TABLE UTIL-2: COMPARISON OF WATER DEMAND WITH EXISTING AND PROPOSED USES Land Use Factors Density Units Existing acres
Existing Water
Demand
Proposed
acres
Proposed
Water
Demand
Very Low Density
Residential 730 2.5 6 2.55 4,653.75 - -
Medium High
Density
Residential
225 21 102 4.87 23,010.75 - -
Regional Serving
Commercial 2590 12.53 32,452.70 -
Medium Density
Residential 225 13 185 19.95) 41,625.00
TOTAL 19.95 60,117.20 19.95 41,625.00
SOURCE: WATER SUPPLY ASSESSMENT FOR TIVOLI SPECIFIC PLAN (2007) Implementation of the propped project would have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project and reasonably foreseeable future development during normal, dry, and multiple dry years. Implementation of the proposed project would have a less than significant impact relative to this topic.
Relevant TSP Mitigation Measures
Mitigation Measure I.1. The proponent shall prepare a SWPPP for each development project under the specific plan (or one Master SWPPP for all development) designed to reduce potential impacts to surface water quality through the construction period of all of the project components (whether or not the particular portion of the projects disturbs more than one acre). The SWPPP shall emphasize measures designed to minimize erosion and off-site sedimentation.
Mitigation Measure I.2. The City shall ensure that development under the proposed project meets all the requirements of the current Municipal NPDES Permit (NPDES Permit No. R5- 2003-0132 as amended by Order No. R5-2002-0182) for operation-phase water quality treatment.
Mitigation Measure M.2. In order to maintain adequate water pressure in the City’s delivery system, it would be necessary to install two new wells that would have a combined capability to meet or exceed the project’s peak-hour demand of 2,160 gallons per minute and maximumday demand of approximately 6.57 af/day. One well must be fully developed and operational by the time of the initial project development. The second well must be provided and operational during the second phase of development or as determined by the City of Modesto. #18..
- 745 -
MARTIN TIVOLI SUBDIVISION INITIAL STUDY
PAGE 175
d) Generate solid waste in excess of State or local standards, or in excess of the capacity of local infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals? e) Comply with federal, state, and local management and reduction statutes and regulations related to solid waste? Responses: The proposed Project would not generate significant or abnormal volumes of solid waste. The solid waste capacity in Modesto is adequate to serve the demand resulting from General Plan build-out, including the Tivoli Specific Plan. Construction and operation of new development in the Tivoli Specific Plan would not conflict with State and local regulations governing solid waste disposal and diversion, and the General Plan includes policies and actions to promote consistency with other solid waste regulations. The proposed Project would be required to comply with all federal, state, and local regulations regarding solid waste.
For these reasons, the proposed Project would not result in new or more severe impacts disclosed in the TSP EIR. Implementation of the proposed Project would have a less than significantimpact relative to this topic.
#18..
- 746 -
INITIAL STUDY MARTIN TIVOLI SUBDIVISION
PAGE 176
XX. WILDFIRE
Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
If located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones, would the project:
a) Substantially impair an adopted emergency
response plan or emergency evacuation plan? X
b) Due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors,
exacerbate wildfire risks, and thereby expose
project occupants to, pollutant concentrations from
a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire?
X
c) Require the installation or maintenance of
associated infrastructure (such as roads, fuel breaks,
emergency water sources, power lines or other
utilities) that may exacerbate fire risk or that may
result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the
environment?
X
d) Expose people or structures to significant risks,
including downslope or downstream flooding or
landslides, as a result of runoff, post-fire slope
instability, or drainage changes?
X
Existing Setting
Implementation of the proposed Project would introduce new residential uses to the Project site that are different than those adopted for the same parcels in the TSP. The determination of impacts regarding wildfire will be guided, in part, by the TSP EIR.
City of Modesto General Plan
Chapter VI. Community Facilities and Services
G. Fire Protection
Goal VI.K. Provide responsive fire and life safety protection to the community through control of hostile fire, fire prevention, emergency medical services, emergency preparedness, and mitigation of hazardous materials incidents.
Policy VI.K.1. Maintain adequate fire flows in relation to structures size, design, and requirements for construction and/or built-in fire protection systems in accordance with the California Fire Code and adopted local ordinances. Determination of adequate fire flows includes factors such as storage capacity, system gridding, hydrant spacing, and sizing of water mains.
Policy VI.K.2. Ensure adequate ingress and egress to all structures for fire fighting and rescue purposes independent of privately-owned and maintained driveways. Provide protection of life and property through the use of engineered fire protection systems, including roof systems.
#18..
- 747 -
MARTIN TIVOLI SUBDIVISION INITIAL STUDY
PAGE 177
Policy VI.K.3. Practice timely adoption of the current edition of the California Fire Code including local ordinances designed to address local conditions. The California Fire Code may be amended to suit local conditions.
Policy VI.K.4. Ensure that fire stations, apparatus, equipment, and personnel are in place concurrent with construction in the Planned Urbanizing Area.
Policy VI.K.5. Future fire station sites and facilities should be closely coordinated with existing and planned public parks, libraries, and other activity centers in order to encourage maximum efficiency of public facilities.
Policy VI.K.6. Promote fire-safe behaviors within the community through public fire education activities and programs.
Policy VI.K.7. Maintain readiness to mitigate man-made or natural disasters through maintenance and implementation of the Multi-Hazard Functional Plan, the Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan, and the Emergency Operations Plan.
Policy VI.K.8. Maintain equipment, staffing, and facilities to provide Emergency Medical Services, Fire Prevention and Suppression, Urban Search and Rescue, and Hazardous Materials Response Capabilities.
Policy VI.K.9. Provide an adequate Fire and Life Safety Delivery system through the achievement of the following standards:
a) Maintain an emergency response system capable of achieving the following standards in 90 percent of all cases:
• The first fire emergency response unit arrives within six minutes of dispatch; • A full first alarm assignment consisting of four engines, one truck, one chief officer, and a minimum of 16 personnel arrives within 10 minutes of dispatch; and,
• A second alarm assignment consisting of two engines and one truck with a minimum of nine personnel arrives within 15 minutes of dispatch.
Policy VI.K.10. Protect life and property by requiring engineered fire protection systems and fire resistive roof systems as part of all new construction; in situations where access is limited, fire sprinklers shall be required for new construction.
Policy VI.K.11. Provide an effective prevention program aimed at fire loss reduction through inspection, investigation, and public education.
Policy VI.K.12. Coordinate with affected fire protection districts when an annexation to the City is proposed, and before it has been finalized, regarding fire protection and other emergency services.
Policy VI.K.13. Negotiate with affected fire protection districts when an annexation to the City is contemplated and before it has been effected to determine whether the boundary change #18..
- 748 -
INITIAL STUDY MARTIN TIVOLI SUBDIVISION
PAGE 178
may result in the erosion of fire protection or other emergency services. Any resulting agreements must be approved by City Council and the governing board of the fire protection district prior to City Council approval of the annexation. Options range from the consolidation of the fire protection district into Modesto City Fire to revenue sharing.
Responses to Checklist Questions
a) Substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? Response: The Project site will connect to an existing network of City streets. The proposed circulation improvements would allow for greater emergency access relative to existing conditions. The proposed Project would not impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan. Therefore, impacts from project implementation would be considered less than significant relative to this topic. b) Due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors, exacerbate wildfire risks, and thereby expose project occupants to, pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire? Response: The risk of wildfire is related to a variety of parameters, including fuel loading (vegetation), fire weather (winds, temperatures, humidity levels and fuel moisture contents) and topography (degree of slope). Steep slopes contribute to fire hazard by intensifying the effects of wind and making fire suppression difficult. Fuels such as grass are highly flammable because they have a high surface area to mass ratio and require less heat to reach the ignition point. The County has areas with an abundance of flashy fuels (i.e. grassland). The Project site is in an area that is predominately agricultural and urban, which is not considered at a significant risk of wildlife. Therefore, impacts from project implementation would be considered less than significant relative to this topic.
c) Require the installation or maintenance of associated infrastructure (such as roads, fuel breaks, emergency water sources, power lines or other utilities) that may exacerbate fire risk or that may result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment? Response: The proposed Project includes development of infrastructure (water, sewer, and storm drainage). The proposed infrastructure improvements would allow for decreased fire risk relative to existing conditions. The proposed Project would not impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan. Therefore, impacts from project implementation would be considered less than significant relative to this topic. d) Expose people or structures to significant risks, including downslope or downstream flooding or landslides, as a result of runoff, post-fire slope instability, or drainage changes? Response: The Project site will be connecting to an existing network of City streets. The proposed circulation improvements would allow for greater emergency access relative to existing conditions. The proposed Project would not impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan.
Landslides include rockfalls, deep slope failure, and shallow slope failure. Factors such as the geological conditions, drainage, slope, vegetation, and others directly affect the potential for landslides. One of the most common causes of landslides is construction activity that is associated with road building (i.e. cut and fill). The Project site is relatively flat; therefore, the potential for a landslide in the Project site is essentially non-existent.
Therefore, impacts from Project implementation would be considered less than significant relative to this topic.
#18..
- 749 -
MARTIN TIVOLI SUBDIVISION INITIAL STUDY
PAGE 179
XXI. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Does the project have the potential to
substantially 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?
X
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)?
X
c) Does the project have environmental effects
which will cause substantial adverse effects on
human beings, either directly or indirectly?
X
Responses to Checklist Questions
a) Does the project have the potential to substantially 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? Response: This Initial Study includes an analysis of the impacts associated with aesthetics, agricultural and forest resources, air quality, biological resources, cultural resources, geology and soils, greenhouse gas emissions, hazards and hazardous materials, hydrology and water quality, land use and planning, mineral resources, noise, population and housing, public services, recreation, transportation and traffic, and utilities and service systems. The analysis covers a broad spectrum of topics relative to the potential for the proposed Project to have environmental impacts. This includes the potential for the proposed Project to substantially 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, 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. The EIR conclusions from the TSP EIR were presented and discussed relative to the proposed land use change. It was found that the proposed Project would have either no impact, a less than significant impact, or a less than significant impact with the implementation of mitigation measures. For the reasons presented throughout this Initial Study, the proposed Project would not substantially 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, 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. With the implementation of #18..
- 750 -
INITIAL STUDY MARTIN TIVOLI SUBDIVISION
PAGE 180
mitigation measures presented in this Initial Study, the proposed Project would have a less than significant impact relative to this topic.
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)? Response: This Initial Study includes an analysis of the impacts associated with a broad spectrum of topics relative to the potential for the proposed Project to have cumulative environmental impacts. It was found that the proposed Project would have either no impact, a less than significant impact, or a less than significant impact with the implementation of mitigation measures. These mitigation measures would also function to reduce the proposed Project’s contribution to cumulative impacts. There are no significant cumulative or cumulatively considerable effects that are identified associated with the proposed Project after the implementation of all mitigation measures presented in this Initial Study. With the implementation of all mitigation measures presented in this Initial Study, the proposed Project would have a less than significant impact relative to this topic. c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? Responses: The construction phase could affect surrounding neighbors through increased air emissions, noise, and traffic; however, the construction effects are temporary and are not substantial. The operational phase could also affect surrounding neighbors through increased air emissions, noise, and traffic; however, mitigation measures have been incorporated into the proposed Project that would reduce the impacts to a less than significant level. The proposed Project would not cause substantial adverse effects on human beings. Implementation of the proposed Project would have a less than significant impact relative to this topic.
#18..
- 751 -
MARTIN TIVOLI SUBDIVISION INITIAL STUDY
PAGE 181
REFERENCES
Associated Engineering Group. 2024. Martin-Tivoli Subdivision Vesting Tenatative Subdivision Map.
Bollard Acoustical Consultants, Inc. 2024. Environmental Noise Assessment: Martin Residential Development.
City of Modesto. 2023. City of Modesto Housing Element 2023-2031.
City of Modesto. 2019. City of Modesto General Plan. Adopted March 5, 2019.
City of Modesto. 2019. City of Modesto General Plan Master Environmental Impact Report. SCH# 2014042081. March 2019.
City of Modesto. 2024. GIS Data. July 2024.
Dahlin Group. 2008. Tivoli Specific Plan. Adopted February 26, 2008.
Fehr & Peers. 2024. Martin Property Transportation Impact Analysis.
Turnstone Consulting. 2008. Tivoli Specific Plan: Final Environmental Impact Report. #18..
- 752 -
INITIAL STUDY MARTIN TIVOLI SUBDIVISION
PAGE 182
APPENDIX A: AIR QUALITY/GREENHOUSE GAS/ENERGY
MODELING OUTPUTS
#18..
- 753 -
Martin Tivoli Subdivision Detailed Report, 10/24/2024
1 / 46
Martin Tivoli Subdivision Detailed Report
Table of Contents
1. Basic Project Information
1.1. Basic Project Information
1.2. Land Use Types
1.3. User-Selected Emission Reduction Measures by Emissions Sector
2. Emissions Summary
2.1. Construction Emissions Compared Against Thresholds
2.2. Construction Emissions by Year, Unmitigated
2.4. Operations Emissions Compared Against Thresholds
2.5. Operations Emissions by Sector, Unmitigated
3. Construction Emissions Details
3.1. Site Preparation (2025) - Unmitigated
3.3. Grading (2025) - Unmitigated
3.5. Building Construction (2025) - Unmitigated
3.7. Building Construction (2026) - Unmitigated
3.9. Paving (2026) - Unmitigated
#18..
- 754 -
Martin Tivoli Subdivision Detailed Report, 10/24/2024
2 / 46
3.11. Paving (2027) - Unmitigated
3.13. Architectural Coating (2027) - Unmitigated
4. Operations Emissions Details
4.1. Mobile Emissions by Land Use
4.1.1. Unmitigated
4.2. Energy
4.2.1. Electricity Emissions By Land Use - Unmitigated
4.2.3. Natural Gas Emissions By Land Use - Unmitigated
4.3. Area Emissions by Source
4.3.1. Unmitigated
4.4. Water Emissions by Land Use
4.4.1. Unmitigated
4.5. Waste Emissions by Land Use
4.5.1. Unmitigated
4.6. Refrigerant Emissions by Land Use
4.6.1. Unmitigated
4.7. Offroad Emissions By Equipment Type
4.7.1. Unmitigated
#18..
- 755 -
Martin Tivoli Subdivision Detailed Report, 10/24/2024
3 / 46
4.8. Stationary Emissions By Equipment Type
4.8.1. Unmitigated
4.9. User Defined Emissions By Equipment Type
4.9.1. Unmitigated
4.10. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type
4.10.1. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type - Unmitigated
4.10.2. Above and Belowground Carbon Accumulation by Land Use Type - Unmitigated
4.10.3. Avoided and Sequestered Emissions by Species - Unmitigated
5. Activity Data
5.1. Construction Schedule
5.2. Off-Road Equipment
5.2.1. Unmitigated
5.3. Construction Vehicles
5.3.1. Unmitigated
5.4. Vehicles
5.4.1. Construction Vehicle Control Strategies
5.5. Architectural Coatings
5.6. Dust Mitigation
#18..
- 756 -
Martin Tivoli Subdivision Detailed Report, 10/24/2024
4 / 46
5.6.1. Construction Earthmoving Activities
5.6.2. Construction Earthmoving Control Strategies
5.7. Construction Paving
5.8. Construction Electricity Consumption and Emissions Factors
5.9. Operational Mobile Sources
5.9.1. Unmitigated
5.10. Operational Area Sources
5.10.1. Hearths
5.10.1.1. Unmitigated
5.10.2. Architectural Coatings
5.10.3. Landscape Equipment
5.11. Operational Energy Consumption
5.11.1. Unmitigated
5.12. Operational Water and Wastewater Consumption
5.12.1. Unmitigated
5.13. Operational Waste Generation
5.13.1. Unmitigated
5.14. Operational Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Equipment #18..
- 757 -
Martin Tivoli Subdivision Detailed Report, 10/24/2024
5 / 46
5.14.1. Unmitigated
5.15. Operational Off-Road Equipment
5.15.1. Unmitigated
5.16. Stationary Sources
5.16.1. Emergency Generators and Fire Pumps
5.16.2. Process Boilers
5.17. User Defined
5.18. Vegetation
5.18.1. Land Use Change
5.18.1.1. Unmitigated
5.18.1. Biomass Cover Type
5.18.1.1. Unmitigated
5.18.2. Sequestration
5.18.2.1. Unmitigated
6. Climate Risk Detailed Report
6.1. Climate Risk Summary
6.2. Initial Climate Risk Scores
6.3. Adjusted Climate Risk Scores
#18..
- 758 -
Martin Tivoli Subdivision Detailed Report, 10/24/2024
6 / 46
6.4. Climate Risk Reduction Measures
7. Health and Equity Details
7.1. CalEnviroScreen 4.0 Scores
7.2. Healthy Places Index Scores
7.3. Overall Health & Equity Scores
7.4. Health & Equity Measures
7.5. Evaluation Scorecard
7.6. Health & Equity Custom Measures
8. User Changes to Default Data
#18..
- 759 -
Martin Tivoli Subdivision Detailed Report, 10/24/2024
7 / 46
1. Basic Project Information
1.1. Basic Project Information
Data Field Value
Project Name Martin Tivoli Subdivision
Construction Start Date 8/1/2025
Operational Year 2027
Lead Agency —
Land Use Scale Project/site
Analysis Level for Defaults County
Windspeed (m/s) 3.10
Precipitation (days) 29.2
Location Modesto, CA, USA
County Stanislaus
City Modesto
Air District San Joaquin Valley APCD
Air Basin San Joaquin Valley
TAZ 2258
EDFZ 15
Electric Utility Modesto Irrigation District
Gas Utility Pacific Gas & Electric
App Version 2022.1.1.28
1.2. Land Use Types
Land Use Subtype Size Unit Lot Acreage Building Area (sq ft) Landscape Area (sq ft)
Special Landscape
Area (sq ft)
Population Description
Single Family
Housing
185 Dwelling Unit 19.9 360,750 2,166,879 0.00 586 —
#18..
- 760 -
Martin Tivoli Subdivision Detailed Report, 10/24/2024
8 / 46
1.3. User-Selected Emission Reduction Measures by Emissions Sector No measures selected
2. Emissions Summary
2.1. Construction Emissions Compared Against Thresholds Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Un/Mit. TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 4.03 3.39 31.7 31.1 0.06 1.37 19.8 21.2 1.26 10.1 11.4 — 6,763 6,763 0.28 0.11 3.08 6,788 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 113 113 29.8 29.1 0.06 1.23 9.36 10.6 1.14 3.69 4.83 — 6,745 6,745 0.27 0.11 0.09 6,770 Average
Daily
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 6.23 6.22 7.54 11.2 0.02 0.27 1.39 1.59 0.25 0.60 0.78 — 2,344 2,344 0.08 0.07 0.93 2,369 Annual
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 1.14 1.14 1.38 2.04 < 0.005 0.05 0.25 0.29 0.05 0.11 0.14 — 388 388 0.01 0.01 0.15 392
2.2. Construction Emissions by Year, Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Year TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily -
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
2025 4.03 3.39 31.7 31.1 0.06 1.37 19.8 21.2 1.26 10.1 11.4 — 6,763 6,763 0.28 0.06 0.65 6,788 #18..
- 761 -
Martin Tivoli Subdivision Detailed Report, 10/24/2024
9 / 46
2026 1.61 1.37 10.6 16.5 0.03 0.38 0.63 1.01 0.35 0.15 0.51 — 3,371 3,371 0.12 0.11 3.08 3,408 Daily -
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
2025 3.89 3.28 29.8 29.1 0.06 1.23 9.36 10.6 1.14 3.69 4.83 — 6,745 6,745 0.27 0.11 0.09 6,770 2026 1.59 1.34 10.7 15.7 0.03 0.38 0.63 1.01 0.35 0.15 0.51 — 3,314 3,314 0.12 0.11 0.08 3,349 2027 113 113 6.99 10.5 0.01 0.30 0.11 0.41 0.27 0.03 0.30 — 1,616 1,616 0.06 0.02 0.01 1,623 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
2025 0.65 0.55 4.77 5.33 0.01 0.20 1.39 1.59 0.18 0.60 0.78 — 1,136 1,136 0.04 0.02 0.22 1,143 2026 1.12 0.95 7.54 11.2 0.02 0.27 0.43 0.70 0.25 0.10 0.36 — 2,344 2,344 0.08 0.07 0.93 2,369 2027 6.23 6.22 0.31 0.48 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.01 < 0.005 0.01 — 72.8 72.8 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 73.2 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
2025 0.12 0.10 0.87 0.97 < 0.005 0.04 0.25 0.29 0.03 0.11 0.14 — 188 188 0.01 < 0.005 0.04 189 2026 0.20 0.17 1.38 2.04 < 0.005 0.05 0.08 0.13 0.05 0.02 0.06 — 388 388 0.01 0.01 0.15 392 2027 1.14 1.14 0.06 0.09 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 12.1 12.1 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 12.1
2.4. Operations Emissions Compared Against Thresholds
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Un/Mit. TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 16.7 16.2 5.70 52.1 0.09 0.14 7.35 7.50 0.14 1.87 2.01 101 11,697 11,797 10.8 0.50 32.2 12,248 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 15.0 14.5 6.30 37.8 0.08 0.14 7.35 7.49 0.13 1.87 2.01 101 10,996 11,097 10.8 0.54 3.35 11,532 Average
Daily
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
#18..
- 762 -
Martin Tivoli Subdivision Detailed Report, 10/24/2024
10 / 46
Unmit. 15.4 14.9 5.92 41.4 0.08 0.14 7.06 7.19 0.13 1.80 1.93 101 10,995 11,096 10.8 0.51 15.1 11,533 Annual
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 2.80 2.72 1.08 7.55 0.02 0.03 1.29 1.31 0.02 0.33 0.35 16.7 1,820 1,837 1.78 0.08 2.50 1,909
2.5. Operations Emissions by Sector, Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Sector TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Mobile 7.27 6.89 4.81 41.3 0.09 0.07 7.35 7.43 0.07 1.87 1.94 — 8,762 8,762 0.42 0.45 29.6 8,935 Area 9.31 9.26 0.10 10.5 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 28.1 28.1 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 28.2 Energy 0.09 0.05 0.79 0.34 0.01 0.06 — 0.06 0.06 — 0.06 — 2,809 2,809 0.24 0.02 — 2,821 Water — — — — — — — — — — — 14.2 97.7 112 1.46 0.04 — 159 Waste — — — — — — — — — — — 86.4 0.00 86.4 8.64 0.00 — 302 Refrig. — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 2.58 2.58
Total 16.7 16.2 5.70 52.1 0.09 0.14 7.35 7.50 0.14 1.87 2.01 101 11,697 11,797 10.8 0.50 32.2 12,248 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Mobile 6.54 6.13 5.51 37.4 0.08 0.07 7.35 7.43 0.07 1.87 1.94 — 8,090 8,090 0.50 0.48 0.77 8,247 Area 8.34 8.34 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Energy 0.09 0.05 0.79 0.34 0.01 0.06 — 0.06 0.06 — 0.06 — 2,809 2,809 0.24 0.02 — 2,821 Water — — — — — — — — — — — 14.2 97.7 112 1.46 0.04 — 159 Waste — — — — — — — — — — — 86.4 0.00 86.4 8.64 0.00 — 302 Refrig. — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 2.58 2.58
Total 15.0 14.5 6.30 37.8 0.08 0.14 7.35 7.49 0.13 1.87 2.01 101 10,996 11,097 10.8 0.54 3.35 11,532 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
#18..
- 763 -
Martin Tivoli Subdivision Detailed Report, 10/24/2024
11 / 46
Mobile 6.46 6.07 5.08 35.9 0.08 0.07 7.06 7.13 0.07 1.80 1.86 — 8,075 8,075 0.45 0.46 12.5 8,234 Area 8.82 8.79 0.05 5.18 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 13.8 13.8 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 13.9 Energy 0.09 0.05 0.79 0.34 0.01 0.06 — 0.06 0.06 — 0.06 — 2,809 2,809 0.24 0.02 — 2,821 Water — — — — — — — — — — — 14.2 97.7 112 1.46 0.04 — 159 Waste — — — — — — — — — — — 86.4 0.00 86.4 8.64 0.00 — 302 Refrig. — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 2.58 2.58
Total 15.4 14.9 5.92 41.4 0.08 0.14 7.06 7.19 0.13 1.80 1.93 101 10,995 11,096 10.8 0.51 15.1 11,533 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Mobile 1.18 1.11 0.93 6.55 0.01 0.01 1.29 1.30 0.01 0.33 0.34 — 1,337 1,337 0.07 0.08 2.07 1,363 Area 1.61 1.60 0.01 0.95 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 2.29 2.29 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 2.30 Energy 0.02 0.01 0.14 0.06 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 465 465 0.04 < 0.005 — 467 Water — — — — — — — — — — — 2.34 16.2 18.5 0.24 0.01 — 26.3 Waste — — — — — — — — — — — 14.3 0.00 14.3 1.43 0.00 — 50.1 Refrig. — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.43 0.43
Total 2.80 2.72 1.08 7.55 0.02 0.03 1.29 1.31 0.02 0.33 0.35 16.7 1,820 1,837 1.78 0.08 2.50 1,909
3. Construction Emissions Details
3.1. Site Preparation (2025) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent
3.94 3.31 31.6 30.2 0.05 1.37 — 1.37 1.26 — 1.26 — 5,295 5,295 0.21 0.04 — 5,314 #18..
