5. Table 3.3‐2 presents the state and nation attainment status for San Joaquin County.

3.3 AIR QUALITY

3.3-10 Draft Environmental Impact Report – Lathrop General Plan Update TABLE 3.3‐2: STATE AND NATIONAL ATTAINMENT STATUS IN SAN JOAQUIN COUNTY

CRITERIA POLLUTANTS STATE DESIGNATIONS NATIONAL DESIGNATIONS Ozone (O3) Nonattainment Nonattainment
PM10 Nonattainment Attainment
PM2.5 Nonattainment Nonattainment
Carbon Monoxide (CO) Attainment Unclassified/Attainment Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2) Attainment Unclassified/Attainment Sulfur Dioxide (SO2) Attainment Unclassified/Attainment Sulfates Attainment
Lead Attainment Unclassified/Attainment
Hydrogen Sulfide Unclassified
Visibility Reducing Particles Unclassified
SOURCE: CALIFORNIA AIR RESOURCES BOARD, 2020.

San Joaquin County Air Quality Monitoring
The San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution District (SJVAPCD) and the CARB maintain air quality monitoring sites throughout San Joaquin County that collect data for ozone and PM2.5. In addition, air quality monitoring sites for PM10 are located throughout the San Joaquin Valley (though not in San Joaquin County). It is important to note that while the State retains the one‐hour standard, the federal ozone 1‐hour standard was revoked by the U.S. EPA and is no longer applicable for federal standards. Best available data obtained from the monitoring sites between 2017 and 2020 (latest year of data available) is shown in Table 3.3‐3, Table 3.3‐4, and Table 3.3‐5.

TABLE 3.3‐3 AMBIENT AIR QUALITY MONITORING DATA SUMMARY (SAN JOAQUIN COUNTY) ‐ OZONE YEAR
DAYS > STANDARD 1‐HOUR OBSERVATIONS 8‐HOUR AVERAGES YEAR

S COVERAGE TATE NATIONAL STATE NAT'L STATE NATIONAL
1‐HR 8‐HR 1‐HR 8‐HR MAX. D.V.¹ D.V.² MAX. D.V.¹ MAX. D.V.² MIN MAX 2020 1 4 0 4 0.100 0.09 0.092 0.078 0.082 0.078 0.070 96 99 2019 2 4 0 4 0.098 0.09 0.092 0.08 0.082 0.079 0.073 91 99 2018 1 8 0 8 0.099 0.10 0.099 0.082 0.085 0.081 0.076 96 99 2017 0 8 0 6 0.093 0.10 0.105 0.082 0.086 0.082 0.077 84 95 NOTES: ALL CONCENTRATIONS EXPRESSED IN PARTS PER MILLION. THE NATIONAL 1‐HOUR OZONE STANDARD WAS REVOKED IN JUNE 2005 AND IS NO LONGER IN EFFECT. STATISTICS RELATED TO THE REVOKED STANDARD ARE SHOWN IN ITALICS. D.V. ¹ = STATE DESIGNATION VALUE . D.V. ²= NATIONAL DESIGN VALUE.

SOURCE: CALIFORNIA AIR RESOURCES BOARD (AEROMETRIC DATA ANALYSIS AND MANAGEMENT SYSTEM OR IADAM) AIR POLLUTION SUMMARIES.

TABLE 3.3‐4: AMBIENT AIR QUALITY MONITORING DATA SUMMARY (SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY) – PM10 YEAR
EST. DAYS > STD. ANNUAL AVERAGE HIGH 24‐HR AVERAGE YEAR

NAT'L STATE NAT'L STATE NAT'L STATE COVERAGE
2020 38.7 157.0 64.5 60.5 517.2 359.0 0 – 100
2019 16.2 129.7 55.6 55.6 652.2 664.2 0 – 100
2018 9.6 164.4 54.5 53.0 250.2 250.4 0 – 100
2017 7.7 145.5 55.3 48.4 298.4 210.0 0 – 100
NOTES: THE NATIONAL ANNUAL AVERAGE PM10 STANDARD WAS REVOKED IN DECEMBER 2006 AND IS NO LONGER IN EFFECT. AN EXCEEDANCE IS NOT NECESSARILY A VIOLATION. STATISTICS MAY INCLUDE DATA THAT ARE RELATED TO AN EXCEPTIONAL EVENT. STATE AND NATIONAL STATISTICS MAY AIR QUALITY 3.3
Draft Environmental Impact Report – Lathrop General Plan Update 3.3-11 DIFFER FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS: STATE STATISTICS ARE BASED ON CALIFORNIA APPROVED SAMPLERS, WHEREAS NATIONAL STATISTICS ARE BASED ON SAMPLERS USING FEDERAL REFERENCE OR EQUIVALENT METHODS. STATE AND NATIONAL STATISTICS MAY THEREFORE BE BASED ON DIFFERENT SAMPLERS. NATIONAL STATISTICS ARE BASED ON STANDARD CONDITIONS. STATE CRITERIA FOR ENSURING THAT DATA ARE SUFFICIENTLY COMPLETE FOR CALCULATING VALID ANNUAL AVERAGES ARE MORE STRINGENT THAN THE NATIONAL CRITERIA. ND=THERE WAS INSUFFICIENT (OR NO) DATA AVAILABLE TO DETERMINE THE VALUE.

SOURCE: CALIFORNIA AIR RESOURCES BOARD (AEROMETRIC DATA ANALYSIS AND MANAGEMENT SYSTEM OR IADAM) AIR POLLUTION SUMMARIES.

TABLE 3.3‐5 AMBIENT AIR QUALITY MONITORING DATA SUMMARY (SAN JOAQUIN COUNTY) ‐ PM2.5 YEAR
EST. DAYS >
NAT'L '06
STD.

ANNUAL AVERAGE NAT'L
ANN. STD.

D.V.¹
STATE
ANNUAL
D.V.²
NAT'L '06
STD. 98TH

PERCENTILE
NAT'L
'06 24‐
HR STD.

D.V.¹
HIGH 24‐HOUR

AVERAGE
YEAR

COVERAGE

NAT'L STATE NAT'L STATE MIN MAX
2020 24.0 14.8 14.8 13.8 17 91.6 72 140.0 140.0 98 99
2019 6.4 9.3 6.2 13.0 17 32.9 56 50.1 50.1 75 95
2018 25.0 17.6 17.4 13.8 17 96.9 56 188.0 257.5 96 100
2017 16.9 12.1 11.0 12.2 13 44.2 39 53.7 53.7 94 99
NOTES: ALL CONCENTRATIONS EXPRESSED IN PARTS PER MILLION. STATE AND NATIONAL STATISTICS MAY DIFFER FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS:

STATE STATISTICS ARE BASED ON CALIFORNIA APPROVED SAMPLERS, WHEREAS NATIONAL STATISTICS ARE BASED ON SAMPLERS USING FEDERAL REFERENCE OR EQUIVALENT METHODS. STATE AND NATIONAL STATISTICS MAY THEREFORE BE BASED ON DIFFERENT SAMPLERS. STATE CRITERIA FOR

ENSURING THAT DATA ARE SUFFICIENTLY COMPLETE FOR CALCULATING VALID ANNUAL AVERAGES ARE MORE STRINGENT THAN THE NATIONAL CRITERIA. D.V. ¹ = STATE DESIGNATION VALUE. D.V. ²= NATIONAL DESIGN VALUE SOURCE: CALIFORNIA AIR RESOURCES BOARD (AEROMETRIC DATA ANALYSIS AND MANAGEMENT SYSTEM OR IADAM) AIR POLLUTION SUMMARIES.

ODORS
Typically, odors are regarded as an annoyance rather than a health hazard. However, manifestations of a person’s reaction to foul odors can range from psychological (e.g., irritation, anger, or anxiety) to physiological (e.g., circulatory and respiratory effects, nausea, vomiting, and headache).

With respect to odors, the human nose is the sole sensing device. The ability to detect odors varies considerably among the population and overall is quite subjective. Some individuals have the ability to smell minute quantities of specific substances; others may not have the same sensitivity but may have sensitivities to odors of other substances. In addition, people may have different reactions to the same odor; in fact, an odor that is offensive to one person (e.g., from a fast‐food restaurant) may be perfectly acceptable to another.

It is also important to note that an unfamiliar odor is more easily detected and is more likely to cause complaints than a familiar one. This is because of the phenomenon known as odor fatigue, in which a person can become desensitized to almost any odor and recognition only occurs with an alteration in the intensity.

Quality and intensity are two properties present in any odor. The quality of an odor indicates the nature of the smell experience. For instance, if a person describes an odor as flowery or sweet, then the person is describing the quality of the odor. Intensity refers to the strength of the odor.

For example, a person may use the word “strong” to describe the intensity of an odor. Odor intensity depends on the odorant concentration in the air.

3.3 AIR QUALITY

3.3-12 Draft Environmental Impact Report – Lathrop General Plan Update When an odorous sample is progressively diluted, the odorant concentration decreases. As this occurs, the odor intensity weakens and eventually becomes so low that the detection or recognition of the odor is quite difficult. At some point during dilution, the concentration of the odorant reaches a detection threshold. An odorant concentration below the detection threshold means that the concentration in the air is not detectable by the average human.

SENSITIVE RECEPTORS
Some land uses are considered more sensitive to air pollution than others due to the types of population groups or activities involved. Sensitive population groups include children, the elderly, the acutely ill, and the chronically ill, especially those with cardiorespiratory diseases. A sensitive receptor is a location where human populations, especially children, seniors, and sick persons, are present and where there is a reasonable expectation of continuous human exposure to pollutants.

Examples of sensitive receptors include residences, hospitals, and schools. The sensitive receptors within the Planning Area include uses such as existing residences, schools, daycares, and elderly facilities.

3.3.2 REGULATORY SETTING

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

The U.S. EPA is responsible for administering the FCAA. The FCAA requires the U.S. EPA to set NAAQS for several problem air pollutants based on human health and welfare criteria. Two types of NAAQS were established: primary standards, which protect public health (with an adequate margin of safety, including for sensitive populations such as children, the elderly, and individuals suffering from respiratory diseases), and secondary standards, which protect the public welfare from non‐health‐related adverse effects such as visibility reduction.

NAAQS standards define clean air and represent the maximum amount of pollution that can be present in outdoor air without any harmful effects on people and the environment. Existing violations of the ozone and PM2.5 ambient air quality standards indicate that certain individuals exposed to these pollutants may experience certain health effects, including increased incidence of cardiovascular and respiratory ailments.

NAAQS standards have been designed to accurately reflect the latest scientific knowledge and are reviewed every five years by a Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee (CASAC), consisting of seven members appointed by the U.S. EPA administrator. Reviewing NAAQS is a lengthy undertaking and AIR QUALITY 3.3
Draft Environmental Impact Report – Lathrop General Plan Update 3.3-13 includes the following major phases: Planning, Integrated Science Assessment (ISA), Risk/Exposure Assessment (REA), Policy Assessment (PA), and Rulemaking. The process starts with a comprehensive review of the relevant scientific literature. The literature is summarized and conclusions are presented in the ISA. Based on the ISA, U.S. EPA staff perform a risk and exposure assessment, which is summarized in the REA document. The third document, the PA, integrates the findings and conclusions of the ISA and REA into a policy context, and provides lines of reasoning that could be used to support retention or revision of the existing NAAQS, as well as several alternative standards that could be supported by the review findings. Each of these three documents is released for public comment and public peer review by the CASAC. Members of CASAC are appointed by the U.S. EPA Administrator for their expertise in one or more of the subject areas covered in the ISA. The CASAC’s role is to peer review the NAAQS documents, ensure that they reflect the thinking of the scientific community, and advise the Administrator on the technical and scientific aspects of standard setting. Each document goes through two to three drafts before CASAC deems it to be final.

Although there is some variability among the health effects of the NAAQS pollutants, each has been linked to multiple adverse health effects including, among others, premature death, hospitalizations and emergency department visits for exacerbated chronic disease, and increased symptoms such as coughing and wheezing. NAAQS standards were last revised for each of the six criteria pollutant as listed below, with detail on what aspects of NAAQS changed during the most recent update:
 Ozone: On October 1, 2015, the U.S. EPA lowered the national eight‐hour standard from

0.075 ppm to 0.070 ppm, providing for a more stringent standards consistent with the current California state standard.
 CO: In 2011, the primary standards were retained from the original 1971 level, without revision. The secondary standards were revoked in 1985.  NO2: The national NO2 standard was most recently revised in 2010 following an exhaustive review of new literature pointed to evidence for adverse effects in asthmatics at lower NO2 concentrations than the existing national standard.  SO2: On June 2, 2010, a new 1‐hour SO2 standard was established and the existing 24‐hour and annual primary standards were revoked. To attain the 1‐hour national standard, the 3‐ year average of the annual 99th percentile of the 1‐hour daily maximum concentrations at each site must not exceed 75 ppb.
 PM: the national annual average PM2.5 standard was most recently revised in 2012 following an exhaustive review of new literature pointed to evidence for increased risk of premature mortality at lower PM2.5 concentrations than the existing standard.  Lead: The national standard for lead was revised on October 15, 2008 to a rolling 3‐month average. In 2016, the primary and secondary standards were retained.

The law recognizes the importance for each state to locally carry out the requirements of the FCAA, as special consideration of local industries, geography, housing patterns, etc. are needed to have full comprehension of the local pollution control problems. As a result, the U.S. EPA requires each state to develop a State Implementation Plan (SIP) that explains how each state will

3.3 AIR QUALITY

3.3-14 Draft Environmental Impact Report – Lathrop General Plan Update implement the FCAA within their jurisdiction. A SIP is a collection of rules and regulations that a particular state will implement to control air quality within their jurisdiction. The CARB is the state agency that is responsible for preparing the California SIP.

Transportation Conformity
Transportation conformity requirements were added to the FCAA in the 1990 amendments, and the U.S. EPA adopted implementing regulations in 1997. See §176 of the FCAA (42 U.S.C. §7506) and 40 CFR Part 93, Subpart A. Transportation conformity serves much the same purpose as general conformity: it ensures that transportation plans, transportation improvement programs, and projects that are developed, funded, or approved by the United States Department of Transportation or that are recipients of funds under the Federal Transit Act or from the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), conform to the SIP as approved or promulgated by U.S. EPA.

Currently, transportation conformity applies in nonattainment areas and maintenance areas.

Under transportation conformity, a determination of conformity with the applicable SIP must be made by the agency responsible for the project, such as the Metropolitan Planning Organization, the Council of Governments, or a federal agency. The agency making the determination is also responsible for all the requirements relating to public participation. Generally, a project will be considered in conformance if it is in the transportation improvement plan and the transportation improvement plan is incorporated in the SIP. If an action is covered under transportation conformity, it does not need to be separately evaluated under general conformity.

Transportation Control Measures
One particular aspect of the SIP development process is the consideration of potential control measures as a part of making progress towards clean air goals. While most SIP control measures are aimed at reducing emissions from stationary sources, some are typically also created to address mobile or transportation sources. These are known as transportation control measures (TCMs). TCM strategies are designed to reduce vehicle miles traveled and trips, or vehicle idling and associated air pollution. These goals are achieved by developing attractive and convenient alternatives to single‐occupant vehicle use. Examples of TCMs include ridesharing programs, transportation infrastructure improvements such as adding bicycle and carpool lanes, and expansion of public transit.

STATE
CARB Mobile‐Source Regulation
The State of California is responsible for controlling emissions from the operation of motor vehicles in the State. Rather than mandating the use of specific technology or the reliance on a specific fuel, the CARB motor vehicle standards specify the allowable grams of pollution per mile driven. In other words, the regulations focus on the reductions needed rather than on the manner in which they are achieved. Towards this end, the CARB has adopted regulations which require auto manufacturers to phase in less polluting vehicles.

AIR QUALITY 3.3
Draft Environmental Impact Report – Lathrop General Plan Update 3.3-15 California Clean Air Act
The California Clean Air Act (CCAA) was first signed into law in 1988. The CCAA provides a comprehensive framework for air quality planning and regulation, and spells out, in statute, the state’s air quality goals, planning and regulatory strategies, and performance. The CARB is the agency responsible for administering the CCAA. The CARB established ambient air quality standards pursuant to the California Health and Safety Code (CH&SC) [§39606(b)], which are similar to the federal standards.

California Air Quality Standards
Although NAAQS are determined by the U.S. EPA, states have the ability to set standards that are more stringent than the federal standards. As such, California established more stringent ambient air quality standards. Federal and state ambient air quality standards have been established for ozone, carbon monoxide, nitrogen dioxide, sulfur dioxide, suspended particulates and lead. In addition, California has created standards for pollutants that are not covered by federal standards.

Although there is some variability among the health effects of the CAAQS pollutants, each has been linked to multiple adverse health effects including, among others, premature death, hospitalizations and emergency department visits for exacerbated chronic disease, and increased symptoms such as coughing and wheezing. The existing state and federal primary standards for major pollutants are shown in Table 3.3‐1.

Air quality standard setting in California commences with a critical review of all relevant peer reviewed scientific literature. The Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) uses the review of health literature to develop a recommendation for the standard. The recommendation can be for no change, or can recommend a new standard. The review, including the OEHHA recommendation, is summarized in a document called the draft Initial Statement of Reasons (ISOR), which is released for comment by the public, and also for public peer review by the Air Quality Advisory Committee (AQAC). AQAC members are appointed by the President of the University of California for their expertise in the range of subjects covered in the ISOR, including health, exposure, air quality monitoring, atmospheric chemistry and physics, and effects on plants, trees, materials, and ecosystems. The Committee provides written comments on the draft ISOR.

The ARB staff next revises the ISOR based on comments from AQAC and the public. The revised ISOR is then released for a 45‐day public comment period prior to consideration by the Board at a regularly scheduled Board hearing.

In June of 2002, the CARB adopted revisions to the PM10 standard and established a new PM2.5 annual standard. The new standards became effective in June 2003. Subsequently, staff reviewed the published scientific literature on ground‐level ozone and nitrogen dioxide and the CARB adopted revisions to the standards for these two pollutants. Revised standards for ozone and nitrogen dioxide went into effect on May 17, 2006 and March 20, 2008, respectively. These revisions reflect the most recent changes to the CAAQS.

3.3 AIR QUALITY

3.3-16 Draft Environmental Impact Report – Lathrop General Plan Update Tanner Air Toxics Act (TACs)
California regulates TACs primarily through the Tanner Air Toxics Act (AB 1807) and the Air Toxics Hot Spots Information and Assessment Act of 1987 (AB 2588). The Tanner Act sets forth a formal procedure for CARB to designate substances as TACs. This includes research, public participation, and scientific peer review before CARB can designate a substance as a TAC. To date, CARB has identified more than 21 TACs and has adopted U.S. EPA’s list of HAPs as TACs. Most recently, diesel PM was added to the CARB list of TACs. Once a TAC is identified, CARB then adopts an Airborne Toxics Control Measure (ATCM) for sources that emit that particular TAC. If there is a safe threshold for a substance at which there is no toxic effect, the control measure must reduce exposure below that threshold. If there is no safe threshold, the measure must incorporate Best Available Control Technologies (BACT) to minimize emissions.

AB 2588 requires that existing facilities that emit toxic substances above a specified level prepare a toxic‐emission inventory, prepare a risk assessment if emissions are significant, notify the public of significant risk levels, and prepare and implement risk reduction measures. CARB has adopted diesel exhaust control measures and more stringent emission standards for various on‐road mobile sources of emissions, including transit buses and off‐road diesel equipment (e.g., tractors, generators). In February 2000, CARB adopted a new public‐transit bus‐fleet rule and emission standards for new urban buses. These rules and standards provide for (1) more stringent emission standards for some new urban bus engines, beginning with 2002 model year engines; (2) zero‐ emission bus demonstration and purchase requirements applicable to transit agencies; and (3) reporting requirements under which transit agencies must demonstrate compliance with the urban transit bus fleet rule.

Omnibus Low‐NOx Rule
The CARB approved the Omnibus Low‐NOx Rule on August 28, 2020, which will require engine NOx emissions to be cut to approximately 75% below current standards beginning in 2024, and 90% below current standards in 2027. The rule also places nine additional regulatory requirements on new heavy‐duty truck engines. Those additional requirements include a 50% reduction in particulate matter emissions, stringent new low‐load and idle standards, a new in‐use testing protocol, extended deterioration requirements, a new California‐only credit program, and extended mandatory warranty requirements. The regulatory requirements in the Omnibus Low‐ NOX Rule will first become effective in 2024, at the same time as the Advanced Clean Trucks regulations that CARB approved that mandates manufacturers convert increasing percentages of their heavy‐duty trucks sold in California to zero‐emission vehicles.

Assembly Bill 170
Assembly Bill 170, Reyes (AB 170), was adopted by state lawmakers in 2003, creating Government Code Section 65302.1, which requires cities and counties in the San Joaquin Valley to amend their general plans to include data and analysis, comprehensive goals, policies, and feasible implementation strategies designed to improve air quality. The elements to be amended include, but are not limited to, those elements dealing with land use, circulation, housing, conservation, AIR QUALITY 3.3
Draft Environmental Impact Report – Lathrop General Plan Update 3.3-17 and open space. Section 65302.1.c identifies four areas of air quality discussion required in these amendments:
 A report describing local air quality conditions, attainment status, and state and federal air quality and transportation plans;
 A summary of local, district, state, and federal policies, programs, and regulations to improve air quality;
 A comprehensive set of goals, policies, and objectives to improve air quality; and  Feasible implementation measures designed to achieve these goals.

LOCAL
San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District
The primary role of SJVAPCD is to develop plans and implement control measures in the SJVAB to control air pollution. These controls primarily affect stationary sources such as industry and power plants. Rules and regulations have been developed by SJVAPCD to control air pollution from a wide range of air pollution sources. SJVAPCD also provides uniform procedures for assessing potential air quality impacts of proposed projects and for preparing the air quality section of environmental documents.

AIR QUALITY PLANNING
The U.S. EPA requires states that have areas that do not meet the National AAQS to prepare and submit air quality plans showing how the National AAQS will be met. If the states cannot show how the National AAQS will be met, then the states must show progress toward meeting the National AAQS. These plans are referred to as the State Implementation Plans (SIP). California’s adopted 2007 State Strategy was submitted to the U.S. EPA as a revision to its SIP in November 2007.2 More recently, in October 2018, the CARB adopted the 2018 Updates to the California State Implementation Plan.

In addition, the CARB requires regions that do not meet California AAQS for ozone to submit clean air plans (CAPs) that describe measures to attain the standard or show progress toward attainment. To ensure federal CAA compliance, SJVAPCD is currently developing plans for meeting new National AAQS for ozone and PM2.5 and the California AAQS for PM10 in the SJVAB (for California CAA compliance)3 The following describes the air plans prepared by the SJVAPCD, which are incorporated by reference per CEQA Guidelines Section 15150. 1-HOUR OZONE PLAN
Although U.S. EPA revoked its 1979 1‐hour ozone standard in June 2005, many planning requirements remain in place, and SJVAPCD must still attain this standard before it can rescind CAA Section 185 fees. The SJVAPCD’s most recent 1‐hour ozone plan, the 2013 Plan for the

2 Note that the plan was adopted by CARB on September 27, 2007; California Air Resources Board. 2007.

California Air Resources Board’s Proposed State Strategy for California’s 2007 State Implementation Plan. 3 SJVAPCD, 2012. 2012 PM2.5 Plan, December 20.

3.3 AIR QUALITY

3.3-18 Draft Environmental Impact Report – Lathrop General Plan Update Revoked 1‐hour Ozone Standard, demonstrated attainment of the 1‐hour ozone standard by 2017.

However, on July 18, 2016, the U.S. EPA published in the Federal Register a final action determining that SJVAB has attained the 1‐hour ozone NAAQS based on the 2012 to 2014 three‐ year period allowing nonattainment penalties to be lifted under federal Clean Air Act section 179b (SJVAPCD, 2015).
8-HOUR OZONE PLAN
The SJVAPCD’s Governing Board adopted the 2007 Ozone Plan on April 30, 2007. This far‐reaching plan, with innovative measures and a “dual path” strategy, assures expeditious attainment of the federal 8‐hour ozone standard as set by U.S. EPA in 1997. The plan projects that the valley will achieve the 8‐hour ozone standard for all areas of the SJVAB no later than 2023. The CARB approved the plan on June 14, 2007. The U.S. EPA approved the 2007 Ozone Plan effective April 30, 2012. SJVAPCD adopted the 2016 Ozone Plan to address the federal 2008 8‐hour ozone standard, which must be attained by end of 2031.4,5
PM10 PLAN
Based on PM10 measurements from 2003 to 2006, the U.S. EPA found that the SJVAB has reached federal PM10 standards. On September 21, 2007, the SJVAPCD’s Governing Board adopted the 2007 PM10 Maintenance Plan and Request for Redesignation. This plan demonstrates that the valley will continue to meet the PM10 standard. U.S. EPA approved the document and on September 25, 2008, the SJVAB was redesignated to attainment/maintenance (SJVAPCD, 2015).

PM2.5 PLAN
The SJVAPCD adopted the 2018 Plan for the 1997, 2006, and 2012 PM2.5 Standards on November 15, 2018.6 This plan addresses the U.S. EPA federal 1997 annual PM2.5 standard of 15 μg/m³ and 24‐hour PM2.5 standard of 65 μg/m³; the 2006 24‐hour PM2.5 standard of 35 μg/m³; and the 2012 annual PM2.5 standard of 12 μg/m³. This plan demonstrates attainment of the federal PM2.5 standards as expeditiously as practicable (SJVAPCD, 2020).

All of the above‐referenced plans include measures (i.e., federal, state, and local) that would be implemented through rule making or program funding to reduce air pollutant emissions in the SJVAB. Transportation control measures are part of these plans.

SJVAPCD RULES AND REGULATIONS
SJVAPCD Indirect Source Review
On December 15, 2005, SJVAPCD adopted the Indirect Source Review Rule (ISR or Rule 9510) to reduce ozone precursors (i.e., ROG and NOx) and PM10 emissions from new land use development projects. Specifically, Rule 9510 targets the indirect emissions from vehicles and construction

4 SJVAPCD. Ozone Plans. http://www.valleyair.org/ Air_Quality_Plans/Ozone_Plans.htm, accessed March 3, 2020.
5 SJVAPCD. 2016 Plan for the 2008 8‐Hour Ozone Standard, http://www.valleyair.org/Air_Quality_Plans/Ozone‐Plan‐2016.htm, accessed March 3, 2020. 6 SJVAPCD. Particulate Matter Plans. http://valleyair.org/Air_Quality_Plans/PM_Plans.htm, accessed March 9, 2020.

AIR QUALITY 3.3
Draft Environmental Impact Report – Lathrop General Plan Update 3.3-19 equipment associated with these projects and applies to both construction and operational‐ related impacts. The rule applies to any applicant that seeks to gain a final discretionary approval for a development project, or any portion thereof, which upon full buildout would include any one of the following:
 50 residential units.
 2,000 square feet of commercial space.
 25,000 square feet of light industrial space.
 100,000 square feet of heavy industrial space.
 20,000 square feet of medical office space.
 39,000 square feet of general office space.
 9,000 square feet of educational space.
 10,000 square feet of government space.
 20,000 square feet of recreational space.
 9,000 square feet of space not identified above.
 Transportation/transit projects with construction exhaust emissions of two or more tons of NOx or two or more tons of PM10.
 Residential projects on contiguous or adjacent property under common ownership of a single entity in whole or in part, that is designated and zoned for the same development density and land use, regardless of the number of tract maps, and has the capability of accommodating more than 50 residential units.
 Nonresidential projects on contiguous or adjacent property under common ownership of a single entity in whole or in part, that is designated and zoned for the same development density and land use, and has the capability of accommodating development projects that emit two or more tons per year of NOx or PM10 during project operations.

