Agenda packet — Modesto City Council, March 4, 2025 (part 3 of 3)

January 6, 2025 PDZ-24-001: The Bridges Planned Development Zone Negative Declaration
for Rezone from Specific Plan (SP) to
Planned Development Zone P-D(617)
Development Standards for The Bridges Small-Lot
Single Family Residential Subdivision
PDZ-24-001
Environmental Assessment No. EA/C&ED 2025-01
Prepared for:

City of Modesto
P.O. Box 642
Modesto, CA 95353
Contact:: Katharine Martin, Senior Planner
209/209-577-5267
Prepared by:

City of Modesto
Community & Economic Development Department
209/577-5267
January 6, 2025
#6..
- 465 -

Page 2 of 27 ends

January 6, 2025 PDZ-24-001: The Bridges Planned Development Zone CEQA Environmental Checklist

PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND BACKGROUND
Project Title:

PDZ-24-001: Rezone from Specific Plan (SP) to Planned Development Zone P-D(617) Lead agency name and address:

City of Modesto, 1010 Tenth Street, Suite 3300, Modesto CA 95354 Contact person and phone number:

Katharine Martin, Senior Planner, 209-577-5267
Project Location:

22.6 Acres at the northwest corner of Pelandale Avenue and American Avenue. Portion of APNs 078-018-027, -051 and -052
Project applicant’s name and address:

Lennar Homes of California, LLC
2603 Camino Ramon, Suite 525
San Ramon, CA 94583
General plan description:

Mixed Use (MU)
Zoning:

SP (Specific Plan) as part of the Kiernan Business Park Specific Plan. Allowable uses per the Land Use Diagram of the Specific Plan is Medium-High Density Residential (MHDR) with a prescribed density of 15-16 units per acre.

Description of project (Describe the whole action involved, including but not limited to later phases of the project, and any secondary, support, or off-site features necessary for its implementation.):

Rezone of approximately 22.6 acres from Specific Plan (SP) to Planned Development Zone PD(617) to allow for custom development and setback standards for a portion of The 35.3-acre Bridges Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map, under separate review (Project ID TSM-24-002).

The Bridges VTSM is comprised of 189 small-lot single-family residential lots ranging in size from 5,400 sf to 3,150 sf, and a 12-acre “Lot A”. The P-D Zone would facilitate development of the 189 lots with shorter setback standards than provided for in the development standards of the Kiernan Business Park Specific Plan.

The Bridges VTSM was analyzed by Initial Study/Negative Declaration No. EA/C&ED 2024-12, and approved by the Planning Commission on January 27, 2025 by Resolution No. 2025-02.

The proposed rezone area is limited to the area of the 189 lots of the VTSM. This Initial Study examines whether the proposed zoning changes would result in any new or substantially more severe environmental impacts than those discussed in Initial Study/Negative Declaration No.

EA/C&ED 2024-12.
#6..
- 466 -

Page 3 of 27 ends

January 6, 2025 PDZ-24-001: The Bridges Planned Development Zone The project area is located within the Kiernan Business Park Specific Plan, adopted on April 1, 1997, and is being analyzed as a subsequent project to the City’s General Plan MEIR (SCH 2014042081), certified in March 2019.

Surrounding land uses and setting (briefly describe the project’s surroundings):

North: SP Zone as part of the Kiernan Business Park Specific Plan, commercial and rural residential uses, vacant land;
South: SP Zone as part of the Pelandale-Snyder Specific Plan, neighborhood commercial uses (O’Briens Grocery and shopping center) and single-family residential uses; East: SP Zone as part of the Carver-Bangs Specific Plan, Calvary Chapel Modesto Church; West: Planned Development Zone P-D(483), low-density residential uses, drug store and professional/medical offices.

The project area is flat and undeveloped, predominately utilized for alfalfa production. No Williamson Act contracts are in place on the parcels of the project area.

Other public agencies whose approval is required (e.g. permits, financial approval, or participation agreements):

None.

ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED:

The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project.

Please see the checklist beginning on page 3 for additional information.

Aesthetics Agriculture and Forestry Air Quality
Biological Resources Cultural Resources Geology/Soils
Greenhouse Gas
Emissions
Hazards and Hazardous
Materials
Hydrology/Water
Quality
Land Use/Planning Mineral Resources Noise
Population/Housing Public Services Recreation
Transportation/Traffic Utilities/Service Systems Mandatory Findings of Significance
#6..
- 467 -

Page 4 of 27 ends

January 6, 2025 PDZ-24-001: The Bridges Planned Development Zone

AREA PLAN
PDZ-24-001

SITE PLAN
PDZ-24-001
#6..
- 468 -

Page 5 of 27 ends

January 6, 2025 PDZ-24-001: The Bridges Planned Development Zone

DEVELOPMENT PLAN/SETBACK EXHIBIT
PDZ-24-001
#6..
- 469 -

Page 6 of 27 ends

January 6, 2025 PDZ-24-001: The Bridges Planned Development Zone DETERMINATION:

On the basis of this initial evaluation:

I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.