- 764 -
Martin Tivoli Subdivision Detailed Report, 10/24/2024
12 / 46
Dust — — — — — — 19.7 19.7 — 10.1 10.1 — — — — — — —
From
Material
Movement
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent
0.11 0.09 0.87 0.83 < 0.005 0.04 — 0.04 0.03 — 0.03 — 145 145 0.01 < 0.005 — 146 Dust
From
Material
Movement
— — — — — — 0.54 0.54 — 0.28 0.28 — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent
0.02 0.02 0.16 0.15 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 24.0 24.0 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 24.1 Dust
From
Material
Movement
— — — — — — 0.10 0.10 — 0.05 0.05 — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.09 0.08 0.05 0.94 0.00 0.00 0.13 0.13 0.00 0.03 0.03 — 143 143 0.01 0.01 0.57 146 #18..
- 765 -
Martin Tivoli Subdivision Detailed Report, 10/24/2024
13 / 46
Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 3.61 3.61 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 3.67 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.60 0.60 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.61 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
3.3. Grading (2025) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent
3.80 3.20 29.7 28.3 0.06 1.23 — 1.23 1.14 — 1.14 — 6,599 6,599 0.27 0.05 — 6,622 Dust
From
Material
Movement
— — — — — — 9.20 9.20 — 3.65 3.65 — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 #18..
- 766 -
Martin Tivoli Subdivision Detailed Report, 10/24/2024
14 / 46
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent
3.80 3.20 29.7 28.3 0.06 1.23 — 1.23 1.14 — 1.14 — 6,599 6,599 0.27 0.05 — 6,622 Dust
From
Material
Movement
— — — — — — 9.20 9.20 — 3.65 3.65 — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent
0.31 0.26 2.44 2.33 0.01 0.10 — 0.10 0.09 — 0.09 — 542 542 0.02 < 0.005 — 544 Dust
From
Material
Movement
— — — — — — 0.76 0.76 — 0.30 0.30 — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent
0.06 0.05 0.45 0.42 < 0.005 0.02 — 0.02 0.02 — 0.02 — 89.8 89.8 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 90.1 Dust
From
Material
Movement
— — — — — — 0.14 0.14 — 0.05 0.05 — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
#18..
- 767 -
Martin Tivoli Subdivision Detailed Report, 10/24/2024
15 / 46
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.10 0.09 0.06 1.08 0.00 0.00 0.15 0.15 0.00 0.04 0.04 — 164 164 0.01 0.01 0.65 167 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.09 0.08 0.08 0.83 0.00 0.00 0.15 0.15 0.00 0.04 0.04 — 146 146 0.01 0.01 0.02 148 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.07 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 12.4 12.4 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 12.6 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 2.05 2.05 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 2.08 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
3.5. Building Construction (2025) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
#18..
- 768 -
Martin Tivoli Subdivision Detailed Report, 10/24/2024
16 / 46
Daily, — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Winter
(Max)
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent
1.35 1.13 10.4 13.0 0.02 0.43 — 0.43 0.40 — 0.40 — 2,398 2,398 0.10 0.02 — 2,406 Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent
0.17 0.15 1.35 1.68 < 0.005 0.06 — 0.06 0.05 — 0.05 — 310 310 0.01 < 0.005 — 311 Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent
0.03 0.03 0.25 0.31 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 51.3 51.3 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 51.4 Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.30 0.27 0.25 2.76 0.00 0.00 0.51 0.51 0.00 0.12 0.12 — 487 487 0.02 0.02 0.06 493 Vendor 0.03 0.02 0.64 0.22 < 0.005 0.01 0.12 0.13 0.01 0.03 0.04 — 448 448 0.01 0.07 0.03 468 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
#18..
- 769 -
Martin Tivoli Subdivision Detailed Report, 10/24/2024
17 / 46
Worker 0.04 0.04 0.03 0.37 0.00 0.00 0.06 0.06 0.00 0.02 0.02 — 64.8 64.8 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.12 65.8 Vendor < 0.005 < 0.005 0.08 0.03 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 0.02 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 57.8 57.8 < 0.005 0.01 0.07 60.5 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.07 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 10.7 10.7 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 10.9 Vendor < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 9.58 9.58 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 10.0 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
3.7. Building Construction (2026) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent
1.28 1.07 9.85 13.0 0.02 0.38 — 0.38 0.35 — 0.35 — 2,397 2,397 0.10 0.02 — 2,405 Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent
1.28 1.07 9.85 13.0 0.02 0.38 — 0.38 0.35 — 0.35 — 2,397 2,397 0.10 0.02 — 2,405 Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
#18..
- 770 -
Martin Tivoli Subdivision Detailed Report, 10/24/2024
18 / 46
Off-Roa 0.89 0.74 6.85 9.01 0.02 0.26 — 0.26 0.24 — 0.24 — 1,665 1,665 0.07 0.01 — 1,671 d
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent
0.16 0.14 1.25 1.64 < 0.005 0.05 — 0.05 0.04 — 0.04 — 276 276 0.01 < 0.005 — 277 Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.31 0.29 0.18 3.31 0.00 0.00 0.51 0.51 0.00 0.12 0.12 — 534 534 0.01 0.02 1.99 543 Vendor 0.03 0.02 0.58 0.21 < 0.005 0.01 0.12 0.13 0.01 0.03 0.04 — 439 439 0.01 0.07 1.09 460 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.28 0.26 0.22 2.54 0.00 0.00 0.51 0.51 0.00 0.12 0.12 — 477 477 0.02 0.02 0.05 484 Vendor 0.03 0.02 0.62 0.21 < 0.005 0.01 0.12 0.13 0.01 0.03 0.04 — 440 440 0.01 0.07 0.03 460 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.20 0.18 0.14 1.83 0.00 0.00 0.35 0.35 0.00 0.08 0.08 — 341 341 0.01 0.02 0.60 347 Vendor 0.02 0.01 0.42 0.14 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.08 0.09 < 0.005 0.02 0.03 — 305 305 0.01 0.05 0.33 320 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.04 0.03 0.02 0.33 0.00 0.00 0.06 0.06 0.00 0.01 0.01 — 56.5 56.5 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.10 57.4 Vendor < 0.005 < 0.005 0.08 0.03 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.02 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 50.6 50.6 < 0.005 0.01 0.05 52.9 #18..
- 771 -
Martin Tivoli Subdivision Detailed Report, 10/24/2024
19 / 46
Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
3.9. Paving (2026) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent
0.91 0.76 7.12 9.94 0.01 0.32 — 0.32 0.29 — 0.29 — 1,511 1,511 0.06 0.01 — 1,516 Paving 0.00 0.00 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent
0.02 0.01 0.14 0.19 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 29.6 29.6 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 29.7 Paving 0.00 0.00 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent
< 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 0.04 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 4.89 4.89 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 4.91 Paving 0.00 0.00 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
#18..
- 772 -
Martin Tivoli Subdivision Detailed Report, 10/24/2024
20 / 46
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.06 0.06 0.05 0.57 0.00 0.00 0.11 0.11 0.00 0.03 0.03 — 107 107 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 109 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 2.16 2.16 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 2.20 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.36 0.36 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.36 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
3.11. Paving (2027) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
#18..
- 773 -
Martin Tivoli Subdivision Detailed Report, 10/24/2024
21 / 46
Off-Roa
Equipment
0.88 0.74 6.94 9.95 0.01 0.30 — 0.30 0.27 — 0.27 — 1,511 1,511 0.06 0.01 — 1,516 Paving 0.00 0.00 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent
0.03 0.03 0.26 0.37 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 56.2 56.2 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 56.4 Paving 0.00 0.00 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent
0.01 0.01 0.05 0.07 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 9.30 9.30 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 9.33 Paving 0.00 0.00 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.06 0.06 0.04 0.52 0.00 0.00 0.11 0.11 0.00 0.03 0.03 — 105 105 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 107 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
#18..
- 774 -
Martin Tivoli Subdivision Detailed Report, 10/24/2024
22 / 46
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 4.03 4.03 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 4.09 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.67 0.67 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.68 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
3.13. Architectural Coating (2027) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent
0.14 0.11 0.83 1.13 < 0.005 0.02 — 0.02 0.02 — 0.02 — 134 134 0.01 < 0.005 — 134 Architect
ural
Coating
s
113 113 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent
0.01 0.01 0.05 0.06 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 7.32 7.32 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 7.34 #18..
- 775 -
Martin Tivoli Subdivision Detailed Report, 10/24/2024
23 / 46
Architect
Coatings
6.19 6.19 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent
< 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 1.21 1.21 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 1.22 Architect
ural
Coating
s
1.13 1.13 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.05 0.05 0.04 0.46 0.00 0.00 0.10 0.10 0.00 0.02 0.02 — 93.3 93.3 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 94.7 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 5.27 5.27 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 5.35 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.87 0.87 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.89 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 #18..
- 776 -
Martin Tivoli Subdivision Detailed Report, 10/24/2024
24 / 46
4. Operations Emissions Details
4.1. Mobile Emissions by Land Use
4.1.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Single
Family
Housing
7.27 6.89 4.81 41.3 0.09 0.07 7.35 7.43 0.07 1.87 1.94 — 8,762 8,762 0.42 0.45 29.6 8,935 Total 7.27 6.89 4.81 41.3 0.09 0.07 7.35 7.43 0.07 1.87 1.94 — 8,762 8,762 0.42 0.45 29.6 8,935 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Single
Family
Housing
6.54 6.13 5.51 37.4 0.08 0.07 7.35 7.43 0.07 1.87 1.94 — 8,090 8,090 0.50 0.48 0.77 8,247 Total 6.54 6.13 5.51 37.4 0.08 0.07 7.35 7.43 0.07 1.87 1.94 — 8,090 8,090 0.50 0.48 0.77 8,247 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Single
Family
Housing
1.18 1.11 0.93 6.55 0.01 0.01 1.29 1.30 0.01 0.33 0.34 — 1,337 1,337 0.07 0.08 2.07 1,363 Total 1.18 1.11 0.93 6.55 0.01 0.01 1.29 1.30 0.01 0.33 0.34 — 1,337 1,337 0.07 0.08 2.07 1,363
4.2. Energy
4.2.1. Electricity Emissions By Land Use - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) #18..
- 777 -
Martin Tivoli Subdivision Detailed Report, 10/24/2024
25 / 46
Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Single
Family
Housing
— — — — — — — — — — — — 1,807 1,807 0.15 0.02 — 1,816
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — 1,807 1,807 0.15 0.02 — 1,816 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Single
Family
Housing
— — — — — — — — — — — — 1,807 1,807 0.15 0.02 — 1,816
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — 1,807 1,807 0.15 0.02 — 1,816 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Single
Family
Housing
— — — — — — — — — — — — 299 299 0.02 < 0.005 — 301
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — 299 299 0.02 < 0.005 — 301
4.2.3. Natural Gas Emissions By Land Use - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Single
Family
Housing
0.09 0.05 0.79 0.34 0.01 0.06 — 0.06 0.06 — 0.06 — 1,002 1,002 0.09 < 0.005 — 1,005 Total 0.09 0.05 0.79 0.34 0.01 0.06 — 0.06 0.06 — 0.06 — 1,002 1,002 0.09 < 0.005 — 1,005 #18..
- 778 -
Martin Tivoli Subdivision Detailed Report, 10/24/2024
26 / 46
Daily, — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Winter
(Max)
Single
Family
Housing
0.09 0.05 0.79 0.34 0.01 0.06 — 0.06 0.06 — 0.06 — 1,002 1,002 0.09 < 0.005 — 1,005 Total 0.09 0.05 0.79 0.34 0.01 0.06 — 0.06 0.06 — 0.06 — 1,002 1,002 0.09 < 0.005 — 1,005 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Single
Family
Housing
0.02 0.01 0.14 0.06 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 166 166 0.01 < 0.005 — 166 Total 0.02 0.01 0.14 0.06 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 166 166 0.01 < 0.005 — 166
4.3. Area Emissions by Source
4.3.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Source TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Consum
er
Product
s
7.72 7.72 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Architect
ural
Coating
s
0.62 0.62 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Landsca
pe
Equipm
ent
0.97 0.92 0.10 10.5 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 28.1 28.1 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 28.2 Total 9.31 9.26 0.10 10.5 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 28.1 28.1 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 28.2 #18..
- 779 -
Martin Tivoli Subdivision Detailed Report, 10/24/2024
27 / 46
Daily, — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Winter
(Max)
Consum
er
Product
s
7.72 7.72 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Architect
ural
Coating
s
0.62 0.62 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total 8.34 8.34 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Consum
er
Product
s
1.41 1.41 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Architect
ural
Coating
s
0.11 0.11 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Landsca
pe
Equipm
ent
0.09 0.08 0.01 0.95 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 2.29 2.29 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 2.30 Total 1.61 1.60 0.01 0.95 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 2.29 2.29 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 2.30
4.4. Water Emissions by Land Use
4.4.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
#18..
- 780 -
Martin Tivoli Subdivision Detailed Report, 10/24/2024
28 / 46
Single
Family
Housing
— — — — — — — — — — — 14.2 97.7 112 1.46 0.04 — 159
Total — — — — — — — — — — — 14.2 97.7 112 1.46 0.04 — 159 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Single
Family
Housing
— — — — — — — — — — — 14.2 97.7 112 1.46 0.04 — 159
Total — — — — — — — — — — — 14.2 97.7 112 1.46 0.04 — 159 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Single
Family
Housing
— — — — — — — — — — — 2.34 16.2 18.5 0.24 0.01 — 26.3
Total — — — — — — — — — — — 2.34 16.2 18.5 0.24 0.01 — 26.3
4.5. Waste Emissions by Land Use
4.5.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Single
Family
Housing
— — — — — — — — — — — 86.4 0.00 86.4 8.64 0.00 — 302
Total — — — — — — — — — — — 86.4 0.00 86.4 8.64 0.00 — 302 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
#18..
- 781 -
Martin Tivoli Subdivision Detailed Report, 10/24/2024
29 / 46
Single — — — — — — — — — — — 86.4 0.00 86.4 8.64 0.00 — 302 Family
Housing
Total — — — — — — — — — — — 86.4 0.00 86.4 8.64 0.00 — 302 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Single
Family
Housing
— — — — — — — — — — — 14.3 0.00 14.3 1.43 0.00 — 50.1
Total — — — — — — — — — — — 14.3 0.00 14.3 1.43 0.00 — 50.1
4.6. Refrigerant Emissions by Land Use
4.6.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Single
Family
Housing
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 2.58 2.58
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 2.58 2.58
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Single
Family
Housing
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 2.58 2.58
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 2.58 2.58
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Single
Family
Housing
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.43 0.43
#18..
- 782 -
Martin Tivoli Subdivision Detailed Report, 10/24/2024
30 / 46
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.43 0.43
4.7. Offroad Emissions By Equipment Type
4.7.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Equipm
ent
Type
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
4.8. Stationary Emissions By Equipment Type
4.8.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Equipm
ent
Type
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
#18..
- 783 -
Martin Tivoli Subdivision Detailed Report, 10/24/2024
31 / 46
Daily, — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Winter
(Max)
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
4.9. User Defined Emissions By Equipment Type
4.9.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Equipm
ent
Type
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
4.10. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type
4.10.1. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type - Unmitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Vegetati
on
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e #18..
- 784 -
Martin Tivoli Subdivision Detailed Report, 10/24/2024
32 / 46
Daily, — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Summer
(Max)
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
4.10.2. Above and Belowground Carbon Accumulation by Land Use Type - Unmitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
4.10.3. Avoided and Sequestered Emissions by Species - Unmitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Species TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
#18..
- 785 -
Martin Tivoli Subdivision Detailed Report, 10/24/2024
33 / 46
Avoided — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Sequest
ered
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Remove
d
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Avoided — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Sequest
ered
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Remove
d
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Avoided — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Sequest
ered
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Remove
d
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
#18..
- 786 -
Martin Tivoli Subdivision Detailed Report, 10/24/2024
34 / 46
5. Activity Data
5.1. Construction Schedule
Phase Name Phase Type Start Date End Date Days Per Week Work Days per Phase Phase Description Site Preparation Site Preparation 8/30/2025 9/13/2025 5.00 10.0 — Grading Grading 9/14/2025 10/26/2025 5.00 30.0 —
Building Construction Building Construction 10/27/2025 12/21/2026 5.00 300 — Paving Paving 12/22/2026 1/19/2027 5.00 20.0 —
Architectural Coating Architectural Coating 1/20/2027 2/17/2027 5.00 20.0 —
5.2. Off-Road Equipment
5.2.1. Unmitigated
Phase Name Equipment Type Fuel Type Engine Tier Number per Day Hours Per Day Horsepower Load Factor Site Preparation Rubber Tired Dozers Diesel Average 3.00 8.00 367 0.40 Site Preparation Tractors/Loaders/Back
hoes
Diesel Average 4.00 8.00 84.0 0.37
Grading Excavators Diesel Average 2.00 8.00 36.0 0.38
Grading Graders Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 148 0.41
Grading Rubber Tired Dozers Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 367 0.40 Grading Scrapers Diesel Average 2.00 8.00 423 0.48
Grading Tractors/Loaders/Back
hoes
Diesel Average 2.00 8.00 84.0 0.37
Building Construction Cranes Diesel Average 1.00 7.00 367 0.29 Building Construction Forklifts Diesel Average 3.00 8.00 82.0 0.20 Building Construction Generator Sets Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 14.0 0.74 Building Construction Tractors/Loaders/Back
hoes
Diesel Average 3.00 7.00 84.0 0.37
Building Construction Welders Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 46.0 0.45 #18..
- 787 -
Martin Tivoli Subdivision Detailed Report, 10/24/2024
35 / 46
Paving Pavers Diesel Average 2.00 8.00 81.0 0.42
Paving Paving Equipment Diesel Average 2.00 8.00 89.0 0.36 Paving Rollers Diesel Average 2.00 8.00 36.0 0.38
Architectural Coating Air Compressors Diesel Average 1.00 6.00 37.0 0.48
5.3. Construction Vehicles
5.3.1. Unmitigated
Phase Name Trip Type One-Way Trips per Day Miles per Trip Vehicle Mix Site Preparation — — — —
Site Preparation Worker 17.5 10.8 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Site Preparation Vendor — 7.17 HHDT,MHDT
Site Preparation Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
Site Preparation Onsite truck — — HHDT
Grading — — — —
Grading Worker 20.0 10.8 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Grading Vendor — 7.17 HHDT,MHDT
Grading Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
Grading Onsite truck — — HHDT
Building Construction — — — —
Building Construction Worker 66.6 10.8 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Building Construction Vendor 19.8 7.17 HHDT,MHDT
Building Construction Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
Building Construction Onsite truck — — HHDT
Paving — — — —
Paving Worker 15.0 10.8 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Paving Vendor — 7.17 HHDT,MHDT
Paving Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
#18..
- 788 -
Martin Tivoli Subdivision Detailed Report, 10/24/2024
36 / 46
Paving Onsite truck — — HHDT
Architectural Coating — — — —
Architectural Coating Worker 13.3 10.8 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Architectural Coating Vendor — 7.17 HHDT,MHDT
Architectural Coating Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
Architectural Coating Onsite truck — — HHDT
5.4. Vehicles
5.4.1. Construction Vehicle Control Strategies
Non-applicable. No control strategies activated by user.
5.5. Architectural Coatings
Phase Name Residential Interior Area
Coated (sq ft)
Residential Exterior Area
Coated (sq ft)
Non-Residential Interior Area
Coated (sq ft)
Non-Residential Exterior Area
Coated (sq ft)
Parking Area Coated (sq ft)
Architectural Coating 730,519 243,506 0.00 0.00 —
5.6. Dust Mitigation
5.6.1. Construction Earthmoving Activities
Phase Name Material Imported (Ton of
Debris)
Material Exported (Ton of
Debris)
Acres Graded (acres) Material Demolished (sq. ft.) Acres Paved (acres) Site Preparation 0.00 0.00 15.0 0.00 —
Grading 0.00 0.00 90.0 0.00 —
Paving 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.04
5.6.2. Construction Earthmoving Control Strategies
Non-applicable. No control strategies activated by user.
5.7. Construction Paving
#18..
- 789 -
Martin Tivoli Subdivision Detailed Report, 10/24/2024
37 / 46
Land Use Area Paved (acres) % Asphalt
Single Family Housing 2.04 0%
5.8. Construction Electricity Consumption and Emissions Factors kWh per Year and Emission Factor (lb/MWh)
Year kWh per Year CO2 CH4 N2O
2025 0.00 478 0.03 < 0.005
2026 0.00 478 0.03 < 0.005
2027 0.00 478 0.03 < 0.005
5.9. Operational Mobile Sources
5.9.1. Unmitigated
Land Use Type Trips/Weekday Trips/Saturday Trips/Sunday Trips/Year VMT/Weekday VMT/Saturday VMT/Sunday VMT/Year Single Family
Housing
1,746 1,765 1,582 629,815 10,203 10,311 9,241 3,679,663
5.10. Operational Area Sources
5.10.1. Hearths
5.10.1.1. Unmitigated
5.10.2. Architectural Coatings
Residential Interior Area Coated (sq
ft)
Residential Exterior Area Coated (sq
ft)
Non-Residential Interior Area Coated
(sq ft)
Non-Residential Exterior Area
Coated (sq ft)
Parking Area Coated (sq ft)
730518.75 243,506 0.00 0.00 —
5.10.3. Landscape Equipment
#18..
- 790 -
Martin Tivoli Subdivision Detailed Report, 10/24/2024
38 / 46
Season Unit Value
Snow Days day/yr 0.00
Summer Days day/yr 180
5.11. Operational Energy Consumption
5.11.1. Unmitigated
Electricity (kWh/yr) and CO2 and CH4 and N2O and Natural Gas (kBTU/yr) Land Use Electricity (kWh/yr) CO2 CH4 N2O Natural Gas (kBTU/yr) Single Family Housing 1,623,263 406 0.0330 0.0040 3,126,687
5.12. Operational Water and Wastewater Consumption
5.12.1. Unmitigated
Land Use Indoor Water (gal/year) Outdoor Water (gal/year) Single Family Housing 7,384,872 36,578,225
5.13. Operational Waste Generation
5.13.1. Unmitigated
Land Use Waste (ton/year) Cogeneration (kWh/year)
Single Family Housing 160 —
5.14. Operational Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Equipment
5.14.1. Unmitigated
Land Use Type Equipment Type Refrigerant GWP Quantity (kg) Operations Leak Rate Service Leak Rate Times Serviced #18..
- 791 -
Martin Tivoli Subdivision Detailed Report, 10/24/2024
39 / 46
Single Family Housing Average room A/C & R-410A 2,088 < 0.005 2.50 2.50 10.0 Other residential A/C
and heat pumps
Single Family Housing Household
refrigerators and/or
freezers
R-134a 1,430 0.12 0.60 0.00 1.00
5.15. Operational Off-Road Equipment
5.15.1. Unmitigated
Equipment Type Fuel Type Engine Tier Number per Day Hours Per Day Horsepower Load Factor
5.16. Stationary Sources
5.16.1. Emergency Generators and Fire Pumps
Equipment Type Fuel Type Number per Day Hours per Day Hours per Year Horsepower Load Factor
5.16.2. Process Boilers
Equipment Type Fuel Type Number Boiler Rating (MMBtu/hr) Daily Heat Input (MMBtu/day) Annual Heat Input (MMBtu/yr)
5.17. User Defined
Equipment Type Fuel Type
5.18. Vegetation
5.18.1. Land Use Change
5.18.1.1. Unmitigated
Vegetation Land Use Type Vegetation Soil Type Initial Acres Final Acres #18..
- 792 -
Martin Tivoli Subdivision Detailed Report, 10/24/2024
40 / 46
5.18.1. Biomass Cover Type
5.18.1.1. Unmitigated
Biomass Cover Type Initial Acres Final Acres
5.18.2. Sequestration
5.18.2.1. Unmitigated
Tree Type Number Electricity Saved (kWh/year) Natural Gas Saved (btu/year)
6. Climate Risk Detailed Report
6.1. Climate Risk Summary
Cal-Adapt midcentury 2040–2059 average projections for four hazards are reported below for your project location. These are under Representation Concentration Pathway (RCP) 8.5 which assumes GHG emissions will continue to rise strongly through 2050 and then plateau around 2100.