The rule requires all subject, nonexempt projects to mitigate both construction and operational period emissions by (1) applying feasible SJVAPCD‐approved mitigation measures, or (2) paying any applicable fees to support programs that reduce emissions. Off‐site emissions reduction fees (off‐site fee) are required for projects that do not achieve the required emissions reductions through on‐site emission reduction measures. Phased projects can defer payment of fees in accordance with an Off‐site Emissions Reduction Fee Deferral Schedule (FDS) approved by the SJVAPCD.

To determine how an individual project would satisfy Rule 9510, each project would submit an air quality impact assessment (AIA) to the SJVAPCD as early as possible, but no later than prior to the project’s final discretionary approval, to identify the project’s baseline unmitigated emissions inventory for indirect sources: on‐site exhaust emissions from construction activities and operational activities from mobile and area sources of emissions (excludes fugitive dust and permitted sources).28 Rule 9510 requires the following reductions, which are levels that the SJVAPCD has identified as necessary, based on their air quality management plans, to reach attainment for ozone and particulate matter:

3.3 AIR QUALITY

3.3-20 Draft Environmental Impact Report – Lathrop General Plan Update Construction Equipment Emissions
The exhaust emissions for construction equipment greater than 50 horsepower (hp) used or associated with the development project shall be reduced by the following amounts from the statewide average as estimated by CARB:
 20 percent of the total NOx emissions
 45 percent of the total PM10 exhaust emissions
Mitigation measures may include those that reduce construction emissions on‐site by using less polluting construction equipment, which can be achieved by utilizing add‐on controls, cleaner fuels, or newer, lower emitting equipment.

Operational Emissions
 NOx Emissions. Applicants shall reduce 33.3 percent of the project’s operational baseline NOx emissions over a period of 10 years as quantified in the approved AIA.  PM10 Emissions. Applicants shall reduce of 50 percent of the project’s operational baseline PM10 emissions over a period of 10 years as quantified in the approved AIA.

These requirements listed above can be met through any combination of on‐site emission reduction measures. In the event that a project cannot achieve the above standards through imposition of mitigation measures, then the project would be required to pay the applicable off‐ site fees. These fees are used to fund various incentive programs that cover the purchase of new equipment, engine retrofit, and education and outreach.

Fugitive PM10 Prohibitions
SJVAPCD controls fugitive PM10 through Regulation VIII, Fugitive PM10 Prohibitions. The purpose of this regulation is to reduce ambient concentrations of PM10 and PM2.5 by requiring actions to prevent, reduce, or mitigate anthropogenic (human caused) fugitive dust emissions.  Regulation VIII, Rule 8021 applies to any construction, demolition, excavation, extraction, and other earthmoving activities, including, but not limited to, land clearing, grubbing, scraping, travel on‐site, and travel on access roads to and from the site.  Regulation VIII, Rule 8031 applies to the outdoor handling, storage, and transport of any bulk material.
 Regulation VIII, Rule 8041 applies to sites where carryout or trackout has occurred or may occur on paved roads or the paved shoulders of public roads.  Regulation VIII, Rule 8051 applies to any open area having 0.5 acre or more within urban areas or 3.0 acres or more within rural areas, and contains at least 1,000 square feet of disturbed surface area.
 Regulation VIII, Rule 8061 applies to any new or existing public or private paved or unpaved road, road construction project, or road modification project.  Regulation VIII, Rule 8071 applies to any unpaved vehicle/equipment traffic area.  Regulation VIII, Rule 8081 applies to off‐field agricultural sources.

AIR QUALITY 3.3
Draft Environmental Impact Report – Lathrop General Plan Update 3.3-21 Sources regulated are required to provide Dust Control Plans that meet the regulation requirements. Under Rule 8021, a Dust Control Plan is required for any residential project that will include 10 or more acres of disturbed surface area, a nonresidential project with 5 or more acres of disturbed surface area, or a project that relocates 2,500 cubic yards per day of bulk materials for at least three days. The Dust Control Plan is required to be submitted to SJVAPCD prior to the start of any construction activity. The Dust Control Plan must also describe fugitive dust control measure to be implemented before, during, and after any dust‐generating activity. For sites smaller than those listed above, the project is still required to notify SJVAPCD a minimum of 48 hours prior to commencing earthmoving activities.

National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants Rule 4002 applies in the event an existing building will be renovated, partially demolished or removed (National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants); this rule applies to all sources of Hazardous Air Pollutants.

Cutback, Slow Cure, and Emulsified Asphalt, Paving and Maintenance Operations If asphalt paving will be used, then paving operations of the proposed project will be subject to Rule 4641. This rule applies to the manufacture and use of cutback asphalt, slow cure asphalt and emulsified asphalt for paving and maintenance operations.

Nuisance Odors
SJVAPCD controls nuisance odors through implementation of Rule 4102, Nuisance. Pursuant to this rule, “a person shall not discharge from any source whatsoever such quantities of air contaminants or other materials which cause injury, detriment, nuisance or annoyance to any considerable number of persons or to the public or which endanger the comfort, repose, health, or safety of any such person or the public or which cause or have a natural tendency to cause injury or damage to business or property.”
Employer Based Trip Reduction Program
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.

3.3 AIR QUALITY

3.3-22 Draft Environmental Impact Report – Lathrop General Plan Update

3.3.3 IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES

THRESHOLDS OF SIGNIFICANCE
Consistent with Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, the proposed General Plan will have a significant impact on the environment associated with air quality if it will:
 Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan;  Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is in non‐attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard;
 Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations; and/or  Result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people.

METHODOLOGY
Nearly all development projects within the San Joaquin Valley Air Basin, from general plans to individual development projects have the potential to generate air pollutants, making it more difficult to attain State and Federal ambient air quality standards. Therefore, it is necessary to evaluate air quality impacts to comply with CEQA. As identified in the SJVAPCD’s Guidance for Assessing and Mitigation Air Quality Impacts (GAMAQI), land use decisions are critical to improving air quality within the San Joaquin Valley Air Basin because land use patterns greatly influence transportation needs and motor vehicle emissions are the largest source of air pollution. Land use decisions and project design elements such as preventing urban sprawl, encouraging mixed‐use development, and project designs that reduce vehicle miles traveled (VMT) have proven benefit for air quality.

The analysis presented below was completed to include both a qualitative and a quantitative approach. The qualitative analysis discusses the proposed General Plan’s consistency with the SJVAPCD’s GAMAQI and other applicable rules and regulations. The quantitative analysis presents the proposed General Plan’s VMT projections associated with buildout of the General Plan, which were developed using the Lathrop Travel Demand Model, in comparison to the population and job projections associated with buildout of the General Plan. The VMT analysis is described in greater detail in Chapter 3.14, Transportation and Circulation.

AIR QUALITY 3.3
Draft Environmental Impact Report – Lathrop General Plan Update 3.3-23

IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
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)
CEQA requires lead agencies to determine whether a Project is consistent with all applicable air quality plans. The SJVAPCD’s most current air quality plans for PM, ozone, and carbon monoxide are (respectively) the 2018 Plan for the 1997, 2006, and 2012 PM2.5 Standards, the 2020 Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT) Demonstration for the 2015 8‐Hour Ozone Standard, and the 2004 Revisions to the Carbon Monoxide Maintenance Plan. These plans are also known is “Air Quality Attainment Plans”. The SJVAPCD’s Air Quality Attainment Plans include measures to promote air quality elements in county and city general plans as one of the primary indirect source programs. For example, the 2018 Plan for the 1997, 2006, and 2012 PM2.5 Standards plan identifies that 5% annual reduction in PM2.5 is required annually. Separately, the 2020 Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT) Demonstration for the 2015 8‐Hour Ozone Standard plan describes a variety of U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) control technique guidelines to limit volatile organic compounds, including specification requirements for vapor control systems at gasoline service stations, cutback asphalt, and solvent metal cleaning.

Consistency with these measures is typically determined based on individual projects’ consistency with the criteria pollutant and other air quality thresholds as promulgated by the SJVAPCD.

The San Joaquin Valley is in State‐level non‐attainment for ozone, PM10, and PM2.5. The SJVAPCD does not provide criteria pollutant thresholds for General Plans (such as the proposed Project).

Thresholds of significance for criteria pollutants are established at the project‐level by the SJVAPCD. As such, there is no programmatic threshold of significance established for criteria pollutants for which to compare the proposed General Plan.

This EIR explicitly acknowledges that the proposed General Plan will allow notable amounts of new residential and non‐residential growth in Lathrop, as described in detail in Chapter 2.0 (Project Description). This new growth will undoubtedly result in increases in the emissions of criteria pollutants, most notably from mobile‐source and area‐source emissions increases associated with increased growth and development in Lathrop. Additionally, the implementation of individual projects within the General Plan would have the potential to conflict with the SJVAPCD’s thresholds of significance for criteria pollutants at the project‐level.

The proposed General Plan includes an extensive list of policies and actions that are specifically aimed at improving air quality. These policies and actions, which are provided below, limit impacts to air quality including 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.

The policies and actions included throughout the proposed General Plan cover the full breadth of air quality issues as recommended in the applicable air quality plans. If approval of the proposed

3.3 AIR QUALITY

3.3-24 Draft Environmental Impact Report – Lathrop General Plan Update General Plan would cause the disruption, delay, or otherwise hinder the implementation of any air quality plan control measure, it may be inconsistent with the applicable air quality plans. The proposed General Plan does not cause the disruption, delay, or otherwise hinder the implementation of any quality plan control measure; therefore, it is consistent with the applicable air quality plans. All future development and infrastructure projects within the Planning Area would be subject to the General Plan goals, policies, and actions described above and include below, which were adopted to reduce emissions and air quality impacts. However, the proposed General Plan includes higher levels and rates of growth than those that would be facilitated under the existing Lathrop General Plan. As such, total emissions levels associated with Project buildout would increase, which may indirectly hinder the SJVAPCDs efforts to reduce total emissions of criteria pollutants.

The Planning Area is surrounded by a variety of existing urbanized and agricultural uses, and is bisected by two of the most heavily‐travelled highway corridors in the San Joaquin Valley (I 5 and SR 120). The proposed General Plan includes polices and land uses that promote mixed use, transit‐oriented development patterns that emphasizes alternative transportation access and multi‐modal connectivity throughout the Planning Area and into the surrounding areas.

Implementation of the proposed General Plan, which is consistent with all federal and state guidelines, would be consistent with the applicable air quality plans, but would still lead to overall increases in emissions of criteria pollutants, given the total growth projected upon full buildout of the proposed General Plan.

The following quantitative analysis describes VMT and population increases associated with implementation of the General Plan. The proposed General Plan is intended to support and enhance jobs‐generating uses within Lathrop, and to provide a mix of housing opportunities within the city.

As part of the transportation analysis, Fehr & Peers (the traffic consultant) modeled VMT for the Planning Area for air quality analysis purposes. As described in Section 3.14: Circulation, the existing VMT for the Planning Area is approximately 1,497,700 and VMT for the Planning Area at buildout under the proposed General Plan is expected to be 7,503,700.

As shown in Table 2.0‐2 of this Draft EIR (see Chapter 2.0: Project Description), Lathrop has an existing population of approximately 28,503. Full buildout of the General Plan could generate up to an additional 66,562 new residents, for a total population of approximately 95,065 at buildout.

Lathrop has an existing jobs base of approximately 9,153 jobs. Full buildout of the Planning Area could generate up to 49,250 new jobs in Lathrop, resulting in 58,403 total jobs at buildout. Table

3.3‐6 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.

AIR QUALITY 3.3
Draft Environmental Impact Report – Lathrop General Plan Update 3.3-25 TABLE 3.3‐6: COMBINED JOBS AND POPULATION GROWTH
EXISTING JOBS + POPULATION IN LATHROP 37,656
EXISTING PLUS PROJECT JOBS + POPULATION 153,468
PERCENT INCREASE IN JOBS + POPULATION 307.6%
SOURCES: SAN JOAQUIN COUNTY ASSESSOR 2021; CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE 2021; U.S CENSUS ONTHEMAP; ESRI 2020, DE NOVO PLANNING GROUP 2021.

TABLE 3.3‐7: EXISTING AND PLUS‐PROJECT VMT – PLANNING AREA EXISTING VMT 1,497,700
EXISTING PLUS PROJECT VMT 7,503,700
PERCENT INCREASE IN VMT 401.0%
SOURCE: FEHR & PEERS, 2021
As shown in the two tables above, 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 3.3‐8 shows additional details on projected VMT numbers 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 notable reductions in VMT per dwelling unit for all residential land use types, and would reduce the per resident VMT in Lathrop by 45% compared to existing baseline conditions.

However, as shown in the table below, 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.

3.3 AIR QUALITY

3.3-26 Draft Environmental Impact Report – Lathrop General Plan Update TABLE 3.3‐8: 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 PLAN
Single family VMT per dwelling unit 111.5 94.8 64.5
Multi family VMT per dwelling unit 86.0 73.1 54.6
Age restricted VMT per dwelling unit 47.5 40.4 27.3
Restaurant VMT per employee1 215.2 182.9 248.9
Industrial VMT per employee 77.8 66.2 79.1
Office VMT per employee 36.5 31.0 47.3
Retail VMT per employee 135.3 115.0 211.5
All residential VMT per dwelling unit 108.3 NA5 58.9
All residential VMT per resident2 27.9 NA 15.2
All employment VMT per employee 85.8 NA 101.6
All land uses VMT per service population2,3 42.9 NA 47.4 Total VMT VMT 1,497,700 NA 7,503,700
NOTES: 1VMT PER EMPLOYEE RATIOS INCLUDE ALL TRIPS BY EMPLOYEES, CUSTOMERS, AND DELIVERIES 2BASED ON 3.88 RESIDENTS/DWELLING UNIT (CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE, E‐5 CITY/COUNTY POPULATION AND HOUSING ESTIMATES, 1/1/2020) 3SERVICE POPULATION INCLUDES RESIDENTS AND EMPLOYEES 4VMT INCLUDES FULL LENGTH OF ALL TRIPS WITH EITHER AN ORIGIN OR DESTINATION WITHIN THE PLANNING AREA 5NA = NOT APPLICABLE, METRIC FOR INFORMATIONAL PURPOSES ONLY SOURCE: FEHR & PEERS, 2021
The results shown in the table above are 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 2.0‐2 of the Project Description. In the future, a smaller share of residents is 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.

The proposed General Plan includes numerous goals, policies and implementation actions which would further the fundamental goals of the SJVAPCD in reducing emissions of criteria pollutants associated with vehicle miles traveled, reducing building energy usage, and would increase opportunities for transit ridership in Lathrop and the surrounding areas. The list below provides those 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, including 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..

AIR QUALITY 3.3
Draft Environmental Impact Report – Lathrop General Plan Update 3.3-27 However, even with implementation of the General Plan policies and actions that would reduce criteria pollutant emissions, since the proposed General Plan would increase VMT at a rate faster than the combined increase in jobs and population growth, this impact is considered significant and unavoidable.

There is no additional feasible mitigation available that would reduce this impact to a less than significant level. The City of Lathrop has proactively developed the proposed Land Use Map to focus new jobs‐generating uses and development to areas within the City limits that have already been identified for urban growth. The updated General Plan does not extend urbanization outward beyond the City limits, and focuses all new growth and development to areas inside the City limits, which are closer to housing, services, jobs and infrastructure. This land use approach minimizes urban sprawl, and results in a more compact land use pattern, which leads to lower VMT levels than if the City had chosen to grow outward, rather than inward.

However, given the large swaths of developable jobs‐generating land uses in Lathrop, the City projects that jobs in Lathrop may increase notably over the life of the General Plan. As noted above, this growth in jobs is likely to attract employees and customers from outside of Lathrop, thereby increasing the VMT per employee and the VMT per service population, even though the City is achieving notable reductions in VMT per dwelling unit and VMT per resident.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

RR‐6 Provide the community with optimal air quality.

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

3.3 AIR QUALITY

3.3-28 Draft Environmental Impact Report – Lathrop General Plan Update LU‐1.3 Maintain a supply of developable lands sufficient to meet desired levels of housing, jobs, economic, educational, and recreational needs of the city over the planning horizon.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

LU‐4.4 As the city grows, encourage and support the development of a transit system with regular service connecting destinations within the city, to ACE and Valley Link stations, and to adjacent jurisdictions.

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

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

AIR QUALITY 3.3
Draft Environmental Impact Report – Lathrop General Plan Update 3.3-29 LU‐5.3 Require that new residential development be designed to protect residents from potential conflicts with adjacent land uses, and other features including rail corridors, and high‐ volume roadways.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

3.3 AIR QUALITY

3.3-30 Draft Environmental Impact Report – Lathrop General Plan Update RR‐6.2 Sensitive Receptors. Minimize the community’s exposure to toxic and harmful air emissions and odors by requiring an adequate buffer or distance between residential and other sensitive receptors and industrial‐type uses that typically generate air pollutants, toxic air contaminants, and/or obnoxious fumes or odors.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

AIR QUALITY 3.3
Draft Environmental Impact Report – Lathrop General Plan Update 3.3-31 LU‐5b Through the development review process, analyze land use compatibility and require adequate buffers and/or architectural enhancements to protect sensitive receptors from intrusion of development activities that may cause unwanted nuisances and health risks.

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

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

3.3 AIR QUALITY

3.3-32 Draft Environmental Impact Report – Lathrop General Plan Update LU‐5e Update the Lathrop Municipal Code to include Good Neighbor Guidelines for Warehouse Distribution Facilities. The new Good Neighbor Guidelines should include:

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

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

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

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

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

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

AIR QUALITY 3.3
Draft Environmental Impact Report – Lathrop General Plan Update 3.3-33 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 developments to provide bicycle parking facilities in accordance with the California Green Building Standards Code. Encourage existing multifamily developments to provide such facilities.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

3.3 AIR QUALITY

3.3-34 Draft Environmental Impact Report – Lathrop General Plan Update CIR‐4b Evaluate the feasibility of a local or regional VMT impact fee program, bank, or exchange.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

AIR QUALITY 3.3
Draft Environmental Impact Report – Lathrop General Plan Update 3.3-35 RR‐6a Review development, infrastructure, and planning projects for consistency with SJVAPCD requirements during the CEQA review process. Require project applicants to prepare air quality analyses to address SJVAPCD and General Plan requirements, which include analysis and identification of:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

3.3 AIR QUALITY

3.3-36 Draft Environmental Impact Report – Lathrop General Plan Update RR‐6j Establish and adopt standards and requirements for electric vehicle parking, including minimum requirements for the installation of electric vehicle charging stations in new multi‐family residential and commercial, office, and light industrial development.

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

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

AIR QUALITY 3.3
Draft Environmental Impact Report – Lathrop General Plan Update 3.3-37 Impact 3.3‐2: General Plan implementation would expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations (Significant and Unavoidable)
The SJVAPCD has identified local community risks from air pollutants to include exposure to TACs and PM2.5 concentrations. TACs are a defined set of airborne pollutants that may pose a present or potential hazard to human health and PM2.5 can cause a wide range of health effects (e.g., aggravating asthma and bronchitis, causing visits to the hospital for respiratory and cardiovascular systems, and contributing to heart attacks and deaths). Common stationary source types of TAC and PM2.5 emissions include gasoline stations, dry cleaners, and diesel backup generators, which are subject to SJVAPCD permit requirements. The other, often more significant, common source type is on‐road motor vehicles on freeways and roads such as trucks and cars, and off‐road sources such as construction equipment, ships, and trains. Implementation of the proposed General Plan would have the potential of introducing new sources of TAC and PM2.5 emissions within the city as well as siting new sensitive receptors, such as new homes in close proximity to existing sources of TAC and PM2.5 emissions.

Health risks associated with TACs are most pronounced in the areas adjacent to freeway segments.

Regardless of the existing health risks associated with TACs, the SJVAPCD CEQA Guidelines provide recommendations for all communities to ensure reduced health risks associated with TACs. The proposed General Plan includes policies that are intended to minimize exposure of TACs to sensitive receptors (see below).

The Air Quality and Land Use Handbook: A Community Health Perspective, adopted by CARB, May 2005 was prepared to address the siting of sensitive land uses in close proximity to sources of TAC emissions that include the following sources within the City:
 Within 500 feet of Interstate 5 and Highway 120;
 Within 300 feet of dry cleaning operations that use perchloroethylene; and  Within 50 feet of a typical gas station.

The proposed General Plan includes policies and programs aimed to limit exposure to TAC and PM concentrations within the city. These policies and actions are included within various elements of the General Plan. For example, Policy RR‐6.2 requires that community exposure to toxic and harmful emissions and odors is minimized by required adequate buffer or distance between residential or other sensitive receptors and industrial, manufacturing, and processing facilities, highways and rail lines, and similar uses that typically generate air pollutants, toxic air contaminants, and/or obnoxious fumes or odors. Policy RR‐6.3 requires new construction to minimize fugitive dust and construction vehicle emissions. Furthermore, Implementing Measure RC‐6a requires that planning projects are reviewed for their consistency with SJVAPCD requirements during the CEQA review process. Additionally, Implementing Action RR‐6b requires a review of all new industrial and commercial development projects for potential air quality impacts to residences and other sensitive receptors, and that mitigation measures and best management practices are implemented to reduce significant emissions of criteria pollutants.

3.3 AIR QUALITY

3.3-38 Draft Environmental Impact Report – Lathrop General Plan Update Individual projects will be required to provide their own environmental assessments to determine health impacts from the construction and operation of their projects. In the event that future individual projects may result in exposure to TACs by sensitive receptors, these future projects would be required to implement mitigation measures to reduce the impact to a less than significant level, consistent with SJVAPCD requirements.

In addition, it should also be noted that the Omnibus Low‐NOx Rule was approved by CARB August 28, 2020, which will require heavy‐duty truck engine NOx emissions to be cut to approximately 75% below current standards beginning in 2024, and 90% below current standards in 2027. The rule also places nine additional regulatory requirements on new heavy‐duty truck and engines.

Those additional requirements include a 50% reduction in particulate matter emissions, stringent new low‐load and idle standards, a new in‐use testing protocol, extended deterioration requirements, a new California‐only credit program, and extended mandatory warranty requirements.

The City of Lathrop has been thoughtful throughout the process of updating the proposed Land Use Map, and determining the appropriate location for future light industrial development, which has the potential to lead to increases in truck traffic in Lathrop. For example, the proposed Land Use Map identifies new areas for light industrial development north of Dos Reis Road, west of I‐5.

This area is sparsely populated and includes very few sensitive receptors. Lands to the north and west of this area consist of agricultural lands outside of the City limits. This area is bounded to the east by I‐5. Existing and planned sensitive receptors are located to the south of this area, south of Dos Reis Road, including Lathrop High School and existing and planned residences.

In order to ensure that newly proposed light industrial development does not result in excessive exposure of TACs to sensitive receptors, the General Plan includes numerous policies and actions that would ensure that future projects undertake rigorous health risk assessments in order to demonstrate that no applicable thresholds of significance are exceeded. For example, Action LU‐ 5c requires industrial and/or warehouse projects proposed within 1,000 feet of existing or planned sensitive receptors to prepare a health risk assessment (HRA) that meets the standards established by the OEHHA and the SJVAPCD, and states that projects shall not be approved until it can be demonstrated that the project would not result in an exceedance of an established threshold for public health risks.

Additionally, Action LU‐5.d requires new industrial and/or warehouse projects to implement a range of best management practices (BMPs) to reduce pollution exposure to sensitive receptors.

Sample BMPs include, but are not limited to, screening and vegetative buffers, measures to reduce truck idling, placing ingress/egress points away from public streets and receptors, screening dock doors, and orienting buildings to provide screening between emissions sources and sensitive receptors.

The General Plan also requires the City to update the Central Lathrop Specific Plan to establish a circulation network that keeps future truck trips as far from existing and planned sensitive receptors as feasible (Action LU‐5.f).

AIR QUALITY 3.3
Draft Environmental Impact Report – Lathrop General Plan Update 3.3-39 Compliance with the applicable policies and programs in the proposed General Plan as well the applicable CARB and SJVAPCD rules and regulations, would minimize the potential exposure of sensitive receptors to substantial concentrations of TACs and PM2.5within the city.

Nevertheless, since the proposed General Plan is anticipated to generate new areas of light industrial development that could generate high levels of heavy‐duty truck traffic, the road segment with the highest net increase in daily heavy‐duty truck trips at full General Plan buildout was identified, along with its adjacent and nearby roadways, as having the most potential for impacting sensitive receptors. Specifically, the road segment with the highest potential net increase in daily heavy‐duty truck trips at full General Plan buildout was identified at Spartan Way between I‐5 and Golden Valley Parkway7 (Fehr & Peers, 2022). According to Fehr & Peers, Spartan Way between I‐5 and Golden Valley Parkway road segment could generate approximately 7,742 net new heavy‐duty truck trips upon full General Plan buildout. Therefore, new heavy‐duty truck traffic along this road segment, combined with the heavy‐duty truck traffic anticipated along adjacent and other nearby roadway segments associated with the new areas for light industrial development north of Dos Reis Road, west of I‐5 (i.e. I‐5, Golden Valley Parkway, Manthey Road, Dos Reis Road, De Lima Road, etc.), were analyzed for their total potential localized TAC impacts at full buildout.

Disclosure of the results of this analysis is provided below (see Table 3.3‐10). The results of this analysis provide a summary of the overall anticipated heavy‐duty truck diesel particulate matter (DPM) TAC impacts from full buildout of the new light industrial area located north of Dos Reis Road and west of I‐5. For full detail on the results of this analysis, see the Health Risk Assessment provided in Appendix B.

SCOPE OF RISK ASSESSMENT
Preparation of risk assessments is a three‐step process. The first step is to identify potential contaminants that may lead to public health risks. The second step is to assess the magnitude of contaminants that may reach the public (exposure assessment). The last step is to calculate the magnitude of the health risk as a result of exposure to harmful contaminants on the basis of the toxicology of the contaminants.

The Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA), and the SJVAPCD provide guidance on the procedures that should be used, including, toxicological data for individual contaminants. While this risk assessment uses certain procedures and data from these Guidelines, this assessment is not intended to satisfy the reporting requirements under AB‐2588 “Air Toxics” Hot Spots program.

7 Note this analysis was included as a case study of potential Health Impacts related to heavy duty truck trips, and assumed a worse‐case‐scenario if all routes were unrestricted for heavy trucks. It should be noted that trucks within Lathrop are restricted in some areas of the city, and new future truck routes and circulation improvements that would reduce air toxics at sensitive receptors have been addressed via new policies and actions in the Updated General Plan. However, out of an abundance of caution, these new truck routes and restrictions were not included as part of this worst‐case‐scenario HRA analysis.

3.3 AIR QUALITY

3.3-40 Draft Environmental Impact Report – Lathrop General Plan Update The health risks that are evaluated in this study include:
 Residential Cancer Risk (70‐year exposure; start at third trimester); and  Acute and Chronic Hazard Indices.

The 70‐year risk applies to residential areas where exposure may potentially occur 24 hours/day, 365 days/year. Non‐cancer risks can be described as acute (short‐term, exposure) or chronic health impacts.