I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.

I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.

I find that the proposed project MAY have a "potentially significant impact" or "potentially significant unless mitigated" impact on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed.

I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required.

Signature: ________________________________ Date: _______________ Printed Name: _____________________________
#6..
- 470 -

Page 7 of 27 ends

January 6, 2025 PDZ-24-001: The Bridges Planned Development Zone This checklist identifies physical, biological, social and economic factors that might be affected by the proposed project. In many cases, background studies performed in connection with the projects indicate no impacts. A NO IMPACT answer in the last column reflects this determination. Where there is a need for clarifying discussion, the discussion is included either following the applicable section of the checklist or is within the body of the environmental document itself. The words "significant" and "significance" used throughout the following checklist are related to CEQA, not NEPA, impacts. The questions in this form are intended to encourage the thoughtful assessment of impacts and do not represent thresholds of significance.

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
I. AESTHETICS: Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic
vista
b) Substantially damage scenic resources,
including, but not limited to, trees, rock
outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state
scenic highway
c) Substantially degrade the existing visual
character or quality of the site and its
surroundings?
d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare
which would adversely affect day or nighttime
views in the area?
Discussion
a) There are no scenic vistas in the vicinity of the project area. b) There are no state scenic highways within or in the vicinity of the project area. c) The project site is undeveloped land within the City of Modesto Sphere of Influence and Planned Urbanizing Area (PUA), as part of the Kiernan Business Park Specific Plan, adopted on April 1, 1997 and subsequently updated. No significant impact would occur with visual character or quality of the site and surroundings.
d) The development standards and design guidelines of the Specific Plan require light fixtures that are of a pedestrian scale and shielded to prevent light spillage towards adjacent uses.

With application of those standards as a condition of approval to the project, impacts would be less than significant.

Resource: Refer to pages V-19-1 to V-19-7 of the Modesto Urban Area General Plan (MEIR), approved earlier (SCH 2014042081) and Section IV of the Kiernan Business Park Specific Plan. #6..
- 471 -

Page 8 of 27 ends

In determining whether impacts to agricultural
resources are significant environmental effects,
lead agencies may refer to the California
Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment
Model (1997) prepared by the California Dept. of
Conservation as an optional model to use in
assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. In
determining whether impacts to forest resources,
including timberland, are significant environmental
effects, lead agencies may refer to information
compiled by the California Department of Forestry
and Fire Protection regarding the state’s inventory
of forest land, including the Forest and Range
Assessment Project and the Forest Legacy
Assessment Project; and the forest carbon
measurement methodology provided in Forest
Protocols adopted by the California Air Resources
Board. Would the project:
a) 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?
b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use,
or a Williamson Act contract?
c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause
rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public
Resources Code section 12220(g)), timberland (as
defined by Public Resources Code section 4526),
or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as
defined by Government Code section 51104(g))?
d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of
forest land to non-forest use?
e) Involve other changes in the existing
environment which, due to their location or nature,
could result in conversion of Farmland, to nonagricultural use or conversion of forest land to nonforest use? #6..
- 472 -

Page 9 of 27 ends

January 6, 2025 PDZ-24-001: The Bridges Planned Development Zone Discussion
a) The project area vacant and undeveloped. As of data available from the California Department of Conservation as of 2018, the project area is categorized by the FMMP as primarily Prime Farmland with portions categorized as Grazing Land and Urban Area. On April 9, 2013 by Resolution No. 2013-129, the City Council adopted a policy to exempt from agricultural mitigation requirements all land area within the current City limits, including the Kiernan Business Park Specific Plan area. Therefore, no mitigation is required. b) There are no Williamson Act contracts on the parcels of the project area. c) There is no forest or timberland within the project area. d) See item C above.
e) See item A, B and C above.

Resource: Pages V-4-1 to V-4-13 of the MEIR.