Climate Hazard Result for Project Location Unit
Temperature and Extreme Heat 21.3 annual days of extreme heat Extreme Precipitation 1.85 annual days with precipitation above 20 mm Sea Level Rise — meters of inundation depth
Wildfire 0.00 annual hectares burned
Temperature and Extreme Heat data are for grid cell in which your project are located. The projection is based on the 98th historical percentile of daily maximum/minimum temperatures from observed historical data (32 climate model ensemble from Cal-Adapt, 2040–2059 average under RCP 8.5). Each grid cell is 6 kilometers (km) by 6 km, or 3.7 miles (mi) by 3.7 mi.
Extreme Precipitation data are for the grid cell in which your project are located. The threshold of 20 mm is equivalent to about ¾ an inch of rain, which would be light to moderate rainfall if received over a full day or heavy rain if received over a period of 2 to 4 hours. Each grid cell is 6 kilometers (km) by 6 km, or 3.7 miles (mi) by 3.7 mi.
Sea Level Rise data are for the grid cell in which your project are located. The projections are from Radke et al. (2017), as reported in Cal-Adapt (Radke et al., 2017, CEC-500-2017-008), and consider inundation location and depth for the San Francisco Bay, the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta and California coast resulting different increments of sea level rise coupled with extreme storm events. Users may select from four scenarios to view the range in potential inundation depth for the grid cell. The four scenarios are: No rise, 0.5 meter, 1.0 meter, 1.41 meters Wildfire data are for the grid cell in which your project are located. The projections are from UC Davis, as reported in Cal-Adapt (2040–2059 average under RCP 8.5), and consider historical data of climate, vegetation, population density, and large (> 400 ha) fire history. Users may select from four model simulations to view the range in potential wildfire probabilities for the grid cell. The four simulations make different assumptions about expected rainfall and temperature are: Warmer/drier (HadGEM2-ES), Cooler/wetter (CNRM-CM5), Average conditions (CanESM2), Range of different rainfall and temperature possibilities (MIROC5). Each grid cell is 6 kilometers (km) by 6 km, or 3.7 miles (mi) by 3.7 mi. #18..
- 793 -
Martin Tivoli Subdivision Detailed Report, 10/24/2024
41 / 46
6.2. Initial Climate Risk Scores
Climate Hazard Exposure Score Sensitivity Score Adaptive Capacity Score Vulnerability Score Temperature and Extreme Heat 1 0 0 N/A
Extreme Precipitation N/A N/A N/A N/A
Sea Level Rise N/A N/A N/A N/A
Wildfire N/A N/A N/A N/A
Flooding 0 0 0 N/A
Drought 0 0 0 N/A
Snowpack Reduction N/A N/A N/A N/A
Air Quality Degradation 0 0 0 N/A
The sensitivity score reflects the extent to which a project would be adversely affected by exposure to a climate hazard. Exposure is rated on a scale of 1 to 5, with a score of 5 representing the greatest exposure.
The adaptive capacity of a project refers to its ability to manage and reduce vulnerabilities from projected climate hazards. Adaptive capacity is rated on a scale of 1 to 5, with a score of 5 representing the greatest ability to adapt.
The overall vulnerability scores are calculated based on the potential impacts and adaptive capacity assessments for each hazard. Scores do not include implementation of climate risk reduction measures.
6.3. Adjusted Climate Risk Scores
Climate Hazard Exposure Score Sensitivity Score Adaptive Capacity Score Vulnerability Score Temperature and Extreme Heat 1 1 1 2
Extreme Precipitation N/A N/A N/A N/A
Sea Level Rise N/A N/A N/A N/A
Wildfire N/A N/A N/A N/A
Flooding 1 1 1 2
Drought 1 1 1 2
Snowpack Reduction N/A N/A N/A N/A
Air Quality Degradation 1 1 1 2
The sensitivity score reflects the extent to which a project would be adversely affected by exposure to a climate hazard. Exposure is rated on a scale of 1 to 5, with a score of 5 representing the greatest exposure.
#18..
- 794 -
Martin Tivoli Subdivision Detailed Report, 10/24/2024
42 / 46
The adaptive capacity of a project refers to its ability to manage and reduce vulnerabilities from projected climate hazards. Adaptive capacity is rated on a scale of 1 to 5, with a score of 5 representing the greatest ability to adapt.
The overall vulnerability scores are calculated based on the potential impacts and adaptive capacity assessments for each hazard. Scores include implementation of climate risk reduction measures.
6.4. Climate Risk Reduction Measures
7. Health and Equity Details
7.1. CalEnviroScreen 4.0 Scores
The maximum CalEnviroScreen score is 100. A high score (i.e., greater than 50) reflects a higher pollution burden compared to other census tracts in the state.
Indicator Result for Project Census Tract
Exposure Indicators —
AQ-Ozone 70.3
AQ-PM 57.6
AQ-DPM 94.7
Drinking Water 97.8
Lead Risk Housing 90.3
Pesticides 0.00
Toxic Releases 43.9
Traffic 23.6
Effect Indicators —
CleanUp Sites 85.9
Groundwater 78.6
Haz Waste Facilities/Generators 51.7
Impaired Water Bodies 72.2
Solid Waste 59.2
Sensitive Population —
Asthma 91.6
Cardio-vascular 74.1
Low Birth Weights 32.8
#18..
- 795 -
Martin Tivoli Subdivision Detailed Report, 10/24/2024
43 / 46
Socioeconomic Factor Indicators —
Education 69.9
Housing 87.2
Linguistic 37.0
Poverty 92.3
Unemployment 95.0
7.2. Healthy Places Index Scores
The maximum Health Places Index score is 100. A high score (i.e., greater than 50) reflects healthier community conditions compared to other census tracts in the state.
Indicator Result for Project Census Tract
Economic —
Above Poverty 12.92185294
Employed 0.744257667
Median HI 2.592069806
Education —
Bachelor's or higher 22.22507378
High school enrollment 100
Preschool enrollment 13.25548569
Transportation —
Auto Access 1.809316053
Active commuting 84.55023739
Social —
2-parent households 15.23161812
Voting 4.529706147
Neighborhood —
Alcohol availability 36.81509047
Park access 81.35506224
Retail density 93.91761838
#18..
- 796 -
Martin Tivoli Subdivision Detailed Report, 10/24/2024
44 / 46
Supermarket access 36.84075452
Tree canopy 87.64275632
Housing—
Homeownership 6.069549596
Housing habitability 41.46028487
Low-inc homeowner severe housing cost burden 93.25035288 Low-inc renter severe housing cost burden 63.89067112
Uncrowded housing 37.03323495
Health Outcomes—
Insured adults 27.96099063
Arthritis 14.6
Asthma ER Admissions 11.9
High Blood Pressure 13.8
Cancer (excluding skin) 38.7
Asthma 13.4
Coronary Heart Disease 6.8
Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease 3.4
Diagnosed Diabetes 30.7
Life Expectancy at Birth 0.6
Cognitively Disabled 0.8
Physically Disabled 1.1
Heart Attack ER Admissions 9.0
Mental Health Not Good 14.9
Chronic Kidney Disease 14.8
Obesity 10.6
Pedestrian Injuries 99.6
Physical Health Not Good 16.1
Stroke 10.1
#18..
- 797 -
Martin Tivoli Subdivision Detailed Report, 10/24/2024
45 / 46
Health Risk Behaviors —
Binge Drinking 25.3
Current Smoker 6.0
No Leisure Time for Physical Activity 24.4
Climate Change Exposures —
Wildfire Risk 0.0
SLR Inundation Area 0.0
Children 47.4
Elderly 29.3
English Speaking 68.5
Foreign-born 6.7
Outdoor Workers 11.8
Climate Change Adaptive Capacity —
Impervious Surface Cover 31.4
Traffic Density 23.5
Traffic Access 0.0
Other Indices —
Hardship 85.3
Other Decision Support —
2016 Voting 10.4
7.3. Overall Health & Equity Scores
Metric Result for Project Census Tract
CalEnviroScreen 4.0 Score for Project Location (a) 94.0 Healthy Places Index Score for Project Location (b) 1.00 Project Located in a Designated Disadvantaged Community (Senate Bill 535) Yes Project Located in a Low-Income Community (Assembly Bill 1550) Yes Project Located in a Community Air Protection Program Community (Assembly Bill 617) No #18..
- 798 -
Martin Tivoli Subdivision Detailed Report, 10/24/2024
46 / 46
a: The maximum CalEnviroScreen score is 100. A high score (i.e., greater than 50) reflects a higher pollution burden compared to other census tracts in the state. b: The maximum Health Places Index score is 100. A high score (i.e., greater than 50) reflects healthier community conditions compared to other census tracts in the state.
7.4. Health & Equity Measures
No Health & Equity Measures selected.
7.5. Evaluation Scorecard
Health & Equity Evaluation Scorecard not completed.
7.6. Health & Equity Custom Measures
No Health & Equity Custom Measures created.
8. User Changes to Default Data
Screen Justification
Land Use 185 homes within 19.95 acres, as provided in the Project Description.
Construction: Construction Phases No demolition.
Operations: Hearths No hearths.
#18..
- 799 -
MARTIN TIVOLI SUBDIVISION INITIAL STUDY
PAGE 183
APPENDIX B: BIOLOGICAL RECORDS
#18..
- 800 -
10/31/2024 19:40:31 UTC
United States Department of the Interior
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Sacramento Fish And Wildlife Office
Federal Building
2800 Cottage Way, Room W-2605
Sacramento, CA 95825-1846
Phone: (916) 414-6600 Fax: (916) 414-6713
In Reply Refer To:
Project Code: 2025-0013960
Project Name: Modesto Martin-Tivoli Subdivision
Subject: List of threatened and endangered species that may occur in your proposed project location or may be affected by your proposed project
To Whom It May Concern:
The enclosed species list identifies threatened, endangered, proposed and candidate species, as well as proposed and final designated critical habitat, that may occur within the boundary of your proposed project and/or may be affected by your proposed project. The species list fulfills the requirements of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) under section 7(c) of the Endangered Species Act (Act) of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.).
New information based on updated surveys, changes in the abundance and distribution of species, changed habitat conditions, or other factors could change this list. Please feel free to contact us if you need more current information or assistance regarding the potential impacts to federally proposed, listed, and candidate species and federally designated and proposed critical habitat. Please note that under 50 CFR 402.12(e) of the regulations implementing section 7 of the Act, the accuracy of this species list should be verified after 90 days. This verification can be completed formally or informally as desired. The Service recommends that verification be completed by visiting the IPaC website at regular intervals during project planning and implementation for updates to species lists and information. An updated list may be requested through the IPaC system by completing the same process used to receive the enclosed list.
The purpose of the Act is to provide a means whereby threatened and endangered species and the ecosystems upon which they depend may be conserved. Under sections 7(a)(1) and 7(a)(2) of the Act and its implementing regulations (50 CFR 402 et seq.), Federal agencies are required to utilize their authorities to carry out programs for the conservation of threatened and endangered species and to determine whether projects may affect threatened and endangered species and/or designated critical habitat.
A Biological Assessment is required for construction projects (or other undertakings having similar physical impacts) that are major Federal actions significantly affecting the quality of the human environment as defined in the National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4332(2) #18..
- 801 -
Project code: 2025-0013960 10/31/2024 19:40:31 UTC
2 of 7
(c)). For projects other than major construction activities, the Service suggests that a biological evaluation similar to a Biological Assessment be prepared to determine whether the project may affect listed or proposed species and/or designated or proposed critical habitat. Recommended contents of a Biological Assessment are described at 50 CFR 402.12.
If a Federal agency determines, based on the Biological Assessment or biological evaluation, that listed species and/or designated critical habitat may be affected by the proposed project, the agency is required to consult with the Service pursuant to 50 CFR 402. In addition, the Service recommends that candidate species, proposed species and proposed critical habitat be addressed within the consultation. More information on the regulations and procedures for section 7 consultation, including the role of permit or license applicants, can be found in the "Endangered Species Consultation Handbook" at:
https://www.fws.gov/sites/default/files/documents/endangered-species-consultationhandbook.pdf Migratory Birds: In addition to responsibilities to protect threatened and endangered species under the Endangered Species Act (ESA), there are additional responsibilities under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) and the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act (BGEPA) to protect native birds from project-related impacts. Any activity, intentional or unintentional, resulting in take of migratory birds, including eagles, is prohibited unless otherwise permitted by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (50 C.F.R. Sec. 10.12 and 16 U.S.C. Sec. 668(a)). For more information regarding these Acts, see https://www.fws.gov/program/migratory-bird-permit/whatwe-do.
The MBTA has no provision for allowing take of migratory birds that may be unintentionally killed or injured by otherwise lawful activities. It is the responsibility of the project proponent to comply with these Acts by identifying potential impacts to migratory birds and eagles within applicable NEPA documents (when there is a federal nexus) or a Bird/Eagle Conservation Plan (when there is no federal nexus). Proponents should implement conservation measures to avoid or minimize the production of project-related stressors or minimize the exposure of birds and their resources to the project-related stressors. For more information on avian stressors and recommended conservation measures, see https://www.fws.gov/library/collections/threats-birds.
In addition to MBTA and BGEPA, Executive Order 13186: Responsibilities of Federal Agencies to Protect Migratory Birds, obligates all Federal agencies that engage in or authorize activities that might affect migratory birds, to minimize those effects and encourage conservation measures that will improve bird populations. Executive Order 13186 provides for the protection of both migratory birds and migratory bird habitat. For information regarding the implementation of Executive Order 13186, please visit https://www.fws.gov/partner/council-conservationmigratory-birds.
We appreciate your concern for threatened and endangered species. The Service encourages Federal agencies to include conservation of threatened and endangered species into their project planning to further the purposes of the Act. Please include the Consultation Code in the header of this letter with any request for consultation or correspondence about your project that you submit to our office.
#18..
- 802 -
Project code: 2025-0013960 10/31/2024 19:40:31 UTC
3 of 7
▪
Attachment(s):
Official Species List
OFFICIAL SPECIES LIST
This list is provided pursuant to Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act, and fulfills the requirement for Federal agencies to "request of the Secretary of the Interior information whether any species which is listed or proposed to be listed may be present in the area of a proposed action".
This species list is provided by:
Sacramento Fish And Wildlife Office
Federal Building
2800 Cottage Way, Room W-2605
Sacramento, CA 95825-1846
(916) 414-6600
#18..
- 803 -
Project code: 2025-0013960 10/31/2024 19:40:31 UTC
4 of 7
PROJECT SUMMARY
Project Code: 2025-0013960
Project Name: Modesto Martin-Tivoli Subdivision
Project Type: Residential Construction
Project Description: The project is a General Plan Amendment to change a land use in the already approved Tivoli Specific Plan from a mostly commercial use/zone to a residential use/zone.
Project Location:
The approximate location of the project can be viewed in Google Maps: https:// www.google.com/maps/@37.694452150000004,-120.95580320972239,14z Counties: Stanislaus County, California
#18..
- 804 -
Project code: 2025-0013960 10/31/2024 19:40:31 UTC
5 of 7
1. ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT SPECIES
There is a total of 7 threatened, endangered, or candidate species on this species list.
Species on this list should be considered in an effects analysis for your project and could include species that exist in another geographic area. For example, certain fish may appear on the species list because a project could affect downstream species.
IPaC does not display listed species or critical habitats under the sole jurisdiction of NOAA Fisheries , as USFWS does not have the authority to speak on behalf of NOAA and the Department of Commerce.
See the "Critical habitats" section below for those critical habitats that lie wholly or partially within your project area under this office's jurisdiction. Please contact the designated FWS office if you have questions.
NOAA Fisheries, also known as the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), is an office of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration within the Department of Commerce.
1 #18..
- 805 -
Project code: 2025-0013960 10/31/2024 19:40:31 UTC
6 of 7
REPTILES
NAME STATUS
Northwestern Pond Turtle Actinemys marmorata
No critical habitat has been designated for this species.
Species profile: https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/1111
Proposed
Threatened
AMPHIBIANS
NAME STATUS
California Tiger Salamander Ambystoma californiense
Population: U.S.A. (Central CA DPS)
There is final critical habitat for this species. Your location does not overlap the critical habitat.
Species profile: https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/2076
Threatened
Western Spadefoot Spea hammondii
No critical habitat has been designated for this species.
Species profile: https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/5425
Proposed
Threatened
INSECTS
NAME STATUS
Monarch Butterfly Danaus plexippus
No critical habitat has been designated for this species.
Species profile: https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/9743
Candidate
Valley Elderberry Longhorn Beetle Desmocerus californicus dimorphus There is final critical habitat for this species. Your location does not overlap the critical habitat.
Species profile: https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/7850
Threatened
CRUSTACEANS
NAME STATUS
Vernal Pool Fairy Shrimp Branchinecta lynchi
There is final critical habitat for this species. Your location does not overlap the critical habitat.
Species profile: https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/498
Threatened
Vernal Pool Tadpole Shrimp Lepidurus packardi
There is final critical habitat for this species. Your location does not overlap the critical habitat.
Species profile: https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/2246
Endangered
CRITICAL HABITATS
THERE ARE NO CRITICAL HABITATS WITHIN YOUR PROJECT AREA UNDER THIS OFFICE'S JURISDICTION.
YOU ARE STILL REQUIRED TO DETERMINE IF YOUR PROJECT(S) MAY HAVE EFFECTS ON ALL ABOVE LISTED SPECIES.
#18..
- 806 -
Project code: 2025-0013960 10/31/2024 19:40:31 UTC
7 of 7
IPAC USER CONTACT INFORMATION
Agency: Private Entity
Name: Steve McMurtry
Address: 1020 Suncast Lane, Suite 106
City: El Dorado Hills
State: CA
Zip: 95762
Email [email protected]
Phone: 9165809818
#18..
- 807 -
Species Element Code Federal Status State Status Global Rank State Rank Rare Plant
Rank/CDFW
SSC or FP
American bumble bee
Bombus pensylvanicus
IIHYM24260 None None G3G4 S2
Antioch multilid wasp
Myrmosula pacifica
IIHYM15010 None None GH SH
beaked clarkia
Clarkia rostrata
PDONA050Y0 None None G2G3 S2S3 1B.3
burrowing owl
Athene cunicularia
ABNSB10010 None None G4 S2 SSC
cackling (=Aleutian Canada) goose
Branta hutchinsii leucopareia
ABNJB05035 Delisted None G5T3 S3 WL
California tiger salamander - central California DPS
Ambystoma californiense pop. 1
AAAAA01181 Threatened Threatened G2G3T3 S3 WL
Colusa grass
Neostapfia colusana
PMPOA4C010 Threatened Endangered G1 S1 1B.1
Crotch's bumble bee
Bombus crotchii
IIHYM24480 None Candidate
Endangered
G2 S2
great blue heron
Ardea herodias
ABNGA04010 None None G5 S4
green sturgeon - southern DPS
Acipenser medirostris pop. 1
AFCAA01031 Threatened None G2T1 S1 SSC
Greene's tuctoria
Tuctoria greenei
PMPOA6N010 Endangered Rare G1 S1 1B.1
hardhead
Mylopharodon conocephalus
AFCJB25010 None None G3 S3 SSC
heartscale
Atriplex cordulata var. cordulata
PDCHE040B0 None None G3T2 S2 1B.2
hoary bat
Lasiurus cinereus
AMACC05032 None None G3G4 S4
legenere
Legenere limosa
PDCAM0C010 None None G2 S2 1B.1
moestan blister beetle
Lytta moesta
IICOL4C020 None None G2 S2
Northern California legless lizard
Anniella pulchra
ARACC01020 None None G3 S2S3 SSC
Northern Hardpan Vernal Pool
Northern Hardpan Vernal Pool
CTT44110CA None None G3 S3.1
northwestern pond turtle
Actinemys marmorata
ARAAD02031 Proposed
Threatened
None G2 SNR SSC
Query Criteria: Quad<span style='color:Red'> IS </span>(Riverbank (3712068)<span style='color:Red'> OR </span>Waterford (3712067)<span style='color:Red'> OR </span>Oakdale (3712077)<span style='color:Red'> OR </span>Escalon (3712078)<span style='color:Red'> OR </span>Brush Lake (3712151)<span style='color:Red'> OR </span>Ceres (3712058)<span style='color:Red'> OR </span>Denair (3712057)<span style='color:Red'> OR </span>Avena (3712171)<span style='color:Red'> OR </span>Salida (3712161)) Report Printed on Thursday, October 31, 2024
Commercial Version -- Dated September, 29 2024 -- Biogeographic Data Branch Page 1 of 2 Information Expires 3/29/2025
Selected Elements by Common Name
California Department of Fish and Wildlife
California Natural Diversity Database
#18..
- 808 -
Species Element Code Federal Status State Status Global Rank State Rank Rare Plant
Rank/CDFW
SSC or FP
obscure bumble bee
Bombus caliginosus
IIHYM24380 None None G2G3 S1S2
prairie wedge grass
Sphenopholis obtusata
PMPOA5T030 None None G5 S2 2B.2
San Joaquin Valley giant flower-loving fly
Rhaphiomidas trochilus
IIDIP05010 None None G1 S1
San Joaquin Valley Orcutt grass
Orcuttia inaequalis
PMPOA4G060 Threatened Endangered G1 S1 1B.1
snowy egret
Egretta thula
ABNGA06030 None None G5 S4
steelhead - Central Valley DPS
Oncorhynchus mykiss irideus pop. 11
AFCHA0209K Threatened None G5T2Q S2 SSC
subtle orache
Atriplex subtilis
PDCHE042T0 None None G1 S1 1B.2
Swainson's hawk
Buteo swainsoni
ABNKC19070 None Threatened G5 S4
Townsend's big-eared bat
Corynorhinus townsendii
AMACC08010 None None G4 S2 SSC
tricolored blackbird
Agelaius tricolor
ABPBXB0020 None Threatened G1G2 S2 SSC
valley elderberry longhorn beetle
Desmocerus californicus dimorphus
IICOL48011 Threatened None G3T3 S3
vernal pool fairy shrimp
Branchinecta lynchi
ICBRA03030 Threatened None G3 S3
vernal pool tadpole shrimp
Lepidurus packardi
ICBRA10010 Endangered None G3 S3
western bumble bee
Bombus occidentalis
IIHYM24252 None Candidate
Endangered
G3 S1
western mastiff bat
Eumops perotis californicus
AMACD02011 None None G4G5T4 S3S4 SSC
western red bat
Lasiurus frantzii
AMACC05080 None None G4 S3 SSC
western ridged mussel
Gonidea angulata
IMBIV19010 None None G3 S2
yellow-breasted chat
Icteria virens
ABPBX24010 None None G5 S4 SSC
Yuma myotis
Myotis yumanensis
AMACC01020 None None G5 S4
Record Count: 38
Report Printed on Thursday, October 31, 2024
Commercial Version -- Dated September, 29 2024 -- Biogeographic Data Branch Page 2 of 2 Information Expires 3/29/2025
Selected Elements by Common Name
California Department of Fish and Wildlife
California Natural Diversity Database
#18..
- 809 -
!"#$
%& ! %!
% %!
"
%
$%
%'()*
"%!
"+,-
.
/0',-
.
/-',-
.
--',-
.
-0',-
.
1 ',-
.
10',-
.
1-',-
.
-
',-
.
/
2 34567896:65
8;<7
5=<<=8
8;<7 :;<6>?>6:7:=@< A>==<68B C7@6=D :7D >649 49;97 >649 B>=A;> @;8E 49;97 @;8E 5;@;@7 C>;89 @;8E 5;78D7<65 D;97 ;DD7DCF=9= GHIJKLMN
OPIQRLSHSTSIU
OPIQRLSHS
$! V "%!!
WXV)Y
Z !Z ![,\..
]#.^
(00)
)
_
((` W
a# b
!c b#d#
GHIJKLMNeRfHJLJe
W
$! V "%!!
WgXVhi
!) VgY
h
Z !Z ![
]#.^
((`)
)
_.
W
a# b
!c b#d#
jMkHIPlSQJS
KSIImJeeKU IRQJe
bno
p
V
!
X
!!
Wqn)Y
Z !Z ![,\,,`#.^ .
-)
1).. _.
( i !
d n!
jLSIrJSIPeHISHS W&"
&%Y!p!!
WXV)qnZ !Z ![.[,.,
]#,^
(-`)
)
Z b
Xs%
W
tIJHJLLSIJS
SuIMeHJe
%!&W
v%
%V!!%
W
W%
W
q)i
!Z !Z ![,,`#.^
(0
)
)
_.
/ X !
wMuMkMIM
LJlPeS
p!$
V!
!!
WXV)i
!Z !Z ![..
]#
^
(-`)
)
_.
i !