SIGNIFICANCE CRITERIA
The following significance criteria shown in Table 3.3‐9, based on guidance from the SJVAPCD, are used in this report to assess the significance of public health risks.

TABLE 3.3‐9: THRESHOLDS OF SIGNIFICANCE FOR PUBLIC HEALTH RISKS

RISK METRIC SIGNIFICANCE THRESHOLD
Residential Cancer Risk 20 per million
Chronic and Acute non‐cancer hazard Indices Non‐cancer health hazard exposure index of 1.0 SOURCE: SJVAPCD, 2015.

As shown in Table 3.3‐9, a project that contributes a cancer risk in excess of 20 new cases in a population of one million persons at identified residential receptors, or a non‐cancer hazard index of greater than or equal to 1.0 would be considered to have a significant project‐level impact.

EMISSION SOURCES AND EXPOSURE
The source of TACs from the proposed Project is DPM from mobile emissions associated with the proposed net new heavy‐duty trucks traffic. Based on numerous studies by the CARB, DPM represents the largest single contributor to public health risks. Additionally, in its comprehensive assessment of diesel exhaust, OEHHA analyzed more than 30 studies of people who worked around diesel equipment, including truck drivers, railroad workers, and equipment operators. The studies showed these workers were more likely to develop lung cancer than workers who were not exposed to diesel emissions. These studies provide strong evidence that long‐term occupational exposure to diesel exhaust increases the risk of lung cancer. Exposure to diesel exhaust can have immediate health effects. Diesel exhaust can irritate the eyes, nose, throat, and lungs, and it can cause coughs, headaches, lightheadedness, and nausea. In studies with human volunteers, diesel exhaust particles made people with allergies more susceptible to the materials to which they are allergic, such as dust and pollen. Exposure to diesel exhaust also causes inflammation in the lungs, which may aggravate chronic respiratory symptoms and increase the frequency or intensity of asthma attacks.

Table 3.3‐10 displays the residential cancer risk and acute and chronic incidence rate results at the receptors that were shown to bear the highest TAC risks (including the cumulative impacts associated with the combined impact of proposed segments and interacting segments together).

The results of the risk analysis indicate that cancer and non‐cancer risks vary depending on the exposure scenario and location. As would be expected, sensitive receptors nearest the roadway AIR QUALITY 3.3
Draft Environmental Impact Report – Lathrop General Plan Update 3.3-41 segments where truck traffic would be greatest have the greatest exposure, and the associated risks are considerably lower as the distance from the high truck traffic roadway segments increases. The northeastern corner of the proposed Residential Mixed Use land use area located at the southwest corner of Dos Reis Road and Golden Valley Parkway was identified as having the highest TAC risk (i.e. 36.96 per million persons residential cancer risk over a 70‐year exposure).

Other areas where residential cancer risk exceeded the residential cancer risk threshold of 20 per million persons over a 70‐year exposure include:
 The far northeastern corner of the residential community located at the southwestern corner of Spartan Way and Golden Valley Parkway;
 Residences located at the intersection of Manthey Road and De Lima Road; Residences located along the far side of I‐5 (along South Harlan Road), north of Shilling Avenue and south of Stonebridge lane. Table 3.3‐10 provided the maximum health risks associated with the road segments at full buildout of the General Plan. As shown, the highest residential cancer risk would exceed the applicable significance threshold (at some locations). See Appendix B for further detail.

TABLE 3.3‐10: SUMMARY OF MAXIMUM HEALTH RISKS ASSOCIATED WITH THE NET NEW HEAVY‐DUTY TRUCK TRAFFIC GENERATED FROM THE LIGHT INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT NORTH OF DOS REIS ROAD, WEST OF I‐5.

RISK METRIC

MAXIMUM RISK
(PER MILLION

PERSONS)

SIGNIFICANCE

THRESHOLD
IS

THRESHOLD
EXCEEDED?
Residential Cancer Risk (70‐year exposure) 36.96 20 per million Yes Chronic (non‐cancer) <0.01 Hazard Index ≥1 No
Acute (non‐cancer <0.01 Hazard Index ≥1 No
SOURCES: AERMOD (LAKES ENVIRONMENTAL SOFTWARE, 2021); AND HARP‐2 AIR DISPERSION AND RISK TOOL.

3.3 AIR QUALITY

3.3-42 Draft Environmental Impact Report – Lathrop General Plan Update It should be noted that the results as provided in Table 3.3‐10 may be an overestimate of actual TAC risks, given that the modeling does not account for a transition of the heavy‐duty truck fleet from diesel truck to electric trucks over the 70‐year modeled timeframe. Nevertheless, the results in Table 3.3‐10 provide a conservative analysis of the risks associated with heavy‐duty truck‐ related DPM on nearby sensitive receptors over this time period.

Furthermore, individual projects will be required to provide their own environmental assessments to determine health impacts from the construction and operation of their projects. In the event that future individual projects may result in exposure to TACs by sensitive receptors, these future projects would be required to analyze TAC impacts on an individual project level, per SJVAPCD requirements, and in accordance with California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) guidance.

CONCLUSION
As shown in Table 3.3‐10, maximum health risks associated with the combined impact heavy‐duty truck traffic from new areas for light industrial development north of Dos Reis Road, west of I‐5 that could occur with implementation of the proposed General Plan, are shown to exceed the applicable significance thresholds at some sensitive receptors. However, the proposed General Plan also includes development of industrial projects that whose specific characteristics are not known at this time. Individual projects will be required to provide their own environmental assessments to determine health impacts from the construction and operation of their projects. In the event that future individual projects may result in exposure to TACs by sensitive receptors, these future projects would be required to analyze TAC impacts on an individual project level, per SJVAPCD requirements, and in accordance with California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) guidance. Therefore, since the full nature of the impacts of proposed Project‐ generated TAC impacts is not fully known at this time, this is a potentially significant impact and is considered significant and unavoidable.

GENERAL PLAN GOALS, POLICIES, AND ACTIONS THAT MINIMIZE POTENTIAL IMPACTS GOALS
LU‐3 Participate in coordinated local and regional land use planning activities.

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

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

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

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

RR‐6 Provide the community with optimal air quality.

AIR QUALITY 3.3
Draft Environmental Impact Report – Lathrop General Plan Update 3.3-43

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

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

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

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

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.

3.3 AIR QUALITY

3.3-44 Draft Environmental Impact Report – Lathrop General Plan Update 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‐4.4 Electric Vehicle Charging. Support the creation of electric vehicle charging stations at multifamily residential, commercial, government, and other employment and community destinations.

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

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

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

A. 3.99 MT CO2e per capita by 2030
AIR QUALITY 3.3
Draft Environmental Impact Report – Lathrop General Plan Update 3.3-45 B. 2.66 MT CO2e per capita by 2040; and
C. 1.33 MT CO2e per capita by 2050.

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

3.3 AIR QUALITY

3.3-46 Draft Environmental Impact Report – Lathrop General Plan Update  Locating warehouse dock doors and other onsite areas with significant truck traffic and noise away from sensitive receptors.
 Screening dock doors and onsite areas with significant truck traffic and noise with physical, structural, and/or vegetative barriers that adequately prevent or substantially reduce pollutant dispersal from the facility towards sensitive receptors.  Posting signs clearly showing the designated entry and exit points from the public street for trucks and service vehicles.
 Posting signs indicating that all parking and maintenance of trucks must be conducted within designated on‐site areas and not within the surrounding community or public streets.

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

A. A definition of the type and size of facility that is subject to the Guidelines; B. Standards to minimize exposure to diesel emissions to sensitive receptors that are situated in close proximity to the proposed facility;
C. Standards and practices that eliminate diesel trucks from unnecessarily traversing through residential neighborhoods;
D. Standards and practices that eliminate trucks from using residential areas and repairing vehicles on the streets;
E. Strategies to reduce and/or eliminate diesel idling within the facility’s site; 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‐4b Evaluate the feasibility of a local or regional VMT impact fee program, bank, or exchange.

AIR QUALITY 3.3
Draft Environmental Impact Report – Lathrop General Plan Update 3.3-47 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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

3.3 AIR QUALITY

3.3-48 Draft Environmental Impact Report – Lathrop General Plan Update RR‐6g Evaluate and consider multi‐modal transportation benefits to all City employees, such as free or low‐cost monthly transit passes. Encourage employer participation in similar programs. Encourage new transit/shuttle services and use.

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

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

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

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

Impact 3.3‐3: General Plan implementation would not result in other emissions such as those leading to odors adversely affecting a substantial number of people (Less than Significant)
Objectionable odors can be generated from certain types of commercial and/or industrial land uses. Common sources of odors include wastewater treatment plants, landfills, composting facilities, refineries, and chemical plants. In general, residential land uses are not associated with odor generation, but they do serve as sensitive receptors. Odors rarely have direct health impacts, but they can be very unpleasant and can lead to anger and concern over possible health effects among the public.

With respect to other emissions, future development under the proposed General Plan would be required to comply with all applicable SJVAPCD rules and regulations, and the proposed General Plan policies and actions. The proposed projects that could generate odor impacts on sensitive receptors are required to undergo an analysis consistent with the SJVAPCD’s GAMAQI.

The proposed General Plan does not propose any specific development projects, but does identify areas for public and quasi‐public facilities that could include expanded wastewater treatment facilities, composting facilities, and other potential odor sources. Similarly, lands designated for Industrial uses could include new or expanded uses that could result in odors, including chemical manufacturing, materials manufacturing, food and beverage processing, and other uses that may involve odors. Similarly, existing agricultural uses may also include on‐site processing or confined animal facilities that may result in odors. Individual projects that have the potential to generate significant objectionable odors would be required to undergo individual CEQA review.

AIR QUALITY 3.3
Draft Environmental Impact Report – Lathrop General Plan Update 3.3-49 In addition, the General Plan policies and actions listed below would further minimize the potential for other emissions (such as odors) to adversely affect a substantial number of people. For example, the proposed General Plan includes policies and programs that would limit exposure to TAC and PM concentrations within the city. These policies and actions are included within various elements of the General Plan. For example, Policy RR‐6.2 requires that community exposure to toxic and harmful emissions and odors is minimized by required adequate buffer or distance between residential or other sensitive receptors and industrial, manufacturing, and processing facilities, highways and rail lines, and similar uses that typically generate air pollutants, toxic air contaminants, and/or obnoxious fumes or odors. Policy RR‐6.3 requires new construction to minimize fugitive dust and construction vehicle emissions. Furthermore, Implementing Measure RC‐6a requires that planning projects are reviewed for their consistency with SJVAPCD requirements during the CEQA review process. Additionally, Implementing Measure RR‐6b requires a review of all new industrial and commercial development projects for potential air quality impacts to residences and other sensitive receptors, and that mitigation measures and best management practices are implemented to reduce significant emissions of criteria pollutants.

Therefore, implementation of the proposed General Plan would have a less than significant impact relative to this topic.

GENERAL PLAN GOALS, POLICIES, AND ACTIONS THAT MINIMIZE POTENTIAL IMPACTS GOALS
LU‐5 Ensure that new development is compatible with existing development.

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

RR‐6 Provide the community with optimal air quality.

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

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

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

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

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

3.3 AIR QUALITY

3.3-50 Draft Environmental Impact Report – Lathrop General Plan Update LU‐5.5 Ensure that industrial development projects, including warehouse, distribution, logistics, and fulfillment projects, mitigate adverse impacts (including health risks and nuisances) to nearby residential land uses and other existing and planned sensitive receptors.

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

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

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

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

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

AIR QUALITY 3.3
Draft Environmental Impact Report – Lathrop General Plan Update 3.3-51 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.

3.3 AIR QUALITY

3.3-52 Draft Environmental Impact Report – Lathrop General Plan Update  Screening dock doors and onsite areas with significant truck traffic and noise with physical, structural, and/or vegetative barriers that adequately prevent or substantially reduce pollutant dispersal from the facility towards sensitive receptors.  Posting signs clearly showing the designated entry and exit points from the public street for trucks and service vehicles.
 Posting signs indicating that all parking and maintenance of trucks must be conducted within designated on‐site areas and not within the surrounding community or public streets.

LU‐5e Update the Lathrop Municipal Code to include Good Neighbor Guidelines for Warehouse Distribution Facilities. The new Good Neighbor Guidelines should include:
a. A definition of the type and size of facility that is subject to the Guidelines; b. Standards to minimize exposure to diesel emissions to sensitive receptors that are situated in close proximity to the proposed facility;
c. Standards and practices that eliminate diesel trucks from unnecessarily traversing through residential neighborhoods;
d. Standards and practices that eliminate trucks from using residential areas and repairing vehicles on the streets;
e. Strategies to reduce and/or eliminate diesel idling within the facility’s site; RR‐6a Review development, infrastructure, and planning projects for consistency with SJVAPCD requirements during the CEQA review process. Require project applicants to prepare air quality analyses to address SJVAPCD and General Plan requirements, which include analysis and identification of:

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

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

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

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

AIR QUALITY 3.3
Draft Environmental Impact Report – Lathrop General Plan Update 3.3-53 RR‐6c Work with SJCOG and the SJVAPCD to implement plans and programs aimed at improving regional air quality.

3.3 AIR QUALITY

3.3-54 Draft Environmental Impact Report – Lathrop General Plan Update This page left intentionally blank.

BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES 3.4
Draft Environmental Impact Report – Lathrop General Plan Update 3.4-1 This section describes biological resources in the Planning Area. This section provides a background discussion of the bioregions, regionally important habitat and wildlife, and special status species found in the vicinity of Lathrop. This section is organized with an environmental setting, regulatory setting, and impact analysis.

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

KEY TERMS
The following key terms are used throughout this section to describe biological resources and the framework that regulates them:

Hydric Soils. One of the three wetland identification parameters, according to the Federal definition of a wetland, hydric soils have characteristics that indicate they were developed in conditions where soil oxygen is limited by the presence of saturated soil for long periods during the growing season. There are approximately 2,000 named soils in the United States that may occur in wetlands.

Hydrophytic Vegetation. Plant types that typically occur in wetland areas. Nearly 5,000 plant types in the United States may occur in wetlands. Plants are listed in regional publications of the U.S.

Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and include such species as cattails, bulrushes, cordgrass, sphagnum moss, bald cypress, willows, mangroves, sedges, rushes, arrowheads, and water plantains.

Sensitive Natural Community. A sensitive natural community is a biological community that is regionally rare, provides important habitat opportunities for wildlife, is structurally complex, or is in other ways of special concern to local, State, or Federal agencies. The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) identifies the elimination or substantial degradation of such communities as a significant impact. The California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) tracks sensitive natural communities in the California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB).

Special Status Species. Special status species are those plants and animals that, because of their recognized rarity or vulnerability to various causes of habitat loss or population decline, are recognized by Federal, State, or other agencies. Some of these species receive specific protection that is defined by Federal or State endangered species legislation. Others have been designated as "sensitive" on the basis of adopted policies and expertise of State resource agencies or organizations with acknowledged expertise, or policies adopted by local governmental agencies such as counties, cities, and special districts to meet local conservation objectives. These species are referred to collectively as "special status species" in this report, following a convention that has developed in practice but has no official sanction. For the purposes of this assessment, the term “special status” includes those species that are:
 Federally listed or proposed for listing under the Federal Endangered Species Act (50 CFR

17.11‐17.12);
 Candidates for listing under the Federal Endangered Species Act (61 FR 7596‐7613);

3.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES

3.4-2 Draft Environmental Impact Report – Lathrop General Plan Update  State listed or proposed for listing under the California Endangered Species Act (14 CCR 670.5);
 Species listed by the USFWS or the CDFW as a species of concern (USFWS), rare (CDFW), or of special concern (CDFW);
 Fully protected animals, as defined by the State of California (California Fish and Game Code Section 3511, 4700, and 5050);
 Species that meet the definition of threatened, endangered, or rare under CEQA (CEQA Guidelines Section 15380);
 Plants listed as rare or endangered under the California Native Plant Protection Act (California Fish and Game Code Section 1900 et seq.); and  Plants listed by the California Native Plant Society (CNPS) as rare, threatened, or endangered (List 1A and List 2 status plants in Skinner and Pavlik 1994).

Waters of the U.S. The Federal government defines waters of the U.S. as "lakes, rivers, streams, intermittent drainages, mudflats, sandflats, wetlands, sloughs, and wet meadows" [33 C.F.R. §328.3(a)]. Waters of the U.S. exhibit a defined bed and bank and ordinary high water mark (OHWM). The OHWM is defined by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) as “that line on shore established by the fluctuations of water and indicated by physical character of the soil, destruction of terrestrial vegetation, the presence of litter and debris, or other appropriate means that consider the characteristics of the surrounding areas” [33 C.F.R. §328.3(e)].

Wetlands. Wetlands are ecologically complex habitats that support a variety of both plant and animal life. The Federal government defines wetlands as “those areas that are inundated or saturated by surface or groundwater at a frequency and duration sufficient to support and under normal circumstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions” [33 C.F.R. §328.3(b)]. Wetlands require wetland hydrology, hydric soils, and hydrophytic vegetation. Examples of wetlands include freshwater marsh, seasonal wetlands, and vernal pool complexes that have a hydrologic link to waters of the U.S.

3.4.1 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
Lathrop is located in the southern portion of San Joaquin County, approximately 5 miles south of Stockton and approximately 15 miles northwest of the Modesto. Lathrop is bordered by the City of Manteca to the east and unincorporated San Joaquin County to the north, south, and west. The Planning Area is relatively flat with natural gentle slope from east to west. The city’s topography has an average elevation of approximately 20 feet above sea level.

The Planning Area outside Lathrop’s urbanized center and surrounding residential areas is predominantly farmland, including alfalfa, orchards, row crops, and pasture. Agricultural lands have become important foraging resources for a number of wildlife species, including Swainson’s hawk.

A major watercourse, the San Joaquin River, flows along the west and southwest side of the Planning Area boundary. The Old River is a tributary to the San Joaquin River and runs contiguous with the western boundary of the Planning Area. Additionally, Oakwood Lake is located along the southern boundary of the Planning Area.

BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES 3.4
Draft Environmental Impact Report – Lathrop General Plan Update 3.4-3

GEOMORPHIC PROVINCES/BIOREGIONS
The Planning Area is located in the western portion of the Great Valley Geomorphic Province of California. The Great Valley Province is a broad structural trough bounded by the tilted block of the Sierra Nevada on the east and the complexly folded and faulted Coast Ranges on the west. The San Joaquin River passes through the southern portion and parallels the western border of the city.

This major river drains the Great Valley Province into the San Joaquin Delta to the north, ultimately discharging into the San Francisco Bay to the northwest.

The Planning Area is located within the San Joaquin Valley Bioregion, which is comprised of Kings County, most of Fresno, Kern, Merced, and Stanislaus counties, and portions of Madera, San Luis Obispo, and Tulare counties. The San Joaquin Valley Bioregion is the third most populous out of ten bioregions in the state, with an estimated 2 million people. The largest cities are Fresno, Bakersfield, Modesto, and Stockton. Interstate 5 and State Route 99 are the major north‐south roads that run the entire length of the bioregion.

The bioregion is bordered on the west by the coastal mountain ranges. Its eastern boundary joins the southern two‐thirds of the Sierra bioregion, which features Yosemite, Kings Canyon, and Sequoia National Parks. At its northern end, the San Joaquin Valley bioregion borders the southern end of the Sacramento Valley bioregion. To the west, south, and east, the bioregion extends to the edges of the valley floor.

Habitat in the bioregion includes vernal pools, valley sink scrub and saltbush, freshwater marsh, grasslands, arid plains, orchards, and oak savannah. Historically, millions of acres of wetlands flourished in the bioregion, but stream diversions for irrigation dried all but about five percent.

Remnants of the wetland habitats are protected in this bioregion in publicly owned parks, reserves, and wildlife areas. The bioregion is considered the state's top agricultural producing region with the abundance of fertile soil.

VEGETATION
Vegetation occurring within the Planning Area primarily consists of agricultural, ruderal, riparian, and landscaping vegetation. Because of urban nature of the developed areas within the city and the active agricultural uses in surrounding lands, there is limited undisturbed natural vegetation.

Common plant species observed in the planning area include: wild oat (Avena barbata), rip‐gut brome (Bromus diandrus), softchess (Bromus hordeaceus) alfalfa (Medicago sativa), Russian thistle (Salsola tragus), Italian thistle (Carduus pycnocephalus), rough pigweed (Amaranthus retroflexus), sunflower (Helianthus annuus), tarragon (Artemisia dracunculus), coyote brush (Baccharis pilularis), prickly lettuce (Lactuca serriola), milk thistle (Silybum marianum), sow thistle (Sonchus asper), telegraph weed (Heterotheca grandiflora), barley (Hordeum sp.), mustard (Brassica niger), and heliotrope (Heliotropium curassavicum).

WILDLIFE
Agricultural and ruderal vegetation found in the Planning Area provides habitat for both common and special status wildlife populations. For example, some commonly observed wildlife species in the region include: California ground squirrel (Spermophilus beecheyi), California vole (Microtus

3.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES

3.4-4 Draft Environmental Impact Report – Lathrop General Plan Update californicus), coyote (Canis latrans), raccoon (Procyon lotor), opossum (Didelphis virginiana), striped skunk (Mephitis mephitis), red‐tailed hawk (Buteo jamaicensis), northern harrier (Circus cyaneus), American kestrel (Falco sparverius), white‐tailed kite (Elanus leucurus), American killdeer (Charadrius vociferus), gopher snake (Pituophis melanoleucus), garter snake (Thamnophis species), and western fence lizard (Sceloporus occidentalis), as well as many native insect species. There are also several bat species in the region. Bats often feed on insects as they fly over agricultural and natural areas.

Locally common and abundant wildlife species are important components of the ecosystem. Due to habitat loss, many of these species must continually adapt to using agricultural, ruderal, and ornamental vegetation for cover, foraging, dispersal, and nesting.

PLANT COMMUNITIES
Agricultural and natural plant communities provide habitat for a variety of biological resources in the region. Sensitive habitats include those that are of special concern to resource agencies or those that are protected under a Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the Fish and Game Code, or the Clean Water Act (CWA). Additionally, sensitive habitats are usually protected under specific policies from local agencies. Figure 3.4‐1 illustrates the plant communities (land cover types) in the vicinity of the Planning Area.

CALIFORNIA WILDLIFE HABITAT RELATIONSHIP SYSTEM
The California Wildlife Habitat Relationship (CWHR) habitat classification scheme has been developed to support the CWHR System, a wildlife information system and predictive model for California's regularly‐occurring birds, mammals, reptiles and amphibians. When first published in 1988, the classification scheme had 53 habitats. At present, there are 59 wildlife habitats in the CWHR System: 27 tree, 12 shrub, 6 herbaceous, 4 aquatic, 8 agricultural, 1 developed, and 1 non‐ vegetated.

According to the California Wildlife Habitat Relationship System there are 16 cover types (wildlife habitat classifications) in the Planning Area out of 59 found in the State. These include: Annual Grassland, Barren Land, Coastal Scrub, Cropland, Deciduous Orchard, Dryland Grain Crops, Eucalyptus, Evergreen Orchard, Fresh Emergent Wetland, Irrigated Grain Crops, Irrigated Hayfield, Irrigated Row and Field Crops, Riverine, Urban Land, Valley Foothill Riparian, and Vineyard.

Table 3.4‐1 identifies the area by acreage for each cover type (classification) found in Lathrop (City limits and SOI). Figure 3.4‐1 illustrates the location of each cover type (classification) within Lathrop. A brief description of each cover type follows.

BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES 3.4
Draft Environmental Impact Report – Lathrop General Plan Update 3.4-5 TABLE 3.4‐1: COVER TYPES ‐ CALIFORNIA WILDLIFE HABITAT RELATIONSHIP SYSTEM

COVER TYPE
CITY
(ACRES)
SOI
(ACRES)

PLANNING AREA
(TOTAL ACRES)
Annual Grassland 736.46 99.93 836.39
Barren 105.96 13.41 119.36
Coastal Scrub 6.20 0.00 6.20
Cropland 2,356.91 101.85 2,458.76
Deciduous Orchard 162.83 17.91 180.75
Dryland Grain Crops 1,374.21 209.15 1,583.36
Eucalyptus 0.00 0.04 0.04
Evergreen Orchard 0.89 0.00 0.89
Fresh Emergent Wetland 9.17 7.93 17.09
Irrigated Grain Crops 779.44 1.15 780.59
Irrigated Hayfield 1,172.67 6.33 1,179.00
Irrigated Row and Field Crops 1,032.65 0.68 1,033.33
Riverine 329.61 37.28 366.89
Urban 4,460.35 230.32 4,690.67
Valley Foothill Riparian 304.63 4.64 309.27
Vineyard 8.01 1.33 9.34
Total 12,839.98 731.95 13,571.93
SOURCE: SOURCE: CASIL GIS DATA, CALIFORNIA WILDLIFE HABITAT RELATIONSHIP SYSTEM, 2018 Developed Cover Types
Cropland includes a variety of sizes, shapes, and growing patterns. Field corn can reach ten feet while strawberries are only a few inches high. Although most crops are planted in rows, alfalfa hay and small grains (barley and wheat) form dense stands with up to 100 percent canopy closure.

Most croplands support annual crops, planted in spring and harvested during summer or fall. In many areas, second crops are commonly planted after harvesting the first. Wheat is planted in fall and harvested in late spring or early summer. Overwintering of sugar beets occurs in the Sacramento Valley, with harvesting in spring after the soil dries. Croplands are located on flat to gently rolling terrain. When flat terrain is put into crop production, it usually is leveled to facilitate irrigation. Rolling terrain is either dry farmed or irrigated by sprinklers. Soils often dictate the crops grown. Climate influences the type of crops grown. Within the Planning Area, there are 2,458.76 acres of cropland habitat.

Deciduous orchards are typically open single species tree dominated habitats. Depending on the tree type and pruning methods they are usually low, bushy trees with an open understory to facilitate harvest. Trees range in height at maturity for many species from 15 to 30 feet, but may be 10 feet or less depending on the species. Crowns usually touch and are usually in a linear pattern. Spacing between trees is uniform depending on desired spread of mature trees. The understory is usually composed of low‐growing grasses, legumes, and other herbaceous plants, but may be managed to prevent understory growth totally or partially, such as along tree rows.

3.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES

3.4-6 Draft Environmental Impact Report – Lathrop General Plan Update Deciduous orchards can be found on flat alluvial soils in the valley floors, in rolling foothill areas, or on relatively steep slopes. Though some deciduous orchards are nonirrigated, most are irrigated.

Some flat soils are flood irrigated, but many deciduous orchards are sprinkler irrigated. Large numbers of orchards are irrigated by drip or trickle irrigation systems. Most deciduous orchards are in valley or foothill areas, with a few, such as, apples and pears, up to 3,000 feet elevation.

Within the Planning Area, there are 180.75 acres of deciduous orchard habitat.

Evergreen orchards are typically open single species tree dominated habitats. Depending on the tree type and pruning methods they are usually low, bushy trees with an open understory to facilitate harvest. Trees range in height at maturity for many species from 15 to 30 feet, but may be 10 feet or less depending on the species. Crowns often do not touch and are usually in a linear pattern. Spacing between trees is uniform depending on desired spread of mature trees. The understory is usually composed of low‐growing grasses, legumes, and other herbaceous plants, but may be managed to prevent understory growth totally or partially, such as along tree rows.