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
III. AIR QUALITY: Where available, the
significance criteria established by the applicable
air quality management or air pollution control
district may be relied upon to make the following
determinations. Would the project:
a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the
applicable air quality plan?
b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute
substantially to an existing or projected air quality
violation?
c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net
increase of any criteria pollutant for which the
project region is non- attainment under an
applicable federal or state ambient air quality
standard (including releasing emissions which
exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone
precursors)?
d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial
pollutant concentrations?
e) Create objectionable odors affecting a
substantial number of people?
#6..
- 473 -

Page 10 of 27 ends

January 6, 2025 PDZ-24-001: The Bridges Planned Development Zone Discussion
a) The project would not obstruct implementation of an applicable air quality plan. b) The project was referred to the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (SJAPC), who did not indicate concerns. The project will have applicable mitigation measures from the MEIR applied with regards to construction equipment emissions and screening of potential impacts to nearby sensitive receptors (nearby commercial and residential uses). c) Impacts to air quality would be associated with vehicle emissions, construction activities and on-site residential sources such as landscape maintenance and barbecues. As identified in the City’s General Plan MEIR, subsequent development would be consistent with assumptions for land use in the Mixed Use land use of the City’s General Plan, and would be subject to all air quality policies of the City. Mitigation measures related to construction activities from the MEIR will be applied to the project. d) The nearest sensitive receptors are residential properties approximately 100 feet to the north on Bangs Avenue and a church adjacent to the project area to the east.

Construction activities within the project area could potentially include the application of architectural coatings and asphalt paving material that could generate local temporary odors. The use of diesel-powered construction equipment could also generate localized odors. Construction activities will be mitigated as called for by the MEIR. e) See item D, above.

Resource: See pages V-2-1 through V-2-43 of the MEIR.

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES: Would the
project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly
or through habitat modifications, on any species
identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special
status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish
and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any
riparian habitat or other sensitive natural
community identified in local or regional plans,
policies, regulations or by the California
Department of Fish and Game or US Fish and
Wildlife Service?
#6..
- 474 -

Page 11 of 27 ends

January 6, 2025 PDZ-24-001: The Bridges Planned Development Zone c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally
protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of
the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to,
marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct
removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other
means?
d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any
native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species
or with established native resident or migratory
wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native
wildlife nursery sites?
e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances
protecting biological resources, such as a tree
preservation policy or ordinance?
f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat
Conservation Plan, Natural Community
Conservation Plan, or other approved local,
regional, or state habitat conservation plan?
Discussion
a) The project site is not a biologically sensitive site as defined by Figure V-7-1 of the MEIR.

The California Department of Fish and Wildlife and the US Fish and Wildlife Service were consulted in the production of the MEIR.
b) See item A above.
c) The site does not qualify as a federally protected wetland per Section 404 of the Clean Water Act.
d) The project site is flat, undeveloped land that has most recently been used for alfalfa production. Burrowing owls are known to have nesting sites in the vicinity. Development would be required to implement mitigation measures from the MEIR that would reduce the impacts on this species to less-than-significant levels.

The MEIR considered the quality of the area as foraging habitat for the Swainson’s Hawk, and found that the area is of marginal quality and is unlikely to be used by the species.

Therefore, no mitigation measure for the species is necessary. e) There would be no conflict with any local policies or ordinance protecting biological resources. The City does not have a heritage tree ordinance. f) There would be no conflict with any habitat conservation plan, natural community conservation plan, or other approved local, regional or state habitat conservation plan.

Resource: See pages V-7-1 through V-7-39 of the MEIR.
#6..
- 475 -

Page 12 of 27 ends

January 6, 2025 PDZ-24-001: The Bridges Planned Development Zone Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
V. CULTURAL RESOURCES: Would the project:
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of a historical resource as defined in
§15064.5?
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of an archaeological resource pursuant
to §15064.5?
c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique
paleontological resource or site or unique geologic
feature?
d) Disturb any human remains, including those
interred outside of formal cemeteries?
Discussion
a) The project is consistent with the historical resource policies of the General Plan. b) The project would be consistent with the archaeological resource polices in the General Plan.

The project was referred to local Native American Tribes for consultation, who indicated no concerns with the proposed project.
c) The proposed project would not result in impact to a unique paleontological or unique geological feature. The area is flat vacant land historically utilized as grazing land or seasonal alfalfa production with no known paleontological or geological features. d) There are no known human remains in the project area.

Resource: See pages V-8-1 through V-8-34 of the MEIR.

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS: Would the project:
a) Expose people or structures to potential
substantial adverse effects, including the risk of
loss, injury, or death involving:
#6..
- 476 -

Page 13 of 27 ends

January 6, 2025 PDZ-24-001: The Bridges Planned Development Zone i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as
delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo
Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State
Geologist for the area or based on other substantial
evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of
Mines and Geology Special Publication 42?
ii) Strong seismic ground shaking?
iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including
liquefaction?
iv) Landslides?
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of
topsoil?
c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is
unstable, or that would become unstable as a
result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence,
liquefaction or collapse?
d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in
Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994),
creating substantial risks to life or property?
e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting
the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water
disposal systems where sewers are not available
for the disposal of waste water?
Discussion
a) The project site is level and comprised of loam and sandy loam soils. The area is not located near a seismic zone and would not be susceptible to liquefaction or landslide. b) The project would not result in substantial soil erosion. c) The site is not located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable or would become unstable as a result of subsequent development.
d) The soils at the site are predominately loam soils and sandy loam soils, not expansive soils.