[
#18..
- 810 -
!"#$%&%%'(%) %*+, -% -% ./
01
23
4
&561
7
8//
9 &9!"#$%&%%'(%) %*+, -% -% ./
01
:;
;
<
911
=>91
9 5..$?&@@'(@ %*+, -% -% ./
01
A
3
B3
$C
//1
5D&9E !#F$%&%%'(%) %*+, -% -% G@--H!(
$ &=1%/%-I%-/1 &/>1//1J 1I1./10/&1/ KF/L(@-@,(F/M0/
D1>1/1K0*(?E(N
1///9JOO===(9/(9(
P>Q%8/
@-@,R(
#18..
- 811 -
INITIAL STUDY MARTIN TIVOLI SUBDIVISION
PAGE 184
APPENDIX C: NOISE REPORT
#18..
- 812 -
Environmental Noise Assessment
Martin Residential Development
Modesto, California
BAC Job # 2024-133
Prepared For:
Florsheim Homes
John Pronoitis
1701 W. March Lane, Suite D
Stockton, CA 95207
Prepared By:
Bollard Acoustical Consultants, Inc.
Paul Bollard, President
October 31, 2024
Bollard Acoustical Consultants, Inc. ● P.O. Box 7968 ● Auburn, CA 95604 ● Phone: (530) 537-2328 ● bacnoise.com #18..
- 813 -
Bollard Acoustical Consultants, Inc. (BAC)
Environmental Noise Assessment
Martin Property Residential Development – Modesto, California
Introduction
The Martin Property Subdivision (project) is located on the east side of Oakdale Road, south of Mable Avenue, in the City of Modesto, California. The project consists of the construction of residences on approximately 185 single-family residential lots. The project site is currently used for agricultural purposes (orchards). Existing land uses within the project vicinity include singlefamily residential uses to the west (on the opposite side of Oakdale Road), a veterinary hospital and large-lot single-family residences along the northern site boundary, and agricultural uses to the south and east. The project area with aerial imagery showing existing surrounding land uses is shown in Figure 1. The proposed project site plan is shown on Figure 2.
According to the City of Modesto, the property to the immediate south of the project site is planned for the development of future commercial and medium-density residential uses, although specific site plans for those developments were not available at this time this noise study was prepared.
Commercial uses are reportedly also planned to the north of the project site, north of Mable Avenue. City of Modesto ordinance requires that commercial uses include appropriate noise mitigation to ensure that noise generated by the commercial use does not exceed City noise standards. So although the future commercial site developer is responsible for noise mitigation, this analysis includes a general assessment of commercial noise generation at the future commercial sites to the north and south.
Due to the noise-sensitivity of the proposed residential uses, and the sensitivity of the existing residences to the immediate north and west of the project site, the City of Modesto has required a noise analysis to be prepared for the project. In response to that request, Bollard Acoustical Consultants, Inc. (BAC) was retained by the project developer (Florsheim Homes), to prepare this noise analysis. The specific purposes of this analysis are as follows:
1. To ensure that the project incorporates sufficient Oakdale Road traffic noise mitigation measures to achieve compliance with the City of Modesto standards for acceptable noise exposure at exterior (backyard), and interior spaces of new residential developments.
2. To ensure that noise generated by the project, including increased traffic noise on Oakdale Road, and noise generated during project construction, does not adversely affect existing residential uses to the north and west.
3. To evaluate the potential noise generation of future commercial uses to the south of the project site and recommend appropriate interior noise mitigation measures for the Martin Property development which would not be practical to implement during the commercial site development (i.e. upgraded bedroom window assemblies if needed). #18..
- 814 -
Legend
Figure 1
Project Area
Martin Property Residential Subdivision
Modesto, California
0 200 400
Scale (Feet)
Project Boundary (Approximate)Long-Term Noise Measurement Locations Bridgewood Way
Mable Ave
Oakdale Rd
Spring Oak Dr
LT-1
LT-2
Future
commercial
development
Future commercial & medium density
residential development
Existing Residences Veterinary Hospital
#18..
- 815 -
STC 32 Window Upgrades (North, South and West-Facing Upper-Floors Only) Legend
Figure 2 0 75 150
Scale (Feet)
Required 7-foot Tall Traffic Noise Barrier
OAKDALE ROAD
Site Plan
Martin Property Residential Subdivision
Modesto, California
Existing Residential Uses
Future Commercial Development
Recommended 8-Foot Tall Commercial Noise BarrierSTC 32 Window Upgrades (West, South, and East-Facing Upper-Floors Only) Future Residential Development
#18..
- 816 -
Bollard Acoustical Consultants, Inc. (BAC)
Environmental Noise Assessment
Martin Property Residential Development – Modesto, California
Because future commercial development to the north of Mable Avenue would be separated from the project site by a buffer in excess of 300 feet, and noise generated by such uses would be buffered by the existing intervening residences and veterinarian hospital to the north of the project site (between the project site and any future commercial development to the north), commercial noise levels from that future northern commercial development are expected to be well below City noise standards, and an evaluation of potential noise impacts related to that future commercial development to the north is not considered to be warranted as part of this study.
Noise Fundamentals and Terminology
Noise is often described as unwanted sound. Sound is defined as any pressure variation in air that the human ear can detect. If the pressure variations occur frequently enough (at least 20 times per second), they can be heard and are designated as sound. The number of pressure variations per second is called the frequency of sound and is expressed as cycles per second, or Hertz (Hz). Definitions of acoustical terminology are provided in Appendix A.
Measuring sound directly in terms of pressure would require a very large and awkward range of numbers. To avoid this, the decibel scale was devised. The decibel scale uses the hearing threshold (20 micropascals of pressure) as a point of reference, defined as 0 dB. Other sound pressures are then compared to the reference pressure, and the logarithm is taken to keep the numbers in a practical range. Noise levels associated with common noise sources are provided in Figure 3.
The perceived loudness of sounds is dependent upon many factors, including sound pressure level and frequency content. However, within the usual range of environmental noise levels, perception of loudness is relatively predictable and can be approximated by filtering the frequency response of a sound level meter by means of the standardized A-weighting network. There is a strong correlation between A-weighted sound levels (expressed as dBA) and community response to noise. For this reason, the A-weighted sound level has become the standard tool of environmental noise assessment.
Community noise is commonly described in terms of the ambient noise level, which is defined as the all-encompassing noise level associated with a given noise environment. A common statistical tool to measure the ambient noise level is the average, or equivalent, sound level (Leq), over a given time period (usually one hour). The Leq is the foundation of the composite noise descriptors, day-night average level (Ldn or DNL) and the community noise equivalent level (CNEL) and shows very good correlation with community response to noise for the average person.
#18..
- 817 -
Bollard Acoustical Consultants, Inc. (BAC)
Environmental Noise Assessment
Martin Property Residential Development – Modesto, California
Figure 3
Noise Levels Associated with Common Noise Sources
#18..
- 818 -
Bollard Acoustical Consultants, Inc. (BAC)
Environmental Noise Assessment
Martin Property Residential Development – Modesto, California
Criteria for Acceptable Noise Exposure
City of Modesto General Plan
Chapter 7 of the City of Modesto General Plan (Environmental Resources, Open Space and Conservation), establishes an exterior noise level standard of 65 dBA Ldn (or DNL) at outdoor activity areas (rear yards) of single-family residential uses exposed to transportation noise sources (i.e., traffic on Oakdale Road). The intent of this standard is to provide an acceptable exterior noise environment for outdoor activities. The General Plan also utilizes an interior noise level standard of 45 dBA DNL or less within interior spaces of residential uses. The intent of this interior noise limit is to provide a suitable environment for indoor communication and sleep.
The General Plan also contains noise level standards for non-transportation noise sources, which would be applicable to future commercial development to the south. The General Plan’s nontransportation noise level limits are provided in Table 1.
Table 1
Noise Exposure Thresholds – Non-Transportation Noise Sources Noise Level Descriptor (dBA)
Citywide Downtown
Daytime
(7am – 10 pm)
Nighttime
(10pm – 7am)
Daytime
(7am – 10 pm)
Nighttime
(10pm – 7am)
Hourly average, Leq 55 45 60 50
Maximum level, Lmax 75 65 80 70
-Each of the noise level standards shall be reduced by five (5) dBA for pure tone noises, noise consisting primarily of speech or music, or for recurring impulsive noises. Where measured ambient noise levels exceed the standards, the standards shall be increased to the ambient levels. -If the existing ambient noise level at the receiving use exceeds the thresholds of this table, then the noise level standards shall be increased to account for the ambient noise level.
Source: City of Modesto Urban Area General Plan, Chapter 7, Table VII-3.
Existing Ambient Noise Environment at the Project Site
The existing ambient noise environment at the project site is defined primarily by traffic on Oakdale Road, and to a lesser extent by periodic agricultural activity. To quantify the existing ambient noise environment at the project site, BAC conducted long-term (72-hour) noise level measurements at two locations on the project site between September 7-9, 2024. The noise survey locations are shown on Figure 1, identified as sites LT-1 and LT-2. Photographs from the noise survey effort are provided in Appendix B.
Larson-Davis Laboratories (LDL) precision integrating sound level meters were used to complete the noise level measurement survey. The meters were calibrated immediately before and after use with an LDL Model CAL200 acoustical calibrator to ensure the accuracy off the measurements. The equipment used meets all pertinent specifications of the American National Standards Institute for Type 1 sound level meters (ANSI S1.4). The ambient noise level survey #18..
- 819 -
Bollard Acoustical Consultants, Inc. (BAC)
Environmental Noise Assessment
Martin Property Residential Development – Modesto, California
results are summarized in Table 2. The detailed results of the ambient noise survey are contained in Appendix C in tabular format and are provided graphically in Appendix D.
Table 2
Summary of Long-Term Noise Survey Measurement Results – July 26-27, 20221 Site Description2 Date
DNL
(dB)
Average Measured Hourly Noise
Levels (dB)
Daytime3 Nighttime4
Leq Lmax Leq Lmax
LT-1: Approximately 90 feet east of the
effective existing Oakdale Road Centerline
9/7/24 67 63 82 59 77
9/8/24 66 63 81 59 76
9/9/24 67 64 83 60 80
Average 67 63 82 60 78
LT-2: Northern site boundary, approximately
approx. 300’ south of Mable Avenue
9/7/24 52 48 63 45 59
9/8/24 52 46 61 46 60
9/9/24 53 48 64 46 59
Average 52 47 63 46 59
1 Detailed summaries of the noise monitoring results are provided in Appendices C and D. 2 Long-term noise survey locations are shown on Figure 1. 3 Daytime hours: 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m.
4 Nighttime hours: 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m.
Source: Bollard Acoustical Consultants, Inc. 2024.
Measurement site LT-1 was specifically selected to capture noise levels associated with traffic on Oakdale Road. Measurement site LT-2 was selected to be representative of the existing ambient noise environment at the nearby existing residences to the north.
#18..
- 820 -
Bollard Acoustical Consultants, Inc. (BAC)
Environmental Noise Assessment
Martin Property Residential Development – Modesto, California
As indicated in Table 2, measured day-night average noise levels at site LT-1, located adjacent to Oakdale Road, exceeded the City of Modesto General Plan exterior noise level standard of 65 dBA DNL applicable to single-family residential uses affected by transportation noise sources.
The Table 2 data also indicate that average measured hourly average and maximum noise levels at site LT-2 were satisfactory relative to the Modesto noise level standards for non-transportation noise sources affecting noise-sensitive uses at the existing residences to the north.
Noise Impacts and Mitigation Measures
The following sections evaluate the potential noise impacts due to and upon development of the Martin Residential project in Modesto.
Impact 1: Increase in Traffic Noise Levels at Existing Residences Resulting from the Project
The proposed project would construct 185 single family residences. Assuming a trip generation rate of 10 daily trips per residence, the project would be expected to generated approximately 1,850 daily trips on the local roadway network. Using the Federal Highway Administration Highway Traffic Noise Prediction Model (FHWA-RD-77-108), the DNL generated by project traffic was computed to be approximately 57 dBA DNL at a distance of 90 feet from the centerline of Oakdale Road. Appendix E contains the FHWA Model inputs and results.
The 90 foot distance was utilized for the modelling of Oakdale Road traffic noise because 90 feet represents the distance from the existing roadway centerline to ambient noise survey location LT1. As indicated above in Table 2, the measured DNL at Site LT-1 was 67 dBA DNL. Because existing traffic noise exposure was measured to be approximately 10 dBA above traffic noise levels which would be generated by the project, the increase in traffic noise exposure resulting from the project at exisiting residences located along Oakdale Road would be less than 1 dBA DNL. Because a change in noise levels of 3 dBA is generally considered to be the threshold of perception, the project-related increase of less than 1 dBA is expected to be imperceptible. As a result, this impact is considered to be less than Significant.
Mitigation for Impact 1: None Required
Impact 2: Project Construction Noise at Existing Residences During Project construction, heavy equipment would be used for grading, excavation, paving, and building construction. These activities would increase ambient noise levels in the immediate Project vicinity. Construction noise levels generated at the Project site would vary depending on equipment types and amount of equipment in use at any time, the location where that equipment is operating, and how well the equipment is maintained. Noise exposure at existing, off-site, sensitive receptors would also vary depending on the proximity of equipment activities to the receptor, the degree of shielding present between the construction equipment and receptor (i.e., soundwalls), etc. Table 3 provides the range of maximum noise levels for equipment commonly used in general construction Projects at full-power operation at a distance of 50 feet. Not all of these construction activities would be required of this Project. #18..
- 821 -
Bollard Acoustical Consultants, Inc. (BAC)
Environmental Noise Assessment
Martin Property Residential Development – Modesto, California
Table 3
Maximum Reference Noise Levels for Common Construction Equipment Equipment Description Maximum Noise Level at 50 Feet (dBA) Air compressor 80
Backhoe 80
Ballast tamper 83
Compactor 82
Concrete mixer 85
Concrete pump 82
Concrete vibrator 76
Crane, mobile 83
Dozer 85
Generator 82
Grader 85
Impact wrench 85
Loader 80
Paver 85
Pneumatic tools 85
Pump 77
Saw 76
Scraper 85
Shovel 82
Spike driver 77
Tie cutter 84
Tie inserter 85
Truck 84
Source: Federal Transit Administration Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual, Table 7-1 (2018) The nearest sensitive receptors (existing residences) are located approximately 100 to the north and and approximately 150 feet to the west of the Project site where construction activities would occur. Based on the equipment noise levels in Table 3, maximum construction equipment noise levels are predicted to range from approximately 75-80 dBA Lmax at the nearest existing residences to the Project site.
As indicated in Table 2, existing maximum daytime noise exposure was measured to be approximately 82 dBA at receptors adjacent to Oakdale Road and 63 dBA at residences to the north of the project site. As a result, substantial increases in maximum ambient noise levels are not expected at existing residences located on the west side of Oakdale Road but short-term increases in maximum noise exposure at the existing residences to the north could be substantial.
As a result, this impact is considered potentially significant.
Mitigation for Impact 2:
The following measures shall be incorporated into the Project on-site construction operations:
Noise-generating construction activities within the Project area shall adhere to the time restrictions of the City of Modesto to the maximum extent feasible. #18..
- 822 -
Bollard Acoustical Consultants, Inc. (BAC)
Environmental Noise Assessment
Martin Property Residential Development – Modesto, California
All noise-producing Project equipment and vehicles using internal-combustion engines shall be equipped with manufacturers-recommended mufflers and be maintained in good working condition.
All mobile or fixed noise-producing equipment used on the Project site that are regulated for noise output by a federal, state, or local agency shall comply with such regulations while in the course of Project activity.
Material stockpiles and mobile equipment staging, parking, and maintenance areas shall be located as far as practicable from the existing residences to the north. Project area and site access road speed limits shall be established and enforced during the construction period.
In the event that unusual circumstances or emergencies prevent certain Project construction activities from complying with the Modesto requirements, then a noise control plan shall be developed to ensure that sufficient mitigation is implemented during Project construction to ensure adverse noise impacts are avoided. Notification of construction hours and durations shall be provided to the existing residences to the north of the project site.
Significance of Impact 2 after Mitigation: Less than Significant Impact 3: Future Oakdale Road Traffic Noise Exposure at Proposed Residences To predict future Oakdale Road traffic noise exposure at the project site, BAC utilized the longterm ambient data from site LT-1 collected between September 7-9, 2024, and adjusted that data to reflect future traffic conditions and distances from the future roadway centerline to the nearest residential backyards and building facades within the project site.
Future traffic volumes on the Oakdale Road were assumed to double in the future, representing a 100% increase over time. This increase results in a 3 dBA DNL future increase in traffic noise levels relative to existing noise levels. Future Oakdale Road traffic noise levels were projected to the nearest proposed outdoor activity areas (i.e., backyards) and building facades to the roadway based on a 4.5 dBA decrease per doubling of distance from the roadway centerline. The results of the traffic noise projections analysis are provided in Table 4.
Table 4
Predicted Future Exterior Traffic Noise Levels at the Project Site1 Roadway Location Offset2
Predicted Noise
Level, DNL (dBA)
Oakdale Road
Nearest backyards 70
Nearest first-floor facades 70
Nearest upper-floor facades +2 72
1 Predicted future Oakdale Road traffic noise levels include an adjustment of +3 dBA to account for a 100% increase in future traffic volumes on Oakdale Road.
2 An offset of +2 dBA was applied at upper-floor facades due to reduced ground absorption at elevated positions.
Source: Bollard Acoustical Consultants, Inc. 2024.
#18..
- 823 -
Bollard Acoustical Consultants, Inc. (BAC)
Environmental Noise Assessment
Martin Property Residential Development – Modesto, California
As indicated in Table 4, future Oakdale Road traffic noise levels at the outdoor activity areas (i.e., backyards) proposed nearest to the roadway are predicted to exceed the City of Modesto General Plan’s normally acceptable exterior noise level standard of 65 dBA DNL. As a result, noise impacts of future Oakdale Road traffic noise exposure on proposed backyards of this development are considered significant.
Table 4 also indicates that Future Oakdale Road traffic noise exposure at first and second-floor facades of residences proposed adjacent to that roadway are predicted to be 70 and 72 dBA DNL, respectively. Standard residential construction (stucco siding, STC-27 windows, door weatherstripping, exterior wall insulation, composition plywood roof), typically results in an exterior to interior noise reduction of approximately 25 dBA with windows closed and approximately 15 dBA with windows open. Therefore, provided future traffic noise levels do not exceed 70 dBA DNL at exterior building facades, standard construction practices should be adequate to ensure compliance with the City of Modesto General Plan 45 dBA DNL noise level standard within residences of the development.
Because first-floor building façade noise exposure is not predicted to exceed 70 dBA DNL, standard construction practices would be adequate to achieve compliance with the City’s interior noise standard within first floor rooms. However, because 2nd floor facade noise exposure is predicted to exceed 70 dBA DNL, future traffic noise exposure within the second-floor rooms of residences constructed adjacent to Oakdale Road could exceed the City of Modesto 45 dBA DNL interior noise standard. As a result, noise impacts of future Oakdale Road traffic noise exposure within 2nd floor rooms proposed adjacent to Oakdale Road are considered potentially significant.
Mitigation for Impact 3:
The following measures shall be incorporated into the design:
A solid noise barrier measuring 7 feet in height relative to backyard elevation should be constructed adjacent to the residences abutting Oakdale Road. The noise barrier locations are shown on Figure 2.
The traffic noise barrier could take the form of masonry wall, earthen berm, or a combination of the two. Other materials may be acceptable but should be reviewed by an acoustical consultant prior to use.
All north, west, and south-facing second-floor windows of residences proposed adjacent to Oakdale Road shall have a minimum Sound Transmission Class (STC) rating of 32.
Figure 2 shows the residences where this mitigation measure would apply. Air conditioning shall be provided for all residences of this development to allow occupants to close doors and windows as desired for acoustic isolation.
Significance of Impact 3 after Mitigation: Less than Significant #18..
- 824 -
Bollard Acoustical Consultants, Inc. (BAC)
Environmental Noise Assessment
Martin Property Residential Development – Modesto, California
Impact 4: Noise Generated by Future Commercial Uses to the South at Proposed Residences
Future commercial development is reportedly anticipated on the parcel to the immediate south of the Martin Residential development site. Although design of the commercial site was not available at the time this noise analysis was prepared, typical activities associated with commercial developments include truck deliveries, parking lot activity, restaurant drive-through lanes, mechanical equipment etc. Because the specific distances to the various noise sources cannot be determined prior to completion of the development plans for the commercial site, it is not feasible to accurately predict commercial noise exposure at the project site. In addition, the commercial site developer will be required to implement appropriate noise mitigation measures at the time of the commercial site is being developed. Such measures could include the construction of a solid noise barrier adjacent to the commercial site, restrictions on hours of truck deliveries, shielding of mechanical equipment, etc.
Because it would not be practical for the commercial site developer to upgrade the windows of the residences constructed within the Martin residential development after the residences have been constructed and occupied, BAC recommends that all second-floor residential windows of residences constructed adjacent to the future commercial site from which the commercial site would be visible be upgraded at this time. Specifically, the following measure is recommended:
All west, south and east-facing second-floor windows of residences proposed adjacent to the southern site boundary where commercial development would occur in the future (plus 2 lots to the east), shall have a minimum Sound Transmission Class (STC) rating of 32.
Figure 2 shows the residences where this mitigation measure would apply.
With this measure, future interior noise levels within the second-floor habitable spaces of the Martin Residential Project are predicted to be satisfactory relative to City of Modesto noise standards. In addition, the future commercial developer will be responsible for implementing such noise mitigation measures as would be necessary to ensure compliance with the City’s noise standards. With these measures, this impact would be considered Less than Significant. #18..
- 825 -
Bollard Acoustical Consultants, Inc. (BAC)
Environmental Noise Assessment
Martin Property Residential Development – Modesto, California
Conclusions
This analysis concludes that, with practical and feasible noise mitigation measures, noise impacts due to and upon development of the Martin Property in the City of Modesto will be mitigated to less than significant levels and achieve compliance with Modesto General Plan noise requirements. These conclusions are based on the project site plans presented in this report, the BAC noise survey data, and the analysis of construction, traffic, and commercial noise levels contained herein. Deviations from the above-mentioned resources could noise levels to differ from those predicted in this assessment. In addition, Bollard Acoustical Consultants, Inc. is not responsible for degradation in acoustic performance of the residential construction due to poor construction practices, failure to comply with applicable building code requirements, or for failure to adhere to the minimum building practices cited in this report.
This concludes BAC’s environmental noise assessment for the proposed Martin Property Subdivision in Modesto, California. Please contact BAC at (530) 537-2328 or [email protected] with any questions regarding this assessment. #18..
- 826 -
Appendix A
Acoustical Terminology
Acoustics The science of sound.
Ambient Noise The distinctive acoustical characteristics of a given space consisting of all noise sources audible at that location. In many cases, the term ambient is used to describe an existing or pre-project condition such as the setting in an environmental noise study.
Attenuation The reduction of an acoustic signal.
A-Weighting A frequency-response adjustment of a sound level meter that conditions the output signal to approximate human response.
Decibel or dB Fundamental unit of sound. A Bell is defined as the logarithm of the ratio of the sound pressure squared over the reference pressure squared. A Decibel is one-tenth of a Bell.
CNEL Community Noise Equivalent Level. Defined as the 24-hour average noise level with noise occurring during evening hours (7 - 10 p.m.) weighted by a factor of three and nighttime hours weighted by a factor of 10 prior to averaging.
Frequency The measure of the rapidity of alterations of a periodic signal, expressed in cycles per second or hertz.
IIC Impact Insulation Class (IIC): A single-number representation of a floor/ceiling partition’s impact generated noise insulation performance. The field-measured version of this number is the FIIC.
Ldn Day/Night Average Sound Level. Similar to CNEL but with no evening weighting.
Leq Equivalent or energy-averaged sound level.
Lmax The highest root-mean-square (RMS) sound level measured over a given period of time.
Loudness A subjective term for the sensation of the magnitude of sound.
Masking The amount (or the process) by which the threshold of audibility is for one sound is raised by the presence of another (masking) sound.
Noise Unwanted sound.
Peak Noise The level corresponding to the highest (not RMS) sound pressure measured over a given period of time. This term is often confused with the “Maximum” level, which is the highest RMS level.
RT60 The time it takes reverberant sound to decay by 60 dB once the source has been removed.
STC Sound Transmission Class (STC): A single-number representation of a partition’s noise insulation performance. This number is based on laboratory-measured, 16-band (1/3- octave) transmission loss (TL) data of the subject partition. The field-measured version of this number is the FSTC.
#18..
- 827 -
Legend
Appendix B
A Site LT-1 Facing West
B
C
Site LT-2 Facing East
Site LT-2 Facing North
A
B C
Noise Survey Photographs
Martin Project Residential Subdivision
Modesto, California
Sound Level
Meter Location
#18..