Evergreen orchards can be found on flat alluvial soils in the valley floors, in rolling foothill areas, or on relatively steep slopes. All are irrigated. Some flat soils are flood irrigated, but most evergreen orchards are sprinkler irrigated. Large numbers of orchards are irrigated by drip or trickle irrigation systems. Most evergreen orchards are in valley or foothill areas. Except for olive, most evergreen orchard trees are not very frost tolerant. Within the Planning Area, there are 0.89 acres of evergreen orchard habitat.

Vineyards are composed of single species planted in rows, usually supported on wood and wire trellises. Vines are normally intertwined in the rows but open between rows. Rows under the vines are usually sprayed with herbicides to prevent growth of herbaceous plants. Between rows of vines, grasses and other herbaceous plants may be planted or allowed to grow as a cover crop to control erosion. Vineyards can be found on flat alluvial soils in the valley floors, in rolling foothill areas, or on relatively steep slopes. All are irrigated. Most vineyards are sprinkler irrigated. Large numbers of vineyards are irrigated by drip or trickle irrigation systems. Most vineyards are in valley or foothill areas. Within the Planning Area, there are 9.34 acres of vineyard habitat.

Dryland Grain Crops are composed of vegetation in the dryland (nonirrigated) grain and seed crops habitat includes seed producing grasses, primarily barley, cereal rye, oats, and wheat. These seed and grain crops are annuals. They are usually planted by drilling in rows which produce solid stands, forming 100 percent canopy at maturity in good stands. They are normally planted in fall and harvested in spring. However, they may be planted in rotation with other irrigated crops and winter wheat or barley may be planted after harvest of a previous crop in the fall, dry farmed (during the wet winter and early spring months), and then harvested in late spring. Within the Planning Area, there are 1,583.36 acres of Dryland Grain Crop habitat.

Irrigated Grain Crops include a variety of sizes, shapes and growing patterns. Field corn can reach ten feet tall while dry beans are only several inches tall. Most irrigated grain and seed crops are grown in rows. Some may form 100 percent canopy while others may have significant bare areas between rows. All seed and grain crops are annuals. They are usually planted in spring and harvested in summer or fall. However, they may be planted in rotation with other irrigated crops and sometimes winter wheat or barley may be planted after harvest of a previous crop in the fall, dry farmed (during the wet winter and early spring months) or they may be irrigated, and then BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES 3.4
Draft Environmental Impact Report – Lathrop General Plan Update 3.4-7 harvested in the late spring. Within the Planning Area, there are 780.59 acres of Irrigated Grain Crop habitat.

Irrigated Hayfield normally has a 2 to 6 months initial growing period, depending on climate, and soil, this habitat is dense, with nearly 100 percent cover. Average height is about 0.46 m. (1.5 feet) tall. Planted fields generally are monocultures (the same species or mixtures or a few species with similar structural properties). Structure changes to a lower stature following each harvest, grows up again and reverts to bare ground following plowing or discing. Plowing may occur annually, but is usually less often. Layering generally does not occur in this habitat. Unplanted "native" hay fields may contain short and tall patches. If not harvested for a year, they may develop a dense thatch of dead leaves between the canopy and the ground. Within the Planning Area, there are 1,179.00 acres of Irrigated Hayfield habitat.

Irrigated Row and Field Crops include a variety of sizes, shapes and growing patterns. Cotton and asparagus can be three or four feet tall while others may be a foot or less high. Most irrigated row and field crops are grown in rows. Some may form 100 percent canopy while others may have significant bare areas between rows. Most are annuals, while others, such as asparagus and strawberries are perennial. The annuals are usually planted in spring and harvested in summer or fall. However, they may be planted in rotation with other irrigated crops and sometimes winter wheat or barley may be planted after harvest of a previous crop in the fall, dry farmed (during the wet winter and early spring months), and then harvested in the late spring. In some areas of southern California three crops may be grown in a year. Within the Planning Area, there are 1,033.33 acres of Irrigated Row and Field Crop habitat.

Urban habitats are not limited to any particular physical setting. Three urban categories relevant to wildlife are distinguished: downtown, urban residential, and suburbia. The heavily‐developed downtown is usually at the center, followed by concentric zones of urban residential and suburbs.

There is a progression outward of decreasing development and increasing vegetative cover.

Species richness and diversity is extremely low in the inner cover. The structure of urban vegetation varies, with five types of vegetative structure defined: tree grove, street strip, shade tree/lawn, lawn, and shrub cover. A distinguishing feature of the urban wildlife habitat is the mixture of native and exotic species. Within the Planning Area, there are 4,690.67 acres of urban habitat.

Shrub Cover Types
Coastal Scrub occurs discontinuously in a narrow strip throughout the length of California, usually occurs within about 45 km (20 mi) of the ocean. Coastal Scrub is typified by low to moderate‐sized shrubs with mesophytic leaves, flexible branches, semi‐woody stems growing from a woody base, and a shallow root system. Coastal Scrub appears to support numbers of vertebrate species roughly equivalent to those in surrounding habitats. The Federal and State listed endangered peregrine falcon, Morro Bay kangaroo rat and the Santa Cruz long‐toed salamander all occur in Coastal Scrub, though not exclusively. A subspecies of the black‐tailed gnatcatcher, a California Department of Fish and Game Species of Special Concern, is found exclusively in southern sage scrub. Within the Planning Area, there are 6.204 acres of Coastal Scrub habitat.

Herbaceous Cover Types
Annual Grassland habitat occurs mostly on flat plains to gently rolling foothills. Climatic conditions are typically Mediterranean, with cool, wet winters and dry, hot summers. The length of the frost‐

3.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES

3.4-8 Draft Environmental Impact Report – Lathrop General Plan Update free season averages 250 to 300 days. Annual precipitation is highest in northern California.

Within the Planning Area, there are 836.39 acres of annual grassland habitat.

Fresh emergent wetland habitats occur on virtually all exposures and slopes, provided a basin or depression is saturated or at least periodically flooded. They are most common on level to gently rolling topography. They are found in various depressions or at the edge of rivers or lakes. Soils are predominantly silt and clay, although coarser sediments and organic material may be intermixed.

In some areas organic soils (peat) may constitute the primary growth medium. Climatic conditions are highly variable and range from the extreme summer heat to winter temperatures well below freezing. Within the Planning Area, there are 17.09 acres of fresh emergent wetland habitat.

Tree Dominated Cover Types
Valley‐foothill riparian habitats are found in valleys bordered by sloping alluvial fans, slightly dissected terraces, lower foothills, and coastal plains. They are generally associated with low velocity flows, flood plains, and gentle topography. Valleys provide deep alluvial soils and a high water table. The substrate is coarse, gravelly, or rocky soils more or less permanently moist, but probably well aerated. Frost and short periods of freezing occur in winter (200 to 350 frost‐free days). This habitat is characterized by hot, dry summers and mild and wet winters. Temperatures range from 75 to 102 F in the summer to 29 to 44 F in the winter. Average precipitation ranges from 6‐30 inches, with little or no snow. The growing season is 7 to 11 months. Within the Planning Area, there are 309.27 acres of valley‐foothill riparian habitat.

Eucalyptus habitats range from single‐species thickets with little or no shrubby understory to scattered trees over a well‐developed herbaceous and shrubby understory. In most cases, eucalyptus forms a dense stand with a closed canopy. Stand structure for this habitat may vary considerably because most eucalyptus have been planted into either rows for wind protection or dense groves for hardwood production and harvesting. Eucalyptus is often found in monotypic stands. The genus is composed of over 150 species with high morphological diversity. Thus, habitat structure may be affected if more than two or three species coexist. Tree size may vary considerably depending on spacing and species. Typically, trees may range in height from 26 to 40 m (87 to 133 ft) and have diameters (dbh) of 21.8 to 38.4 cm (8.6 to 15.1 in) (Walters 1980), with most growth occurring in the first 15 years. Trees in excess of 46 to 80 m (152 to 264 ft) are not uncommon. Within the Planning Area, there are 0.04 acres of Eucalyptus habitat.

Other Habitats
Barren habitat is defined by the absence of vegetation. Any habitat with <2% total vegetation cover by herbaceous, desert, or non‐wildland species and <10% cover by tree or shrub species is defined this way. The physical settings for permanently barren habitat represent extreme environments for vegetation. An extremely hot or cold climate, a near‐vertical slope, an impermeable substrate, constant disturbance by either human or natural forces, or a soil either lacking in organic matter or excessively saline can each contribute to a habitat being inhospitable to plants. Within the Planning Area, there are 119.36 acres of barren habitat.

BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES 3.4
Draft Environmental Impact Report – Lathrop General Plan Update 3.4-9 Aquatic Habitats
Riverine habitats can occur in association with many terrestrial habitats. Riverine habitats are found adjacent to many rivers and streams. Riverine habitats are also found contiguous to lacustrine and fresh emergent wetland habitats. This habitat requires intermittent or continually running water generally originating at some elevated source, such as a spring or lake, and flows downward at a rate relative to slope or gradient and the volume of surface runoff or discharge.

Velocity generally declines at progressively lower altitudes, and the volume of water increases until the enlarged stream finally becomes sluggish. Over this transition from a rapid, surging stream to a slow, sluggish river, water temperature and turbidity will tend to increase, dissolved oxygen will decrease, and the bottom will change from rocky to muddy. Within the Planning Area, there are 366.89 acres of riverine habitat.

SPECIAL-STATUS SPECIES
The following discussion is based on a background search of special‐status species that are documented in the CNDDB, the CNPS Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants, and the USFWS endangered and threatened species lists. The background search was regional in scope and focused on the documented occurrences within one mile and within a 9 Quad search area of Lathrop. Figure 3.4‐2 illustrates the special status species located within one mile of the Planning Area. As shown in Figure 3.4‐3, the 9 quads consist of Holt, Stockton West, Stockton East, Peters, Union Island, Lathrop, Manteca, Tracy, Vernalis, and Ripon.

Special Status Plants
The search revealed documented occurrences of three special status plant species within one mile of the Lathrop Planning Area. The search revealed documented occurrences of 25 special status plant species within a Nine‐Quad search of the Lathrop Planning Area.

Tables 3.4‐2 and 3.4‐3 provide a list of special‐status plant species that are documented within one and 9‐quads of the Planning Area, along with their current protective status, geographic distribution, habitat, and blooming period. Figure 3.4‐2 illustrates the special status species located within one mile of the Planning Area. Figure 3.4‐3 illustrates the special status species located within approximately 9‐quads of the Planning Area.

3.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES

3.4-10 Draft Environmental Impact Report – Lathrop General Plan Update TABLE 3.4‐2: SPECIAL‐STATUS PLANT SPECIES PRESENT OR POTENTIALLY PRESENT (APPROXIMATELY ONE MILE)

PLANTS SPECIES COMMON NAME FEDERAL STATUS CALIFORNIA STATUS Eryngium racemosum Delta button‐celery None Endangered
Trichocoronis wrightii var. wrightii Wright's trichocoronis None None Cirsium crassicaule Slough Thistle None None
SOURCE: CDFW CNDDB 2018
NOTES: CNPS = CALIFORNIA NATIVE PLANT SOCIETY
SJMSCP = SAN JOAQUIN MULTI‐SPECIES HABITAT CONSERVATION AND OPEN SPACE PLAN

FEDERAL
E = ENDANGERED UNDER THE FEDERAL ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT.

T = THREATENED UNDER THE FEDERAL ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT.

STATE
E = ENDANGERED UNDER THE CALIFORNIA ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT.

T = THREATENED UNDER THE FEDERAL CALIFORNIA ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT.

R = RARE UNDER THE CALIFORNIA ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT

CALIFORNIA NATIVE PLANT SOCIETY
1B = RARE, THREATENED, OR ENDANGERED IN CALIFORNIA AND
ELSEWHERE.
2 = RARE, THREATENED, OR ENDANGERED IN CALIFORNIA, BUT MORE COMMON ELSEWHERE.
3 = A REVIEW LIST – PLANTS ABOUT WHICH MORE INFORMATION IS NEEDED.
4 = PLANTS OF LIMITED DISTRIBUTION – A WATCH LIST
.1 = SERIOUSLY ENDANGERED IN CALIFORNIA (OVER 80% OF
OCCURRENCES THREATENED‐HIGH DEGREE AND IMMEDIACY OF THREAT). .2 = FAIRLY ENDANGERED IN CALIFORNIA (20‐80% OCCURRENCES THREATENED).
.3= NOT VERY ENDANGERED IN CALIFORNIA (<20% OF OCCURRENCES

THREATENED)
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES 3.4
Draft Environmental Impact Report – Lathrop General Plan Update 3.4-11 TABLE 3.4‐3: SPECIAL STATUS PLANTS PRESENT OR POTENTIALLY PRESENT (9‐QUAD)

PLANTS SPECIES COMMON NAME FEDERAL STATUS CALIFORNIA STATUS Eryngium racemosum Delta button‐celery None Endangered
Lilaeopsis masonii Mason's lilaeopsis None Rare
Blepharizonia plumosa big tarplant None None
Cirsium crassicaule slough thistle None None
Madia radiata showy golden madia None None
Trichocoronis wrightii var. wrightii Wright's trichocoronis None None Symphyotrichum lentum Suisun Marsh aster None None
Amsinckia grandiflora large‐flowered
fiddleneck
Endangered Endangered
Tropidocarpum capparideum caper‐fruited
tropidocarpum
None None
Brasenia schreberi watershield None None
Atriplex cordulata var. cordulata heartscale None None
Extriplex joaquinana San Joaquin spearscale None None
Atriplex minuscula lesser saltscale None None
Astragalus tener var. tener alkali milk‐vetch None None Lathyrus jepsonii var. jepsonii Delta tule pea None None Trifolium hydrophilum saline clover None None
California macrophylla round‐leaved filaree None None
Hibiscus lasiocarpos var.
occidentalis
woolly rose‐mallow None None
Eschscholzia rhombipetala diamond‐petaled
California poppy
None None
Delphinium recurvatum recurved larkspur None None
Chloropyron palmatum palmate‐bracted salty
bird's‐beak
Endangered Endangered
Limosella australis Delta mudwort None None
Sagittaria sanfordii Sanford's arrowhead None None
Carex comosa bristly sedge None None

3.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES

3.4-12 Draft Environmental Impact Report – Lathrop General Plan Update

PLANTS SPECIES COMMON NAME FEDERAL STATUS CALIFORNIA STATUS Puccinellia simplex California alkali grass None None
SOURCE: CDFW CNDDB 2018
NOTES: CNPS = CALIFORNIA NATIVE PLANT SOCIETY, SJMSCP = SAN JOAQUIN MULTI‐SPECIES HABITAT CONSERVATION AND OPEN SPACE PLAN

FEDERAL
E = ENDANGERED UNDER THE FEDERAL ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT.

T = THREATENED UNDER THE FEDERAL ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT.

STATE
E = ENDANGERED UNDER THE CALIFORNIA ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT.

T = THREATENED UNDER THE FEDERAL CALIFORNIA ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT.

R = RARE UNDER THE CALIFORNIA ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT

THREATENED)
Special Status Animals
The search revealed documented occurrences of 46 special status animal species within approximately 9‐quads of the Planning Area. Of these species, 10 are documented within approximately one mile of the City’s SOI. Tables 3.4‐4 and 3.4‐5 provide a list of the special‐status animal species that are documented within approximately one mile and 9‐quad of the Planning Area, along with their current protective status, geographic distribution, and habitat. Figure 3.4‐2 illustrates the location of documented occurrences within one mile of the Planning Area, and Figure 3.4‐3 shown documented occurrences within approximately 9‐quad of the Planning Area.

BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES 3.4
Draft Environmental Impact Report – Lathrop General Plan Update 3.4-13 TABLE 3.4‐4: SPECIAL STATUS ANIMALS PRESENT OR POTENTIALLY PRESENT (APPROXIMATELY ONE MILE)

ANIMAL SPECIES COMMON NAME FEDERAL STATUS CALIFORNIA STATUS Ambystoma californiense California tiger salamander Threatened Threatened Buteo swainsoni Swainson's hawk None Threatened
Athene cunicularia burrowing owl None None
Lanius ludovicianus loggerhead shrike None None
Melospiza melodia song sparrow ("Modesto"
population)
None None
Agelaius tricolor tricolored blackbird None Candidate Endangered Xanthocephalus xanthocephalus yellow‐headed blackbird None None Oncorhynchus mykiss irideus
pop. 11
steelhead ‐ Central Valley DPS Threatened None
Spirinchus thaleichthys longfin smelt Candidate Threatened Sylvilagus bachmani riparius riparian brush rabbit Endangered Endangered SOURCE: CDFW CNDDB 2018
SJMSCP = SAN JOAQUIN MULTI‐SPECIES HABITAT CONSERVATION AND OPEN SPACE PLAN STATUS EXPLANATIONS:

FEDERAL
E = ENDANGERED UNDER THE FEDERAL ENDANGERED SPECIES
ACT.

T = THREATENED UNDER THE FEDERAL ENDANGERED SPECIES
ACT.

PE = PROPOSED FOR ENDANGERED UNDER THE FEDERAL
ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT.

PT = PROPOSED FOR THREATENED UNDER THE FEDERAL
ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT.

C = CANDIDATE SPECIES FOR LISTING UNDER THE FEDERAL
ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT.

STATE
E = ENDANGERED UNDER THE CALIFORNIA ENDANGERED
SPECIES ACT.

T = THREATENED UNDER THE CALIFORNIA ENDANGERED
SPECIES ACT.

C = CANDIDATE SPECIES FOR LISTING UNDER THE STATE
ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT.

FP = FULLY PROTECTED UNDER THE CALIFORNIA FISH AND
GAME CODE.

SSC = SPECIES OF SPECIAL CONCERN IN CALIFORNIA.

BCC = BIRD OF CONSERVATION CONCERN
D = DELISTED FROM FEDERAL LISTING STATUS.

3.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES

3.4-14 Draft Environmental Impact Report – Lathrop General Plan Update TABLE 3.4‐5: SPECIAL STATUS ANIMALS PRESENT OR POTENTIALLY PRESENT (9‐QUAD)

ANIMAL SPECIES COMMON NAME FEDERAL STATUS CALIFORNIA STATUS Ambystoma californiense California tiger salamander Threatened Threatened Spea hammondii western spadefoot None None
Rana draytonii California red‐legged frog Threatened None Rana boylii foothill yellow‐legged frog None Candidate Threatened Branta hutchinsii leucopareia cackling (=Aleutian Canada) goose
Delisted None
Elanus leucurus white‐tailed kite None None
Buteo swainsoni Swainson's hawk None Threatened
Falco columbarius merlin None None
Laterallus jamaicensis
coturniculus
California black rail None Threatened
Coccyzus americanus occidentalis western yellow‐billed cuckoo Threatened Endangered Athene cunicularia burrowing owl None None
Eremophila alpestris actia California horned lark None None Lanius ludovicianus loggerhead shrike None None
Vireo bellii pusillus least Bell's vireo Endangered Endangered Melospiza melodia song sparrow ("Modesto"
population)
None None
Agelaius tricolor tricolored blackbird None Candidate Endangered Xanthocephalus xanthocephalus yellow‐headed blackbird None None Oncorhynchus mykiss irideus pop.
11 steelhead ‐ Central Valley DPS Threatened None
Hypomesus transpacificus Delta smelt Threatened Endangered Spirinchus thaleichthys longfin smelt Candidate Threatened Mylopharodon conocephalus hardhead None None
Corynorhinus townsendii Townsend's big‐eared bat None None Antrozous pallidus pallid bat None None
Eumops perotis californicus western mastiff bat None None Sylvilagus bachmani riparius riparian brush rabbit Endangered Endangered Perognathus inornatus San Joaquin Pocket Mouse None None Neotoma fuscipes riparia riparian (=San Joaquin Valley) woodrat
Endangered None
Neotoma fuscipes riparia riparian (=San Joaquin Valley) woodrat
Endangered None
Vulpes macrotis mutica San Joaquin kit fox Endangered Threatened Taxidea taxus American badger None None
Emys marmorata western pond turtle None None
Phrynosoma blainvillii coast horned lizard None None
Arizona elegans occidentalis California glossy snake None None Masticophis flagellum ruddocki San Joaquin coachwhip None None Thamnophis gigas giant gartersnake Threatened Threatened BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES 3.4
Draft Environmental Impact Report – Lathrop General Plan Update 3.4-15 Special Status Invertebrate Animals
The search revealed documented occurrences of 9 special status invertebrate animals including insect species within a 9‐quad search area. Of these species, two (western bumble bee Bombus occidentalis, and moestan blister beetle Lytta moesta) are documented within one mile of the Planning Area. Tables 3.4‐6, provides a list of the special‐status Invertebrate Animal species that are documented within the vicinity of the Planning Area, and their current protective status. Figure

3.4‐3 illustrates the location of documented occurrences within the 9‐quad search radius of Planning Area, and Figure 3.4‐2 shown documented occurrences within one mile of the Planning Area.

Table 3.4‐6: Special Status Invertebrate Animals Present Or Potentially Present (9 Quad) Animal Species Common Name Federal Status California
Status
Branchinecta conservatio Conservancy fairy shrimp Endangered None Branchinecta lynchi vernal pool fairy shrimp Threatened None Linderiella occidentalis California linderiella None None Lepidurus packardi vernal pool tadpole shrimp Endangered None Desmocerus californicus dimorphus valley elderberry longhorn beetle Threatened None Anthicus sacramento Sacramento anthicid beetle None None Lytta moesta moestan blister beetle None None
Bombus occidentalis western bumble bee None None
Bombus crotchii Crotch bumble bee None None
SOURCE: CDFW CNDDB 2018
SJMSCP = SAN JOAQUIN MULTI‐SPECIES HABITAT CONSERVATION AND OPEN SPACE PLAN STATUS EXPLANATIONS:

FEDERAL
E = ENDANGERED UNDER THE FEDERAL ENDANGERED SPECIES
ACT.

T = THREATENED UNDER THE FEDERAL ENDANGERED SPECIES
ACT.

PE = PROPOSED FOR ENDANGERED UNDER THE FEDERAL
ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT.

PT = PROPOSED FOR THREATENED UNDER THE FEDERAL
ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT.

C = CANDIDATE SPECIES FOR LISTING UNDER THE FEDERAL
ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT.

D = DELISTED FROM FEDERAL LISTING STATUS.

STATE
E = ENDANGERED UNDER THE CALIFORNIA ENDANGERED
SPECIES ACT.

T = THREATENED UNDER THE CALIFORNIA ENDANGERED
SPECIES ACT.

C = CANDIDATE SPECIES FOR LISTING UNDER THE STATE
ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT.

FP = FULLY PROTECTED UNDER THE CALIFORNIA FISH AND
GAME CODE.

SSC = SPECIES OF SPECIAL CONCERN IN CALIFORNIA.

BCC = BIRD OF CONSERVATION CONCERN

3.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES

3.4-16 Draft Environmental Impact Report – Lathrop General Plan Update Sensitive Natural Communities
The California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) considers sensitive natural communities to have significant biotic value, with species of plants and animals unique to each community. The CNDDB search revealed five sensitive natural communities within a Nine‐Quad search area. This includes: Coastal and Valley Freshwater Marsh, Great Valley Cottonwood Riparian Forest, Great Valley Cottonwood Riparian Forest, Great Valley Valley Oak Riparian Forest, and Elderberry Savanna.

All of these community types were once more widely distributed throughout California, but have been modified or destroyed by grazing, cultivation, and urban development. Since the remaining examples of these sensitive natural communities are under continuing threat from future development, CDFW considers them “highest inventory priorities” for future conservation. Of these sensitive natural communities documented within proximity of Lathrop, only one (Great Valley Valley Oak Riparian Forest) is located within one mile of the city.

SALMON AND STEELHEAD TROUT FISHERIES
Salmon and steelhead trout are anadromous fish species that are present in the Bay Delta and San Joaquin and Sacramento River Basins. Anadromous fish are born in freshwater rivers and streams, and then migrate to the Pacific Ocean to grow and mature before returning to their place of origin to spawn. The San Joaquin and Sacramento River system prod uces most of the Chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) and a large percentage of the steelhead trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) in California.

Anadromous fish resources once flourished naturally in the San Joaquin and Sacramento River system, but as a result of habitat destruction from water storage/diversion projects, flood control, mining, sedimentation, and bank degradation, they are protected species under the Federal Endangered Species Act. The San Joaquin and Sacramento River system has historically supported steelhead trout and four distinct spawning runs of Chinook salmon: fall, late fall, winter, and spring. The salmon runs have declined since the late 1800s and are now characterized as episodic.

The Central Valley steelhead was Federally listed as threatened in 2003. The fall/late fall‐run salmon is a Federal and State species of concern, and a candidate species for Federal listing. The spring‐run Chinook salmon population is listed as threatened by both Federal and State agencies.

Winter‐run Chinook salmon population is listed as a Federally and State endangered species.

Populations of Central Valley Steelhead and Chinook salmon are supported by natural spawning grounds and hatcheries within the San Joaquin and Sacramento River Basin.

BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES 3.4
Draft Environmental Impact Report – Lathrop General Plan Update 3.4-17 Water remaining behind the dams by the start of the spawning run in October is often warmed by summer heat. Warm water and low water elevation are harmful to most coldwater anadromous fish species. Riparian vegetation is critical for the maintenance of high quality fish habitat. It provides cover, controls temperature, stabilizes stream banks, provides food, and buffers streams from erosion and impacts of adjacent land uses. Riparian vegetation also affects stream depth, current velocity, and substrate composition. The decline of riparian communities in California is a factor contributing to the loss of high quality fish habitat.

Wildlife Movement Corridors
Wildlife corridors refer to contiguous tracts of habitat that connect larger areas of habitat and facilitate genetic exchange within a population or between subpopulations by allowing for movement within or between habitat patches. Habitat reduction and fragmentation are among the primary causes of species decline; consequently, the identification and preservation of key corridors is important to retaining native populations in San Joaquin County.

The San Joaquin River is a natural movement corridor for native fish that are documented in the region including: Delta smelt (Hypomesus transpacificus), Central Valley steelhead (Oncorhynchus mykiss), Central Valley fall‐/late fall‐run Chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha), Longfin smelt (Spirinchus thaleichthys), Sacramento splittail (Pogonichthys macrolepidotus), River lamprey (Lampetra ayresii), Hardhead (Mylopharodon conocephalus). Additionally, portions of the Planning Area are located within an ecological or wildlife movement corridors identified by the CDFW or identified in the San Joaquin County Multi‐Species Habitat Conservation and Open Space Plan (SJMSCP) as important to maintaining connectivity between communities, habitat patches, and species populations or identified in the SJMSCP 2019 Annual Report as preserve areas. The wildlife movement corridor identified by the CDFW is approximately 670 acres in the City of Lathrop, within the western portion of the Planning Area. The riparian habitat along the San Joaquin River corridor bordering Lathrop also serves one of the two remaining brush rabbit (Syvilagus bachmani riparius) populations. This species occupies riparian forests with ample understory within the natural floodplains of the San Joaquin River.

As described previously, a portion of the Planning Area is adjacent to the San Joaquin River, which the SJMSCP identifies as a wildlife corridor due to its riparian habitat. To preserve the San Joaquin River Wildlife Corridor, the SJMSCP requires developments to be situated so as to maintain a 1,200‐foot corridor encompassing 600 feet from the mean high water mark of the San Joaquin River, on both sides of the river, from Stewart Tract to the Stanislaus/San Joaquin County line.