The City’s Urban Area General Plan MEIR found that there is low exposure to expansive soils and any exposure can be reasonably controlled by the adopted Uniform Building Code. e) Future development at the site will utilize the City’s sewer system for the disposal of waste water.

Resource: See pages V-17-1 through V-17-14 of the MEIR. #6..
- 477 -

Page 14 of 27 ends

January 6, 2025 PDZ-24-001: The Bridges Planned Development Zone Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
VII. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS: Would the
project:
a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either
directly or indirectly, that may have a significant
impact on the environment?
b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or
regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the
emissions of greenhouse gases?
Discussion
a) Generation of greenhouse gases would predominately occur with vehicle traffic, but not at levels that would exceed those assumed by the MEIR. Previous traffic studies conducted for the overall project area assumed business park uses would generate 9,220 daily trips. Under the General Plan’s model for daily trip rates for residential uses, fewer trips would be generated if the area develops at a medium-high density of residential uses up to 16 units per acre. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant. b) The project would not conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gasses.

Resource: See pages V-2-38 through V-2-43 of the MEIR. Also referenced: Kiernan Business Park South FMP/IFP and Mana/Wagner Tentative Parcel Maps Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration, EA/C&ED No. 2006-58, Table XV-1.

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
VIII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS:

Would the project:
a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through the routine transport, use, or
disposal of hazardous materials?
b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through reasonably foreseeable upset
and accident conditions involving the release of
hazardous materials into the environment?
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous
or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or
waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or
proposed school?
#6..
- 478 -

Page 15 of 27 ends

January 6, 2025 PDZ-24-001: The Bridges Planned Development Zone d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of
hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to
Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a
result, would it create a significant hazard to the
public or the environment?
e) For a project located within an airport land use
plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted,
within two miles of a public airport or public use
airport, would the project result in a safety hazard
for people residing or working in the project area?
f) For a project within the vicinity of a private
airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard
for people residing or working in the project area?
g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere
with an adopted emergency response plan or
emergency evacuation plan?
h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk
of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires,
including where wildlands are adjacent to
urbanized areas or where residences are
intermixed with wildlands?
#6..
- 479 -

Page 16 of 27 ends

January 6, 2025 PDZ-24-001: The Bridges Planned Development Zone Discussion
a) The proposed project is residential in nature and would not result in a significant hazard to the public, nor would involve the use, transport or disposal of hazardous materials. Upon development, the project would be subject to compliance with all applicable federal, state and local regulations regarding the handling, storage, disposal and transport of toxic or hazardous materials or wastes in the process of site preparation and construction practices. b) See item A above.
c) See item A above.
d) The project site is not on the list of hazardous materials sites. e) The project site is more than six miles away from the nearest airport. f) The project site is not within the vicinity of a private airstrip. The nearest air operations is the helipad operated by Kaiser Permanente Modesto Medical Center, located approximately a half-mile to the northwest.
g) The project would not interfere with an emergency access plan or evacuation plan. The project was referred to Modesto Fire and Police, who did not indicate any concerns with emergency access.
h) There is no forests or wildlands in the vicinity of the project site.

Resource: See pages V-16-1 through V-16-15 of the MEIR.

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
IX. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY: Would
the project:
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste
discharge requirements?
b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or
interfere substantially with groundwater recharge
such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer
volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table
level (e.g., the production rate of pre-existing
nearby wells would drop to a level which would not
support existing land uses or planned uses for
which permits have been granted)?
#6..
- 480 -

Page 17 of 27 ends

January 6, 2025 PDZ-24-001: The Bridges Planned Development Zone c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern
of the site or area, including through the alteration
of the course of a stream or river, in a manner
which would result in substantial erosion or siltation
on- or off-site?
d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern
of the site or area, including through the alteration
of the course of a stream or river, or substantially
increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a
manner which would result in flooding on- or offsite?
e) Create or contribute runoff water which would
exceed the capacity of existing or planned
stormwater drainage systems or provide
substantial additional sources of polluted runoff?
f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality?
g) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard
area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard
Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other
flood hazard delineation map?
h) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area
structures which would impede or redirect flood
flows?
i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk
of loss, injury or death involving flooding, including
flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam?
j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow
#6..
- 481 -