- 828 -
Hour Leq Lmax L50 L90
12:00 AM 60 72 56 45
1:00 AM 57 80 47 40 High Low Average High Low Average
2:00 AM 55 75 43 39 Leq (Average) 65 62 63 63 55 59
3:00 AM 57 77 46 39 Lmax (Maximum) 91 75 82 83 72 77
4:00 AM 56 75 45 38 L50 (Median) 62 60 61 60 43 52
5:00 AM 60 75 53 42 L90 (Background) 54 49 53 48 38 43
6:00 AM 63 79 60 47
7:00 AM 63 77 61 50 Computed DNL, dB 67
8:00 AM 64 83 61 52 % Daytime Energy 81%
9:00 AM 62 75 61 53 % Nighttime Energy 19%
10:00 AM 63 81 61 54
11:00 AM 64 87 61 54 GPS Coordinates
12:00 PM 63 79 61 54 37°41'41.57"N
1:00 PM 63 82 61 54 120°57'28.05"W
2:00 PM 65 91 61 54
3:00 PM 63 78 61 53
4:00 PM 63 76 61 53
5:00 PM 65 90 62 53
6:00 PM 64 86 62 54
7:00 PM 63 79 62 53
8:00 PM 63 82 61 51
9:00 PM 63 86 60 49
10:00 PM 62 83 59 48
11:00 PM 60 76 56 46
Daytime (7 a.m. - 10 p.m.) Nighttime (10 p.m. - 7 a.m.) Statistical Summary
Appendix C-1
Long-Term Ambient Noise Monitoring Results, LT-1
Saturday, September 7, 2024
Martin Property Residential Subdivision - Modesto, California #18..
- 829 -
Hour Leq Lmax L50 L90
12:00 AM 59 76 53 42
1:00 AM 57 77 48 39 High Low Average High Low Average
2:00 AM 56 76 45 39 Leq (Average) 65 60 63 65 55 59
3:00 AM 55 72 45 39 Lmax (Maximum) 91 76 81 90 71 76
4:00 AM 56 71 45 37 L50 (Median) 64 57 61 58 45 50
5:00 AM 59 76 52 41 L90 (Background) 55 46 52 46 37 41
6:00 AM 60 74 56 44
7:00 AM 60 76 57 46 Computed DNL, dB 66
8:00 AM 62 76 61 50 % Daytime Energy 80%
9:00 AM 63 87 60 51 % Nighttime Energy 20%
10:00 AM 63 85 61 54
11:00 AM 64 81 61 54 GPS Coordinates
12:00 PM 63 76 61 53 37°41'41.57"N
1:00 PM 62 85 60 52 120°57'28.05"W
2:00 PM 62 79 60 51
3:00 PM 62 80 61 50
4:00 PM 64 91 60 51
5:00 PM 63 79 61 52
6:00 PM 64 84 61 52
7:00 PM 65 79 64 55
8:00 PM 64 81 62 53
9:00 PM 63 79 62 50
10:00 PM 65 90 58 46
11:00 PM 58 75 52 43
Statistical Summary
Daytime (7 a.m. - 10 p.m.) Nighttime (10 p.m. - 7 a.m.) Appendix C-2
Long-Term Ambient Noise Monitoring Results, LT-1
Martin Property Residential Subdivision - Modesto, California Sunday, September 8, 2024
#18..
- 830 -
Hour Leq Lmax L50 L90
12:00 AM 57 84 48 40
1:00 AM 57 81 45 40 High Low Average High Low Average
2:00 AM 55 69 45 40 Leq (Average) 65 61 64 64 55 60
3:00 AM 59 81 49 41 Lmax (Maximum) 92 76 83 84 69 80
4:00 AM 61 83 56 45 L50 (Median) 63 58 61 62 45 52
5:00 AM 63 80 60 49 L90 (Background) 56 47 53 54 40 44
6:00 AM 64 83 62 54
7:00 AM 64 85 62 55 Computed DNL, dB 67
8:00 AM 65 89 61 55 % Daytime Energy 77%
9:00 AM 63 80 61 52 % Nighttime Energy 23%
10:00 AM 63 77 61 53
11:00 AM 64 90 61 53 GPS Coordinates
12:00 PM 64 88 61 54 37°41'41.57"N
1:00 PM 63 80 62 54 120°57'28.05"W
2:00 PM 63 77 61 54
3:00 PM 64 78 63 56
4:00 PM 64 76 63 55
5:00 PM 64 82 63 55
6:00 PM 64 85 62 52
7:00 PM 63 87 61 51
8:00 PM 65 92 61 49
9:00 PM 61 76 58 47
10:00 PM 61 84 54 44
11:00 PM 58 73 51 42
Statistical Summary
Daytime (7 a.m. - 10 p.m.) Nighttime (10 p.m. - 7 a.m.) Appendix C-3
Long-Term Ambient Noise Monitoring Results, LT-1
Martin Property Residential Subdivision - Modesto, California Monday, September 9, 2024
#18..
- 831 -
Hour Leq Lmax L50 L90
12:00 AM 46 56 45 41
1:00 AM 43 63 41 36 High Low Average High Low Average
2:00 AM 41 52 39 35 Leq (Average) 50 45 48 48 41 45
3:00 AM 43 57 41 35 Lmax (Maximum) 69 56 63 65 52 59
4:00 AM 42 57 40 35 L50 (Median) 49 43 46 47 39 43
5:00 AM 45 57 43 39 L90 (Background) 46 39 43 44 35 39
6:00 AM 48 59 47 42
7:00 AM 49 63 48 45 Computed DNL, dB 52
8:00 AM 50 65 48 46 % Daytime Energy 74%
9:00 AM 47 67 46 42 % Nighttime Energy 26%
10:00 AM 45 66 44 41
11:00 AM 47 63 45 42 GPS Coordinates
12:00 PM 45 60 43 40 37°41'43.60"N
1:00 PM 45 57 45 42 120°57'18.39"W
2:00 PM 45 66 43 40
3:00 PM 45 61 43 39
4:00 PM 45 56 44 40
5:00 PM 47 69 45 42
6:00 PM 48 59 47 44
7:00 PM 50 67 49 46
8:00 PM 49 63 48 46
9:00 PM 50 67 48 45
10:00 PM 48 62 47 44
11:00 PM 47 65 46 42
Statistical Summary
Daytime (7 a.m. - 10 p.m.) Nighttime (10 p.m. - 7 a.m.) Appendix C-4
Long-Term Ambient Noise Monitoring Results, LT-2
Martin Property Residential Subdivision - Modesto, California Saturday, September 7, 2024
#18..
- 832 -
Hour Leq Lmax L50 L90
12:00 AM 48 65 44 39
1:00 AM 44 57 42 36 High Low Average High Low Average
2:00 AM 43 60 40 35 Leq (Average) 50 39 46 50 41 46
3:00 AM 42 60 41 36 Lmax (Maximum) 71 52 61 73 53 60
4:00 AM 41 56 39 34 L50 (Median) 48 37 44 46 39 43
5:00 AM 44 53 43 38 L90 (Background) 45 34 40 43 34 38
6:00 AM 46 57 46 42
7:00 AM 46 58 45 42 Computed DNL, dB 52
8:00 AM 48 64 45 42 % Daytime Energy 64%
9:00 AM 46 62 44 41 % Nighttime Energy 36%
10:00 AM 48 71 45 41
11:00 AM 46 59 45 41 GPS Coordinates
12:00 PM 45 63 44 41 37°41'43.60"N
1:00 PM 42 52 41 36 120°57'18.39"W
2:00 PM 39 57 37 34
3:00 PM 41 61 37 34
4:00 PM 42 64 38 35
5:00 PM 46 61 45 41
6:00 PM 48 61 47 43
7:00 PM 48 59 47 44
8:00 PM 50 69 48 45
9:00 PM 48 59 47 44
10:00 PM 50 73 46 43
11:00 PM 46 60 45 40
Statistical Summary
Daytime (7 a.m. - 10 p.m.) Nighttime (10 p.m. - 7 a.m.) Appendix C-5
Long-Term Ambient Noise Monitoring Results, LT-2
Martin Property Residential Subdivision - Modesto, California Sunday, September 8, 2024
#18..
- 833 -
Hour Leq Lmax L50 L90
12:00 AM 44 58 42 37
1:00 AM 42 54 40 37 High Low Average High Low Average
2:00 AM 41 52 40 36 Leq (Average) 51 43 48 50 41 46
3:00 AM 45 61 42 38 Lmax (Maximum) 73 57 64 66 52 59
4:00 AM 46 61 45 41 L50 (Median) 50 42 46 49 40 44
5:00 AM 49 64 47 44 L90 (Background) 47 39 43 46 36 40
6:00 AM 50 59 49 46
7:00 AM 51 72 50 47 Computed DNL, dB 53
8:00 AM 50 64 48 46 % Daytime Energy 73%
9:00 AM 48 67 46 44 % Nighttime Energy 27%
10:00 AM 47 61 46 43
11:00 AM 48 64 45 42 GPS Coordinates
12:00 PM 45 66 43 41 37°41'43.60"N
1:00 PM 44 65 43 39 120°57'18.39"W
2:00 PM 43 57 42 39
3:00 PM 47 65 46 42
4:00 PM 47 58 47 43
5:00 PM 49 66 48 44
6:00 PM 49 61 48 45
7:00 PM 49 64 48 45
8:00 PM 51 73 48 45
9:00 PM 47 58 47 44
10:00 PM 47 66 45 42
11:00 PM 44 58 43 39
Statistical Summary
Daytime (7 a.m. - 10 p.m.) Nighttime (10 p.m. - 7 a.m.) Appendix C-6
Long-Term Ambient Noise Monitoring Results, LT-2
Martin Property Residential Subdivision - Modesto, California Monday, September 9, 2024
#18..
- 834 -
67 dB
Long-Term Ambient Noise Monitoring Results, LT-1
Saturday, September 7, 2024
Appendix D-1
Martin Property Residential Subdivision - Modesto, California Computed DNL =
20 30
40 50
60 70
80 90
100
12:00 AM 4:00 AM 8:00 AM 12:00 PM 4:00 PM 8:00 PM 11:00 PM Sound Pressure Level, dBA
Time of Day
Average (Leq) Maximum (Lmax) Median (L50) Background (L90) #18..
- 835 -
66 dB
Appendix D-2
Long-Term Ambient Noise Monitoring Results, LT-1
Martin Property Residential Subdivision - Modesto, California Sunday, September 8, 2024
Computed DNL =
20 30
40 50
60 70
80 90
100
12:00 AM 4:00 AM 8:00 AM 12:00 PM 4:00 PM 8:00 PM 11:00 PM Sound Pressure Level, dBA
Time of Day
Average (Leq) Maximum (Lmax) Median (L50) Background (L90) #18..
- 836 -
67 dB
Appendix D-3
Long-Term Ambient Noise Monitoring Results, LT-1
Martin Property Residential Subdivision - Modesto, California Monday, September 9, 2024
Computed DNL =
20 30
40 50
60 70
80 90
100
12:00 AM 4:00 AM 8:00 AM 12:00 PM 4:00 PM 8:00 PM 11:00 PM Sound Pressure Level, dBA
Time of Day
Average (Leq) Maximum (Lmax) Median (L50) Background (L90) #18..
- 837 -
52 dB
Appendix D-4
Long-Term Ambient Noise Monitoring Results, LT-2
Martin Property Residential Subdivision - Modesto, California Saturday, September 7, 2024
Computed DNL =
20 30
40 50
60 70
80 90
100
12:00 AM 4:00 AM 8:00 AM 12:00 PM 4:00 PM 8:00 PM 11:00 PM Sound Pressure Level, dBA
Time of Day
Average (Leq) Maximum (Lmax) Median (L50) Background (L90) #18..
- 838 -
52 dB
Appendix D-5
Long-Term Ambient Noise Monitoring Results, LT-2
Martin Property Residential Subdivision - Modesto, California Sunday, September 8, 2024
Computed DNL =
20 30
40 50
60 70
80 90
100
12:00 AM 4:00 AM 8:00 AM 12:00 PM 4:00 PM 8:00 PM 11:00 PM Sound Pressure Level, dBA
Time of Day
Average (Leq) Maximum (Lmax) Median (L50) Background (L90) #18..
- 839 -
53 dB
Appendix D-6
Long-Term Ambient Noise Monitoring Results, LT-2
Martin Property Residential Subdivision - Modesto, California Monday, September 9, 2024
Computed DNL =
20 30
40 50
60 70
80 90
100
12:00 AM 4:00 AM 8:00 AM 12:00 PM 4:00 PM 8:00 PM 11:00 PM Sound Pressure Level, dBA
Time of Day
Average (Leq) Maximum (Lmax) Median (L50) Background (L90) #18..
- 840 -
1,850
80 20
0.5 0.5
50 Soft
Medium Heavy
Location Description Distance Offset (dB) Autos Trucks Trucks Total 1 Noise Measurement Distance 90 57 42 46 57
DNL Contour (dB)
75 70
65 60
Notes:
Intervening Ground Type (hard/soft):
28 61
Project-generated Average Daily Traffic Volume was estimated by assuming 10 trips per lot and 185 proposed lots for a total daily traffic volume generated by the project of 1,850 trips per day. Day night split was assumed to be similar to existing day night split for Oakdale Road, which was computed from ambient noise surveys to be approximately 80%/20%. Truck usage generated by the proejct was assumed to be very low (1%), adn vehicle speed was assumed to be 5 mph above posted speed limit, or 50 mph.
Project Information:
Traffic Data:
Traffic Noise Levels:
Traffic Noise Contours (No Calibration Offset):
----------------- DNL (dB) ------------------
Distance from Centerline (ft)
6 2024-133
Percent Nighttime Traffic:
Percent Medium Trucks (2 axle):
Job Number:
Project Name:
Roadway Name:
Year:
Appendix E
13 Oakdale Road
Percent Heavy Trucks (3+ axle):
Assumed Vehicle Speed (mph):
FHWA Traffic Noise Prediction Model (FHWA-RD-77-108)
Noise Prediction Worksheet for Project Generated Traffic Average Daily Traffic Volume:
Percent Daytime Traffic:
Martin Project Traffic Only
Existing and Future - Project Only
#18..
- 841 -
MARTIN TIVOLI SUBDIVISION INITIAL STUDY
PAGE 185
APPENDIX D: TRANSPORTATION IMPACT ANALYSIS REPORT
#18..
- 842 -
DRAFT
Martin Property
TransportationImpactAnalysis
Prepared for:
Florsheim Homes
City of Modesto
October 14, 2024
WC24-4117.00
#18..
- 843 -
2 Table of Contents
1. Introduction ............................................................................................................................. 5
1.1 Project Description ..................................................................................................................................................... 5
1.2 Study Locations and Analysis Scenarios ............................................................................................................. 5
1.3 Policy Background ....................................................................................................................................................... 6
1.3.1 Senate Bill 743 ...................................................................................................................................................... 6
1.3.2 VMT Thresholds of Significance .................................................................................................................... 6
1.4 Traffic Operations Analysis Framework .............................................................................................................. 7
1.4.1 Procedures and Methodologies .................................................................................................................... 7
1.4.2 Level of Service Definition ............................................................................................................................... 7
1.4.3 Intersection Substantial Operational Effect Criteria .............................................................................. 8
2. CEQA Compliance .................................................................................................................. 10
2.1 Evaluation of Transportation System Impacts (VMT) ..................................................................................10
2.1.1 VMT Assessment ...............................................................................................................................................10
2.2 Evaluation of Bicycle, Pedestrian, and Transit Impacts ...............................................................................11
2.2.1 Pedestrian Facilities ..........................................................................................................................................11
2.2.2 Bicycle Facilities ..................................................................................................................................................11
2.2.3 Transit Facilities ..................................................................................................................................................12
2.3 Evaluation of Safety and Emergency Vehicle Impacts ................................................................................13
3. Traffic Operations Analysis .................................................................................................. 15
3.1 Existing Conditions ...................................................................................................................................................15
3.1.1 Existing Roadway Network ............................................................................................................................15
3.1.2 Existing Conditions Traffic Count Data .....................................................................................................16
3.1.3 Existing Conditions Intersection Level of Service .................................................................................16
3.2 Existing Plus Project Conditions ..........................................................................................................................17
3.2.1 Project Traffic Estimate ...................................................................................................................................17
3.2.2 Existing Plus Project Conditions Intersection Level of Service ........................................................18
List of Tables
Table 1: Signalized Intersection Level of Service (LOS) Criteria ......................................................................................... 8 #18..
- 844 -
Table 2: Unsignalized Intersection Level of Service (LOS) Criteria .................................................................................... 8 Table 3: Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) Assessment Results ............................................................................................. 10 Table 4: Transit Route Summary .................................................................................................................................................. 13 Table 5: Existing Conditions Intersection Level of Service ............................................................................................... 16 Table 6: Project Trip Generation ................................................................................................................................................. 17 Table 7: Existing Plus Project Conditions Intersection Level of Service ...................................................................... 18 #18..
- 845 -
Martin Property Transportation Impact Analysis [DRAFT]
October 14, 2024
Appendices
Appendix A: Site Plan
Appendix B: Traffic Counts
Appendix C: Technical Calculations
#18..
- 846 -
Martin Property Transportation Impact Study [DRAFT]
October 11, 2024
1.Introduction
This report documents the transportation impact analysis completed for the proposed Martin Property project (the proposed project). The proposed project includes subdivision of an approximately 20-acre lot to allow construction of 185 single-family homes, with 11 common areas lots. The proposed project site is located east of Oakdale Road, between Sylvan Avenue and Mable Avenue, in Modesto, California. This report is separated into two analyses – one analysis intended to disclose any potential transportation related environmental impacts in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), and one analysis intended to identify any potential impacts to the local transportation network.
For the CEQA purposes, vehicle miles traveled (VMT) is the primary travel-related metric used to identify the proposed project’s significant transportation impacts; bicycle, pedestrian, and transit network, and safety are also evaluated. For the operational analysis, the level of service (LOS) of nearby local street intersections which may be impacted by the proposed project is evaluated to assess the proposed project’s effect on intersection operations.
This chapter describes the proposed project, the study area, analysis scenarios, policy background and the traffic operations analysis framework.
1.1 Project Description
The proposed project includes the development of 185 single-family homes and 11 common area lots on an existing 20-acre parcel located east of Oakdale Road, between Sylvan Avenue and Mable Avenue. The proposed project site is in the Tivoli Specific Plan (TSP) planning area. The TSP was approved by the City of Modesto on February 26, 2008. Through the TSP and its associated Environmental Impact Report (EIR), the proposed project site is currently approved for regional serving commercial (RSC), very low density residential (VLDR), and medium high density residential (MHDR). The project proposes to rezone the property to medium density residential (MDR); therefore, removing the regional serving commercial and very low density residential designations. Access is proposed via one entrance on Oakdale Road. The proposed project site plan is presented as Appendix A.
1.2 Study Locations and Analysis Scenarios
The study area includes the following intersections, which were selected in consultation with City of Modesto staff:
1. Oakdale Road / Bridgewood Way
2. Oakdale Road / Sylvan Avenue
3. Oakdale Road / Project Driveway
Intersection operations are analyzed under AM and PM peak hour conditions for the following scenarios:
• Existing Conditions – represents conditions in 2024 based on traffic counts collected in August 2024, as well as existing lane geometries and signal timings #18..
- 847 -
Martin Property Transportation Impact Analysis [DRAFT]
October 14, 2024
• Existing Plus Project Conditions – represents existing conditions with the addition of trips generated by the proposed project.
1.3 Policy Background
1.3.1 Senate Bill 743
Senate Bill (SB) 743 was signed into law in 2013 and changed the focus of transportation impact analysis for CEQA purposes. Instead of analyzing the impact of land use projects on drivers using metrics like delay and level of service (LOS), transportation impacts are now based on the effects of driving as measured using VMT. The intent of SB 743 is to encourage infill development, promote healthier communities through active transportation (e.g., walking and bicycling), and align CEQA transportation analysis in meeting greenhouse gas reduction targets set by other State legislation (i.e., AB 32). The specific changes are codified in Section 15064.3 of the CEQA Guidelines, which states that generally, vehicle miles traveled is the most appropriate measure of transportation impacts. According to 15064.3(a), “Except as provided in subdivision (b)(2) (regarding roadway capacity), a project’s effect on automobile delay shall not constitute a significant environmental impact.” The provisions of 15064.3 have applied statewide since July 1, 2020.
While the CEQA Guidelines do not contain detailed guidance for individual land uses, Section 1064.3(b)(1) recommends, “Projects that decrease vehicle miles traveled in the project area compared to existing conditions should be presumed to have a less than significant transportation impact.” Although not required for CEQA, intersection LOS is included in this report to provide decision-makers and the public with a better understanding of the effects the proposed project may have on the surrounding roadway network and the types of operational enhancements that could be considered to improve operations and safety. Presentation of LOS information also helps evaluate the proposed project’s consistency with the City’s LOS performance targets.
1.3.2 VMT Thresholds of Significance
The City of Modesto has not adopted a formal VMT methodology or thresholds of significance for residential development projects. Based on direction from City staff on previous projects, consistency with the Office of Planning and Research (OPR) Technical Advisory on Evaluating Transportation Impacts in CEQA (Technical Advisory) is generally preferred for VMT analysis. The Technical Advisory provides guidance as to how VMT analysis could be performed and what thresholds of significance may be appropriate for CEQA analysis. More specifically, it recommends project VMT be evaluated and compared to existing VMT (for the respective land use) or the proposed project’s effect on VMT be evaluated, which compares city or county (or other area as deemed appropriate by the lead agency) VMT with and without the proposed project. Given that the proposed project would modify the zoning for a currently approved specific plan, the VMT analysis for the proposed project is based on net change in total Citywide VMT between Baseline (Currently Approved) and Baseline Plus Project conditions. The intent behind this analysis is to evaluate how VMT would change if the proposed project site were developed based on current approvals versus the proposed project.
#18..
- 848 -
Martin Property Transportation Impact Study [DRAFT]
October 11, 2024
1.4 Traffic Operations Analysis Framework
1.4.1 Procedures and Methodologies
The study intersections were analyzed using procedures and methodologies contained in the Highway Capacity Manual – 7th Edition (Transportation Research Board, 2022). These methodologies were applied using Synchro 12 software, which considers traffic volumes, lane configurations, signal timings, signal coordination and other pertinent parameters of intersection operations.
The following describes specific inputs, model parameters, and other aspects of the Synchro modeling, based on data collection efforts.
Peak hour volumes collected at the study intersections on August 27, 2024 were used for the analysis. Local schools were in session and weather conditions were clear when the data was collected.
Existing roadway geometrics and intersection lane configurations. The observed AM and PM peak hour factor (PHF), which is a measure of peaking during the busiest 15-minutes of the hour (lower values represent more peaking) at each intersection was used. The observed PHF ranges from 0.87 to 0.91 during the AM peak hour and is 0.95 during the PM peak hour.
The observed AM and PM peak hour heavy vehicle percentage (HVP) at each intersection was generally used. However, in cases where the HVP was one percent or less, a minimum of two percent was applied to account for potential variations in vehicle composition. Observed bicycle and pedestrian volumes were used.
1.4.2 Level of Service Definition
This study analyzes intersection operations using delay and LOS as the primary measure of performance.
Automobile LOS is a qualitative description of traffic flow from the perspective of motorists. The Highway Capacity Manual, 7th Edition (Transportation Research Board, 2022) defines six levels of service from LOS A representing the least congested traffic conditions to LOS F representing the most congested traffic conditions. These grades represent the perspective of drivers and are an indication of the comfort and convenience associated with driving, as well as speed, travel time, traffic interruptions, and freedom to maneuver.
The HCM methodology determines the LOS at signalized intersections by comparing the weighted average control delay per vehicle at the intersection. At side-street stop-controlled intersections, LOS is calculated for each movement in addition to the intersection as a whole. The intersection average delay and worst-case movement/approach delay are reported for side-street stop-controlled intersections.
Tables 1 and 2 display LOS criteria for both signalized and unsignalized intersections. #18..
- 849 -
Martin Property Transportation Impact Analysis [DRAFT]
October 14, 2024
Table 1: Signalized Intersection Level of Service (LOS) Criteria LOS Description Delay in Seconds
A
Progression is extremely favorable, and most vehicles arrive during the green phase.
Most vehicles do not stop at all. Short cycle lengths may also contribute to low delay.
< 10.0
B Progression is good, cycle lengths are short, or both. More vehicles stop than with LOS A, causing higher levels of average delay. > 10.0 to 20.0 C
Higher congestion may result from fair progression, longer cycle lengths, or both.
Individual cycle failures may begin to appear at this level, though many still pass through the intersection without stopping.