3.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES

3.4-18 Draft Environmental Impact Report – Lathrop General Plan Update Native Nursery Sites
Native Nursery Sites refer to areas in which members of the same species collectively breed and rear offspring in substantial numbers. There are multiple native nursery sites in the vicinity of the Planning Area due to the riparian woodland communities that have developed along the four main rivers in San Joaquin County, including the Mokelumne, San Joaquin, Calaveras, and Stanislaus rivers.

The closest native nursery site to the Planning Area is a known riparian brush rabbit population within Lathrop1 near river bend. To protect this federally endangered riparian brush rabbit population, the San Joaquin River Oxbow Preserve was established in 2004 by Union Pacific Homes as mitigation for their development in Lathrop (USFWS, November 2012). This 30‐acre riparian forest preserve is located adjacent to the San Joaquin River within Lathrop in San Joaquin County.

As shown in Figure 3.4‐1 and noted in Table 3.4‐1, approximately 309.27 ‐acres of Valley Foothill Riparian habitat exists in the Planning Area adjacent to the San Joaquin River.

In addition, fish use the rivers in San Joaquin County for spawning, rearing, and migration. As previously stated, the San Joaquin River runs adjacent to the southwest corner of the Planning Area. Salmon and steelhead trout are anadromous fish species that are present in the Bay Delta and San Joaquin and Sacramento River Basins. Anadromous fish are born in freshwater rivers and streams, and then migrate to the Pacific Ocean to grow and mature before returning to their place of origin to spawn. The San Joaquin and Sacramento River system produces most of the Chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) and a large percentage of the steelhead trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) in California.

1 USFWS. November 2012. Proposed Expansion San Joaquin River National Wildlife Refuge [pg. 53] BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES 3.4
Draft Environmental Impact Report – Lathrop General Plan Update 3.4-19

3.4.2 REGULATORY SETTING
There are a number of regulatory agencies whose responsibility includes the oversight of the natural resources of the State and nation including the CDFW, the USFWS, the USACE, and the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). These agencies often respond to declines in the quantity of a particular habitat or plant or animal species by developing protective measures for those species or habitat type. The following is an overview of the Federal, State, and local regulations that are applicable to implementing the General Plan.

FEDERAL
Federal Endangered Species Act
The Federal Endangered Species Act, passed in 1973, defines an endangered species as any species or subspecies that is in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range. A threatened species is defined as any species or subspecies that is likely to become an endangered species within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its range.

Once a species is listed it is fully protected from a “take” unless a take permit is issued by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service. A take is defined as the harassing, harming, pursuing, hunting, shooting, wounding, killing, trapping, capturing, or collecting wildlife species or any attempt to engage in such conduct, including modification of its habitat (16 USC 1532, 50 CFR 17.3). Proposed endangered or threatened species are those species for which a proposed regulation, but not a final rule, has been published in the Federal Register.

Migratory Bird Treaty Act
To kill, posses, or trade a migratory bird, bird part, nest, or egg is a violation of the Federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act (FMBTA: 16 U.S.C., §703, Supp. I, 1989), unless it is in accordance with the regulations that have been set forth by the Secretary of the Interior.

Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act
The Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act (16 USC Section 668) protects these birds from direct take and prohibits the take or commerce of any part of these species. The USFWS administers the act, and reviews Federal agency actions that may affect these species.

Clean Water Act – Section 404
Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA) regulates all discharges of dredged or fill material into waters of the U.S. Discharges of fill material includes the placement of fill that is necessary for the construction of any structure, or impoundment requiring rock, sand, dirt, or other material for its construction; site‐ development fills for recreational, industrial, commercial, residential, and other uses; causeways or road fills; and fill for intake and outfall pipes and subaqueous utility lines [33 C.F.R. §323.2(f)].

Waters of the U.S. include lakes, rivers, streams, intermittent drainages, mudflats, sandflats, wetlands, sloughs, and wet meadows [33 C.F.R. §328.3(a)]. Wetlands are defined as “those areas that are

3.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES

3.4-20 Draft Environmental Impact Report – Lathrop General Plan Update inundated or saturated by surface or groundwater at a frequency and duration sufficient to support and under normal circumstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions” [33 C.F.R. §328.3(b)]. Waters of the U.S. exhibit a defined bed and bank and ordinary high water mark (OHWM). The OHWM is defined by the USACE as “that line on shore established by the fluctuations of water and indicated by physical character of the soil, destruction of terrestrial vegetation, the presence of litter and debris, or other appropriate means that consider the characteristics of the surrounding areas” [33 C.F.R. §328.3(e)].

The USACE is the agency responsible for administering the permit process for activities that affect waters of the U.S. Executive Order 11990 is a Federal implementation policy, which is intended to result in no net loss of wetlands.

Clean Water Act – Section 401
Section 401 of the CWA (33 U.S.C. 1341) requires an applicant who is seeking a 404 permit to first obtain a water quality certification from the Regional Water Quality Control Board. To obtain the water quality certification, the Regional Water Quality Control Board must indicate that the proposed fill would be consistent with the standards set forth by the State.

Department of Transportation Act ‐ Section 4(f)
Section 4(f) has been part of Federal law since 1966. It was enacted as Section 4(f) of the Department of Transportation (DOT) Act of 1966 and set forth in Title 49 United States Code (U.S.C.), Section 1653(f). In January 1983, as part of an overall recodification of the DOT Act, Section 4(f) was amended and codified in 49 U.S.C. Section 303. This law established policy on Lands, Wildlife and Waterfowl Refuges, and Historic Sites as follows:

It is the policy of the United States Government that special effort should be made to preserve the natural beauty of the countryside and public park and recreation lands, wildlife and waterfowl refuges, and historic sites. The Secretary of Transportation shall cooperate and consult with the Secretaries of the Interior, Housing and Urban Development, and Agriculture, and with the States, in developing transportation plans and programs that include measures to maintain or enhance the natural beauty of lands crossed by transportation activities or facilities.

The Secretary of Transportation may approve a transportation program or project (other than any project for a park road or parkway under section 204 of title 23) requiring the use of publicly owned land of a public park, recreation area, or wildlife and waterfowl refuge of national, State, or local significance, or land of a historic site of national, State, or local significance (as determined by the Federal, State, or local officials having jurisdiction over the park, area, refuge, or site) only if: a) There is no prudent and feasible alternative to using that land; and b) The program or project includes all possible planning to minimize harm to the park, recreation area, wildlife and waterfowl refuge, or historic site resulting from the use.

Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899
The Rivers and Harbors Act prohibits the obstruction or alteration of any navigable water of the United States. The Act requires authorization from the USACE for any excavation or deposition of materials into BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES 3.4
Draft Environmental Impact Report – Lathrop General Plan Update 3.4-21 these waters or for any work that could affect the course, location, condition, or capacity of rivers or harbors.

STATE
Fish and Game Code §2050‐2097 ‐ California Endangered Species Act The California Endangered Species Act (CESA) protects certain plant and animal species when they are of special ecological, educational, historical, recreational, aesthetic, economic, and scientific value to the people of the State. CESA established that it is State policy to conserve, protect, restore, and enhance endangered species and their habitats.

CESA was expanded upon the original Native Plant Protection Act and enhanced legal protection for plants. To be consistent with Federal regulations, CESA created the categories of "threatened" and "endangered" species. It converted all "rare" animals into the Act as threatened species, but did not do so for rare plants. Thus, there are three listing categories for plants in California: rare, threatened, and endangered. Under State law, plant and animal species may be formally designated by official listing by the California Fish and Game Commission.

Fish and Game Code §1900‐1913 California Native Plant Protection Act In 1977 the State Legislature passed the Native Plant Protection Act (NPPA) in recognition of rare and endangered plants of the State. The intent of the law was to preserve, protect, and enhance endangered plants. The NPPA gave the California Fish and Game Commission the power to designate native plants as endangered or rare, and to require permits for collecting, transporting, or selling such plants. The NPPA includes provisions that prohibit the taking of plants designated as "rare" from the wild, and a salvage mandate for landowners, which requires notification of the CDFW 10 days in advance of approving a building site.

Fish and Game Code §3503, 3503.5, 3800 ‐ Predatory Birds Under the California Fish and Game Code, all predatory birds in the order Falconiformes or Strigiformes in California, generally called “raptors,” are protected. The law indicates that it is unlawful to take, posses, or destroy the nest or eggs of any such bird unless it is in accordance with the code. Any activity that would cause a nest to be abandoned or cause a reduction or loss in a reproductive effort is considered a take. This generally includes construction activities.

Fish and Game Code §1601‐1603 – Streambed Alteration
Under the California Fish and Game Code, CDFW has jurisdiction over any proposed activities that would divert or obstruct the natural flow or change the bed, channel, or bank of any lake or stream. Private landowners or project proponents must obtain a “Streambed Alteration Agreement” from CDFW prior to any alteration of a lake bed, stream channel, or their banks. Through this agreement, the CDFW may impose conditions to limit and fully mitigate impacts on fish and wildlife resources. These agreements are usually initiated through the local CDFW warden and will specify timing and construction conditions, including any mitigation necessary to protect fish and wildlife from impacts of the work.

3.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES

3.4-22 Draft Environmental Impact Report – Lathrop General Plan Update Public Resources Code § 21000 ‐ California Environmental Quality Act CEQA identifies that a species that is not listed on the Federal or State endangered species list may be considered rare or endangered if the species meets certain criteria. Under CEQA public agencies must determine if a project would adversely affect a species that is not protected by FESA or CESA. Species that are not listed under FESA or CESA, but are otherwise eligible for listing (i.e., candidate or proposed) may be protected by the local government until the opportunity to list the species arises for the responsible agency.

Species that may be considered for review are included on a list of “Species of Special Concern,” developed by the CDFW. Additionally, the California Native Plant Society (CNPS) maintains a list of plant species native to California that have low numbers, limited distribution, or are otherwise threatened with extinction. This information is published in the Inventory of Rare and Endangered Vascular Plants of California. List 1A contains plants that are believed to be extinct. List 1B contains plants that are rare, threatened, or endangered in California and elsewhere. List 2 contains plants that are rare, threatened, or endangered in California, but more numerous elsewhere. List 3 contains plants where additional information is needed. List 4 contains plants with a limited distribution.

Public Resources Code § 21083.4 ‐ Oak Woodlands Conservation In 2004, the California legislature enacted SB 1334, which added oak woodland conservation regulations to the Public Resources Code. This new law requires a county to determine whether a project, within its jurisdiction, may result in a conversion of oak woodlands that will have a significant effect on the environment. If a county determines that there may be a significant effect to oak woodlands, the county must require oak woodland mitigation alternatives to mitigate the significant effect of the conversion of oak woodlands. Such mitigation alternatives include: conservation through the use of conservation easements; planting and maintaining an appropriate number of replacement trees; contribution of funds to the Oak Woodlands Conservation Fund for the purpose of purchasing oak woodlands conservation easements; and/or other mitigation measures developed by the county.

California Oak Woodland Conservation Act
The California Legislature passed Assembly Bill 242, known as the California Oak Woodland Conservation Act, in 2001 as a result of widespread changes in land use patterns across the landscape that were fragmenting oak woodland character over extensive areas. The Act created the California Oak Woodland Conservation Program within the Wildlife Conservation Board. The legislation provides funding and incentives to ensure the future viability of California’s oak woodland resources by maintaining large scale land holdings or smaller multiple holdings that are not divided into fragmented, nonfunctioning biological units. The Act acknowledged that the conservation of oak woodlands enhances the natural scenic beauty for residents and visitors, increases real property values, promotes ecological balance, provides habitat for over 300 wildlife species, moderates temperature extremes, reduces soil erosion, sustains water quality, and aids with nutrient cycling, all of which affect and improve the health, safety, and general welfare of the residents of the State.

BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES 3.4
Draft Environmental Impact Report – Lathrop General Plan Update 3.4-23 California Wetlands Conservation Policy
In August 1993, the Governor announced the "California Wetlands Conservation Policy.” The goals of the policy are to establish a framework and strategy that will:
 Ensure no overall net loss and to achieve a long‐term net gain in the quantity, quality, and permanence of wetland acreage and values in California in a manner that fosters creativity, stewardship, and respect for private property.
 Reduce procedural complexity in the administration of State and Federal wetland conservation programs.
 Encourage partnerships to make landowner incentive programs and cooperative planning efforts the primary focus of wetland conservation and restoration.

The Governor also signed Executive Order W‐59‐93, which incorporates the goals and objectives contained in the new policy and directs the Resources Agency to establish an Interagency Task Force to direct and coordinate administration and implementation of the policy.

Natural Community Conservation Planning Act
The Natural Community Conservation Planning Act provides long‐term protection of species and habitats through regional, multi‐species planning before the special measures of the CESA become necessary.

Porter‐Cologne Water Quality Control Act
The Porter‐Cologne Water Quality Control Act authorizes the SWRCB to regulate state water quality and protect beneficial uses.

Water Quality Control Plan for the Sacramento‐San Joaquin River Basins The Water Quality Control Plan for the Sacramento‐San Joaquin River Basins (Basin Plan), adopted by the CVRWQCB in 1998, identifies the beneficial uses of water bodies and provides water quality objectives and standards for waters of the Sacramento River and San Joaquin River basins, including the Delta.

State and federal laws mandate the protection of designated “beneficial uses” of water bodies. State law defines beneficial uses as “domestic; municipal; agricultural and industrial supply; power generation; recreation; aesthetic enjoyment; navigation; and preservation and enhancement of fish, wildlife, and other aquatic resources or preserves” (Water Code Section 13050[f]). Additional protected beneficial uses of the San Joaquin River include groundwater recharge and fresh water replenishment.

3.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES

3.4-24 Draft Environmental Impact Report – Lathrop General Plan Update LOCAL
San Joaquin County Multi‐Species Habitat Conservation and Open Space Plan A Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP) is a federal planning document that is prepared pursuant to Section 10 of the FESA. An approved HCP within a defined plan area allows for the incidental take of species and habitat that are otherwise protected under FESA during development activities.

A Natural Community Conservation Plan (NCCP) is a state planning document administered by CDFW. An approved NCCP within a defined plan area allows for the incidental take of species and habitat that are otherwise protected under CESA during growth and development activities.

BACKGROUND
The key purpose of the San Joaquin County Multi‐Species Habitat Conservation and Open Space Plan (SJMSCP), is to provide a strategy for balancing the need to conserve Open Space and the need to Convert Open Space to non‐Open Space uses while protecting the region's agricultural economy; preserving landowner property rights; providing for the long‐term management of plant, fish and wildlife species, especially those that are currently listed, or may be listed in the future, under the Federal Endangered Species Act (ESA) or the CESA; providing and maintaining multiple‐use Open Spaces which contribute to the quality of life of the residents of San Joaquin County; and accommodating a growing population while minimizing costs to Project Proponents and society at large.

San Joaquin County's past and future (2001‐2051) growth has affected and will continue to affect 97 special status plant, fish and wildlife species in 52 vegetative communities scattered throughout San Joaquin County's 1,400+ square miles and 900,000+ acres, which include 43 percent of the Sacramento‐ San Joaquin Delta's Primary Zone. 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". In addition, the SJMSCP provides some compensation to offset the impacts of open space land conversions on non‐wildlife related resources such as recreation, agriculture, scenic values and other beneficial Open Space uses.

The SJMSCP compensates for Conversions of Open Space for the following activities: urban development, mining, expansion of existing urban boundaries, non‐agricultural activities occurring outside of urban boundaries, levee maintenance undertaken by the San Joaquin Area Flood Control Agency, transportation projects, school expansions, non‐federal flood control projects, new parks and trails, maintenance of existing facilities for non‐federal irrigation district projects, utility installation, maintenance activities, managing Preserves, and similar public agency projects. These activities will be undertaken by both public and private individuals and agencies throughout San Joaquin County and within the County's incorporated cities of Escalon, Manteca, Lathrop, Lodi, Manteca, Ripon, Stockton and Tracy. Public agencies including Caltrans (for transportation projects), and the San Joaquin Council of Governments (for transportation projects) also will undertake activities which will be covered by the SJMSCP. In addition, 5,340 acres is allocated for anticipated projects (e.g., annexations, general plan amendments)
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES 3.4
Draft Environmental Impact Report – Lathrop General Plan Update 3.4-25 The 97 SJMSCP Covered Species include 25 state and/or federally listed species. The SJMSCP Covered Species 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).

IMPLEMENTATION
The SJMSCP is administered by a Joint Powers Authority consisting of members of the San Joaquin County Council of Governments (SJCOG), the CDFW, and the USFWS. Development project applicants are given the option of participating in the SJMSCP as a way to streamline compliance with required local, State and federal laws regarding biological resources, and typically avoid having to approach each agency independently. According to the SJMSCP, adoption and implementation by local planning jurisdictions provides full compensation and mitigation for impacts to plants, fish and wildlife. Adoption and implementation of the SJMSCP also secures compliance pursuant to the state and federal laws such as CEQA, the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), the Planning and Zoning Law, the State Subdivision Map Act, the Porter‐Cologne Act and the Cortese‐Knox Act in regard to species covered under the SJMSCP.

Applicants pay mitigation fees on a per‐acre basis, as established by the Joint Powers Authority according to the measures needed to mitigate impacts to the various habitat and biological resources.

Different types of land require different levels of mitigation; i.e., one category requires that one acre of a similar land type be preserved for each acre developed, while another type requires that two acres be preserved for each acre developed. The entire County is mapped according to these categories so that landowners, project proponents and project reviewers are easily aware of the applicable SJMSCP fees for the proposed development.

The appropriate fees are collected by the City and remitted to SJCOG for administration. SJCOG uses the funds 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. Development occurring on land that has been classified under the SJMSCP as “no‐pay” would not be required to pay a fee. This category usually refers to already urbanized land and infill development areas. Although the fees are automatically adjusted on an annual basis, based on the construction cost index, they often cannot keep pace with the rapidly rising land prices in the Central Valley.

3.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES

3.4-26 Draft Environmental Impact Report – Lathrop General Plan Update

3.4.3 IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES

THRESHOLDS OF SIGNIFICANCE
Consistent with Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, the proposed Project will have a significant impact on biological resources if it will:
 Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service;
 Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or US Fish and Wildlife Service;
 Have a substantial adverse effect on state or federally protected wetlands (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means;
 Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites;
 Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance; or
 Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan.

IMPACTS AND MITIGATION
Impact 3.4‐1: General Plan implementation could have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Less than Significant) 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 or wildlife movement corridors.

SPECIAL STATUS PLANT SPECIES
The search revealed documented occurrences of three special status plant species within one mile of the Planning Area. The search revealed documented occurrences of 25 special status plant species (including three non‐vascular plants) within approximately 9‐quads of the Planning Area. Tables 3.4‐2 and 3.4‐3 provide a list of special‐status plant species that are documented within one mile and 9‐quads of the Planning Area, along with their current protective status. Figure 3.4‐2 illustrates the special status BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES 3.4
Draft Environmental Impact Report – Lathrop General Plan Update 3.4-27 species located within one mile of the Planning Area. Figure 3.4‐3 illustrates the special status species located within approximately 9‐quads of the Planning Area.

Subsequent development under the proposed General Plan could result in the direct loss of habitat areas associated with these special status plant species, since suitable habitat for these species does occur in the region. Additionally, indirect impacts to special status plant species could occur with implementation of the General Plan. Indirect impacts could include habitat degradation as a result of impacts to water quality.

Special status plant species receive protection from various Federal and State laws and regulations, including FESA and CESA. These regulations generally prohibit the taking of the plant species without a special permit. Additionally, the proposed General Plan includes numerous policies and actions intended to reduce or avoid impacts to special status plant species. These policies and actions are listed below.

SPECIAL STATUS ANIMAL SPECIES
The search revealed documented occurrences of 35 special status animal species within approximately a 9‐quad search of the Planning Area. This includes: four amphibians, 13 birds, four fish, eight mammals, six reptile, and 9 invertebrates, including five insect species. Of these species, 9 are documented within approximately one mile of Lathrop. Tables 3.4‐4, 3.4‐5, and 3.4‐6 provide a list of the special‐status animal species that are documented within approximately one mile and 9‐quads of the Planning Area along with their current protective status. Figure 3.4‐2 illustrates the special status plant species located within the one‐mile search area and Figure 3.4‐3 illustrates the special status plant species located within approximately 9‐quad of the Planning Area.

Subsequent development under the proposed General Plan could result in the direct loss of habitat areas associated with special status animal species, since suitable habitat for these species does occur in the region and may occur on or near future development project sites within Lathrop. Additionally, indirect impacts to special status animal species could occur with implementation of the General Plan.

Indirect impacts could include habitat degradation as a result of impacts to water quality, increased human presence, and the loss of foraging habitat.

Special status animal species receive protection from various Federal and State laws and regulations, including FESA and CESA. These regulations generally prohibit the taking of a species or direct impact to foraging and breeding habitat without a special permit. Additionally, the proposed General Plan includes numerous policies and actions intended to reduce or avoid impacts to special status animal species.

These policies and actions are listed below.

CONCLUSION
Construction and operational activities associated with future development projects under the proposed General Plan could result in the direct and indirect loss or indirect disturbance of special status plant or animal species or their habitats that are known to occur, or have potential to occur, in the region.

Impacts to special status species or their habitat could result in a substantial reduction in local population size, lowered reproductive success, or habitat fragmentation. Significant impacts on special status species associated with individual subsequent projects could include:

3.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES

3.4-28 Draft Environmental Impact Report – Lathrop General Plan Update  increased mortality caused by higher numbers of automobiles in new areas of development;  direct mortality from the collapse of underground burrows, resulting from soil compaction;  direct mortality resulting from the movement of equipment and vehicles through construction areas;
 direct mortality resulting from removal of trees with active nests;  direct mortality or loss of suitable habitat resulting from the trimming or removal of obligate host plants;
 direct mortality resulting from fill of wetlands features;  loss of breeding and foraging habitat resulting from the filling of seasonal or perennial wetlands;  loss of breeding, foraging, and refuge habitat resulting from the permanent removal of riparian vegetation;
 loss of suitable habitat for vernal pool invertebrates resulting from the destruction or degradation of vernal pools or seasonal wetlands;
 abandoned eggs or young and subsequent nest failure for special status nesting birds, including raptors, and other non‐special status migratory birds resulting from construction‐related noises;  loss or disturbance of rookeries and other colonial nests;  loss of suitable foraging habitat for special status raptor species;  loss of migration corridors resulting from the construction of permanent structures or features; and
 impacts to fisheries/species associated with waterways.

However, implementation of the General Plan policies and actions listed below would assist in minimizing potential impacts. 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 City of Lathrop has prepared the General Plan to include numerous policies and actions intended to protect special status plants and animals, including habitat, from adverse effects associated with future development and improvement projects. Specifically, General Plan policies require City staff to continue to require projects to comply with the requirements of the SJMSCP when reviewing proposed public and private land use changes. The SJMSCP requires applicants to pay mitigation fees on a per‐acre basis to mitigate impacts to the various habitat and biological resources within the Planning Area. For project proponents who opt not to participate in the SJMSCP, General Plan actions require project proponents to instead provide site‐specific research and ground surveys for proposed development projects that include a detailed inventory of all biological resources onsite and appropriate mitigation measures for avoiding or reducing impact to these biological resources. Additionally, the General Plan requires project proponents to satisfy applicable U.S. Endangered Species Act (ESA), California Endangered Species Act (CESA), National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), and other applicable local, state, and federal laws and regulation provisions through consultations with the Permitting Agencies and local planning agencies.

While individual future development projects have the potential to result in significant impacts to protected special status plants and animals, including habitat, the implementation of the policies and BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES 3.4
Draft Environmental Impact Report – Lathrop General Plan Update 3.4-29 actions described above and listed below, as well as adherence to Federal and State regulations, would ensure that impacts to these resources are less than significant.

GENERAL PLAN POLICIES AND ACTIONS THAT MINIMIZE POTENTIAL IMPACTS

RECREATION AND RESOURCES ELEMENT POLICIES
RR‐2.1: Open Space Boundaries. Maintain existing open space lands within the city by carefully considering the impact of new development in established open space areas.

RR‐2.2: Regional Partners. Coordinate with regional partners to maintain and preserve open space areas under overlapping jurisdiction or within nearby communities to protect all local and regional opportunities for recreation available to Lathrop residents.

RR‐4.1: Sensitive Communities. Protect, conserve, and enhance Lathrop’s biological resources, with a special focus on sensitive, rare, or endangered plant and wildlife species in accordance with state and federal resource agency requirements.

RR‐4.2: Habitat Conservation. Support habitat conservation efforts to set aside and preserve suitable habitats, with priority given to habitats for rare and endangered species in accordance with state and federal resource agency requirements.

RR‐4.3: Native Species. Conserve existing native trees and vegetation where possible and encourage the use of native species in development and infrastructure projects.

RR‐4.4: Natural Water Bodies and Drainage Systems. Limit the disturbance of natural water bodies and drainage systems in Lathrop by conserving natural open space areas, protecting channels, and minimizing the impacts from stormwater and urban runoff.

RR‐4.5: Aquatic Habitat. Work with San Joaquin County and the South San Joaquin Irrigation District to preserve wetlands, riparian corridors, and buffer zones in Lathrop by:

A. Requiring new development to protect streams and riparian habitats; and B. Encouraging the use of water quality wetlands, biofiltration swales, watershed‐scale retrofits, etc., where such measures are likely to be effective and technically and economically feasible.

RR‐4.6: Urban Forest. To the extent feasible, build upon existing streetscapes and develop an urban forest along the City’s major corridors and in residential neighborhoods to provide avian habitat, sequester carbon emissions, foster pedestrian activity, and provide shade.

RR‐4.7: Wildlife Corridors. Participate in the planning of drainage channels and other areas that provide potential wildlife linkages between open space areas in the community and the vicinity.

RR‐4.8: City Programs. Promote City programs that focus on habitat protection and biological conservation.

RR‐4.9: Regional Coordination. Coordinate with county, state, and federal agencies and local nonprofits to protect and preserve biologic resources in Lathrop.

3.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES

3.4-30 Draft Environmental Impact Report – Lathrop General Plan Update RR‐4.10: Local Coordination. Coordinate with private and public organizations within the region to implement strategies and programs that protect and preserve biological resources within Lathrop.

RR‐4.11: Development. Require that all new development identify potential impacts to existing biological resources and provide mitigation measures as necessary pursuant to CEQA in order to protect these resources from negative externalities.

RR‐4.12: Human Interaction. In areas where residents and sensitive biological resources interact, establish protective policies and/or implement design features to protect and insulate biological resources from human impacts.

RR‐7.3: Restoration. Promote protection of areas for habitat restoration, including remnants of riparian and aquatic habitat, particularly in the Delta.

RR‐7.4: Compatibility. Encourage compatibility between agricultural practices and wildlife habitat.

RR‐7.5: Beneficial Uses. Preserve and protect the water availability and quality of the Delta for designated beneficial uses and habitat protection.

RR‐7.6: Levee Projects. Encourage and promote the expansion of floodplains and riparian habitats in levee projects, outside areas already identified for development.

RR‐7.7: Climate Change. Recognize that climate change impacts may influence future guidance, and best available data, and continue to ensure that up‐to‐date information is consulted when reviewing projects for potential impacts to the Delta.

RR‐7.8: Delta Heritage. Support the long‐term viability and success of the natural Delta ecosystems and the continuation of Delta heritage.

RECREATION AND RESOURCES ELEMENT ACTIONS
RR‐2b: Periodically coordinate with neighboring jurisdictions to share plans regarding open space protection and access.