Page 18 of 27 ends

January 6, 2025 PDZ-24-001: The Bridges Planned Development Zone Discussion
a) The proposed rezoning to Planned Development would not cause a violation of any standards. The development will be required by City and state regulations to comply with water quality standards and waste discharge requirements as a condition of approval. b) The proposed project would not substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge. The development will be required to incorporate onsite storm water handling and drainage as provided by the Kiernan Business Park Specific Plan.
c) The project would not substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area in a manner which would result in substantial surface runoff, erosion or siltation. There are no streams within or in the vicinity of the project site. The nearest river is the Stanislaus River, approximately 2.5 miles away to the north.
d) See item C above.
e) The project will be required to treat and retain stormwater as provided by the stormwater plans of the Kiernan Business Park Specific Plan and City standards and would therefore not be expected to result in substantial runoff. No further mitigation is required.

f) See items B through E above.
g) The site is not located within a 100-year floodplain or a 200-year floodplain. h) See item G above.
i) See item G above.
j) The City is not subject to impacts as a result of seiche or tsunami. The City is inland approximately 90 miles from the Pacific Ocean and has no large water bodies within its jurisdiction or nearby. The project site is flat land and is not subject to mudslides.

Resource: See pages V-9-1 through V-9-13 of the MEIR.

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
X. LAND USE AND PLANNING: Would the
project:
a) Physically divide an established community?
b)Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy,
or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the
project (including, but not limited to the general
plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning
ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or
mitigating an environmental effect?
#6..
- 482 -

Page 19 of 27 ends

January 6, 2025 PDZ-24-001: The Bridges Planned Development Zone c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation
plan or natural community conservation plan?
Discussion
a) The rezoning to Planned Development would not physically divide a community. The area is within a portion of the Kiernan Business Park Specific Plan, adopted in April of 1997 and subsequently amended to provide for mixed uses and multi-family residential development in the project area.
b) Codes and Standards of the City of Modesto and the development policies of the Kiernan Business Park Specific Plan would be applicable to development at the site. c) The project would not conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plans or natural community conservation plans. The City does not have habitat conservation plans in place.

Resource: V-20-1 through V-20-14 of the MEIR.

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
XI. MINERAL RESOURCES: Would the project:
a) Result in the loss of availability of a known
mineral resource that would be of value to the
region and the residents of the state?
b) Result in the loss of availability of a locallyimportant mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land
use plan?
Discussion
a) The project site is surrounded by urban uses and has no known mineral resources. b) The project site is not identified on any plan as being a location with mineral resources.

Resource: See pages V-17-1 through V-17-14 of the MEIR. #6..
- 483 -

Page 20 of 27 ends

January 6, 2025 PDZ-24-001: The Bridges Planned Development Zone Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
XII. NOISE: Would the project result in:
a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise
levels in excess of standards established in the
local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable
standards of other agencies?
b) Exposure of persons to or generation of
excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne
noise levels?
c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient
noise levels in the project vicinity above levels
existing without the project?
d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in
ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above
levels existing without the project?
e) For a project located within an airport land use
plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted,
within two miles of a public airport or public use
airport, would the project expose people residing or
working in the project area to excessive noise
levels?
f) For a project within the vicinity of a private
airstrip, would the project expose people residing
or working in the project area to excessive noise
levels?
#6..
- 484 -

Page 21 of 27 ends

January 6, 2025 PDZ-24-001: The Bridges Planned Development Zone Discussion
a) The project site is adjacent to collector streets (Bangs Avenue, American Avenue and future and therefore subsequent development would expose the project site to traffic-related noise, but at a less than significant level with development standards of the Specific Plan and mitigation measures from the MEIR for noise control barriers applied. b) Development of the site would not be expected to generate excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels. The project involves development of 189 single family residential units, uses which would themselves not produce groundborne noise or vibration. c) Site development would generate a temporary increase in ambient noise as a result of construction processes, but at a less than significant level. d) See item C above.
e) The project area is more than six miles away from the nearest airport. f) The project area is not within the vicinity of a private airstrip.

Resource: See pages V-3-1 through V-3-46 of the MEIR.

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
XIII. POPULATION AND HOUSING: Would the
project:
a) Induce substantial population growth in an area,
either directly (for example, by proposing new
homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example,
through extension of roads or other infrastructure)?
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing
housing, necessitating the construction of
replacement housing elsewhere?
c) Displace substantial numbers of people,
necessitating the construction of replacement
housing elsewhere?
#6..
- 485 -

Page 22 of 27 ends

January 6, 2025 PDZ-24-001: The Bridges Planned Development Zone Discussion
a) The rezoning to Planned Development would not increase population growth by a significant amount; however, the rezone would facilitate the development of new dwelling units to the housing stock of the City of Modesto and contribute to its Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) of the Housing Element.
b) The project site is vacant, and therefore no existing residential development would be displaced as a result of development.
c) See item B above.