> 20.0 to 35.0
D
The influence of congestion becomes more noticeable. Longer delays may result from some combination of unfavorable progression, long cycle lengths, or high V/C ratios.
Many vehicles stop, and the proportion of vehicles not stopping declines. Individual cycle failures are noticeable.
> 35.0 to 55.0
E
This level is considered by many agencies to be the limit of acceptable delay. These high delay values generally indicate poor progression, long cycle lengths, and high V/C ratios. Individual cycle failures are frequent occurrences. > 55.0 to 80.0
F
This level is considered unacceptable with oversaturation, which is when arrival flow rates exceed the capacity of the intersection. This level may also occur at high V/C ratios below 1.0 with many individual cycle failures. Poor progression and long cycle lengths may also be contributing factors to such delay levels. > 80.0
Source: Highway Capacity Manual, 7th Edition (Transportation Research Board).
Table 2: Unsignalized Intersection Level of Service (LOS) Criteria LOS Description Delay in Seconds
A Little or no delays ≤ 10.0
B Short traffic delays > 10.0 to 15.0
C Average traffic delays > 15.0 to 25.0
D Long traffic delays > 25.0 to 35.0
E Very long traffic delays > 35.0 to 50.0
F Extreme traffic, delays where intersection capacity exceeded > 50.0 Source: Highway Capacity Manual, 7th Edition (Transportation Research Board).
1.4.3 Intersection Substantial Operational Effect Criteria Intersection operations under Existing and Existing Plus Project Conditions were evaluated to assess the proposed project’s effect on intersection operations relative to General Plan compliance (LOS standards) and to identify the potential need for enhancements to the transportation network. Based on Policy V.C.1 Transportation Study Thresholds in the City of Modesto General Plan (March 2019), an intersection is considered deficient if it performs at LOS E or F (i.e., LOS D is the performance target). Based on previous projects in the City of Modesto, the following criteria are used to determine if the proposed project would result in deficient operations:
#18..
- 850 -
Martin Property Transportation Impact Study [DRAFT]
October 11, 2024
• For intersections operating acceptably prior to the implementation of the proposed project: the proposed project would result in a substantial transportation effect if the proposed project would cause the intersection to degrade below the LOS D standard. • For intersections operating unacceptably prior to the implementation of the proposed project: the proposed project would result in a substantial transportation effect if the proposed project would result in an increase in delay of five or more seconds at the intersection.
For deficient intersections, improvements or enhancement measures were identified to improve LOS and delay.
#18..
- 851 -
Martin Property Transportation Impact Analysis [DRAFT]
October 14, 2024
2. CEQACompliance
This section evaluates the proposed project’s transportation system (VMT), bicycle, pedestrian, transit, and safety impacts.
2.1 Evaluation of Transportation System Impacts (VMT)
A proposed project would result in a significant transportation impact if it would conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines § 15064.3, subdivision (b)(1), which states for land use projects, “Vehicle miles traveled exceeding an applicable threshold of significance may indicate a significant impact.”
2.1.1 VMT Assessment
As discussed in the Introduction section, the proposed project’s effect on VMT is assessed based on net change in total Citywide VMT. The base year (2019) Stanislaus Council of Governments (StanCOG) Travel Demand Model (TDM) was used to estimate Baseline (Currently Approved) Citywide VMT and Baseline Plus Project Citywide VMT.
Given that the existing parcel is undeveloped, the base year TDM was updated to reflect the currently approved Tivoli Specific Plan (2018) land use designations for the proposed project site. A mix of commercial, single-family and multi-family residential development was incorporated into the model proportional to the amount of land designated for each use and estimated trips that would be generated by each use.1 It is noted that a formal model calibration or validation is not included as part of this analysis and aside from this land use change, no other modifications to the base year TDM were made.
Once Baseline (Currently Approved) Citywide VMT was estimated, the currently approved RSC, VLDR, and MHDR land uses were replaced with single-family residential to represent the proposed project and estimate Baseline Plus Project Citywide VMT. Baseline (Currently Approved) Citywide VMT and Baseline Plus Project Citywide VMT were compared to evaluate the proposed project’s effect on VMT. Table 3 displays the Baseline (Currently Approved) and Baseline Plus Project Citywide total VMT. As displayed, the proposed project would result in a reduction of 9,040 VMT, which indicates the proposed single-family residential development project would result in less VMT in the City when compared to the currently approved TSP land use designations. Therefore, the proposed project’s CEQA VMT Transportation impact is less-than-significant, and no mitigation measures are required.
Table 3: Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) Assessment Results Scenario Baseline (Currently
Approved)
Baseline Plus
Project Difference Impact
Citywide VMT 2,972,164 2,963,124 -9,040 Less-ThanSignificant Source: Fehr & Peers, 2024.
1 Land use assumptions and trip generation estimates documented in the approved TSP EIR (State clearinghouse No. 2005072125) were reviewed.
#18..
- 852 -
Martin Property Transportation Impact Study [DRAFT]
October 11, 2024
2.2 Evaluation of Bicycle, Pedestrian, and Transit Impacts A proposed project would result in a significant bicycle, pedestrian, or transit impact if it would disrupt or interfere with any existing or planned, bicycle, pedestrian, or transit facilities, or if the proposed project would result in a physical change that would be inconsistent with policies in the City of Modesto General Plan (General Plan). These analyses are related to CEQA Guidelines Transportation Checklist Question A.
2.2.1 Pedestrian Facilities
In the study area, there is an existing contiguous sidewalk on the west side of Oakdale Road between SR 132 and Claratina Avenue; however on the east side of Oakdale Road, the sidewalk terminates approximately 600 feet north of Sylvan Avenue. As such, there is no existing sidewalk present on the east side of Oakdale Road along the proposed project frontage.
The site plan indicates that the proposed project would construct sidewalks along all interior streets and project frontages consistent with the City of Modesto and the TSP requirements. However, it is noted that there would be a gap in the pedestrian network on the east side of Oakdale Road between the proposed project site and the existing pedestrian facilities to the south of the proposed project site, due to lack of pedestrian facilities on the adjacent undeveloped parcels. While the City’s General Plan and NonMotorized Transportation Master Plan (December 2006) include goals and policies aimed at enhancing connections of the non-motorized network, there are no requirements for developments to close off-site gaps and the policy language indicates that the City is primarily responsible for facilitating such enhancements. Additionally, it is our understanding that the City is currently conducting a corridor study along Oakdale Road. It is recommended that appropriate crossing locations and crossing improvements be evaluated as part of this corridor study based on existing and planned speeds, volumes, and number of lanes on the roadway. If a crossing is deemed appropriate and necessary at the Oakdale Road / Project Driveway intersection, the crossing should be installed consistent with guidance in the Guide for Improving Pedestrian Safety and Uncontrolled Crossing Locations (U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration, 2018) and/or any other applicable City documents/standards.
In summary, the proposed project would include on-site sidewalks, curb, gutter, and lighting consistent with the TSP, the General Plan, the Non-Motorized Transportation Master Plan, Municipal Code, and Standard Specifications. The proposed project would not disrupt or interfere with any existing or planned pedestrian improvements or result in a physical change that would be inconsistent with any pedestrian related policies in the General Plan. Therefore, the proposed project would result in a less-thansignificant pedestrian impact.
2.2.2 Bicycle Facilities
According to the City’s Non-Motorized Transportation Plan (December 2006), a variety of Class I, II, III and IV bikeways are located throughout the City. The four types of bikeways are defined as follows:
Class I - Typically called a “bike path,” a Class I bikeway provides bicycle travel on a paved rightof-way completely separated from any street or highway. #18..
- 853 -
Martin Property Transportation Impact Analysis [DRAFT]
October 14, 2024
Class II - Often referred to as a “bike lane,” a Class II bikeway provides a striped and stenciled lane for one-way travel on a street or highway.
Class III - Generally referred to as a “bike route,” a Class III bikeway provides for shared use with pedestrian or motor vehicle traffic and is identified only by signing. Class IV - Cycle tracks or separated bikeways provide a right-of-way designated exclusively for bicycle travel adjacent to a roadway and which are protected from vehicular traffic.
The nearest existing bicycle facilities are located near the Oakdale Road / Sylvan Avenue intersection. A Class II Bike Lane is present along Sylvan Avenue in both the eastbound and westbound directions, and along Oakdale Road in both the northbound and southbound directions. On Oakdale Road, the northbound bike lane terminates approximately 200 feet north of Sylvan Avenue and the southbound bike lane begins approximately 600 feet north of Sylvan Avenue. As such, there are no existing bicycle facilities present along the proposed project frontage.
Both the Non-Motorized Transportation Plan and the approved TSP indicate a future Class II Bike Lane along Oakdale Road between Sylvan Avenue and SR 219 (also listed as Kiernan Avenue or Claribel Road).
Specifically, the Non-Motorized Transportation Plan identifies this as a priority project. While Policy 2.4 of the Non-Motorized Transportation Plan indicates that developers are required to adhere to the roadway design standards, signage, and cross-sections identified in the Non-Motorized Transportation Master Plan, construction of a Class II Bike Lane along the frontage would result in a gap in the bicycle network as the parcels both north and south of the proposed project are currently undeveloped. For this reason, the proposed project would dedicate the necessary right-of-way for future construction of the Class II Bike Lane along the project frontage in accordance with the Non-Motorized Transportation Plan and TSP.
The proposed project would not disrupt or interfere with the existing or planned bicycle facilities and would not result in any physical change that would be inconsistent with bicycle related policies identified in the TSP, the City’s General Plan, or the Non-Motorized Transportation Plan. Therefore, the proposed project would result in a less-than-significant bicycle impact.
2.2.3 Transit Facilities
Stanislaus Regional Transit Authority (StanRTA) provides bus service throughout Stanislaus County. The proposed project site is currently served by Route 32 and 60. Roue 32 provides connection between northeastern Modesto and downtown Modesto. Route 60 provides connection between Modesto, Riverbank, and Oakdale. The bus stop closest to the site is on the west side of the road, at approximately 75 feet north of the Oakdale Road / Bridgewood Way intersection. Other bus stops in the proposed project vicinity are located at Oakdale Road / Claratina Avenue, Mable Avenue / Oakdale Road, Mable Avenue / Palmwood Mobile Home Park, Sylvan Avenue / Oakdale Road, and Oakdale Road / Post Office Drive. Table 4 below shows the existing transit routes and schedules. #18..
- 854 -
Martin Property Transportation Impact Study [DRAFT]
October 11, 2024
Table 4: Transit Route Summary
Route Operating Days Operating Hours Approximate
Headway Closest Transit Stop
Route 32 Monday to Sunday
5:45 AM to 10:15 PM Weekdays
7:45 AM to 8:15 PM Saturday
8:15 AM to 6:45 PM Sunday
30 minutes
60 minutes
60 minutes
Oakdale Road /
Bridgewood Way
Route 60 Monday to Sunday
5:00 AM to 9:00 PM Weekdays
7:00 AM to 7:00 PM Saturday
8:00 AM to 6:00 PM Sunday
60 minutes Oakdale Road /
Bridgewood Way
Source: StanRTA, October 2024.
The approved TSP EIR identifies a new bus turn-out location at approximately 400 feet south of the proposed project site on the east side of Oakdale Road. It would be located south of the proposed project frontage and is directly across from the existing bus stop on the west side of Oakdale Road. Although the new bus turn-out is identified in the TSP EIR, the TSP does not specify the location, length or width of the new turn-out. If the new bus turn-out were to be constructed, the proposed project would not adversely affect the implementation of the new bus turn-out facility.
The proposed project would not disrupt or interfere with existing or planned transit services and would not result in a physical change that would be inconsistent with any transit related policies identified in the TSP, the General Plan, or the Non-Motorized Transportation Plan. Therefore, the proposed projects would result in a less-than-significant transit impact.
2.3 Evaluation of Safety and Emergency Vehicle Impacts
The following analyses are related to CEQA Guidelines Transportation Checklist Questions C and D.
The proposed project is a residential development proposed in a residential and commercial area, so the volume, speed, and mix of vehicles generated by the proposed project would be similar to the existing volume, speed, and mix of vehicles in the study area.
The proposed project’s circulation system is comprised of one side-street stop-controlled intersection and internal roadways which would provide full access to all lots. The intersection is located at Oakdale Road / C Drive as illustrated on the site plan. The new intersection and internal roadways would be designed to comply with the TSP (2008), the City’s General Plan (2019), City of Modesto Standard Specifications (2014), and the Municipal Code. Intersection signing and striping would be designed to meet applicable industry standards from the California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (CAMUTCD) and The American Associations of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets.
Additionally, the proposed project would be subject to review and approval by the City. The review and approval process would include the Fire Department, which would include a review of the proposed project’s consistency with the City’s design criteria to ensure that safe vehicle access and viable emergency vehicles movements are provided. Therefore, implementation of the proposed projects would #18..
- 855 -
Martin Property Transportation Impact Analysis [DRAFT]
October 14, 2024
not be inconsistent with an applicable design standard and the proposed projects would result in a lessthan-significant safety impact. #18..
- 856 -
Martin Property Transportation Impact Study [DRAFT]
October 11, 2024
3. TrafficOperationsAnalysis
3.1 Existing Conditions
This chapter describes the existing transportation system in the study area. Existing traffic operations at the study intersections are also summarized in this chapter.
3.1.1 Existing Roadway Network
The proposed project site is located east of Oakdale Road, west of Roselle Avenue, south of Mable Avenue, and north of Sylvan Avenue. Oakdale Road and Sylvan Avenue are major roads that connect the proposed project site to areas in Modesto, while Mable Avenue and Bridgewood Way are minor roads that provide access to and from the residential areas along the roadway. Direct vehicular access to the proposed project is proposed along Oakdale Road.
Oakdale Road is a north-south arterial running from Park Ridge Drive/Arrowwood Drive in Riverbank to Scenic Drive in Modesto. Between Mable Avenue and Sylvan Avenue it has four lanes, including one lane going northbound, two lanes going southbound, and one two-way left turn lane. The speed limit is 45 miles-per-hour near the study area. The City’s General Plan indicates that it is designated as a future 6- lane principle arterial.
Sylvan Avenue is a designated four-lane east-west minor arterial running from McHenry Avenue to Claus Road. The speed limit is 45 miles-per-hour near the study area, and primarily serves residential areas with some commercial buildings.
Mable Avenue is a two-lane east-west local roadway running from Coffee Road until after Oakdale Road.
The speed limit is 30 miles-per-hour near the study area.
Bridgewood Way is a two-lane east-west local roadway connecting between Oakdale Road and Palmwood Drive. The speed limit is 20 to 25 miles-per-hour near the study area, and primarily serves residential areas connected to the roadway.
#18..
- 857 -
Martin Property Transportation Impact Analysis [DRAFT]
October 14, 2024
3.1.2 Existing Conditions Traffic Count Data
Intersection turning movement counts, including separate counts of pedestrians, bicyclists, and heavy trucks, were collected for the weekday morning (7:00 AM to 9:00 AM) and weekday evening (4:00 PM to 6:00 PM) peak periods, while schools were in session. The traffic counts for Existing Conditions are provided in Appendix B.
3.1.3 Existing Conditions Intersection Level of Service As previously mentioned, Synchro 12, which incorporates existing intersection lane configurations, signal timings, and peak hour turning movement volumes, was used to calculate the LOS and delay for the study intersections during the AM and PM peak hours. Table 5 displays the results for Existing Conditions.
Technical calculations are presented in Appendix C.
Table 5: Existing Conditions Intersection Level of Service ID Intersection Control1 LOS Standard Peak Hour2 Delay3 (sec) LOS 1 Oakdale Road / Bridgewood Way SSSC D
AM 1 (15) A (C)
PM 1 (18) A (C)
2 Oakdale Road / Sylvan Avenue Signalized D
AM 100 F
PM 66 E
Notes
1. Existing intersection traffic control type; SSSC = Side-Street Stop-Controlled.
2. AM = Weekday morning peak hour, PM = Weekday evening peak hour.
3. Whole intersection average delay reported for signalized intersections. Side-Street stop-controlled delay presented as Whole Intersection Average Delay (Worst Movement Delay). Delay calculated per HCM 7 methodologies.
Bold indicates operations below the LOS standard.
Source: Fehr & Peers, 2024.
As shown in Table 5, the Oakdale Road / Sylvan Avenue intersection operates deficiently at LOS F with approximately 100 seconds of delay during the AM peak hour and LOS E with approximately 66 seconds of delay during the PM peak hour.
#18..
- 858 -
Martin Property Transportation Impact Study [DRAFT]
October 11, 2024
3.2 Existing Plus Project Conditions
3.2.1 Project Traffic Estimate
The amount of traffic expected to be generated on the study roadway system by the proposed project is estimated using a three-step process: (1) project trip generation, (2) trip distribution, and (3) trip assignment. The first step estimates the amount of project-generated traffic that would be added to the roadway network. The second step estimates the direction of travel to and from the proposed project site.
During the third step, the new trips are assigned to specific street segments and intersection turning movements. This process is described in more detail in the following sections.
3.2.1.1 Project Trip Generation
Trip generation refers to the process of estimating the amount of vehicular traffic a project would add to the surrounding roadway system. Estimates are created for daily, and AM and PM peak hours. The proposed project trip generation was estimated using rates from the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual, 11th Edition using data from Land Use Code 210 (Single-Family Detached Housing). The proposed project trip generation estimates are presented in Table 6. The proposed project is expected to generate 130 weekday AM peak hour trips, and 177 weekday PM peak hour trips.
Table 6: Project Trip Generation
Project Component Information Daily Weekday AM Peak Hour Weekday PM Peak Hour ITE Land Use Code Dwelling Unit Total In Out Total In Out Total Single-Family
Detached Housing 210 185 1,777 33 97 130 112 65 177
Notes:
Trip generation estimated using fitted curve equation published in the Trip Generation Manual, 11th Edition (Institute of Transportation Engineers, 2022).
Source: Institute of Transportation Engineers Trip Generation Manual (11th Edition); Fehr & Peers, 2024
3.2.1.2 Project Trip Distribution and Assignment
Project trip distribution and assignment is a process that is used to estimate how the trips generated by the proposed project would be distributed across the roadway network. Distribution and assignment of the proposed project trips are based on traffic patterns in the local area and the potential trip making characteristics of the proposed uses. In addition to existing travel patterns, the StanCOG TDM was reviewed and used to inform trip distribution. The proposed project trips for both the AM and PM peak hours were distributed to the roadway system as follows:
North on Oakdale Road: 28%
South on Oakdale Road: 40%
West on Sylvan Avenue: 20%
East on Sylvan Avenue: 10%
West on Bridgewood Way: 2%
#18..
- 859 -
Martin Property Transportation Impact Analysis [DRAFT]
October 14, 2024
3.2.2 Existing Plus Project Conditions Intersection Level of Service Project trips were added to existing traffic counts based on the trip generation, distribution, and assignment previously described. Table 7 compares the results of the intersection operations analysis for Existing and Existing Plus Project Conditions. Technical calculations are provided in Appendix C.
Table 7: Existing Plus Project Conditions Intersection Level of Service ID Intersection Control1 Peak
Hour2
Existing Conditions Existing Plus Project
Conditions
Delay3 LOS4 Delay3 LOS4
1 Oakdale Road / Bridgewood
Way SSSC
AM 1 (15) A (C) 1 (17) A (C)
PM 1 (18) A (C) 1 (20) A (C)
2 Oakdale Road / Sylvan Avenue Signalized
AM 100 F 100 F
PM 66 E 67 E
3 Oakdale Road / Project
Driveway SSSC
AM - - 2 (29) A (D)
PM - - 1 (28) A (D)
Notes
1. Existing intersection traffic control type; SSSC = Side-Street Stop-Controlled.
2. AM = Weekday morning peak hour, PM = Weekday evening peak hour.
3. Whole intersection average delay reported for signalized intersections. Side-Street stop-controlled delay presented as Whole Intersection Average Delay (Worst Movement Delay). Delay calculated per HCM 7 methodologies.
4. LOS designation per HCM 7th Edition.
Bold indicates operations below the LOS standard.
Source: Fehr & Peers, 2024.
As displayed, the proposed project would result in minimal changes to delay and level of service at the two SSSC study intersections. The Oakdale Road / Bridgewood Way intersection would continue operating acceptably with the addition of project trips; intersection worst movement delay would increase by approximately two seconds during either peak hour. The Oakdale Road / Project Driveway intersection would operate acceptably during both AM and PM peak hours with respect to their LOS standard.
The Oakdale Road / Sylvan Avenue intersection would continue operating deficiently at LOS F during the AM peak hour and LOS E during the PM peak hour with the addition of project trips. At noted in section
1.4.3 above, for intersections that are deficient under existing conditions, the proposed project would result in a substantial transportation effect if the proposed project would result in an increase in delay of five or more seconds at the intersection. The proposed project would not result in an increase in delay of five or more seconds and therefore, would not substantially affect intersection operations and no improvements would be required.
Fehr & Peers evaluated potential improvements at the intersection and with signal timing modifications, the intersection would operate acceptably at LOS D with approximately 47 seconds of delay during the AM peak hour and 48 seconds of delay during the PM peak hour. However, it is noted that while signal timing modifications would improve operations at the study intersection, it is currently unknown if/how they would affect operations along the corridor as a whole. It is our understanding that the City is #18..
- 860 -
Martin Property Transportation Impact Study [DRAFT]
October 11, 2024
currently conducting a corridor study along Oakdale Road. It is recommended that the signal timing modifications at the Oakdale Road / Sylvan Avenue intersection and adjacent signals be evaluated as part of that study to determine how modifications would affect operations not only at the study intersection but also on the corridor as a whole.
#18..
- 861 -
Martin Property Transportation Impact Study [DRAFT]
October 11, 2024
Appendix A: Site Plan
#18..
- 862 -
DRAWN BY:
DATE:SCALE:DWG:CHECKED:
SHEET
OF
REVISION DATE DESCRIPTION BY
JOB #:
LOCAL RESIDENTIAL STREET
#18..
- 863 -
Martin Property Transportation Impact Analysis [DRAFT]
October 11, 2024
Appendix B: Traffic Counts
#18..
- 864 -
Type of peak hour being reported: Intersection Peak Method for determining peak hour: Total Entering Volume LOCATION: Oakdale Rd -- Bridgewood Wy QC JOB #: 16708001 CITY/STATE: Modesto, CA DATE: Tue, Aug 27 2024
826 957
5 821 0
108 4 0 0
0 0.87 0
102 98 0 0
103 953 0
919 1056
Peak-Hour: 7:30 AM -- 8:30 AM
Peak 15-Min: 7:45 AM -- 8:00 AM
3.8 2.6
0 3.8 0
0 0 0 0
0 0
2.9 3.1 0 0
0 2.6 0
3.7 2.4
0 0 0
0 0 0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0 0
N/A
N/A N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A N/A
N/A
5-Min Count
Period
Beginning At
Oakdale Rd
(Northbound)
Oakdale Rd
(Southbound)
Bridgewood Wy
(Eastbound)
Bridgewood Wy
(Westbound) Total Hourly
Totals Left Thru Right U Left Thru Right U Left Thru Right U Left Thru Right U 7:00 AM 2 58 0 0 0 33 2 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 98
7:05 AM 5 65 0 0 0 42 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 117
7:10 AM 1 67 0 0 0 39 1 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 111
7:15 AM 4 75 0 0 0 44 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 126
7:20 AM 4 51 0 0 0 64 0 0 0 0 7 0 0 0 0 0 126
7:25 AM 3 75 0 0 0 52 1 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 134
7:30 AM 1 70 0 0 0 47 0 0 0 0 7 0 0 0 0 0 125
7:35 AM 8 80 0 0 0 64 1 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 158
7:40 AM 7 85 0 0 0 75 1 0 1 0 7 0 0 0 0 0 176
7:45 AM 7 90 0 0 0 77 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 179
7:50 AM 8 85 0 0 0 82 1 0 0 0 8 0 0 0 0 0 184
7:55 AM 12 86 0 0 0 102 1 0 0 0 8 0 0 0 0 0 209 1743
8:00 AM 8 86 0 0 0 62 0 0 0 0 13 0 0 0 0 0 169 1814
8:05 AM 7 72 0 0 0 60 0 0 0 0 7 0 0 0 0 0 146 1843
8:10 AM 10 79 0 0 0 64 0 0 2 0 12 0 0 0 0 0 167 1899
8:15 AM 12 74 0 0 0 81 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 171 1944
8:20 AM 12 77 0 0 0 51 0 0 0 0 11 0 0 0 0 0 151 1969
8:25 AM 11 69 0 0 0 56 1 0 1 0 11 0 0 0 0 0 149 1984
8:30 AM 4 63 0 0 0 48 0 0 0 0 9 0 0 0 0 0 124 1983
8:35 AM 2 69 0 0 0 46 0 0 1 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 120 1945
8:40 AM 0 58 0 0 0 42 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 105 1874
8:45 AM 5 58 0 0 0 54 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 121 1816
8:50 AM 1 78 0 0 0 45 1 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 128 1760
8:55 AM 1 47 0 0 0 47 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 97 1648
Peak 15-Min
Flowrates
Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound Total Left Thru Right U Left Thru Right U Left Thru Right U Left Thru Right U All Vehicles 108 1044 0 0 0 1044 8 0 0 0 84 0 0 0 0 0 2288 Heavy Trucks 0 32 0 0 48 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 84
Buses
Pedestrians 0 0 0 0 0
Bicycles 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Scooters
Comments:
Report generated on 9/3/2024 3:20 PM SOURCE: Quality Counts, LLC (http://www.qualitycounts.net) 1-877-580-2212
#18..