RR‐4a: Cooperate with state, federal, and local agencies to ensure that development does not cause significant adverse impacts to existing riparian corridors.

RR‐4b: Require new development, infrastructure, long‐range planning, and similar projects, to comply with the requirements of the San Joaquin County Multi‐Species Habitat Conservation and Open Space Plan to ensure that potentially significant impacts to special‐status species and sensitive resources are adequately addressed.

RR‐4c: Require new development which has the potential to result in water quality impacts to the City’s waterways and the local groundwater basin to implement all feasible mitigation measures to reduce impacts.

RR‐4d: Publicize volunteer‐based programs that organize community habitat restoration and/or cleanup events and provide public education regarding the benefits of city and regional water resources.

BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES 3.4
Draft Environmental Impact Report – Lathrop General Plan Update 3.4-31 RR‐4e: Where sensitive biological habitats have been identified on or immediately adjacent to a project site, the project shall include appropriate mitigation measures identified by SJMSCP, which may include, but are not limited to the following:

A. Pre‐construction surveys for species listed under the State or Federal Endangered Species Acts, or species identified as special‐status by the resource agencies, shall be conducted by a qualified biologist;
B. Construction barrier fencing shall be installed around sensitive resources and areas identified for avoidance or protection, and to reduce potential soil compaction in sensitive areas; and C. Pre‐Construction training of contractors and sub‐contractors shall be conducted by a qualified biologist to identify and avoid protected species and habitat.

RR‐7a: Review all projects affecting areas within the Delta Secondary Zone to ensure they are consistent with the criteria and policies set forth by the Delta Stewardship Council’s “Delta Plan”. Recognize that areas already anticipated for development in the General Plan within the Secondary Zone are not subject to the Delta Plan.

RR‐7b: As applicable, provide opportunities for review of and comment by the Reclamation Districts, the Delta Stewardship Council, Delta Protection Commission, and SWRCB during project review.

RR‐7c: Review any projects located adjacent to priority habitat restoration areas, as identified is the Delta Plan, and consult the California Department of Fish and Wildlife as warranted, to ensure that any impacts do not have a significant effect on the opportunity to restore habitat as described in the Delta Plan.

RR‐7d: Review and regulate new development, infrastructure, and levee improvement projects to ensure consistency with Federal and State flood and floodway requirements, including BDCP and Delta Plan policies as applicable.

Impact 3.4‐2: General Plan implementation could have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Less than Significant) The CDFW considers sensitive natural communities to have significant biotic value, with species of plants and animals unique to each community. The CNDDB search revealed five sensitive natural communities within a 9‐quad search of Lathrop. The sensitive natural communities within a 9‐quad search are of Lathrop include Coastal and Valley Freshwater Marsh, Great Valley Cottonwood Riparian Forest, Great Valley Cottonwood Riparian Forest, Great Valley Valley Oak Riparian Forest, and Elderberry Savanna. All four of these community types were once more widely distributed throughout California, but have been modified or destroyed by grazing, cultivation, and urban development. Since the remaining examples of these sensitive natural communities are under continuing threat from future development, CDFW considers them “highest inventory priorities” for future conservation. Of these sensitive natural communities documented within a 9‐quad radius of Lathrop, one (Great Valley Oak Riparian Forest) is located within one mile of the City limits.

3.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES

3.4-32 Draft Environmental Impact Report – Lathrop General Plan Update While not always documented as a sensitive natural community in the CNDDB, streams, rivers, wet meadows, and vernal pools are of high concern because they provide unique aquatic habitat for many endemic species, including special status plants, birds, invertebrates, and amphibians. Lathrop is located in a bioregion that includes vernal pools, valley sink scrub and saltbush, freshwater marsh, grasslands, arid plains, orchards, and oak savannah. Historically, millions of acres of wetlands flourished in the bioregion, but stream diversions for irrigation dried all but five percent. Due to Lathrop’s agricultural history, agricultural irrigation ditches and canals are located in the Planning Area where active agricultural operations are found. A major area of riparian habitat is located on the west and southwest side of the Planning Area along the San Joaquin River. The riparian vegetation along Old River is contiguous with the southwestern Planning Area boundary. Additionally, seasonal wetland areas dispersed throughout the agricultural regions in the western portion of the Planning Area also support riparian vegetation and associated wildlife. These wetland areas are located within the SJMSCP Natural Lands Habitat Open Space category. Within the Planning Area these riparian areas located along river corridors are generally designated for conservation uses and are identified as resource conservation and open space land uses on the General Plan’s Land Use Map.

As noted in Table 3.4‐1, approximately 309 acres of Valley Foothill Riparian habitat is located within the Planning Area. Over 225 species of birds, mammals, reptiles, and amphibians depend on California’s riparian habitats, including the endangered riparian brush rabbit and the endangered riparian woodrat2 .

Development accommodated by the General Plan in or near riparian and habitat areas could result in removal of vegetation or further habitat degradation from pollutants transported by urban runoff, changes in vegetation as a result of changes in land use and management practices, as well as altered site hydrology from the construction of adjacent urban development and roadways. Alterations to the flow, bed, channel, or bank of creeks and streams within the Planning Area would affect the ability of riparian corridors to provide habitat for wildlife species that utilize them for feeding, cover, and nesting, and thus could result in a loss of riparian habitat function; therefore, this is considered a potentially significant impact.

The City of Lathrop has prepared the General Plan to include numerous policies and actions intended to protect sensitive natural communities, including riparian habitat, from adverse effects associated with future development and improvement projects. As previously stated, the General Plan requires City staff to continue to require projects to comply with the requirements of the SJMSCP, which requires the applicants to pay mitigation fees on a per‐acre basis to mitigate impacts to the various habitat and biological resources within the Planning Area. Additionally, the SJMSCP requires developments along both sides of the San Joaquin River to be situated so as to maintain a 1,200‐foot corridor encompassing 600 feet from the mean high‐water mark of the river. Further, for the area on the east side of the river bordering lands in the Lathrop and Manteca planned land use areas as indicated on the SJMSCP Planned Land Use Map, the final setbacks shall be established after the completion of surveys for the riparian brush rabbit. The General Plan also includes several policies and actions related to habitat restoration and protection, including riparian and aquatic habitat. For example, RC‐4.5 requires new developments in the vicinity of the San Joaquin River Delta to be conditioned to protect riparian habitat, wetlands, and other native vegetation and wildlife communities and habitats. Additionally, General Plan Action RC‐4i

2 USFWS. November 2012. Proposed Expansion San Joaquin River National Wildlife Refuge {pg. 1] BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES 3.4
Draft Environmental Impact Report – Lathrop General Plan Update 3.4-33 requires City staff to consult the California Department of Fish and Wildlife for projects located within or adjacent to priority habitat restoration areas to ensure that any impacts do not have a significant effect on the opportunity to restore habitat as described in the Delta Plan.

Subsequent development projects will be required to comply with the General Plan and adopted Federal, State, and local regulations for the protection of sensitive natural communities, including riparian habitat. While future development has the potential to result in significant impacts to protected habitats, the implementation of the policies and action discussed above and listed below, as well as Federal and State regulations, would minimize impacts to these resources. Therefore, impacts would be considered less than significant relative to this environmental topic.

GENERAL PLAN POLICIES AND ACTIONS THAT MINIMIZE POTENTIAL IMPACTS

RECREATION AND RESOURCES ELEMENT POLICIES
RR‐4.1: Sensitive Communities. Protect, conserve, and enhance Lathrop’s biological resources, with a special focus on sensitive, rare, or endangered plant and wildlife species in accordance with state and federal resource agency requirements.

RR‐4.3: Native Species. Conserve existing native trees and vegetation where possible and encourage the use of native species in development and infrastructure projects.

RR‐4.5: Aquatic Habitat. Work with San Joaquin County and the South San Joaquin Irrigation District to preserve wetlands, riparian corridors, and buffer zones in Lathrop by:

RR‐4.7: Wildlife Corridors. Participate in the planning of drainage channels and other areas that provide potential wildlife linkages between open space areas in the community and the vicinity.

RR‐4.9: Regional Coordination. Coordinate with county, state, and federal agencies and local nonprofits to protect and preserve biologic resources in Lathrop.

RR‐4.10: Local Coordination. Coordinate with private and public organizations within the region to implement strategies and programs that protect and preserve biological resources within Lathrop.

3.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES

3.4-34 Draft Environmental Impact Report – Lathrop General Plan Update RR‐4.11: Development. Require that all new development identify potential impacts to existing biological resources and provide mitigation measures as necessary pursuant to CEQA in order to protect these resources from negative externalities.

RR‐7.3: Restoration. Promote protection of areas for habitat restoration, including remnants of riparian and aquatic habitat, particularly in the Delta.

RR‐7.5: Beneficial Uses. Preserve and protect the water availability and quality of the Delta for designated beneficial uses and habitat protection.

RR‐7.6: Levee Projects. Encourage and promote the expansion of floodplains and riparian habitats in levee projects, outside areas already identified for development.

RECREATION AND RESOURCES ELEMENT ACTIONS
RR‐4a: Cooperate with state, federal, and local agencies to ensure that development does not cause significant adverse impacts to existing riparian corridors.

RR‐4e: Where sensitive biological habitats have been identified on or immediately adjacent to a project site, the project shall include appropriate mitigation measures identified by SJMSCP, which may include, but are not limited to the following:

BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES 3.4
Draft Environmental Impact Report – Lathrop General Plan Update 3.4-35 RR‐7b: As applicable, provide opportunities for review of and comment by the Reclamation Districts, the Delta Stewardship Council, Delta Protection Commission, and SWRCB during project review.

Impact 3.4‐3: General Plan implementation could have a substantial adverse effect on state or federally protected wetlands (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means (Less than Significant)
Streams, rivers, wet meadows, and vernal pools (wetlands and jurisdictional waters) are of high concern because they provide unique aquatic habitat (perennial and ephemeral) for many endemic species, including special status plants, birds, invertebrates, and amphibians. These aquatic habitats oftentimes qualify as protected wetlands or jurisdictional waters and are protected from disturbance through the CWA.

The San Joaquin River flows though the south‐central portion and along the western boundary of the Planning Area. The Old River is a tributary to the San Joaquin River and runs contiguous with the southwestern boundary of the Planning Area. The majority of the Study Area has been historically leveled and any naturally occurring drainages have been channelized or otherwise disturbed. Some of the numerous Planning Area irrigation and drainage ditches/canals support riparian vegetation.

Irrigation runoff impoundments may function as seasonal wetlands. If the Corps determines that the irrigation and drainage ditches/canals, or the irrigation water impoundments represent waters “adjacent” to the San Joaquin River, these features would be regulated pursuant to Section 404.

Section 404 of the CWA requires any project that involves disturbance to a wetland or water of the U.S. to obtain a permit that authorizes the disturbance. If a wetland or jurisdictional water is determined to be present, then a permit must be obtained from the USACE to authorize a disturbance to the wetland.

Although subsequent projects may disturb protected wetlands and/or jurisdictional waters, the regulatory process that is established through Section 404 of the CWA ensures that there is “no net loss” of wetlands or jurisdictional waters. If, through the design process, it is determined that a future development project cannot avoid a wetland or jurisdictional water, then the USACE would require that there be an equal amount of wetland created elsewhere to mitigate any loss of wetland.

The proposed Project is a planning document that does not itself approve any specific physical changes to the environment that would directly impact protected wetlands. However, the Project could have an indirect change on the physical environment through subsequently approved projects that are consistent with the buildout that is contemplated in the General Plan. The implementation of an

3.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES

3.4-36 Draft Environmental Impact Report – Lathrop General Plan Update individual project would require a detailed and site‐specific review of the site to determine the presence or absence of water features. If water features 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.

Construction and development activities associated with individual future projects could result in the disturbance or loss of waters of the United States. This includes perennial and intermittent drainages; unnamed drainages; vernal pools; freshwater marshes; and other types of seasonal and perennial wetland communities. Wetlands and other waters of the United States could be affected through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption (including dewatering), alteration of bed and bank, encroachment, habitat conversion, routine maintenance, and other development‐related activities.

Impacts on wetlands and other waters could occur through habitat conversion, encroachment, routine maintenance, or other activities in the immediate vicinity of waterways and in habitat supporting wetlands. Indirect impacts could result from adjacent development that leads to habitat modifications such as changes in hydrology and reduction in water quality caused by urban runoff, erosion, and siltation.

Subsequent development projects will be required to comply with the General Plan and adopted Federal, State, and local regulations for the protection of sensitive natural communities, including protected wetlands. The City of Lathrop has prepared the General Plan to include numerous policies and actions intended to protect wetlands and waters of the U.S. from adverse effects associated with future development and improvement projects. While future development has the potential to result in impacts to protected water features, the implementation of the policies and actions listed below, as well as Federal and State regulations, would ensure impacts to these resources are reduced. Thus, implementation of the General Plan would result in a less than significant impact relative to this environmental topic.

GENERAL PLAN POLICIES AND ACTIONS THAT MINIMIZE POTENTIAL IMPACTS

RECREATION AND RESOURCES ELEMENT POLICIES
RR‐4.4: Natural Water Bodies and Drainage Systems. Limit the disturbance of natural water bodies and drainage systems in Lathrop by conserving natural open space areas, protecting channels, and minimizing the impacts from stormwater and urban runoff.

RR‐4.5: Aquatic Habitat. Work with San Joaquin County and the South San Joaquin Irrigation District to preserve wetlands, riparian corridors, and buffer zones in Lathrop by:

RR‐4.9: Regional Coordination. Coordinate with county, state, and federal agencies and local nonprofits to protect and preserve biologic resources in Lathrop.

BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES 3.4
Draft Environmental Impact Report – Lathrop General Plan Update 3.4-37 RR‐4.10: Local Coordination. Coordinate with private and public organizations within the region to implement strategies and programs that protect and preserve biological resources within Lathrop.

RR‐7.3: Restoration. Promote protection of areas for habitat restoration, including remnants of riparian and aquatic habitat, particularly in the Delta.

RR‐7.5: Beneficial Uses. Preserve and protect the water availability and quality of the Delta for designated beneficial uses and habitat protection.

RR‐7.6: Levee Projects. Encourage and promote the expansion of floodplains and riparian habitats in levee projects, outside areas already identified for development.

RR‐7.8: Delta Heritage. Support the long‐term viability and success of the natural Delta ecosystems and the continuation of Delta heritage.

RR‐7a: Review all projects affecting areas within the Delta Secondary Zone to ensure they are consistent with the criteria and policies set forth by the Delta Stewardship Council’s “Delta

3.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES

3.4-38 Draft Environmental Impact Report – Lathrop General Plan Update Plan”. Recognize that areas already anticipated for development in the General Plan within the Secondary Zone are not subject to the Delta Plan.

RR‐7b: As applicable, provide opportunities for review of and comment by the Reclamation Districts, the Delta Stewardship Council, Delta Protection Commission, and SWRCB during project review.

BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES 3.4
Draft Environmental Impact Report – Lathrop General Plan Update 3.4-39 Impact 3.4‐4: General Plan implementation would not interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites (Less than Significant) Habitat loss, fragmentation, and degradation resulting from land use changes or habitat conversion can alter the use and viability of wildlife movement corridors (i.e., linear habitats that naturally connect and provide passage between two or more otherwise disjunct larger habitats or habitat fragments). Wildlife habitat corridors maintain connectivity for daily movement, travel, mate‐seeking, and migration; plant propagation; genetic interchange; population movement in response to environmental change or natural disaster; and recolonization of habitats subject to local extirpation or removal. The suitability of a habitat as a wildlife movement corridor is related to, among other factors, the habitat corridor’s dimensions (length and width), topography, vegetation, exposure to human influence, and the species in question.

Species utilize movement corridors in several ways. “Passage species” are those species that use corridors as thru‐ways between outlying habitats. The habitat requirements for passage species are generally less than those for corridor dwellers. Passage species use corridors for brief durations, such as for seasonal migrations or movement within a home range. As such, movement corridors do not necessarily have to meet any of the habitat requirements necessary for a passage species everyday survival. “Corridor dwellers” are those species that have limited dispersal capabilities – a category that includes most plants, insects, reptiles, amphibians, small mammals, and birds – and use corridors for a greater length of time.

As noted in Impact 3.4‐2, the San Joaquin River flows through the south‐central portion and along the west side of the Planning Area boundary. The Old River – a tributary to the San Joaquin River – runs contiguous with the southwestern boundary of the Planning Area. As shown in the proposed General Plan Land Use Map, Resource Conservation and Open Space land uses are found adjacent to the Old River, San Joaquin River and Paradise Creek in the west and southwest portions of the Planning Area.

The areas designated for urban uses by the proposed Land Use Map near both creeks are generally developed with urban uses currently.

The Planning Area contains two riparian corridors – the land along the Old River and San Joaquin River – identified in the SJMSCP as important to maintaining connectivity between communities, habitat patches, and species populations or identified in the SJMSCP 2019 Annual Report as preserve areas. As previously discussed, a number of wildlife nursery sites exist in the vicinity of the Planning Area, including the San Joaquin River Oxbow Preserve. The San Joaquin River Oxbow Preserve is located adjacent to the San Joaquin River within Lathrop in San Joaquin County, which is a 30‐acre riparian forest preserve established to protect the existing riparian brush rabbit population. As discussed in Impact 3.4‐2, Valley Foothill Riparian habitat exists in the southwestern corner of the Planning Area in close proximity to the San Joaquin River Oxbow Preserve. Given the close proximity to the known native nursery site across the river, there is potential for riparian brush rabbit to utilize the Planning Area’s riparian habitat as a nursery site.

3.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES

3.4-40 Draft Environmental Impact Report – Lathrop General Plan Update As described previously, the San Joaquin River, is a natural movement corridor for native fish that are documented in the region including: Delta smelt (Hypomesus transpacificus), Central Valley steelhead (Oncorhynchus mykiss), Central Valley fall‐/late fall‐run Chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha), Longfin smelt (Spirinchus thaleichthys), Sacramento splittail (Pogonichthys macrolepidotus), River lamprey (Lampetra ayresii), Hardhead (Mylopharodon conocephalus).

The land uses within the Plan Area would not have any direct disturbance to the San Joaquin River or its tributaries, and therefore, would not have any direct disturbance to these fish species.

Construction activities associated with buildout of the Proposed General Plan Land Use Map could have indirect impacts on these fish species from the potential for sedimentation and other pollution to enter into the San Joaquin River during construction and ongoing operational activities. Construction of future projects will require authorization from the USACE, RWQCB, and CDFW through the regulatory permit processes. These regulatory agencies will impose standard conditions that include best management practices that are aimed at minimizing pollution associated with construction activities.

The ongoing operation of the City’s stormwater infrastructure network requires discharge of stormwater into the San Joaquin River. The discharge of stormwater could result in indirect impacts to special status fish and wildlife if stormwater was not appropriately treated through BMPs prior to its discharge to the San Joaquin River. The Lathrop Municipal Code provides rules and regulations to protect water courses (Chapter 12.28) and to manage and control stormwater and discharge (Chapter 13.28). Section

13.28.130 specifically provides requirement to prevent, control and reduce stormwater pollutants. This includes requirements to implement best management practices to the extent they are technologically achievable to prevent and reduce pollutants.

Subsequent development projects will be required to comply with the General Plan and adopted Federal, State, and local regulations for the protection of movement corridors. The City of Lathrop has prepared the General Plan to include policies and actions intended to protect movement corridors from adverse effects associated with future development and improvement projects. For example, the General Plan requires projects located on or immediately adjacent to areas where sensitive biological habitats have been identified to incorporate appropriate mitigation measures identified by a qualified biologist through the preparation of a site‐specific technical report. If movement corridors 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. In addition, within riparian areas located in the Planning Area and along river corridors the General Plan generally identified these areas on the Land Use Map for conservation uses including resource conservation and open space land uses.

While future development has the potential to result in impacts to protected movement corridors, the implementation of the policies and action listed below, as well as adherence with Federal and State regulations, impacts would be considered less than significant relative to the environmental topic.

BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES 3.4
Draft Environmental Impact Report – Lathrop General Plan Update 3.4-41

GENERAL PLAN POLICIES AND ACTION THAT MINIMIZE POTENTIAL IMPACTS

RECREATION AND RESOURCE ELEMENT POLICIES
RR‐4.1: Sensitive Communities. Protect, conserve, and enhance Lathrop’s biological resources, with a special focus on sensitive, rare, or endangered plant and wildlife species in accordance with state and federal resource agency requirements.

RR‐4.3: Native Species. Conserve existing native trees and vegetation where possible and encourage the use of native species in development and infrastructure projects.

RR‐4.5: Aquatic Habitat. Work with San Joaquin County and the South San Joaquin Irrigation District to preserve wetlands, riparian corridors, and buffer zones in Lathrop by:

RR‐4.7: Wildlife Corridors. Participate in the planning of drainage channels and other areas that provide potential wildlife linkages between open space areas in the community and the vicinity.

RR‐4.8: City Programs. Promote City programs that focus on habitat protection and biological conservation.

RR‐4.9: Regional Coordination. Coordinate with county, state, and federal agencies and local nonprofits to protect and preserve biologic resources in Lathrop.

RR‐4.10: Local Coordination. Coordinate with private and public organizations within the region to implement strategies and programs that protect and preserve biological resources within Lathrop.

3.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES

3.4-42 Draft Environmental Impact Report – Lathrop General Plan Update RR‐4.12: Human Interaction. In areas where residents and sensitive biological resources interact, establish protective policies and/or implement design features to protect and insulate biological resources from human impacts.

RESOURCE CONSERVATION ELEMENT ACTIONS
RR‐4a: Cooperate with state, federal, and local agencies to ensure that development does not cause significant adverse impacts to existing riparian corridors.

Impact 3.4‐5: The General Plan would not conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance (Less than Significant)
The proposed Project is a policy document, in which local policies are established. This EIR presents the numerous policies of the General Plan. The General Plan itself does not conflict with its policies.

Subsequent development projects will be required to comply with the General Plan policies, as well as the Municipal Code. The General Plan does not contain any provisions that would conflict with local requirements addressing the maintenance and removal of existing trees, that provide for the protection of biological resources. In fact, the General Plan Policies such as Policy RR‐4.3 (described previously under Impact 3.4‐4) prioritizes conserving existing native trees and vegetation and the use of native trees in development and infrastructure projects. The General Plan provides for the continued BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES 3.4
Draft Environmental Impact Report – Lathrop General Plan Update 3.4-43 implementation of local requirements, including policies and ordinances, related to protection of biological resources. Therefore, this is considered a less than significant impact relative to this environmental topic.

Impact 3.4‐6: General Plan implementation would not conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or State habitat conservation plan (Less than Significant)
As noted previously, the City of Lathrop is a participant in SJMSCP. The SJMSCP was approved in 2000 and the City of Lathrop is a signatory to the SJMSCP.

The proposed General Plan Land Use Map does not re‐designate any land currently designated for resource conservation and open space or lands identified for habitat protection. As such, the proposed General Plan and the Land Use Map are consistent with the adopted SJMSCP in terms of land uses and habitat protection. Implementation of the General Plan would not conflict with the provisions of an adopted HCP/NCCP, or other approved local, regional, or State habitat conservation plan.

Future projects that do not comply with the SJMSCP could result in potentially significant impacts. As described previously, Action RR‐4b requires new development, infrastructure, long‐range planning, and similar projects, to comply with the requirements of the San Joaquin County Multi‐Species Habitat Conservation and Open Space Plan to ensure that potentially significant impacts to special‐status species and sensitive resources are adequately addressed. Through implementation of the General Plan including policies and actions aimed at provided for consistency with and review of the local HCP, the General Plan would have a less than significant impact relative to this topic.

GENERAL PLAN POLICES AND ACTION THAT MINIMIZES POTENTIAL IMPACTS

RECREATION AND RESOURCES ELEMENT POLICIES
RR‐4.9: Regional Coordination. Coordinate with county, state, and federal agencies and local nonprofits to protect and preserve biologic resources in Lathrop.

RR‐4.10: Local Coordination. Coordinate with private and public organizations within the region to implement strategies and programs that protect and preserve biological resources within Lathrop.

RECREATION AND RESOURCES ELEMENT ACTIONS
RR‐4b: Require new development, infrastructure, long‐range planning, and similar projects, to comply with the requirements of the San Joaquin County Multi‐Species Habitat Conservation and Open Space Plan to ensure that potentially significant impacts to special‐status species and sensitive resources are adequately addressed.

3.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES

3.4-44 Draft Environmental Impact Report – Lathrop General Plan Update This page left intentionally blank.

CITY OF LATHROP GENERAL PLAN
Figure 3.4-1 Land Cover Types
Í 0 ¼ ½
Miles
FRAP Vegetation (FVEG15_1).

Basemap: ArcGIS Online
Imagery Map Service. Map date:

May 23, 2018.

Legend
Lathrop City Boundary
Lathrop Sphere of Influence
Annual Grassland
Barren
Coastal Scrub
Cropland
Deciduous Orchard
Dryland Grain Crops
Eucalyptus
Evergreen Orchard
Fresh Emergent Wetland
Irrigated Grain Crops
Irrigated Hayfield
Irrigated Row and Field Crops
Riverine
Urban
Valley Foothill Riparian
Vineyard
WHR Type City Acres SOI Acres Grand Total
Annual Grassland 736.46 99.93 836.39
Barren 105.96 13.41 119.36
Coastal Scrub 6.20 0.00 6.20
Cropland 2,356.91 101.85 2,458.76
Deciduous Orchard 162.83 17.91 180.75
Dryland Grain Crops 1,374.21 209.15 1,583.36
Eucalyptus 0.00 0.04 0.04
Evergreen Orchard 0.89 0.00 0.89
Fresh Emergent Wetland 9.17 7.93 17.09
Irrigated Grain Crops 779.44 1.15 780.59
Irrigated Hayfield 1,172.67 6.33 1,179.00
Irrigated Row and Field Crops 1,032.65 0.68 1,033.33
Riverine 329.61 37.28 366.89
Urban 4,460.35 230.32 4,690.67
Valley Foothill Riparian 304.63 4.64 309.27
Vineyard 8.01 1.33 9.34
Grand Total 12,839.98 731.95 13,571.93

3.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES

3.4-46 Draft Environmental Impact Report – Lathrop General Plan Update This page left intentionally blank.

CITY OF LATHROP GENERAL PLAN
Figure 3.4-2. California Natural Diversity
Database - 1-Mile Radius Search
Legend
Lathrop City Boundary
Lathrop Sphere of Influence
1-mile Buffer of City
Special Status Species Occurrences
Plant (circular)
Animal (80m)
Animal (specific)
Animal (non-specific)
Animal (circular)
Terrestrial Comm. (specific)
Multiple (circular)
Í 0 ¼ ½
Miles
CNDDB version 01/2018. Please
Note: the occurrences shown on this
map represent the known locations of
the species listed here as of the date of
this version. There may be additional
occurrences or additional species
within this area which have not been
surveyed and/or mapped. Lack of
information in the CNDDB about a
species or an area can never be used
as proof that no special status species
occur in an area. Basemap: ArcGIS
Online
Topographic Map Service. Map date:

January 18, 2018.

3.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES

3.4-48 Draft Environmental Impact Report – Lathrop General Plan Update This page left intentionally blank.