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
XIV. PUBLIC SERVICES:
a) Would the project result in substantial adverse
physical impacts associated with the provision of
new or physically altered governmental facilities,
need for new or physically altered governmental
facilities, the construction of which could cause
significant environmental impacts, in order to
maintain acceptable service ratios, response times
or other performance objectives for any of the
public services:

Fire protection?
Police protection?
Schools?
Parks?
Other public facilities?
#6..
- 486 -

Page 23 of 27 ends

January 6, 2025 PDZ-24-001: The Bridges Planned Development Zone Discussion
a) The development is residential in nature and would increase demand for police and fire services, but not at substantial levels that would cause an adverse effect to existing services and facilities. The project will be expected to pay into Community Facilities Districts (CFDs) and pay associated Capital Facilities Fees (CFF) at the time of building permit issuance, which would mitigate the impact to less than significant. The police and fire departments indicated no concerns with the project. The nearest fire station is Station No. 11 at 4225 Carver Road, 1.2 miles to the east.

New residential development would increase demand for public school services, and the project would pay school impact fees at the time of building permit issuance.

The project will be required to pay CFF for their fair share contribution towards the development and maintenance of parks in the vicinity to the site, in addition to paying into a Community Finance District (CFD) to cover the maintenance of the Specific Plan’s amenities.

The nearest park to the project area is McKinney Colony Park, approximately 0.45 miles away to the southeast.

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
XV. RECREATION:
a) Would the project increase the use of existing
neighborhood and regional parks or other
recreational facilities such that substantial physical
deterioration of the facility would occur or be
accelerated?
b) Does the project include recreational facilities or
require the construction or expansion of
recreational facilities which might have an adverse
physical effect on the environment?
Discussion
a) The rezoning to Planned Development is to facilitate the development of 189 new singlefamily dwelling units. The project would potentially increase the use of existing parks in the vicinity of the project site, but not at a level that would cause substantial physical deterioration of the facilities. As a condition of approval, the development will be required to pay Capital Facilities Fees (CFF) for its fair share contribution towards the development of any new parks.
b) The project includes a centrally-located dual-use park/basin, which is not expected to have an adverse physical effect on the environment.

Resource: See pages V-11-1 through V-11-13 of the MEIR. #6..
- 487 -

Page 24 of 27 ends

January 6, 2025 PDZ-24-001: The Bridges Planned Development Zone Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
XVI. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC: Would the
project:
a) Conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance or
policy establishing measures of effectiveness for
the performance of the circulation system, taking
into account all modes of transportation including
mass transit and non-motorized travel and relevant
components of the circulation system, including but
not limited to intersections, streets, highways and
freeways, pedestrian and bicycle paths, and mass
transit?
b) Conflict with an applicable congestion
management program, including, but not limited to
level of service standards and travel demand
measures, or other standards established by the
county congestion management agency for
designated roads or highways?
c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns,
including either an increase in traffic levels or a
change in location that results in substantial safety
risks?
d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design
feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous
intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm
equipment)?
e) Result in inadequate emergency access?
f) Conflict with adopted policies, plans or programs
regarding public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian
facilities, or otherwise decrease the performance or
safety of such facilities?
#6..
- 488 -

Page 25 of 27 ends

January 6, 2025 PDZ-24-001: The Bridges Planned Development Zone Discussion
a) The project would not be in conflict with any adopted transportation plan or policy. Previous traffic studies conducted for business park uses at the project site (since amended to allow for residential uses) assumed 9,220 daily trips for business park uses. It was determined that if the site were developed with residential uses, the amount of trips would decrease under the General Plan’s model for daily vehicle trip rates for residential uses. Therefore, trip generation associated with new residential development would be less than that assumed previously for Business Park uses.

The project would not conflict with any congestion management program. The Kiernan Business Park Specific Plan provides for a roadway system that accommodates vehicles, pedestrians and bicycles, and includes transit stops. As part of the development, frontage improvements will be installed along the two collector street frontages of the site, and new roundabouts are to be installed at Bangs Avenue and American Avenue, and Bangs Avenue/Bruno Parkway.
b) See item A above.
c) The project area is not within the vicinity of an airport or private airstrip. d) The project would not substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment). e) The Fire Department reviewed the project and did not identify any issues with emergency access.

Resources: See pages V-1-1 through V-1-46 of the MEIR. Also referenced: Kiernan Business Park South FMP/IFP and Mana/Wagner Tentative Parcel Maps Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration, EA/C&ED No. 2006-58, Table XV-1.