- 865 -
Type of peak hour being reported: Intersection Peak Method for determining peak hour: Total Entering Volume LOCATION: Oakdale Rd -- Sylvan Ave QC JOB #: 16708002
CITY/STATE: Modesto, CA DATE: Tue, Aug 27 2024
872 1080
62 530 280
965 86 288 853
317 0.91 476
631 228 89 679
411 722 82
847 1215
Peak-Hour: 7:30 AM -- 8:30 AM
Peak 15-Min: 7:45 AM -- 8:00 AM
2.9 2.4
6.5 3.4 1.1
2.4 3.5 1.4 1.8
2.5 2.3
2.1 0.9 0 2.2
1.9 2.6 4.9
2.4 2.6
3 0 2
3 0 0 1
0 1
0 0
0 0
0 0 1
N/A
N/A N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A N/A
N/A
5-Min Count
Period
Beginning At
Oakdale Rd
(Northbound)
Oakdale Rd
(Southbound)
Sylvan Ave
(Eastbound)
Sylvan Ave
(Westbound) Total Hourly
Totals Left Thru Right U Left Thru Right U Left Thru Right U Left Thru Right U 7:00 AM 10 45 2 0 9 27 2 0 5 13 9 0 1 16 16 0 155
7:05 AM 9 42 4 0 4 21 7 0 2 17 5 0 2 21 19 0 153
7:10 AM 16 55 5 0 7 41 4 0 7 20 15 0 1 25 16 0 212
7:15 AM 13 53 4 0 14 33 5 0 7 11 13 0 6 26 21 0 206
7:20 AM 17 31 5 0 13 36 10 0 5 19 8 0 12 38 15 0 209
7:25 AM 23 49 6 0 9 44 5 0 5 34 19 3 5 44 25 0 271
7:30 AM 34 60 6 0 15 32 4 0 2 29 12 0 6 32 20 0 252
7:35 AM 29 59 3 0 28 31 5 0 9 13 13 2 4 37 23 0 256
7:40 AM 31 52 6 0 23 48 7 0 8 35 19 4 2 58 18 0 311
7:45 AM 30 60 9 0 21 40 1 0 4 33 18 0 8 57 36 0 317
7:50 AM 42 85 8 0 18 51 9 0 8 38 19 0 5 40 20 0 343
7:55 AM 25 58 5 0 35 66 2 0 3 28 23 0 8 38 33 0 324 3009 8:00 AM 36 60 10 0 34 47 4 0 4 29 17 0 10 41 18 0 310 3164 8:05 AM 27 54 6 0 22 36 4 0 8 34 24 0 7 46 24 0 292 3303 8:10 AM 39 58 4 0 28 41 2 0 6 16 16 3 8 41 22 0 284 3375 8:15 AM 60 82 7 0 20 45 9 0 7 27 24 0 9 19 25 0 334 3503 8:20 AM 26 54 9 0 12 46 9 0 5 19 30 4 12 22 24 0 272 3566 8:25 AM 32 40 9 0 24 47 6 0 6 16 13 3 10 45 25 0 276 3571 8:30 AM 27 47 4 0 9 34 7 1 4 19 18 4 13 36 15 0 238 3557 8:35 AM 14 49 3 0 9 44 3 0 1 16 17 1 5 21 25 0 208 3509 8:40 AM 28 36 5 0 11 29 8 1 3 24 4 1 4 34 17 0 205 3403 8:45 AM 27 61 9 0 11 36 6 0 5 15 17 0 6 32 16 0 241 3327 8:50 AM 10 54 6 0 10 39 8 0 5 15 15 0 4 25 16 0 207 3191 8:55 AM 23 25 4 0 7 30 7 0 4 14 12 0 5 26 18 0 175 3042 Peak 15-Min
Flowrates
Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound Total Left Thru Right U Left Thru Right U Left Thru Right U Left Thru Right U All Vehicles 388 812 88 0 296 628 48 0 60 396 240 0 84 540 356 0 3936 Heavy Trucks 8 24 0 4 20 12 12 0 4 0 12 0 96
Buses
Pedestrians 0 0 0 0 0
Bicycles 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4
Scooters
Comments:
Report generated on 9/3/2024 3:20 PM SOURCE: Quality Counts, LLC (http://www.qualitycounts.net) 1-877-580-2212
#18..
- 866 -
Type of peak hour being reported: Intersection Peak Method for determining peak hour: Total Entering Volume LOCATION: Oakdale Rd -- Bridgewood Wy QC JOB #: 16708003 CITY/STATE: Modesto, CA DATE: Tue, Aug 27 2024
1136 923
7 1129 0
64 8 0 0
0 0.94 0
70 62 0 0
57 915 0
1191 972
Peak-Hour: 4:35 PM -- 5:35 PM
Peak 15-Min: 5:20 PM -- 5:35 PM
1.2 0.9
0 1.2 0
3.1 0 0 0
0 0
0 0 0 0
3.5 0.9 0
1.2 1
0 6 0
0 0 0 0
1 0
0 0
0 0
0 0 0
N/A
N/A N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A N/A
N/A
5-Min Count
Period
Beginning At
Oakdale Rd
(Northbound)
Oakdale Rd
(Southbound)
Bridgewood Wy
(Eastbound)
Bridgewood Wy
(Westbound) Total Hourly
Totals Left Thru Right U Left Thru Right U Left Thru Right U Left Thru Right U 4:00 PM 0 59 0 0 0 92 0 0 1 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 156
4:05 PM 4 74 0 0 0 93 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 173
4:10 PM 4 64 0 0 0 85 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 156
4:15 PM 7 86 0 0 0 95 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 193
4:20 PM 0 50 0 0 0 112 1 0 0 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 169
4:25 PM 4 66 0 0 0 95 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 168
4:30 PM 2 78 0 0 0 74 2 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 160
4:35 PM 7 76 0 0 0 98 2 0 0 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 189
4:40 PM 2 85 0 0 0 64 0 0 2 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 158
4:45 PM 3 69 0 0 0 81 1 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 158
4:50 PM 8 77 0 0 0 113 0 0 0 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 204
4:55 PM 5 74 0 0 0 83 0 0 2 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 169 2053
5:00 PM 4 67 0 0 0 100 0 0 2 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 176 2073
5:05 PM 2 75 0 0 0 102 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 183 2083
5:10 PM 6 78 0 0 0 93 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 180 2107
5:15 PM 5 88 0 0 0 85 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 182 2096
5:20 PM 7 67 0 0 0 111 2 0 1 0 8 0 0 0 0 0 196 2123
5:25 PM 2 85 0 0 0 99 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 191 2146
5:30 PM 6 74 0 0 0 100 2 0 1 0 9 0 0 0 0 0 192 2178
5:35 PM 6 87 0 0 0 77 0 0 0 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 176 2165
5:40 PM 2 69 0 0 0 82 0 0 1 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 160 2167
5:45 PM 7 70 0 0 0 86 0 0 0 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 169 2178
5:50 PM 6 77 0 0 0 73 0 0 1 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 162 2136
5:55 PM 2 49 0 0 0 86 2 0 1 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 142 2109
Peak 15-Min
Flowrates
Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound Total Left Thru Right U Left Thru Right U Left Thru Right U Left Thru Right U All Vehicles 60 904 0 0 0 1240 16 0 8 0 88 0 0 0 0 0 2316 Heavy Trucks 4 12 0 0 12 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 28
Buses
Pedestrians 0 0 0 0 0
Bicycles 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Scooters
Comments:
Report generated on 9/3/2024 3:20 PM SOURCE: Quality Counts, LLC (http://www.qualitycounts.net) 1-877-580-2212
#18..
- 867 -
Type of peak hour being reported: Intersection Peak Method for determining peak hour: Total Entering Volume LOCATION: Oakdale Rd -- Sylvan Ave QC JOB #: 16708004
CITY/STATE: Modesto, CA DATE: Tue, Aug 27 2024
1241 974
88 694 459
826 145 224 679
602 0.95 380
1084 337 75 1162
319 643 102
1106 1064
Peak-Hour: 4:50 PM -- 5:50 PM
Peak 15-Min: 5:15 PM -- 5:30 PM
0.7 0.7
2.3 0.9 0.2
0.7 0 0.4 0.6
1.5 0.5
1.3 1.5 1.3 0.9
0.6 0.9 1
1.1 0.8
14 0 10
2 2 0 0
0 1
0 0
0 0
3 0 0
N/A
N/A N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A N/A
N/A
5-Min Count
Period
Beginning At
Oakdale Rd
(Northbound)
Oakdale Rd
(Southbound)
Sylvan Ave
(Eastbound)
Sylvan Ave
(Westbound) Total Hourly
Totals Left Thru Right U Left Thru Right U Left Thru Right U Left Thru Right U 4:00 PM 10 47 5 0 38 49 6 0 4 40 29 0 10 30 8 0 276
4:05 PM 37 67 11 0 32 43 6 0 6 37 28 5 4 48 11 0 335
4:10 PM 25 61 2 0 29 59 6 0 4 51 25 0 6 22 14 0 304
4:15 PM 21 64 13 0 34 67 5 0 4 53 30 0 8 45 19 0 363
4:20 PM 23 40 8 0 34 64 7 0 5 32 33 0 4 32 11 0 293
4:25 PM 31 52 10 0 34 58 8 0 7 37 26 2 5 22 19 0 311
4:30 PM 11 46 10 0 30 61 8 0 6 43 27 7 10 30 22 0 311
4:35 PM 44 54 7 0 32 49 6 0 8 50 28 0 3 33 21 0 335
4:40 PM 22 67 10 0 27 45 3 1 6 49 28 2 7 36 17 0 320
4:45 PM 22 50 14 0 26 43 7 0 8 47 28 2 7 28 13 0 295
4:50 PM 38 54 10 0 35 62 8 0 13 48 31 5 5 34 16 0 359
4:55 PM 21 53 14 0 44 50 7 0 8 48 42 6 4 38 16 0 351 3853 5:00 PM 28 47 10 0 37 47 9 0 6 55 24 3 3 24 18 0 311 3888 5:05 PM 27 59 7 0 35 61 10 0 8 55 28 2 9 27 15 0 343 3896 5:10 PM 33 71 16 0 34 57 5 0 7 60 27 0 7 35 13 0 365 3957 5:15 PM 28 57 4 0 49 55 7 0 9 60 26 3 2 28 22 0 350 3944 5:20 PM 27 46 7 0 44 54 9 0 5 53 33 5 3 29 16 0 331 3982 5:25 PM 28 61 8 0 53 76 8 1 5 41 24 1 8 46 25 0 385 4056 5:30 PM 17 43 9 0 44 64 6 0 10 43 22 2 12 21 19 0 312 4057 5:35 PM 18 59 9 0 27 60 9 0 14 46 33 1 10 23 20 0 329 4051 5:40 PM 24 43 4 0 26 43 2 0 11 44 17 5 3 38 25 0 285 4016 5:45 PM 30 50 4 0 30 65 8 0 10 49 30 6 9 37 19 0 347 4068 5:50 PM 38 49 4 0 35 40 9 0 13 55 31 0 3 39 22 0 338 4047 5:55 PM 11 32 7 0 29 47 2 1 3 30 21 2 2 23 16 0 226 3922 Peak 15-Min
Flowrates
Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound Total Left Thru Right U Left Thru Right U Left Thru Right U Left Thru Right U All Vehicles 332 656 76 0 584 740 96 4 76 616 332 36 52 412 252 0 4264 Heavy Trucks 0 4 4 0 0 0 0 12 4 0 0 4 28
Buses
Pedestrians 0 16 0 4 20
Bicycles 4 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 4 12
Scooters
Comments:
Report generated on 9/3/2024 3:20 PM SOURCE: Quality Counts, LLC (http://www.qualitycounts.net) 1-877-580-2212
#18..
- 868 -
Martin Property Transportation Impact Study [DRAFT]
October 11, 2024
Appendix C: Technical Calculations
#18..
- 869 -
HCM 7th TWSC Martin Property TIS
1: Oakdale Road & Bridgewood Way Existing Conditions NP AM Fehr & Peers Synchro 12 Report
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 1.4
Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 4 98 103 953 821 5
Future Vol, veh/h 4 98 103 953 821 5
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length 0 - - - - -
Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 0 -
Grade, % 0 - - 0 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 87 87 87 87 87 87
Heavy Vehicles, % 3 3 3 3 3 3
Mvmt Flow 5 113 118 1095 944 6
Major/Minor Minor2 Major1 Major2
Conflicting Flow All 2279 475 949 0 - 0
Stage 1 947 - - - - -
Stage 2 1332 - - - - -
Critical Hdwy 6.645 6.945 4.145 - - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.845 - - - - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.445 - - - - -
Follow-up Hdwy 3.5285 3.3285 2.2285 - - -
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 38 535 716 - - -
Stage 1 337 - - - - -
Stage 2 244 - - - - -
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 22 535 716 - - -
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 109 - - - - -
Stage 1 194 - - - - -
Stage 2 244 - - - - -
Approach EB NB SB
HCM Control Delay, s/v15.38 1.07 0
HCM LOS C
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT EBLn1 SBT SBR
Capacity (veh/h) 716 - 463 - -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.165 - 0.253 - -
HCM Control Delay (s/veh) 11 - 15.4 - -
HCM Lane LOS B - C - -
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.6 - 1 - -
#18..
- 870 -
HCM 7th Signalized Intersection Summary Martin Property TIS 2: Oakdale Road & Sylvan Avenue Existing Conditions NP AM Fehr & Peers Synchro 12 Report
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 86 317 228 89 476 288 411 722 82 280 530 62 Future Volume (veh/h) 86 317 228 89 476 288 411 722 82 280 530 62 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Lane Width Adj. 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 95 348 0 98 523 148 452 793 24 308 582 0 Peak Hour Factor 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Cap, veh/h 256 1477 124 1179 524 259 899 400 259 899
Arrive On Green 0.14 0.42 0.00 0.07 0.33 0.33 0.08 0.25 0.25 0.08 0.25 0.00 Sat Flow, veh/h 1781 3554 1585 1781 3554 1581 3456 3554 1581 3456 3554 1585 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 95 348 0 98 523 148 452 793 24 308 582 0 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1781 1777 1585 1781 1777 1581 1728 1777 1581 1728 1777 1585 Q Serve(g_s), s 5.8 7.6 0.0 6.5 13.8 6.2 9.0 25.7 0.9 9.0 17.6 0.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 5.8 7.6 0.0 6.5 13.8 6.2 9.0 25.7 0.9 9.0 17.6 0.0 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 256 1477 124 1179 524 259 899 400 259 899 V/C Ratio(X) 0.37 0.24 0.79 0.44 0.28 1.74 0.88 0.06 1.19 0.65 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 256 1477 312 1179 524 259 1001 445 259 1013 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.66 0.66 0.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 46.5 22.7 0.0 54.9 31.4 16.5 55.5 43.1 15.2 55.5 40.0 0.0 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 1.1 0.4 0.0 12.5 1.2 1.3 350.3 8.6 0.1 107.6 0.8 0.0 Initial Q Delay(d3), s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 2.6 3.1 0.0 3.3 5.9 3.1 16.4 12.0 0.5 7.7 7.5 0.0 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d), s/veh 47.6 23.1 0.0 67.5 32.6 17.9 405.8 51.7 15.3 163.1 40.8 0.0 LnGrp LOS D C E C B F D B F D
Approach Vol, veh/h 443 769 1269 890
Approach Delay, s/veh 28.3 34.2 177.2 83.1
Approach LOS C C F F
Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 14.0 36.6 13.4 56.1 14.0 36.6 23.4 46.0 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 5.0 * 6.2 5.0 6.2 5.0 6.2 6.2 * 6.2 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 9.0 * 34 21.0 33.8 9.0 33.8 15.0 * 40 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 11.0 19.6 8.5 9.6 11.0 27.7 7.8 15.8 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 3.1 0.2 2.0 0.0 2.5 0.1 3.6 Intersection Summary
HCM 7th Control Delay, s/veh 100.2
HCM 7th LOS F
Notes
* HCM 7th computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier.
Unsignalized Delay for [EBR, SBR] is excluded from calculations of the approach delay and intersection delay. #18..
- 871 -
HCM 7th TWSC Martin Property TIS
1: Oakdale Road & Bridgewood Way Existing Conditions NP PM Fehr & Peers Synchro 12 Report
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 0.9
Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 7 63 56 910 1126 5
Future Vol, veh/h 7 63 56 910 1126 5
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 6 0 0 6
Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length 0 - - - - -
Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 0 -
Grade, % 0 - - 0 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 95 95 95 95 95 95
Heavy Vehicles, % 1 1 1 1 1 1
Mvmt Flow 7 66 59 958 1185 5
Major/Minor Minor2 Major1 Major2
Conflicting Flow All 2270 601 1197 0 - 0
Stage 1 1194 - - - - -
Stage 2 1076 - - - - -
Critical Hdwy 6.615 6.915 4.115 - - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.815 - - - - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.415 - - - - -
Follow-up Hdwy 3.5095 3.3095 2.2095 - - -
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 39 446 586 - - -
Stage 1 252 - - - - -
Stage 2 328 - - - - -
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 30 443 581 - - -
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 125 - - - - -
Stage 1 196 - - - - -
Stage 2 326 - - - - -
Approach EB NB SB
HCM Control Delay, s/v17.88 0.69 0
HCM LOS C
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT EBLn1 SBT SBR
Capacity (veh/h) 581 - 353 - -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.101 - 0.209 - -
HCM Control Delay (s/veh) 11.9 - 17.9 - -
HCM Lane LOS B - C - -
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.3 - 0.8 - -
#18..
- 872 -
HCM 7th Signalized Intersection Summary Martin Property TIS 2: Oakdale Road & Sylvan Avenue Existing Conditions NP PM Fehr & Peers Synchro 12 Report
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 125 609 346 68 388 214 329 665 117 448 660 87 Future Volume (veh/h) 125 609 346 68 388 214 329 665 117 448 660 87 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Lane Width Adj. 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 132 641 0 72 408 87 346 700 32 472 695 0 Peak Hour Factor 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Cap, veh/h 339 1558 93 1033 454 319 788 347 399 870
Arrive On Green 0.19 0.44 0.00 0.05 0.29 0.29 0.09 0.22 0.22 0.12 0.24 0.00 Sat Flow, veh/h 1781 3554 1585 1781 3554 1562 3456 3554 1564 3456 3554 1585 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 132 641 0 72 408 87 346 700 32 472 695 0 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1781 1777 1585 1781 1777 1562 1728 1777 1564 1728 1777 1585 Q Serve(g_s), s 8.4 16.1 0.0 5.2 12.0 4.1 12.0 24.8 1.3 15.0 23.9 0.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 8.4 16.1 0.0 5.2 12.0 4.1 12.0 24.8 1.3 15.0 23.9 0.0 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 339 1558 93 1033 454 319 788 347 399 870 V/C Ratio(X) 0.39 0.41 0.78 0.39 0.19 1.08 0.89 0.09 1.18 0.80 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 339 1558 233 1033 454 319 842 370 399 935 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.36 0.36 0.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 46.0 25.0 0.0 60.9 36.9 19.4 59.0 49.0 16.1 57.5 46.1 0.0 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.9 0.8 0.0 15.4 1.1 0.9 74.9 10.9 0.1 92.1 1.7 0.0 Initial Q Delay(d3), s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 3.7 6.7 0.0 2.7 5.2 2.1 8.4 11.9 0.8 11.5 10.5 0.0 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d), s/veh 46.9 25.8 0.0 76.3 38.1 20.3 133.9 60.0 16.2 149.6 47.8 0.0 LnGrp LOS D C E D C F E B F D
Approach Vol, veh/h 773 567 1078 1167
Approach Delay, s/veh 29.4 40.2 82.4 89.0
Approach LOS C D F F
Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 17.0 38.0 11.8 63.2 20.0 35.0 31.0 44.0 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 5.0 * 6.2 5.0 6.2 5.0 6.2 6.2 * 6.2 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 12.0 * 34 17.0 44.8 15.0 30.8 24.0 * 38 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 14.0 25.9 7.2 18.1 17.0 26.8 10.4 14.0 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 2.7 0.1 4.2 0.0 1.6 0.3 2.6 Intersection Summary
HCM 7th Control Delay, s/veh 66.4
HCM 7th LOS E
Notes
* HCM 7th computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier.
Unsignalized Delay for [EBR, SBR] is excluded from calculations of the approach delay and intersection delay. #18..
- 873 -
HCM 7th TWSC Martin Property TIS
1: Oakdale Road & Bridgewood Way Existing Conditions PP AM Fehr & Peers Synchro 12 Report
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 1.4
Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 5 98 103 977 889 7
Future Vol, veh/h 5 98 103 977 889 7
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length 0 - - - - -
Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 0 -
Grade, % 0 - - 0 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 87 87 87 87 87 87
Heavy Vehicles, % 3 3 3 3 3 3
Mvmt Flow 6 113 118 1123 1022 8
Major/Minor Minor2 Major1 Major2
Conflicting Flow All 2386 515 1030 0 - 0
Stage 1 1026 - - - - -
Stage 2 1360 - - - - -
Critical Hdwy 6.645 6.945 4.145 - - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.845 - - - - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.445 - - - - -
Follow-up Hdwy 3.5285 3.3285 2.2285 - - -
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 32 503 667 - - -
Stage 1 306 - - - - -
Stage 2 236 - - - - -
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 17 503 667 - - -
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 95 - - - - -
Stage 1 162 - - - - -
Stage 2 236 - - - - -
Approach EB NB SB
HCM Control Delay, s/v17.04 1.1 0
HCM LOS C
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT EBLn1 SBT SBR
Capacity (veh/h) 667 - 417 - -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.177 - 0.284 - -
HCM Control Delay (s/veh) 11.6 - 17 - -
HCM Lane LOS B - C - -
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.6 - 1.2 - -
#18..
- 874 -
HCM 7th Signalized Intersection Summary Martin Property TIS 2: Oakdale Road & Sylvan Avenue Existing Conditions PP AM Fehr & Peers Synchro 12 Report
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 93 317 228 89 476 290 411 737 82 285 574 81 Future Volume (veh/h) 93 317 228 89 476 290 411 737 82 285 574 81 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Lane Width Adj. 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 102 348 0 98 523 148 452 810 24 313 631 0 Peak Hour Factor 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Cap, veh/h 249 1464 124 1179 524 259 912 406 259 912
Arrive On Green 0.14 0.41 0.00 0.07 0.33 0.33 0.08 0.26 0.26 0.08 0.26 0.00 Sat Flow, veh/h 1781 3554 1585 1781 3554 1581 3456 3554 1581 3456 3554 1585 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 102 348 0 98 523 148 452 810 24 313 631 0 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1781 1777 1585 1781 1777 1581 1728 1777 1581 1728 1777 1585 Q Serve(g_s), s 6.3 7.7 0.0 6.5 13.8 6.2 9.0 26.3 0.9 9.0 19.3 0.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 6.3 7.7 0.0 6.5 13.8 6.2 9.0 26.3 0.9 9.0 19.3 0.0 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 249 1464 124 1179 524 259 912 406 259 912 V/C Ratio(X) 0.41 0.24 0.79 0.44 0.28 1.74 0.89 0.06 1.21 0.69 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 249 1464 312 1179 524 259 1001 445 259 1013 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.59 0.59 0.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 47.1 23.0 0.0 54.9 31.4 16.5 55.5 42.9 15.2 55.5 40.3 0.0 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 1.3 0.4 0.0 12.5 1.2 1.3 350.3 9.3 0.1 113.1 1.1 0.0 Initial Q Delay(d3), s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 2.8 3.2 0.0 3.3 5.9 3.1 16.4 12.3 0.5 7.9 8.3 0.0 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d), s/veh 48.4 23.4 0.0 67.5 32.6 17.9 405.8 52.2 15.3 168.6 41.4 0.0 LnGrp LOS D C E C B F D B F D
Approach Vol, veh/h 450 769 1286 944
Approach Delay, s/veh 29.1 34.2 175.8 83.6
Approach LOS C C F F
Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 14.0 37.0 13.4 55.6 14.0 37.0 23.0 46.0 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 5.0 * 6.2 5.0 6.2 5.0 6.2 6.2 * 6.2 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 9.0 * 34 21.0 33.8 9.0 33.8 15.0 * 40 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 11.0 21.3 8.5 9.7 11.0 28.3 8.3 15.8 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 3.2 0.2 2.0 0.0 2.4 0.1 3.6 Intersection Summary
HCM 7th Control Delay, s/veh 99.8
HCM 7th LOS F
Notes
* HCM 7th computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier.