BOULDIN ISLAND TERMINOUS LODI SOUTH WATERLOO LINDEN

WOODWARD
ISLAND
HOLT

STOCKTON WEST

STOCKTON EAST
PETERS

CLIFTON
COURT

FOREBAY UNION ISLAND LATHROP MANTECA
AVENA
MIDWAY
TRACY

VERNALIS
RIPON
SALIDA
CEDAR

MTN LONE TREE CREEK SOLYO WESTLEY BRUSH LAKE
Grant Line Canal
Í 0 1 2
Miles
CNDDB version 091/2018. Please Note: the occurrences shown on this map represent the known locations of the species listed here as of the date of this version. There may be additional occurrences or additional species within this area which have not been surveyed and/or mapped. Lack of information in the CNDDB about a species or an area can never be used as proof that no special status species occur in an area. Basemap: ArcGIS Online Topographic Map Service. Map date: January 18, 2018.

Special Status Species Occurrences
Plant (80m)
Plant (specific)
Plant (non-specific)
Plant (circular)
Animal (80m)
Animal (specific)
Animal (non-specific)
Animal (circular)
Terrestrial Comm. (specific)
Terrestrial Comm. (circular)
Multiple (non-specific)
Multiple (circular)
Sensitive EO's (Commercial only)

CITY OF LATHROP GENERAL PLAN
Figure 3.4-3. California Natural
Diversity Database - 9 Quad Search

3.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES

3.4-50 Draft Environmental Impact Report – Lathrop General Plan Update This page left intentionally blank.

CULTURAL AND TRIBAL RESOURCES 3.5
Draft Environmental Impact Report – Lathrop General Plan Update 3.5-1 Cultural resources are defined as buildings, sites, structures, or objects that may have historical, architectural, archaeological, cultural, or scientific importance. Preservation of the city’s cultural heritage should be considered when planning for the future.

This section provides a background discussion of the prehistory, ethnology, historical period background, and cultural resources found in Lathrop. This section is organized with an existing setting, regulatory setting, and impact analysis. Paleontological resources are discussed in Section

3.6, Geology and Soils, of this Draft EIR.

The three responses received during the 30‐day NOP comment period are summarized below.  On October 12, 2021, Ms. Katy Sanchez, Associate Environmental Planner, of the NAHC responded with information that outlined the consultation requirements of SB 18 and AB 52. Additionally, the NAHC highlighted their recommendations for conducting cultural resources assessments.
 On October 19, 2021, Ms. Katherine Perez, of the Northern Valley Yokut/Ohlone/Bay Mewuk Tribe, responded with an email and associated attachments which outlined additional Tribal mitigation measures. Ms. Perez expressed concern over the potential for inadvertent discoveries of human remains within the City of Lathrop. She made the request that any proposed projects be monitored by a Tribal monitor affiliated with the Northern Valley Yokut/Ohlone/Bay Mewuk Tribe.
 On October 26, 2021, Ms. Silvia Burley, Chairperson of the California Valley Miwok Tribe, responded with a letter expressing concerns related to government‐to‐ government consultation with the City of Lathrop. Ms. Burley reiterated that the City of Lathrop should consult directly with the California Valley Miwok Tribe as opposed to hiring a third‐party to initiate consultation. The letter referenced Section 65351 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) as requiring the local agency and not a third party to provide opportunities for Indian Tribes to be involved in the preparation or amendment of a General Plan. Additionally, Ms. Burley defined consultation as a good faith, two‐way communication between governments with the mutual intent to seek agreement rather than an exercise in collecting information from the Tribe.

City staff sent a consultation letter (dated 11/24/21) to Ms. Burley via Certified Mail.

USPS tracking shows Ms. Burley received and signed the Certified Mail on 11/26/21.

No further comments or response were received.

All comments received during the NOP comment period are included in Appendix A.

3.5 CULTURAL AND TRIBAL RESOURCES

3.5-2 Draft Environmental Impact Report – Lathrop General Plan Update

KEY TERMS
The following key terms are used throughout this section to describe cultural and tribal resources and the framework that regulates them:

Archaeology. The study of historic or prehistoric peoples and their cultures by analysis of their artifacts and monuments.

Complex. A patterned grouping of similar artifact assemblages from two or more sites, presumed to represent an archaeological culture.

Ethnography. The study of contemporary human cultures.

Midden. A deposit marking a former habitation site and containing such materials as discarded artifacts, bone and shell fragments, food refuse, charcoal, ash, rock, human remains, structural remnants, and other cultural leavings.

3.5.1 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING

PREHISTORY
The Central Valley region was among the first in the state to attract intensive fieldwork, and research has continued to the present day. This has resulted in a substantial accumulation of data.

In the early decades of the 1900s, E.J. Dawson explored numerous sites near Stockton and Lodi, later collaborating with W.E. Schenck (Schenck and Dawson 1929). By 1933, the focus of work was directed to the Cosumnes locality, where survey and excavation studies were conducted by the Sacramento Junior College (Lillard and Purves 1936). Excavation data, in particular from the stratified Windmiller site (CA‐Sac‐107), suggested two temporally distinct cultural traditions. Later work at other mounds by Sacramento Junior College and the University of California, Berkeley, enabled the investigators to identify a third cultural tradition, intermediate between the previously postulated Early and Late Horizons. The three‐horizon sequence, based on discrete changes in ornamental artifacts and mortuary practices, as well as on observed differences in soils within sites (Lillard, Heizer and Fenenga 1939), was later refined by Beardsley (1954). An expanded definition of artifacts diagnostic of each time period was developed, and its application extended to parts of the central California coast. Traits held in common allow the application of this system within certain limits of time and space to other areas of prehistoric central California.

The Windmiller Culture (Early Horizon) is characterized by ventrally‐extended burials (some dorsal extensions are known), with westerly orientation of heads; a high percentage of burials with grave goods; frequent presence of red ocher in graves; large projectile points, of which 60 percent are of materials other than obsidian; rectangular Haliotis beads; Olivella shell beads (types A1a and L); rare use of bone; some use of baked clay objects; and well‐fashioned charmstones, usually perforated.

The Cosumnes Culture (Middle Horizon) displays considerable changes from the preceding cultural expression. The burial mode is predominately flexed, with variable cardinal orientation and some CULTURAL AND TRIBAL RESOURCES 3.5
Draft Environmental Impact Report – Lathrop General Plan Update 3.5-3 cremations present. There are a lower percentage of burials with grave goods, and ocher staining is common in graves. Olivella beads of types C1, F and G predominate, and there is abundant use of green Haliotis sp. rather than red Haliotis sp. Other characteristic artifacts include perforated and canid teeth; asymmetrical and "fishtail" charmstones, usually unperforated; cobble mortars and evidence of wooden mortars; extensive use of bone for tools and ornaments; large projectile points, with considerable use of rock other than obsidian; and use of baked clay.

Hotchkiss Culture (Late Horizon) ‐‐ The burial pattern retains the use of the flexed mode, and there is wide spread evidence of cremation, lesser use of red ocher, heavy sue of baked clay, Olivella beads of Types E and M, extensive use of Haliotis ornaments of many elaborate shapes and forms, shaped mortars and cylindrical pestles, bird‐bone tubes with elaborate geometric designs, clam shell disc beads, small projectile points indicative of the introduction of the bow and arrow, flanged tubular pipes of steatite and schist, and use of magnesite (Moratto 1984:181‐183). The characteristics noted are not all‐inclusive, but cover the more important traits.

Schulz (1981), in an extensive examination of the central California evidence for the use of acorns, used the terms Early, Middle and Late Complexes, but the traits attributed to them remain generally the same. While it is not altogether clear, Schulz seemingly uses the term “Complex” to refer to the particular archeological entities (above called “Horizons”) as defined in this region.

Ragir's (1972) cultures are the same as Schulz's complexes.

Bennyhoff and Hughes (1984) have presented alternative dating schemes for the Central California Archeological Sequence. The primary emphasis is a more elaborate division of the horizons to reflect what is seen as cultural/temporal changes within the three horizons and a compression of the temporal span.

There have been other chronologies proposed, including Fredrickson (1973), and since it is correlated with Bennyhoff's (1977) work, it does merit discussion. The particular archeological cultural entities Fredrickson has defined, based upon the work of Bennyhoff, are patterns, phases and aspects. Bennyhoff's (1977) work in the Plains Miwok area is the best definition of the Cosumnes District, which likely conforms to Fredrickson's pattern. Fredrickson also proposed periods of time associated heavily with economic modes, which provides a temporal term for comparing contemporary cultural entities. It corresponds with Willey and Phillips' (1958) earlier “tradition”, although it is tied more specifically to the archeological record in California.

ETHNOLOGY
The City of Lathrop General Plan Study Area lies within the northern portion of the ethnographic territory of the Yokuts people. The Yokuts were members of the Penutian language family which held all of the Central Valley, San Francisco Bay Area, and the Pacific Coast from Marin County to near Point Sur. The Yokuts differed from other ethnographic groups in California as they had true tribal divisions with group names (Kroeber 1925; Latta 1949). Each tribe spoke a particular dialect, common to its members, but similar enough to other Yokuts that they were mutually intelligible (Kroeber 1925).

3.5 CULTURAL AND TRIBAL RESOURCES

3.5-4 Draft Environmental Impact Report – Lathrop General Plan Update The Yokuts held portions of the San Joaquin Valley from the Tehachapis in the south to Stockton in the north. On the north they were bordered by the Plains Miwok, and on the west by the Saclan or Bay Miwok and Costonoan peoples. Although neighbors were often from distinct language families, differences between the people appear to have been more influenced by environmental factors as opposed to linguistic affinities. Thus, the Plains Miwok were more similar to the nearby Yokuts than to foothill members of their own language group. Similarities in cultural inventory co‐ varied with distance from other groups and proximity to culturally diverse people. The material culture of the southern San Joaquin Yokuts was therefore more closely related to that of their non‐ Yokuts neighbors than to that of Delta members of their own language group.

Trade was well developed, with mutually beneficial interchange of needed or desired goods.

Obsidian, rare in the San Joaquin Valley, was obtained by trade with Paiute and Shoshoni groups on the eastern side of the Sierra Nevada, where numerous sources of this material are located, and to some extent from the Napa Valley to the north. Shell beads, obtained by the Yokuts from coastal people, and acorns, rare in the Great Basin, were among many items exported to the east by Yokuts traders (Davis 1961).

Economic subsistence was based on the acorn, with substantial dependency on gathering and processing of wild seeds and other vegetable foods. The rivers, streams, and sloughs that formed a maze within the valley provided abundant food resources such as fish, shellfish, and turtles. Game, wild fowl, and small mammals were trapped and hunted to provide protein augmentation of the diet. In general, the eastern portion of the San Joaquin Valley provided a lush environment of varied food resources, with the estimated large population centers reflecting this abundance (Cook 1955; Baumhoff 1963).

Settlements were oriented along the water ways, with their village sites normally placed adjacent to these features for their nearby water and food resources. House structures varied in size and shape (Latta 1949; Kroeber 1925), with most constructed from the readily available tules found in the extensive marshes of the low‐lying valley areas. The housepit depressions for the structures ranged in diameter from 3 meters to 18 meters (Wallace 1978:470).

HISTORIC PERIOD BACKGROUND
The northern section of the City of Lathrop on a portion of the Rancho Campo de los Franceses, the ranch named for the early camp first occupied by French‐Canadian trappers employed by the Hudson’s Bay Company in 1832. The site of the present‐day location of French Camp was the terminus of the Oregon Trail used by the trappers between 1832 and 1845. In 1843, William Gulnac, likely one of the trappers who had become a Mexican citizen, with Charles Weber, later founder of Stockton, organized a company of 12 men for the purpose of forming a colony at French Camp. Gulnac filed for a land grant, and was awarded a large tract of land including French Camp and the later site of Stockton by the Mexican government.

Much of the remainder of the land is a portion of the El Pescadero land grant. The Mexican land grant of 35,546 acres, lying in portions of what is now San Joaquin and Alameda counties, was awarded in 1843 to Antonio Maria Pico. Pico sold one half of the property to Henry Morris Naglee CULTURAL AND TRIBAL RESOURCES 3.5
Draft Environmental Impact Report – Lathrop General Plan Update 3.5-5 in 1849. Pico sold one half of the remainder of the property in 1852 to John C. Frémont. After California became a state, a claim was filed for the grant in 1852 and rejected in 1854, but ultimately the land grant was patented to Pico and Naglee in 1865. The land grant was settled by numerous squatters, and Fremont sold his land to Charles McLaughlin in 1867.

Lathrop first was a station on the Central Pacific, established in 1869 when the last stretch of the transcontinental railroad was built from Sacramento through this region, and crossing the San Joaquin River at Mossdale to reach the Bay Area.

The site of Lathrop was first known as Wilson’s Station, and included a store and a schoolhouse on land belonging to Thomas A. Wilson. Due to conflicts in the City of Stockton that infuriated Leland Stanford, the Central Pacific Railroad switched many operations to Wilson’s Station, later re‐ named for Charles Lathrop, brother‐in‐law of Leland Stanford. The town drew significant commerce away from the City of Stockton. The railroad’s machine shops and roundhouse were built here, and the town became an important division point and major stop on the railroad line beginning in 1871. The Visalia Division of the Southern Pacific Railroad was completed at that time, serving the San Joaquin Valley. Lathrop became an important shipping point for agricultural products.

The early major building in Lathrop was the 1871 Central Pacific Railroad restaurant, serving passengers from trains from the Bay Area to Sacramento, and passengers travelling to the San Joaquin Valley. In 1889, in this restaurant, attorney David S. Terry was shot and killed by Field’s bodyguard after he struck a United States Supreme Court Justice Stephen Field.

Lathrop remained important for the railroads, and in 1890, had about 500 residents. Daily, there were twelve passenger and 44 freight trains passing through. But that changed in the early 1890s with the growth of Tracy, and the transfer of the machine shop and roundhouse to that community. The completion of the Western Pacific railroad in 1909 did not affect the town, with the local station located about ¾ miles from the town.

In 1942, the Lathrop Holding and Reconsignment Point was established in the Lathrop vicinity on what had been a sheep ranch, holding supplies for shipment through Bay Area ports. As many as 450 railroad cars would be loaded and unloaded each day.

The facility has gone through many changes with the changing needs of the military during times of conflict. After the end of World War II, the depot went through administrative and supply mission changes, a new name applied in 1948: Sharpe General Depot. The conflict in Korea brought a demand for increased services as the staffing, shipments and missions doubled during the three years of the war. The Army curtailed supply operations, and the Sharpe site began providing medical supplies and subsistence items on a larger scale. In 1962, the facility became the Sharpe Army Depot.

In 1965, with the escalation of the war in Vietnam, Sharpe became the major conduit for supplies moving to Southeast Asia. The Sharpe facility has continued to operate with a large part of the staffing switched to the Tracy facility beginning in 1999.

3.5 CULTURAL AND TRIBAL RESOURCES

3.5-6 Draft Environmental Impact Report – Lathrop General Plan Update In the 1950s, several industrial plants were built in the Lathrop area, providing additional employment in the region. Beginning in the 1980s, improvements to community infrastructure and the attractive pricing of homes brought even more growth. The pattern of rapid growth continues to this day, with industrial and commercial development in the area, as well as many residents commuting daily to the Bay Area. The City of Lathrop incorporated in 1989.

CULTURAL RESOURCES IN THE LATHROP PLANNING AREA
California Historic Resources Inventory System
One hundred and seventy‐two cultural resources have been identified within the City of Lathrop General Plan Study Area, according to files maintained by the Central California Information Center (CCIC) of the California Historical Resources Information System (CHRIS). The one hundred and seventy‐two recorded cultural resources span both the prehistoric and historic periods and range from a Native American village site to historic period railroads, a school, buildings and single‐family homes (see Table 3.5‐1). The recorded resources include a Point of Historical Interest and two California Historical Landmarks. The greatest number of recorded cultural resources are buildings at the Sharpe facility.

CULTURAL AND TRIBAL RESOURCES 3.5
Draft Environmental Impact Report – Lathrop General Plan Update 3.5-7 TABLE 3.5‐1: RESOURCES LISTED WITH THE CENTRAL CALIFORNIA INFORMATION CENTER FILE DIRECTORY PROPERTY # ADDRESS PERIOD/TYPE NAME
P-39-000002 (CASJO-250H) Not Listed Historic/
Railroad
Southern Pacific Railroad in San
Joaquin County
P-39-000007 (CASJO-255) Not Listed Prehistoric/
Artifact scatter Not Listed
P-39-000008 Not Listed Historic/
Object Not Listed
P-39-000009 Not Listed Prehistoric/
Isolated Artifact Not Listed
P-39-000010 Not Listed
Prehistoric/
Isolated Artifact Not Listed
P-39-000011 Not Listed
Prehistoric/
Isolated Artifact Not Listed
P-39-000012 Not Listed
Prehistoric/
Isolated Artifact Not Listed
P-39-000013 Not Listed
Historic/
Farm
Equipment Not Listed
P-39-000014 (CASJO-19/H) Not Listed
Prehistoric/
Village
Historic/
Single Family
Residence 18880 South Quierolo Road
P-39-000098 (CASJO-292H) Not Listed Historic/
Railroad
Western Pacific Railroad / Union
Pacific Railroad
P-39-000130 Not Listed
Historic/
Building
Flammable Materials Storehouse
(Building Number 39)
P-39-000131 Not Listed
Historic/
Building
Flammable Materials House
Building (Building Number 40)
P-39-000132 Not Listed
Historic/
Building
Lumber Shed
(Building Number 45)
P-39-000133 Not Listed
Historic/
Railroad,
Buildings
Sharpe Facility Railroad System
(Structures Number 101, 273,
573 and remaining rail lines)
P-39-000134 Not Listed
Historic/
Building
Water Supply/Treatment
Building Number 121
P-39-000135 Not Listed
Historic/
Building
Water Pumphouses (Buildings
Number 124, 137, 145)
P-39-000136 Not Listed
Historic/
Building
Sewage Pump Station
(Building Number 313)
P-39-000137 Not Listed
Historic/
Building
Storm Water Pump Station
(Building Number 442)
P-39-000138 Not Listed
Historic/
Building
Flammable Materials Storehouse
(Building Number 691)
P-39-000141
(CA-SJO-3) Not Listed
Prehistoric/
Village Mossdale Wye
P-39-000517
(POI-SJO-006) Not Listed
Historic/
Building Eldon H. Gordon House
P-39-000531
(CHL-437) Not Listed
Historic/
Site
First Landing Place of Sailing
Launch “Comet”
P-39-000538
(CHL-780-7) Not Listed
Historic/
Railroad Bridge Union Pacific Railroad Bridge
P-39-000573 Not Listed
Historic/
Building
Auto Garage Building Number
116
P-39-000574 Not Listed
Historic/
Building Fire Station Building Number 135
P-39-000575 Not Listed
Historic/
Building
Skill Development Center
Building Number 161

3.5 CULTURAL AND TRIBAL RESOURCES

3.5-8 Draft Environmental Impact Report – Lathrop General Plan Update PROPERTY # ADDRESS PERIOD/TYPE NAME
P-39-000576 Not Listed
Historic/
Building
Motor Repair Shop
Building Number 171
P-39-000577 Not Listed
Historic/
Building
Maintenance Shop
Building Number 179
P-39-000578 Not Listed
Historic/
Building
Administration
Building Number 108
P-39-000579 Not Listed
Historic/
Building
Administration
Building Number 290
P-39-000580 Not Listed
Historic/
Building
Motor Repair Shop
Building Number 227
P-39-000581 Not Listed
Historic/
Building Building 208
P-39-000582 Not Listed
Historic/
Building Post Building Number 458
P-39-000583 Not Listed
Historic/
Building Warehouse Building Number 404
P-39-000584 Not Listed
Historic/
Building
Aircraft Hanger
Building Number 585
P-39-000585 Not Listed
Historic/
Building Building Number 661
P-39-000586 Not Listed
Historic/
Building
FE Maintenance Shop
Building Number 48
P-39-000587 Not Listed
Historic/
Building
Sewage Treatment Plant
Building Number 307
P-39-000588 Not Listed
Historic/
Building
Police Administration
Building Number 6
P-39-000589 Not Listed
Historic/
Building
Post Headquarters
Building Number 1
P-39-000590 Not Listed
Historic/
Building
FE Facility
Building Number 42
P-39-000591 Not Listed
Historic/
Building
General Storehouse
Building Number 44
P-39-000592 Not Listed
Historic/
Building
FE Facility
Building Number 41
P-39-000593 Not Listed
Historic/
Building
Warehouse
Building Number 67
P-39-000594 Not Listed
Historic/
Building
Vehicle Storage
Building Number 50
P-39-000595 Not Listed
Historic/
Building Building Number 100
P-39-000596 Not Listed
Historic/
Building Building Number 10
P-39-000597 Not Listed
Historic/
Building
Community Center
Building Number 25
P-39-000598 Not Listed
Historic/
Building
Warehouse
Building Number 640
P-39-000599 Not Listed
Historic/
Building
Administration
Building Number 211
P-39-000600 Not Listed
Historic/
Building
Warehouse
Building Number 486
P-39-000601 Not Listed
Historic/
Building Building Number 648
P-39-000602 Not Listed
Historic/
Building
NCO Housing
Building Number 27
P-39-000603 Not Listed
Historic/
Building
Housing
Building Number 26
P-39-000604 Not Listed
Historic/
Building
Signal Field Maintenance
Building Number 684
CULTURAL AND TRIBAL RESOURCES 3.5
Draft Environmental Impact Report – Lathrop General Plan Update 3.5-9 PROPERTY # ADDRESS PERIOD/TYPE NAME
P-39-000605 Not Listed
Historic/
Building
Railroad Equipment Maintenance
Building Number 101
P-39-000606 Not Listed
Historic/
Building
Civilian Personnel
Building Number 3
P-39-000607 Not Listed
Historic/
Building
Dispensary
Building Number 7
P-39-000608 Not Listed
Historic/
Building
Post Chapel
Building Number 11
P-39-000609 Not Listed
Historic/
Building
Enlisted Men’s Barracks

P-39-000610 Not Listed
Historic/
Buildings
Quinones AFRC
Buildings Numbers 75 and 76
P-39-000611 Not Listed
Historic/
Building Building Number 655
P-39-000612 Not Listed
Historic/
District Sharpe Army Depot, California
P-39-000616 Not Listed
Historic/
Building
Care and Preservation
Building Number 649
P-39-004234
(CA-SJO-274H) Not Listed
Historic/
Concrete Pylons MD-1 / The Pylon Site
P-39-004235 Not Listed
Prehistoric/
Isolated Artifact Iso-1
P-39-004333
(CA-SJO-280) Not Listed
Prehistoric/
Village River Islands Site 1
P-39-004334 Not Listed
Historic/
Railroad Bridge Union Pacific Railroad Bridge
P-39-004335 Not Listed
Prehistoric/
Isolated Artifact River Islands Isolate 1
P-39-004336 Not Listed
Prehistoric/
Isolated Artifact River Islands Isolate 2
P-39-004339
(CA-SJO-300H) Not Listed
Historic/
Refuse Scatter Moss-1
P-39-004340
(CA-SJO-281H) Not Listed
Historic/
Buildings,
Refuse Scatter Moss-2
P-39-004341 Not Listed
Prehistoric/
Isolated Artifact Moss Isolate 1
P-39-004342 Not Listed
Historic/
Isolated Artifact Moss Isolate 2
P-39-004343 Not Listed
Historic/
Isolated Artifact Moss Isolate 3
P-39-004344 Not Listed
Historic/
Pump Moss Isolate 4
P-39-004345 Not Listed
Prehistoric/
Isolated Artifact Moss Isolate 5
P-39-004346 Not Listed
Historic/
Isolated Artifact Moss Isolate 6
P-39-004347 Not Listed
Prehistoric/
Isolated Artifact Moss Isolate 7
P-39-004357 Not Listed
Historic/
Bridge
San Joaquin River Mossdale
Bridge 29C-127
P-39-004504 Not Listed
Historic/
Farm Complex Armstrong #1
P-39-004510 Not Listed
Historic/
Bridge
W 120-S5 Connector OH
Bridge 29-0016F
P-39-004547
(CA-SJO-304H) Not Listed
Historic/
Single Family
Residence EC-06-02

3.5 CULTURAL AND TRIBAL RESOURCES

3.5-10 Draft Environmental Impact Report – Lathrop General Plan Update PROPERTY # ADDRESS PERIOD/TYPE NAME
P-39-004548
(CA-SJO-395H) Not Listed
Historic/
Buildings EC-06-03
P-39-004549 Not Listed
Historic/
Brick Wall
Fragment IO-1
P-39-004562 Not Listed
Historic/
Building Building 51
P-39-004563 Not Listed
Historic/
Building
Union Office (AFGE Local 145)
Building Number 110
P-39-004564 Not Listed
Historic/
Structure
Water Reservoir 500,00 gallons
Building Number 123
P-39-004565 Not Listed
Historic/
Structure
Elevated Water Tank
Building Number 131
P-39-004566 Not Listed
Historic/
Building
Storage
Building Number 178
P-39-004567 Not Listed
Historic/
Building
Maintenance Shop, General
Purpose
Building Number 179
P-39-004568 Not Listed
Historic/
Building
Sewage Pump
Building Number 215
P-39-004569 Not Listed
Historic/
Building
DLA Quality Assurance
Facility/Warehouse
Building Number 404
P-39-004570 Not Listed
Historic/
Building
Storage
Building Number 412
P-39-004571 Not Listed
Historic/
Building
Sewage Pump
Building Number 413
P-39-004572 Not Listed
Historic/
Building
Sewage Pump
Building Number 650
P-39-004573 Not Listed
Historic/
Building
Care and Preservation Shop
Building Number 653
P-39-004574 Not Listed
Historic/
Building
Compressor
Building Number 666
P-39-004597 Not Listed
Historic/
Building
Paint Shop
Building Number 53
P-39-004602 Not Listed
Historic/
Building Silveria Complex
P-39-004603
(CA-SJO-313H) Not Listed
Historic/
Refuse Scatter EC-06-52
P-39-004604
(CA-SJO-314H) Not Listed
Historic/
Water
Conveyance
System EC-06-53
P-39-004605 Not Listed
Prehistoric/
Isolated Artifact
South Lathrop, South Village, Iso
1 P-39-004606 Not Listed
Prehistoric/
Isolated Artifact
South Lathrop, South Village, Iso
2 P-39-004607 Not Listed
Prehistoric/
Isolated Artifact
South Lathrop, South Village, Iso
3 P-39-004608 Not Listed
Prehistoric/
Isolated Artifact
South Lathrop, South Village, Iso
4 P-39-004609 Not Listed
Historic/
Water Trough
South Lathrop, South Village, Iso
5 P-39-004610 Not Listed
Historic/
Water Pump
South Lathrop, South Village, Iso
6 P-39-004611 Not Listed
Historic/
Building EC-06-21
CULTURAL AND TRIBAL RESOURCES 3.5
Draft Environmental Impact Report – Lathrop General Plan Update 3.5-11 PROPERTY # ADDRESS PERIOD/TYPE NAME
P-39-004612 Not Listed
Historic/
Building EC-06-30
P-39-004613 Not Listed
Historic/
Building EC-06-31
P-39-004614 Not Listed
Historic/
Building EC-06-32
P-39-004615 Not Listed
Historic/
Building EC-06-34
P-39-004616 Not Listed
Historic/
Building EC-06-35
P-39-004617 Not Listed
Historic/
Building EC-06-36
P-39-004618 Not Listed
Historic/
Building EC-06-37
P-39-004619 Not Listed
Historic/
Building EC-06-38
P-39-004620 Not Listed
Historic/
Building EC-06-39
P-39-004621 Not Listed
Historic/
Building EC-06-40
P-39-004622 Not Listed
Historic/
Building EC-06-41
P-39-004623 Not Listed
Historic/
Building EC-06-42
P-39-004624 Not Listed
Historic/
Building EC-06-43
P-39-004625 Not Listed
Historic/
Building EC-06-44
P-39-004626 Not Listed
Historic/
Building EC-06-45
P-39-004627 Not Listed
Historic/
Building EC-06-46
P-39-004628 Not Listed
Historic/
Building EC-06-47
P-39-004629 Not Listed
Historic/
Building EC-06-48
P-39-004630 Not Listed
Historic/
Building EC-06-49
P-39-004631 Not Listed
Historic/
Building EC-06-50
P-39-004632 Not Listed
Historic/
Building EC-06-51
P-39-004633 Not Listed
Historic/
Building EC-06-54
P-39-004634 Not Listed
Historic/
Building EC-06-55
P-39-004635 Not Listed
Historic/
Building EC-06-56
P-39-004636 Not Listed
Historic/
Building EC-06-57
P-39-004637 Not Listed
Historic/
Building EC-06-58
P-39-004638 Not Listed
Historic/
Building EC-06-59
P-39-004688 5600 West Stewart Road
Historic/
Buildings R1-1H
P-39-004649 5100 West Stewart Road
Historic/
Single Family R1-2H