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
XVII. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS:

Would the project:
a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of
the applicable Regional Water Quality Control
Board?
b) Require or result in the construction of new
water or wastewater treatment facilities or
expansion of existing facilities, the construction of
which could cause significant environmental
effects?
c) Require or result in the construction of new
storm water drainage facilities or expansion of
existing facilities, the construction of which could
cause significant environmental effects?
#6..
- 489 -

Page 26 of 27 ends

January 6, 2025 PDZ-24-001: The Bridges Planned Development Zone d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve
the project from existing entitlements and
resources, or are new or expanded entitlements
needed?
e) Result in a determination by the wastewater
treatment provider which serves or may serve the
project that it has adequate capacity to serve the
project’s projected demand in addition to the
provider’s existing commitments?
f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted
capacity to accommodate the project’s solid waste
disposal needs?
g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes
and regulations related to solid waste?
Discussion
a) The project would not exceed treatment requirements of an applicable water quality control board.
b) The project would not result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities. The proposal was referred to the City’s Land Development Engineering Department and the Public Works Department, who indicated no concerns with capacity or impacts to services.
c) The project will provide for storm water handling and treatment with the installation of new underground storm drain lines and onsite or offsite treatment and drainage facilities as provided in the Kiernan Business Park Specific Plan. The project will also comply with the City’s Stormwater Management Program, Guidance Manual for New Development. d) There are sufficient water supplies to serve the project area. e) The City has sufficient wastewater capacity to serve the project area. f) Solid waste service is handled by the Gilton Solid Waste Management company, who indicated ability to serve the area at the time of the Specific Plan’s adoption. g) The project will be required to comply with statues and regulations related to solid waste. #6..
- 490 -

Page 27 of 27 ends

SIGNIFICANCE
a) Does the project have the potential to degrade
the quality of the environment, substantially reduce
the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining
levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal
community, substantially reduce the number or
restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or
animal or eliminate important examples of the
major periods of California history or prehistory?
b) Does the project have impacts that are
individually limited, but cumulatively considerable?
("Cumulatively considerable" means that the
incremental effects of a project are considerable
when viewed in connection with the effects of past
projects, the effects of other current projects, and
the effects of probable future projects)?
c) Does the project have environmental effects
which will cause substantial adverse effects on
human beings, either directly or indirectly?
Discussion
a) As discussed in Section IV: Biological Resources, development at the site would not substantially impact wildlife habitat with mitigation measures applied. b) As discussed in Section III: Air Quality and Section VII: Greenhouse Gases: Generation of greenhouse gases would predominately occur with vehicle traffic, but not at levels that would exceed those assumed by the MEIR or the amounts assumed by previously-conducted traffic study of the project area for business park uses. Potential impacts to air quality would be due to construction practices, but at levels less than significant with the application of mitigation measures from the MEIR.

As discussed in Section XIV: Public Services, above, new residential development as a result of the project would increase demand for public school services and parks, but not at a level that would cause substantial impacts to those facilities. The project would pay school impact fees, and Capital Facilities Fees (CFF) for their fair share contribution towards the development and maintenance of parks in the vicinity to the site. c) This document identifies that the proposed project would have some cumulative environmental impact, but not at significant levels with the application of mitigation measures upon the onset of development. Therefore, impacts that may result from the project are less than significant.
#6..
- 491 -
PD(617) “The Bridges”: Project Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Initial Study/Negative Declaration EA No. C&ED 2025-01 PDZ-24-001: Rezone to P-D(617) “The Bridges” 2 January 14, 2025
REZONE FROM SP TO PLANNED DEVELOPMENT ZONE P-D(617) “THE BRIDGES”

PROJECT MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
Mitigation Measure Mitigation
Responsibility Monitoring Actions Monitoring / Reporting Responsibility Schedule Transportation and Circulation
1: Improvements for the Pelandale Avenue, Bruno Parkway, and American Avenue street frontages, including landscape requirements, shall be in accordance with the Conditions of Approval for the Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map of The Bridges (Project ID TSM-24-002) approved by Planning Commission Resolution No. 2025-02 .

Project
Developers
Project Developers shall be
responsible for the
submission of improvement
plans. Plans shall be
prepared by a registered
Civil Engineer.

City Engineer shall review
and approve road
improvement plans.

Developer shall construct
improvements.

Engineering Services
Department shall inspect and
accept improvements.

Improvements shall be submitted
for review and approval prior to
recordation of a Final Map or
issuance of a building permit.
2: Improvement plans shall demonstrate the ultimate improvements on Bangs Avenue from Dale Road to the intersection of Bruno Parkway and Bangs Avenue, and the appropriate transition east of the Bruno Parkway/Bangs Avenue roundabout to ensure all vehicle, emergency service, refuse service and pedestrian traffic is safely able to ingress/egress to and from the development site. Improvement plans shall also include the legal descriptions necessary for the right-of-way acquisition required for ultimate improvements.

Project
Developers
Project Developers shall be
responsible for the
submission of improvement
plans. Plans shall be
prepared by a registered
Civil Engineer.

City Engineer shall review
and approve road
improvement plans.

Developer shall construct
improvements.

Engineering Services
Department shall inspect and
accept improvements.

Improvements shall be submitted
for review and approval prior to
recordation of a Final Map or
issuance of a building permit.
3: The full improvement plans shall include landscaping and the Class 1 bike path and related improvements, in accordance with the Kiernan Business Park Specific Plan. Developer shall also submit full improvement plans for the construction of full frontage improvements on Pelandale Avenue in accordance with the Kiernan Business Park Specific Plan, including necessary legal descriptions for the right-of-way acquisition to construct said improvements.

Project
Developers
Project Developers shall be
responsible for the
submission of improvement
plans. Plans shall be
prepared by a registered
Civil Engineer.

City Engineer shall review
and approve road
improvement plans.

Developer shall construct
improvements.

Engineering Services
Department shall inspect and
accept improvements.

Improvements shall be submitted
for review and approval prior to
recordation of a Final Map or
issuance of a building permit.

Noise

1. Development of the project shall incorporate the following mitigation measures from the Modesto Urban Area General Plan MEIR:
#6..
- 492 -
PD(617) “The Bridges”: Project Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Initial Study/Negative Declaration EA No. C&ED 2025-01 PDZ-24-001: Rezone to P-D(617) “The Bridges” 3 January 14, 2025
Mitigation Measure Mitigation
Responsibility Monitoring Actions Monitoring / Reporting Responsibility Schedule  Noise-4: Implement noise-reducing construction practices as conditions of approval where substantial construction-related noise impacts would be likely to occur, such as with extended periods of pile driving, or where construction is expected to continue or where sensitive receptors would be affected by construction noise. Conditions of approval may include, but are not limited to:
◦ Require construction equipment, including air compressors and pneumatic equipment to have properly maintained mufflers; ◦ Require impact tools to be equipped with shrouds or shields; ◦ Require that the quietest equipment available be used; and, ◦ Require selection of haul routes that affect the fewest number of people. (Policy VII-G.3.b)
Project
Developers
Project Developers shall be
responsible for
implementation of noisereducing construction
practices.

Project Developers shall
report to the Community and
Economic Development
Director on techniques used
to reduce noise impacts in
the construction phases of
the project.

Throughout all phases of
construction.
 Noise-3: Construction activities are to comply with Modesto Municipal Code Title 4, Ch. 9.

Project
Developers
Project Developers shall be
responsible for
implementation of noisereducing construction
practices.

Project Developers shall
report to the Community and
Economic Development
Director on techniques used
to reduce noise impacts in
the construction phases of
the project.

Throughout all phases of
construction.

Air Quality

1. Development of the project shall incorporate the following mitigation measures from the Modesto Urban Area General Plan MEIR:
 AQ-100. Reduce particulate emissions from construction, grading, excavation, and demolition to the maximum extent feasible in accordance with the requirements of SJVAPCD Regulation VIII.

Regulation VIII was adopted to reduce the amount of particulate matter suspended in the atmosphere as a result of emissions generated from anthropogenic (man-made) fugitive dust sources. (Policy VII.H.2.jj) Project
Developers
Project Developers shall
review Regulation VIII and
submit a compliance plan to
the City of Modesto’s
Community and Economic
Development Department.

The compliance plan shall
be incorporated in
construction contracts and
implemented by developers.

Project Developers shall
provide draft compliance plan
to the Community and
Economic Development
Department for review and
approval.

Compliance plan shall be submitted
to and approved by the Community
and Economic Development
Department prior to the issuance of
a grading or building permit,
whichever occurs first.
#6..
- 493 -
PD(617) “The Bridges”: Project Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Initial Study/Negative Declaration EA No. C&ED 2025-01 PDZ-24-001: Rezone to P-D(617) “The Bridges” 4 January 14, 2025
Mitigation Measure Mitigation
Responsibility Monitoring Actions Monitoring / Reporting Responsibility Schedule  AQ-101: Require all access roads, driveways, and parking areas serving new commercial and industrial development to be constructed with materials that minimize particulate emissions in accordance with the requirements of SJVAPCD Regulation VIII and are appropriate to the scale and intensity of use. (Policy VII.H.2.kk)
Project
Developers
Developer shall ensure that
construction practices
stabilizes dust emissions
throughout all phases of
construction.