3.5 CULTURAL AND TRIBAL RESOURCES

3.5-12 Draft Environmental Impact Report – Lathrop General Plan Update PROPERTY # ADDRESS PERIOD/TYPE NAME
Residence,
Sheds
P-39-004650 5100 West Stewart Road
Historic/
Single Family
Residence, Shed R1-3H
P-39-004651 4200 West Stewart Road
Historic/
Outbuilding,
Cattle Chute R1-4H
P-39-004652 16426 Cohen Road
Historic/
Single Family
Residence,
Sheds R1-6H
P-39-004653 16777 South Cohen Road
Historic/
Single Family
Residence, Shed R1-7H
P-39-004654 1710 Stewart Road
Historic/
Single Family
Residence,
Sheds R1-8H
P-39-004655 1417 Stewart Road
Historic/
Single Family
Residence,
Sheds R1-9H
P-39-004656 Not Listed
Historic/
Silos R1-10H
P-39-004657 454 West Stewart Road
Historic/
Sheds R1-11H
P-39-004658 Not Listed
Historic/
Silos R1-12H
P-39-004659 294 West Stewart Road
Historic/
Single Family
Residence,
Sheds R1-14H
P-39-004660 301 West Stewart Road
Historic/
Single Family
Residence,
Garage R1-15H
P-39-004661 Not Listed
Water
Conveyance
Features
(Canals) R1-16H to 32H
P-39-004857 Not Listed
Historic/
Structure Old River Levees
P-39-005029 Not Listed
Historic/
Building
Bachelor Officers Quarters
Building Number 4
P-39-005045 Not Listed
Historic/
School
Mossdale Middle School, Moulder,
Mt. Carmel School
P-39-005084 Not Listed
Historic/
Levee Paradise Cut Levee
P-39-005085 Not Listed
Historic/
Levee San Joaquin River Levee
P-39-005086 Not Listed
Historic/
Levee
RD 17 West Levee, Walthall
Slough Dry Land Levee
P-39-005096 Not Listed
Historic/
School Lathrop School
P-39-005108 Not Listed
Historic/
Structure
Paved Open Storage, Former
Fixed-Wing Aircraft Runway and
Aircraft Holding Apron
CULTURAL AND TRIBAL RESOURCES 3.5
Draft Environmental Impact Report – Lathrop General Plan Update 3.5-13 PROPERTY # ADDRESS PERIOD/TYPE NAME
Buildings Number 595/597
P-39-005140 Not Listed
Historic/
Building
Industrial Waste Treatment
Building Number 306
P-39-005227
(CA-SJO-355H) Not Listed
Historic/
Water
Conveyance
Feature (Ditch) AW-1
P-39-005249 Not Listed
Historic/
Building Building Number 26
P-39-005251 Not Listed
Historic/
Building Building Number 21
P-39-005252 Not Listed
Historic/
Building Building Number 29
P-39-005253 Not Listed
Historic/
Building Building Number 32
P-39-005254 Not Listed
Historic/
Building Building Number 28
P-39-005255 Not Listed
Historic/
Building Building Number 30
P-39-005256 Not Listed
Historic/
Building Building Number 31
P-39-005257 Not Listed
Historic/
Building Building Number 33
P-39-005258 Not Listed
Historic/
Building Building Number 34
P-39-005259 Not Listed
Prehistoric/
Isolated
Artifacts Prehistoric Artifacts
P-39-005260 Not Listed
Historic/
Foundation Feature SD-1
There are no properties or districts currently listed on the National Register of Historic Places or California Register of Historic Places for the City of Lathrop Study Area (www.nationalregisterofhistoricplaces.com).

3.5 CULTURAL AND TRIBAL RESOURCES

3.5-14 Draft Environmental Impact Report – Lathrop General Plan Update

NATIVE AMERICAN CONSULTATION
During the onset of the general plan update, while preparing the General Plan Existing Conditions Report, consultation letters were sent to: The Native American Heritage Commission; Mr. Randy Yonemura, Ione Band of Miwok Indians; Ms. Katherine Erolinda Perez, Northern Valley Yokuts Tribe; Mr. Gene Whitehouse, Chairman, United Auburn Indian Community of the Auburn Rancheria; Ms. Rhonda Morningstar Pope, Chairperson, Buena Vista Rancheria of Me‐Wuk Indians; Ms. Crystal Martinez, Chairperson, Ione Band of Miwok Indians; Ms. Lois Martinez, Chairperson, Southern Sierra Miwuk Nation; Mr. Raymond Hitchcock, Chairperson, Wilton Rancheria; and, California Valley Miwok Tribe. The Native American Heritage Commission responded with a letter dated December 14, 2017. The NAHC letter stated that a record search of the NAHC Sacred Lands File was completed for the area of potential project effect (APE) with negative results, and notes that the absence of specific site information in the Sacred Lands File does not indicate the absence of Native American cultural resources in any APE.

Consultation letters were then resent to the Northern Valley Yokuts, Buena Vista Rancheria Me‐ Wuk Indians, and California Valley Miwok Tribe on October 11, 2021 due the City updating their AB 52 list. The City received three response letters related to the NOP. The Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) submitted a letter, dated October 12, 2021, the California Miwok Tribe submitted a letter dated October 26, 2021, and the Northern Valley Yokut/Ohlone/Bay Mewuk submitted an e‐mail with attachments dated October 19, 2021. The NAHC comment letter provided an overview of tribal consultation requirements, and recommended approaches to reducing potential impacts to cultural and tribal resources. The California Miwok Tribe letter emphasized that the City of Lathrop engage in government‐to‐government consultation with the Tribe as opposed to relying on a third party to collect information for the EIR. The letter also mentioned that there are significant Tribal cultural resources within the city as highlighted in previous letter sent to the Planning Commission in May 2021 and the City staff in July 2021. The Northern Valley Yokut/Ohlone/Bay Mewuk email provided mitigation recommendations for when specific projects are implemented in the future and emphasized the need to hire Tribal monitors during construction activities. In response, City staff sent a consultation letter (dated 11/24/21) to Ms. Burley via Certified Mail. USPS tracking shows Ms. Burley received and signed the Certified Mail on 11/26/21. No further comments or response were received.

3.5-2 REGULATORY SETTING

FEDERAL
National Historic Preservation Act
Most regulations at the Federal level stem from the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and historic preservation legislation such as the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) of 1966, as amended. NHPA established guidelines to "preserve important historic, cultural, and natural aspects of our national heritage, and to maintain, wherever possible, an environment that supports diversity and a variety of individual choice." The NHPA includes regulations specifically for Federal land‐holding agencies, but also includes regulations (Section 106) which pertain to all CULTURAL AND TRIBAL RESOURCES 3.5
Draft Environmental Impact Report – Lathrop General Plan Update 3.5-15 projects that are funded, permitted, or approved by any Federal agency and which have the potential to affect cultural resources. All projects that are subject to NEPA are also subject to compliance with Section 106 of the NHPA and NEPA requirements concerning cultural resources.

Provisions of NHPA establish a National Register of Historic Places (The National Register) maintained by the National Park Service, the Advisory Councils on Historic Preservation, State Historic Preservation Offices, and grants‐in‐aid programs.

American Indian Religious Freedom Act and Native American Graves and Repatriation Act
The American Indian Religious Freedom Act recognizes that Native American religious practices, sacred sites, and sacred objects have not been properly protected under other statutes. It establishes as national policy that traditional practices and beliefs, sites (including right of access), and the use of sacred objects shall be protected and preserved. Additionally, Native American remains are protected by the Native American Graves and Repatriation Act of 1990.

Other Federal Legislation
Historic preservation legislation was initiated by the Antiquities Act of 1966, which aimed to protect important historic and archaeological sites. It established a system of permits for conducting archaeological studies on federal land, as well as setting penalties for noncompliance.

This permit process controls the disturbance of archaeological sites on federal land. New permits are currently issued under the Archaeological Resources Protection Act (ARPA) of 1979. The purpose of ARPA is to enhance preservation and protection of archaeological resources on public and Native American lands. The Historic Sites Act of 1935 declared that it is national policy to "Preserve for public use historic sites, buildings, and objects of national significance." STATE
California Register of Historic Resources (CRHR)
California State law also provides for the protection of cultural resources by requiring evaluations of the significance of prehistoric and historic resources identified in documents prepared pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Under CEQA, a cultural resource is considered an important historical resource if it meets any of the criteria found in Section 15064.5(a) of the CEQA Guidelines. Criteria identified in the CEQA Guidelines are similar to those described under the NHPA. The State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) maintains the CRHR. Historic properties listed, or formally designated for eligibility to be listed, on The National Register are automatically listed on the CRHR. State Landmarks and Points of Interest are also automatically listed. The CRHR can also include properties designated under local preservation ordinances or identified through local historical resource surveys.

California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)
CEQA requires that lead agencies determine whether projects may have a significant effect on archaeological and historical resources. This determination applies to those resources which meet

3.5 CULTURAL AND TRIBAL RESOURCES

3.5-16 Draft Environmental Impact Report – Lathrop General Plan Update significance criteria qualifying them as “unique,” “important,” listed on the California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR), or eligible for listing on the CRHR. If the agency determines that a project may have a significant effect on a significant resource, the project is determined to have a significant effect on the environment, and these effects must be addressed. If a cultural resource is found not to be significant under the qualifying criteria, it need not be considered further in the planning process.

CEQA emphasizes avoidance of archaeological and historical resources as the preferred means of reducing potential significant environmental effects resulting from projects. If avoidance is not feasible, an excavation program or some other form of mitigation must be developed to mitigate the impacts. In order to adequately address the level of potential impacts, and thereby design appropriate mitigation measures, the significance and nature of the cultural resources must be determined. The following are steps typically taken to assess and mitigate potential impacts to cultural resources for the purposes of CEQA:
 identify cultural resources;
 evaluate the significance of the cultural resources found;  evaluate the effects of the project on cultural resources; and  develop and implement measures to mitigate the effects of the project on cultural resources that would be significantly affected.

In 2015, CEQA was amended to require lead agencies to determine whether projects may have a significant effect on tribal cultural resources. (Public Resources Code [PRC] § 21084.2). To qualify as a tribal cultural resource, the resource must be a site, feature, place, cultural landscape, sacred place, or object, which is of cultural value to a California Native American Tribe and is listed, or eligible for listing, on the national, state, or local register of historic resources. Lead agencies may also use their discretion to treat any notable resource as a tribal cultural resource. To determine whether a project may have an impact on a resource, the lead agency is required to consult with any California Native American tribe that requests consultation and is affiliated with the geographic area of a proposed project (PRC § 21080.3.1). CEQA requires that a lead agency consider the value of the cultural resource to the tribe and consider measures to mitigate any adverse impact.

California Public Resources Code
Section 5097 of the Public Resources Code specifies the procedures to be followed in the event of the unexpected discovery of historic, archaeological, and paleontological resources, including human remains, historic or prehistoric resources, paleontological resources on nonfederal land.

The disposition of Native American burial falls within the jurisdiction of the California NAHC.

Section 5097.5 of the Code states the following:

No person shall knowingly and willfully excavate upon, or remove, destroy, injure or deface any historic or prehistoric ruins, burial grounds, archaeological or vertebrate paleontological site, including fossilized footprints, inscriptions made by human agency, or any other archaeological, paleontological or historical feature, situated on CULTURAL AND TRIBAL RESOURCES 3.5
Draft Environmental Impact Report – Lathrop General Plan Update 3.5-17 public lands, except with the express permission of the public agency having jurisdiction over such lands. Violation of this section is a misdemeanor.

California Health and Safety Code
Section 7050.5 of the California Health and Safety Code requires that construction or excavation be stopped in the vicinity of discovered human remains until the county coroner can determine whether the remains are those of a Native American. If the remains are determined to be Native American, the coroner must contact the California Native American Heritage Commission. CEQA Guidelines (Section 15064.5) specify the procedures to be followed in case of the discovery of human remains on non‐federal land. The disposition of Native American burials falls within the jurisdiction of the Native American Heritage Commission.

Senate Bill 18 (Burton, Chapter 905, Statutes 2004)
SB 18, authored by Senator John Burton and signed into law by Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger in September 2004, requires local (city and county) governments to consult with California Native American tribes to aid in the protection of traditional tribal cultural places (“cultural places”) through local land use planning. This legislation, which amended §65040.2, §65092, §65351, §65352, and §65560, and added §65352.3, §653524, and §65562.5 to the Government Code; also requires the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR) to include in the General Plan Guidelines advice to local governments for how to conduct these consultations. The intent of SB 18 is to provide California Native American tribes an opportunity to participate in local land use decisions at an early planning stage, for the purpose of protecting, or mitigating impacts to, cultural places. These consultation and notice requirements apply to adoption and amendment of both general plans (defined in Government Code §65300 et seq.) and specific plans (defined in Government Code §65450 et seq.).

Assembly Bill 978
In 2001, Assembly Bill (AB) 978 expanded the reach of Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act of 1990 and established a State commission with statutory powers to assure that Federal and State laws regarding the repatriation of Native American human remains and items of patrimony are fully complied with. In addition, AB 978 also included non‐Federally recognized tribes for repatriation.

Assembly Bill 52
Assembly Bill (AB) 52, approved in September 2014, creates a formal role for California Native American tribes by creating a formal consultation process and establishing that a substantial adverse change to a tribal cultural resource has a significant effect on the environment. Tribal cultural resources are defined as:
1) Sites, features, places, cultural landscapes, sacred places, and objects with cultural value to a California Native American tribe that are either of the following:

A) Included or determined to be eligible for inclusion in the CRHR

3.5 CULTURAL AND TRIBAL RESOURCES

3.5-18 Draft Environmental Impact Report – Lathrop General Plan Update B) Included in a local register of historical resources as defined in PRC Section 5020.1(k)
2) A resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in PRC Section 5024.1 (c). In applying the criteria set forth in PRC Section 5024.1 (c) the lead agency shall consider the significance of the resource to a California Native American tribe.

A cultural landscape that meets the criteria above is also a tribal cultural resource to the extent that the landscape is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape. In addition, a historical resource described in PRC Section 21084.1, a unique archaeological resource as defined in PRC Section 21083.2(g), or a “non‐unique archaeological resource” as defined in PRC Section 21083.2(h) may also be a tribal cultural resource if it conforms with above criteria.

AB 52 requires a lead agency, prior to the release of a negative declaration, mitigated negative declaration, or environmental impact report for a project, to begin consultation with a California Native American tribe that is traditionally and culturally affiliated with the geographic area of the proposed project if: (1) the California Native American tribe requested to the lead agency, in writing, to be informed by the lead agency through formal notification of proposed projects in the geographic area that is traditionally and culturally affiliated with the tribe, and (2) the California Native American tribe responds, in writing, within 30 days of receipt of the formal notification, and requests the consultation.

LOCAL
Chapter 17.38 Historic Lathrop Overlay District
The historic Lathrop residential overlay district is intended for use in the historic Lathrop area. This district is intended:

A. To prevent neighborhood deterioration in the R one‐family existing subdivided lots; B. To create the opportunity for small lot subdivisions of parcels in the R one‐family zone for affordable single‐family housing;
C. To create affordable attached and detached RM multifamily housing. (Ord. 05‐252 § 1) CULTURAL AND TRIBAL RESOURCES 3.5
Draft Environmental Impact Report – Lathrop General Plan Update 3.5-19

3.5.3 IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES

THRESHOLDS OF SIGNIFICANCE
Consistent with Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, the proposed Project is considered to have a significant impact on cultural or tribal resources if it will:
 Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource pursuant to Section 15064.5;
 Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to Section 15064.5;
 Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries;  Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code Section 21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and that is:
o Listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code Section 5020.1(k);
o A resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1? In applying the criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1, the lead agency shall consider the significance of the resources to a California Native American tribe.

3.5 CULTURAL AND TRIBAL RESOURCES

3.5-20 Draft Environmental Impact Report – Lathrop General Plan Update

IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
Impact 3.5‐1: General Plan implementation could cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical or archaeological resource pursuant to Section15064.5 (Less than Significant) A substantial adverse change in the significance of an historic resource is defined in Section 15064.5 (b)(1) of the CEQA Guidelines as the “physical demolition, destruction, relocation, or alteration of the resource or its immediate surroundings such that the significance of an historical resource would be materially impaired.” Known historic and prehistoric resource sites are located throughout the Planning Area, as shown in Table 3.5‐1, and it is expected that additional undiscovered sites may be located in various areas of the city as well.

The City of Lathrop currently has 172 previously recorded archaeological sites (18 prehistoric sites and 154 historic archaeological sites) identified by the CCIC. Among these sites are a Native American village, historic railroad sites, and a host of historic buildings. The Sharpe facility contains the greatest number of building sites. The Native American village site is associated with the San Joaquin River which supports the increased likelihood of additional Native American sites being adjacent to the river.

The General Plan does not directly propose any adverse impacts to historic, archaeological, or cultural resources within the city. The General Plan does identify where future development may occur which could affect both known and yet to be identified historic and archaeological resources. This is considered a potentially significant impact, which would be minimized through the implementation of the policies and actions listed below that include review requirement for future projects.

As the City considers future development and infrastructure projects, each project will be evaluated to ensure conformance with the City’s General Plan, Municipal Code, and applicable State and local regulations. Development and infrastructure projects would also be analyzed individually for potential environmental impacts as required by CEQA. The General Plan includes policies and actions that would both reduce impacts to and conserve cultural, historic, and archaeological resources. Adoption and implementation of the policies and actions listed below, combined with CEQA review requirements, and would ensure that impacts to historic and archaeological resources are less than significant.

GENERAL PLAN POLICIES AND ACTIONS THAT MINIMIZE POTENTIAL IMPACTS

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

RR‐3.2 San Joaquin County Coordination. Coordinate with San Joaquin County to preserve local historic resources, conserve historical assets within the City, and allow for local community events to occur at these special locations.

CULTURAL AND TRIBAL RESOURCES 3.5
Draft Environmental Impact Report – Lathrop General Plan Update 3.5-21

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

RR‐3c City staff shall require applicants for future proposed projects that would alter or demolish intact extant building(s) listed, or eligible to be listed on the California Register of Historical Resources to provide a historic resource technical study evaluating the significance and data potential of the resource. If significance criteria are met, detailed mitigation recommendations are required as part of the technical study. All work will be performed by a qualified architectural historian meeting Secretary of the Interior Standards
RR‐3d Require all development, infrastructure, and other ground‐disturbing projects to comply with the following conditions in the event of an inadvertent discovery of a paleontological resource:

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

3.5 CULTURAL AND TRIBAL RESOURCES

3.5-22 Draft Environmental Impact Report – Lathrop General Plan Update Impact 3.5‐2: Implementation of the General Plan could lead to the disturbance of any human remains (Less than Significant) Indications are that humans have occupied San Joaquin County for over 10,000 years and it is not always possible to predict where human remains may occur outside of formal burials. Therefore, excavation and construction activities allowed under the General Plan may yield human remains that may not be interred in marked, formal burials.

Although Native American human remains are normally associated with former residential village locations, isolated burials and cremations have been found in many other locations. Future projects may disturb or destroy buried Native American human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries. Consistent with state laws protecting these remains (that is, Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 and Public Resources Code Section 5097.98), sites containing Native American human remains must be treated in a sensitive manner. This is considered a potentially significant impact, which minimized through the implementation of the policies and actions listed below, that ensures that human remains are treated with sensitivity and dignity, and ensure compliance with the provisions of California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 and California Public Resources Code Section 5097.98
As future development and infrastructure projects are considered by the City, each project will be evaluated for conformance with the City’s General Plan, Municipal Code, and other applicable State and local regulations. Subsequent development and infrastructure projects would also be analyzed for potential environmental impacts, consistent with the requirements of CEQA. Under CEQA, human remains are protected under the definition of archaeological materials as being “any evidence of human activity.” Public Resources Code Section 5097 has specific stop‐work and notification procedures to follow in the event that Native American human remains are inadvertently discovered during development activities. The General Plan requires that human remains are treated in compliance with the provisions of California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 and California Public Resources Code Section 5097.98. Implementation of the policies and actions below ensures that potential adverse impacts to human remains would be less than significant.

GENERAL PLAN POLICIES AND ACTIONS THAT MINIMIZE POTENTIAL IMPACTS

RECREATION AND RESOURCES ELEMENT POLICIES
RR‐3.3 Human Remains. Ensure that human remains are treated with sensitivity and dignity, and ensure compliance with the provisions of California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 and California Public Resources Code Section 5097.98.

RECREATION AND RESOURCES ELEMENT ACTIONS
RR‐3.3b Require all new development, infrastructure, and other ground‐disturbing projects to comply with the following conditions in the event of an inadvertent discovery of cultural resources or human remains:

CULTURAL AND TRIBAL RESOURCES 3.5
Draft Environmental Impact Report – Lathrop General Plan Update 3.5-23 A. If construction or grading activities result in the discovery of significant historic or prehistoric archaeological artifacts or unique paleontological resources, all work within 100 feet of the discovery shall cease, the Community Development Director shall be notified, the resources shall be examined by a qualified archaeologist, paleontologist, or historian for appropriate protection and preservation measures; and work may only resume when appropriate protections are in place and have been approved by the Community Development Director; and B. If human remains are discovered during any ground disturbing activity, work shall stop until the Community Development Director and the San Joaquin County Coroner have been contacted. If the human remains are determined to be of Native American origin, the Native American Heritage Commission and the most likely descendants shall be consulted; and work may only resume when appropriate measures have been taken and approved by the Community Development Director.

3.5 CULTURAL AND TRIBAL RESOURCES

3.5-24 Draft Environmental Impact Report – Lathrop General Plan Update Impact 3.5‐3 : Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code Section 21074, and that is: Listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code Section 5020.1(k), or a resource determined by the lead agency (Less than Significant)
The City of Lathrop conducted consultations with Native American Tribes under Senate Bill 18 (Chapter 905, Statutes of 2004), which requires local governments to consult with Tribes prior to making certain planning decisions. Senate Bill 18 (SB 18) also requires consultation and notice for a general and specific plan adoption or amendments with the purpose of preserving or mitigating impacts on cultural places that may be affected. The City also conducted Tribal consultations under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) ((Public Resources Code section 21080.3.1 subdivisions (b), (d) and (e)), also known as AB52, provisions which requires consulting for projects within the City of Lathrop’s jurisdiction and that are within the traditional territory of the Tribal Organizations who have previously requested AB52 consultations with the City.

As described previously, initial letters were sent to: The Native American Heritage Commission; Mr. Randy Yonemura, Ione Band of Miwok Indians; Ms. Katherine Erolinda Perez, Northern Valley Yokuts Tribe; Mr. Gene Whitehouse, Chairman, United Auburn Indian Community of the Auburn Rancheria; Ms. Rhonda Morningstar Pope, Chairperson, Buena Vista Rancheria of Me‐Wuk Indians; Ms. Crystal Martinez, Chairperson, Ione Band of Miwok Indians; Ms. Lois Martinez, Chairperson, Southern Sierra Miwuk Nation; Mr. Raymond Hitchcock, Chairperson, Wilton Rancheria; and, California Valley Miwok Tribe. The Native American Heritage Commission responded with a letter dated December 14, 2017.

Consultation letters were then resent to the Northern Valley Yokuts, Buena Vista Rancheria Me‐ Wuk Indians, and California Valley Miwok Tribe on October 11, 2021 due the City updating their AB 52 list. The City received three response letters related to the NOP. The Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) submitted a letter, dated October 12, 2021, the California Miwok Tribe submitted a letter dated October 26, 2021, and the Northern Valley Yokut/Ohlone/Bay Mewuk submitted an e‐mail with attachments dated October 19, 2021. The NAHC comment letter provided an overview of tribal consultation requirements, and recommended approaches to reducing potential impacts to cultural and tribal resources. The California Miwok Tribe letter emphasized that the City of Lathrop engage in government‐to‐government consultation with the Tribe as opposed to relying on a third party to collect information for the EIR. The letter also mentioned that there are significant Tribal cultural resources within the City as highlighted in previous letter sent to the Planning Commission in May 2021 and the City staff in July 2021. The Northern Valley Yokut/Ohlone/Bay Mewuk email provided mitigation recommendations for when specific projects are implemented in the future and emphasized the need to hire Tribal monitors during construction activities.

CULTURAL AND TRIBAL RESOURCES 3.5
Draft Environmental Impact Report – Lathrop General Plan Update 3.5-25 City staff sent a consultation letter (dated 11/24/21) to Ms. Burley via Certified Mail. USPS tracking shows Ms. Burley received and signed the Certified Mail on 11/26/21. No further comments or response were received.

The General Plan and local CEQA guidelines require tribal consultation and the protections of any identified archeological and tribal resources. This is considered a potentially significant impact, which would be minimized through the implementation of the policies and actions listed below.

All future development projects would be required to follow development requirements, including compliance with local policies, ordinances, and applicable permitting procedures related to protection of tribal resources. Subsequent projects would be required to prepare site‐specific project‐level analysis to fulfill CEQA requirements, which also would include additional AB 52 and/or SB 18 consultation that could lead to the identification of potential site specific tribal resources.

As discussed under Impacts 3.5‐1, impacts from future development could impact unknown archaeological resources including Native American artifacts and human remains. Impacts would be minimized with implementation of General Plan policies and actions and local review guidelines. Compliance with the General Plan policies and actions, as well as State and local guidelines would provide an opportunity to identify, disclose, and avoid or minimize the disturbance of and impacts to a tribal resource through tribal consultation and CEQA review procedures. Therefore, impacts related to tribal resources as a result of General Plan implementation would be considered less than significant.

GENERAL PLAN POLICIES AND ACTIONS THAT MINIMIZE POTENTIAL IMPACTS

RECREATION AND RESOURCES ELEMENT POLICIES
RR‐3.4 Tribal Consultation. Consult with Native American tribes that may be impacted by proposed development, as necessary, and in accordance with state, local, and tribal intergovernmental consultation requirements.

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

Lathrop City CouncilSeptember 19, 2022

Lathrop City Council
September 19, 2022