Unsignalized Delay for [EBR, SBR] is excluded from calculations of the approach delay and intersection delay. #18..
- 875 -
HCM 7th TWSC Martin Property TIS
3: Oakdale Road & Project Driveway Existing Conditions PP AM Fehr & Peers Synchro 12 Report
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 1.6
Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 70 27 957 25 9 826
Future Vol, veh/h 70 27 957 25 9 826
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length 0 - - - - -
Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - 0 - - 0
Grade, % 0 - 0 - - 0
Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92
Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2
Mvmt Flow 76 29 1040 27 10 898
Major/Minor Minor1 Major1 Major2
Conflicting Flow All 1522 1054 0 0 1067 0
Stage 1 1054 - - - - -
Stage 2 468 - - - - -
Critical Hdwy 6.63 6.23 - - 4.13 -
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.43 - - - - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.83 - - - - -
Follow-up Hdwy 3.519 3.319 - - 2.219 -
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 119 274 - - 651 -
Stage 1 334 - - - - -
Stage 2 597 - - - - -
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 117 274 - - 651 -
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 242 - - - - -
Stage 1 334 - - - - -
Stage 2 585 - - - - -
Approach WB NB SB
HCM Control Delay, s/v29.47 0 0.32
HCM LOS D
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBT NBRWBLn1 SBL SBT
Capacity (veh/h) - - 250 39 -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio - - 0.421 0.015 -
HCM Control Delay (s/veh) - - 29.5 10.6 0.2
HCM Lane LOS - - D B A
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) - - 2 0 -
#18..
- 876 -
HCM 7th TWSC Martin Property TIS
1: Oakdale Road & Bridgewood Way Existing Conditions PP PM Fehr & Peers Synchro 12 Report
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 0.9
Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 9 63 56 988 1172 6
Future Vol, veh/h 9 63 56 988 1172 6
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 6 0 0 6
Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length 0 - - - - -
Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 0 -
Grade, % 0 - - 0 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 95 95 95 95 95 95
Heavy Vehicles, % 1 1 1 1 1 1
Mvmt Flow 9 66 59 1040 1234 6
Major/Minor Minor2 Major1 Major2
Conflicting Flow All 2401 626 1246 0 - 0
Stage 1 1243 - - - - -
Stage 2 1158 - - - - -
Critical Hdwy 6.615 6.915 4.115 - - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.815 - - - - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.415 - - - - -
Follow-up Hdwy 3.5095 3.3095 2.2095 - - -
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 32 430 561 - - -
Stage 1 238 - - - - -
Stage 2 300 - - - - -
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 24 427 557 - - -
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 111 - - - - -
Stage 1 177 - - - - -
Stage 2 298 - - - - -
Approach EB NB SB
HCM Control Delay, s/v20.01 0.66 0
HCM LOS C
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT EBLn1 SBT SBR
Capacity (veh/h) 557 - 315 - -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.106 - 0.241 - -
HCM Control Delay (s/veh) 12.2 - 20 - -
HCM Lane LOS B - C - -
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.4 - 0.9 - -
#18..
- 877 -
HCM 7th Signalized Intersection Summary Martin Property TIS 2: Oakdale Road & Sylvan Avenue Existing Conditions PP PM Fehr & Peers Synchro 12 Report
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 147 609 346 68 388 220 329 715 117 451 690 100 Future Volume (veh/h) 147 609 346 68 388 220 329 715 117 451 690 100 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Lane Width Adj. 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 155 641 0 72 408 88 346 753 32 475 726 0 Peak Hour Factor 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Cap, veh/h 324 1527 93 1033 454 319 819 361 399 901
Arrive On Green 0.18 0.43 0.00 0.05 0.29 0.29 0.09 0.23 0.23 0.12 0.25 0.00 Sat Flow, veh/h 1781 3554 1585 1781 3554 1562 3456 3554 1564 3456 3554 1585 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 155 641 0 72 408 88 346 753 32 475 726 0 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1781 1777 1585 1781 1777 1562 1728 1777 1564 1728 1777 1585 Q Serve(g_s), s 10.1 16.3 0.0 5.2 12.0 4.1 12.0 26.9 1.3 15.0 24.9 0.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 10.1 16.3 0.0 5.2 12.0 4.1 12.0 26.9 1.3 15.0 24.9 0.0 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 324 1527 93 1033 454 319 819 361 399 901 V/C Ratio(X) 0.48 0.42 0.78 0.39 0.19 1.08 0.92 0.09 1.19 0.81 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 329 1527 233 1033 454 319 842 371 399 935 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.29 0.29 0.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 47.7 25.8 0.0 60.9 36.9 19.4 59.0 48.8 16.1 57.5 45.5 0.0 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 1.3 0.8 0.0 15.4 1.1 0.9 74.9 14.8 0.1 93.6 1.5 0.0 Initial Q Delay(d3), s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 4.5 6.8 0.0 2.7 5.2 2.1 8.4 13.2 0.8 11.6 10.9 0.0 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d), s/veh 49.0 26.6 0.0 76.3 38.1 20.4 133.9 63.6 16.2 151.1 47.0 0.0 LnGrp LOS D C E D C F E B F D
Approach Vol, veh/h 796 568 1131 1201
Approach Delay, s/veh 31.0 40.2 83.8 88.2
Approach LOS C D F F
Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 17.0 39.2 11.8 62.1 20.0 36.2 29.8 44.0 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 5.0 * 6.2 5.0 6.2 5.0 6.2 6.2 * 6.2 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 12.0 * 34 17.0 44.8 15.0 30.8 24.0 * 38 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 14.0 26.9 7.2 18.3 17.0 28.9 12.1 14.0 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 2.6 0.1 4.2 0.0 0.9 0.4 2.6 Intersection Summary
HCM 7th Control Delay, s/veh 67.1
HCM 7th LOS E
Notes
* HCM 7th computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier.
Unsignalized Delay for [EBR, SBR] is excluded from calculations of the approach delay and intersection delay. #18..
- 878 -
HCM 7th TWSC Martin Property TIS
3: Oakdale Road & Project Driveway Existing Conditions PP PM Fehr & Peers Synchro 12 Report
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 1.4
Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 47 18 917 80 31 1131
Future Vol, veh/h 47 18 917 80 31 1131
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length 0 - - - - -
Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - 0 - - 0
Grade, % 0 - 0 - - 0
Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92
Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2
Mvmt Flow 51 20 997 87 34 1229
Major/Minor Minor1 Major1 Major2
Conflicting Flow All 1722 1040 0 0 1084 0
Stage 1 1040 - - - - -
Stage 2 682 - - - - -
Critical Hdwy 6.63 6.23 - - 4.13 -
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.43 - - - - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.83 - - - - -
Follow-up Hdwy 3.519 3.319 - - 2.219 -
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 89 279 - - 642 -
Stage 1 339 - - - - -
Stage 2 464 - - - - -
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 82 279 - - 642 -
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 209 - - - - -
Stage 1 339 - - - - -
Stage 2 427 - - - - -
Approach WB NB SB
HCM Control Delay, s/v28.19 0 1.1
HCM LOS D
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBT NBRWBLn1 SBL SBT
Capacity (veh/h) - - 225 96 -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio - - 0.314 0.053 -
HCM Control Delay (s/veh) - - 28.2 10.9 0.8
HCM Lane LOS - - D B A
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) - - 1.3 0.2 -
#18..
- 879 -
HCM 7th Signalized Intersection Summary Martin Property TIS 2: Oakdale Road & Sylvan Avenue Existing Conditions PP AM Optimized Fehr & Peers Synchro 12 Report
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 93 317 228 89 476 290 411 737 82 285 574 81 Future Volume (veh/h) 93 317 228 89 476 290 411 737 82 285 574 81 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Lane Width Adj. 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 102 348 0 98 523 148 452 810 24 313 631 0 Peak Hour Factor 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Cap, veh/h 307 1317 122 912 405 516 949 422 370 799
Arrive On Green 0.17 0.37 0.00 0.07 0.26 0.26 0.15 0.27 0.27 0.11 0.22 0.00 Sat Flow, veh/h 1781 3554 1585 1781 3554 1579 3456 3554 1581 3456 3554 1585 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 102 348 0 98 523 148 452 810 24 313 631 0 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1781 1777 1585 1781 1777 1579 1728 1777 1581 1728 1777 1585 Q Serve(g_s), s 6.0 8.2 0.0 6.5 15.4 6.2 15.4 26.0 0.8 10.7 20.1 0.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 6.0 8.2 0.0 6.5 15.4 6.2 15.4 26.0 0.8 10.7 20.1 0.0 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 307 1317 122 912 405 516 949 422 370 799 V/C Ratio(X) 0.33 0.26 0.80 0.57 0.37 0.88 0.85 0.06 0.85 0.79 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 307 1317 148 912 405 576 1179 525 403 1013 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.59 0.59 0.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 43.6 26.3 0.0 55.1 38.9 16.6 50.0 41.8 12.7 52.6 43.8 0.0 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.8 0.5 0.0 23.7 2.6 2.5 13.5 5.2 0.1 9.3 2.0 0.0 Initial Q Delay(d3), s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 2.7 3.4 0.0 3.6 6.8 3.6 7.4 11.6 0.5 5.0 8.8 0.0 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d), s/veh 44.3 26.8 0.0 78.8 41.5 19.1 63.5 47.0 12.8 61.9 45.8 0.0 LnGrp LOS D C E D B E D B E D
Approach Vol, veh/h 450 769 1286 944
Approach Delay, s/veh 30.8 41.9 52.1 51.1
Approach LOS C D D D
Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 22.9 33.2 13.2 50.7 17.9 38.2 26.9 37.0 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 5.0 * 6.2 5.0 6.2 5.0 6.2 6.2 * 6.2 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 20.0 * 34 10.0 33.8 14.0 39.8 13.0 * 31 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 17.4 22.1 8.5 10.2 12.7 28.0 8.0 17.4 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.6 3.1 0.0 2.0 0.2 4.0 0.1 3.0 Intersection Summary
HCM 7th Control Delay, s/veh 46.8
HCM 7th LOS D
Notes
* HCM 7th computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier.
Unsignalized Delay for [EBR, SBR] is excluded from calculations of the approach delay and intersection delay. #18..
- 880 -
HCM 7th Signalized Intersection Summary Martin Property TIS 2: Oakdale Road & Sylvan Avenue Existing Conditions PP PM Optimized Fehr & Peers Synchro 12 Report
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 147 609 346 68 388 220 329 715 117 451 690 100 Future Volume (veh/h) 147 609 346 68 388 220 329 715 117 451 690 100 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Lane Width Adj. 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 155 641 0 72 408 88 346 753 32 475 726 0 Peak Hour Factor 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Cap, veh/h 317 1351 92 869 381 413 849 374 542 982
Arrive On Green 0.18 0.38 0.00 0.05 0.24 0.24 0.12 0.24 0.24 0.16 0.28 0.00 Sat Flow, veh/h 1781 3554 1585 1781 3554 1558 3456 3554 1565 3456 3554 1585 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 155 641 0 72 408 88 346 753 32 475 726 0 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1781 1777 1585 1781 1777 1558 1728 1777 1565 1728 1777 1585 Q Serve(g_s), s 10.2 17.7 0.0 5.2 12.7 4.3 12.7 26.6 1.3 17.5 24.2 0.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 10.2 17.7 0.0 5.2 12.7 4.3 12.7 26.6 1.3 17.5 24.2 0.0 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 317 1351 92 869 381 413 849 374 542 982 V/C Ratio(X) 0.49 0.47 0.78 0.47 0.23 0.84 0.89 0.09 0.88 0.74 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 317 1351 164 869 381 558 951 419 638 1044 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.29 0.29 0.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 48.1 30.5 0.0 60.9 41.9 20.8 56.0 47.8 15.8 53.6 42.8 0.0 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 1.4 1.2 0.0 15.8 1.8 1.4 8.8 9.4 0.1 4.0 0.8 0.0 Initial Q Delay(d3), s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 4.6 7.6 0.0 2.7 5.6 2.3 5.9 12.5 0.8 7.7 10.4 0.0 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d), s/veh 49.5 31.7 0.0 76.7 43.7 22.2 64.8 57.2 15.9 57.5 43.6 0.0 LnGrp LOS D C E D C E E B E D
Approach Vol, veh/h 796 568 1131 1201
Approach Delay, s/veh 35.1 44.6 58.4 49.1
Approach LOS D D E D
Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 20.5 42.1 11.7 55.6 25.4 37.3 29.3 38.0 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 5.0 * 6.2 5.0 6.2 5.0 6.2 6.2 * 6.2 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 21.0 * 38 12.0 36.8 24.0 34.8 17.0 * 32 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 14.7 26.2 7.2 19.7 19.5 28.6 12.2 14.7 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.8 3.6 0.1 3.6 0.9 2.5 0.2 2.4 Intersection Summary
HCM 7th Control Delay, s/veh 48.2
HCM 7th LOS D
Notes
* HCM 7th computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier.
Unsignalized Delay for [EBR, SBR] is excluded from calculations of the approach delay and intersection delay. #18..
- 881 -
INITIAL STUDY MARTIN TIVOLI SUBDIVISION
PAGE 186
APPENDIX E: PUBLIC COMMENTS
A Notice of Intent was circulated from February 5, 2025 to March 7, 2025. Two comments were received and are attached in this Appendix.
Comment 1: This comment is dated February 6, 2025 from the Department of Toxic Substances Control. This comment can be broken down into two individual comments, both of which involve concerns for soil contaminants. The City has adopted Policy VI.M.6, which requires sites to be fully investigated for the presence of hazardous materials or wastes prior to issuance of the permits.
The policy notes that the investigation should consist of, at minimum, a Phase I environmental site assessment and a Phase II site assessment, if found necessary because of the Phase I assessment.
As noted in the Hazardous Materials section of the Initial Study, a Phase I ESA and Limited Phase II testing was prepared. The results show that the potential risks associated with hazardous materials would remain the same as previously anticipated.
Comment 2: This comment is dated March 6, 2025 from the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board. This comment presents various regulatory information, including permitting requirements. These are existing regulatory requirements that are noted. Certain requirements such as NPDES permits and SWPPP requirements are applicable. Other requirements such as 404/401/Dewatering are not relevant to the proposed Project based on the specific conditions present at the Project site.
#18..
- 882 -
dtsc.ca.gov
SENT VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL
February 6, 2025
Michael Hren, AICP
Principal Planner
City of Modesto
1010 10th Street
Modesto, CA 95353
[email protected]
RE: MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR THE MARTIN TIVOLI SUBDIVISION DATED FEBRUARY 5, 2025, STATE CLEARINGHOUSE NUMBER 2025020146 Dear Michael Hren,
The Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) reviewed the Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) for the Martin Tivoli Subdivision (Project). The Project proposes a Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map to subdivide 19.95 acres into 185 medium density residential lots and 11 common area lots for streets, open space, parking, emergency vehicle access, and utility easements. The Project requires a General Plan Amendment, Specific Plan Amendment, and Vesting Tentative Map. The General Plan designates the Project site for Residential and Regional Commercial land uses. The Specific Plan Amendment would change the Medium High Density Residential and the Regional Serving Commercial areas to Medium Density Residential (MDR) making the entire Project site designated for MDR. DTSC recommends and requests consideration of the following comments:
1. When agricultural crops and/or land uses are proposed or rezoned for residential use, a number of contaminants of concern (COCs) can be present.
The Lead Agency shall identify the amounts of Pesticides and Organochlorine #18..
- 883 -
Michael Hren
February 6, 2025
Pesticides (OCPs) historically used on the property. If present, OCPs requiring further analysis are dichloro-diphenyl-trichloroethane, toxaphene, and dieldrin. Additionally, any level of arsenic present would require further analysis and sampling and must meet HHRA NOTE NUMBER 3, DTSC-SLs approved thresholds. If they are not, remedial action must take place to mitigate them below those thresholds.
Additional COCs may be found in mixing/loading/storage areas, drainage ditches, farmhouses, or any other outbuildings and should be sampled and analyzed. If smudge pots had been routinely utilized, additional sampling for Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons and/or Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons may be required.
2. DTSC recommends that all imported soil and fill material should be tested to assess any contaminants of concern meet screening levels as outlined in DTSC's Preliminary Endangerment Assessment Guidance Manual.
Additionally, DTSC advises referencing the DTSC Information Advisory Clean Imported Fill Material Fact Sheet if importing fill is necessary. To minimize the possibility of introducing contaminated soil and fill material there should be documentation of the origins of the soil or fill material and, if applicable, sampling be conducted to ensure that the imported soil and fill material are suitable for the intended land use. The soil sampling should include analysis based on the source of the fill and knowledge of prior land use. Additional information can be found by visiting DTSC’s Human and Ecological Risk Office (HERO) webpage.
DTSC would like to thank you for the opportunity to comment on the MND for the Martin Tivoli Subdivision. Thank you for your assistance in protecting California’s people and environment from the harmful effects of toxic substances. If you have any questions or would like clarification on DTSC’s comments, please respond to this letter or via our CEQA Review email for additional guidance.
#18..
- 884 -
Michael Hren
February 6, 2025
Sincerely,
Dave Kereazis
Associate Environmental Planner
HWMP - Permitting Division – CEQA Unit
Department of Toxic Substances Control
[email protected]
cc: (via email)
Governor’s Office of Land Use and Climate Innovation
State Clearinghouse
[email protected]
Steve McMurtry
Principal Planner
De Novo Planning Group / Consulting Firm
[email protected]
Tamara Purvis
Associate Environmental Planner
HWMP-Permitting Division – CEQA Unit
Department of Toxic Substances Control
[email protected]
Scott Wiley
Associate Governmental Program Analyst
HWMP - Permitting Division – CEQA Unit
Department of Toxic Substances Control
[email protected]
#18..
- 885 -
Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board
6 March 2025
Michael Hren
City of Modesto
1010 Tenth Street
Modesto, CA 95353
[email protected]
COMMENTS TO REQUEST FOR REVIEW FOR THE MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION, MARTIN TIVOLI SUBDIVISION PROJECT, SCH#2025020146, SAN
JOAQUIN COUNTY
Pursuant to the State Clearinghouse’s 5 February 2025 request, the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board (Central Valley Water Board) has reviewed the Request for Review for the Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Martin Tivoli Subdivision Project, located in San Joaquin County.
Our agency is delegated with the responsibility of protecting the quality of surface and groundwaters of the state; therefore our comments will address concerns surrounding those issues.
I. Regulatory Setting
Basin Plan
The Central Valley Water Board is required to formulate and adopt Basin Plans for all areas within the Central Valley region under Section 13240 of the Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act. Each Basin Plan must contain water quality objectives to ensure the reasonable protection of beneficial uses, as well as a program of implementation for achieving water quality objectives with the Basin Plans. Federal regulations require each state to adopt water quality standards to protect the public health or welfare, enhance the quality of water and serve the purposes of the Clean Water Act. In California, the beneficial uses, water quality objectives, and the Antidegradation Policy are the State’s water quality standards. Water quality standards are also contained in the National Toxics Rule, 40 CFR Section 131.36, and the California Toxics Rule, 40 CFR Section 131.38.
The Basin Plan is subject to modification as necessary, considering applicable laws, policies, technologies, water quality conditions and priorities. The original Basin Plans were adopted in 1975, and have been updated and revised periodically as required, using Basin Plan amendments. Once the Central Valley Water Board has adopted a Basin Plan amendment in noticed public hearings, it must be approved by #18..
- 886 -
Martin Tivoli Subdivision Project - 2 - 6 March 2025
San Joaquin County
the State Water Resources Control Board (State Water Board), Office of Administrative Law (OAL) and in some cases, the United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). Basin Plan amendments only become effective after they have been approved by the OAL and in some cases, the USEPA. Every three (3) years, a review of the Basin Plan is completed that assesses the appropriateness of existing standards and evaluates and prioritizes Basin Planning issues. For more information on the Water Quality Control Plan for the Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins, please visit our website:
http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/centralvalley/water_issues/basin_plans/ Antidegradation Considerations
All wastewater discharges must comply with the Antidegradation Policy (State Water Board Resolution 68-16) and the Antidegradation Implementation Policy contained in the Basin Plan. The Antidegradation Implementation Policy is available on page 74 at:
https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/centralvalley/water_issues/basin_plans/sacsjr_2018
05.pdf
In part it states:
Any discharge of waste to high quality waters must apply best practicable treatment or control not only to prevent a condition of pollution or nuisance from occurring, but also to maintain the highest water quality possible consistent with the maximum benefit to the people of the State.
This information must be presented as an analysis of the impacts and potential impacts of the discharge on water quality, as measured by background concentrations and applicable water quality objectives.
The antidegradation analysis is a mandatory element in the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System and land discharge Waste Discharge Requirements (WDRs) permitting processes. The environmental review document should evaluate potential impacts to both surface and groundwater quality.
II. Permitting Requirements
Construction Storm Water General Permit
Dischargers whose project disturb one or more acres of soil or where projects disturb less than one acre but are part of a larger common plan of development that in total disturbs one or more acres, are required to obtain coverage under the General Permit for Storm Water Discharges Associated with Construction and Land Disturbance Activities (Construction General Permit), Construction General Permit Order No. 2009-0009-DWQ. Construction activity subject to this permit includes clearing, grading, grubbing, disturbances to the ground, such as stockpiling, or excavation, but does not include regular maintenance activities performed to restore the original line, grade, or capacity of the facility. The Construction General Permit requires the development and implementation of a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP). For more information on the Construction General Permit, visit the State Water Resources Control Board website at:
#18..
- 887 -
Martin Tivoli Subdivision Project - 3 - 6 March 2025
San Joaquin County
http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/water_issues/programs/stormwater/constpermits.sht ml
Clean Water Act Section 404 Permit
If the project will involve the discharge of dredged or fill material in navigable waters or wetlands, a permit pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act may be needed from the United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). If a Section 404 permit is required by the USACE, the Central Valley Water Board will review the permit application to ensure that discharge will not violate water quality standards. If the project requires surface water drainage realignment, the applicant is advised to contact the Department of Fish and Game for information on Streambed Alteration Permit requirements. If you have any questions regarding the Clean Water Act Section 404 permits, please contact the Regulatory Division of the Sacramento District of USACE at (916) 557-5250.
Clean Water Act Section 401 Permit – Water Quality Certification If an USACE permit (e.g., Non-Reporting Nationwide Permit, Nationwide Permit, Letter of Permission, Individual Permit, Regional General Permit, Programmatic General Permit), or any other federal permit (e.g., Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act or Section 9 from the United States Coast Guard), is required for this project due to the disturbance of waters of the United States (such as streams and wetlands), then a Water Quality Certification must be obtained from the Central Valley Water Board prior to initiation of project activities. There are no waivers for 401 Water Quality Certifications. For more information on the Water Quality Certification, visit the Central Valley Water Board website at:
https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/centralvalley/water_issues/water_quality_certificatio n/
Waste Discharge Requirements – Discharges to Waters of the State If USACE determines that only non-jurisdictional waters of the State (i.e., “nonfederal” waters of the State) are present in the proposed project area, the proposed project may require a Waste Discharge Requirement (WDR) permit to be issued by Central Valley Water Board. Under the California Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act, discharges to all waters of the State, including all wetlands and other waters of the State including, but not limited to, isolated wetlands, are subject to State regulation. For more information on the Waste Discharges to Surface Water NPDES Program and WDR processes, visit the Central Valley Water Board website at:https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/centralvalley/water_issues/waste_to_surface_wat er/
Projects involving excavation or fill activities impacting less than 0.2 acre or 400 linear feet of non-jurisdictional waters of the state and projects involving dredging activities impacting less than 50 cubic yards of non-jurisdictional waters of the state may be eligible for coverage under the State Water Resources Control Board Water Quality Order No. 2004-0004-DWQ (General Order 2004-0004). For more information on the General Order 2004-0004, visit the State Water Resources Control Board website at:
#18..
- 888 -
Martin Tivoli Subdivision Project - 4 - 6 March 2025
San Joaquin County
https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/board_decisions/adopted_orders/water_quality/200 4/wqo/wqo2004-0004.pdf
Dewatering Permit
If the proposed project includes construction or groundwater dewatering to be discharged to land, the proponent may apply for coverage under State Water Board General Water Quality Order (Low Threat General Order) 2003-0003 or the Central Valley Water Board’s Waiver of Report of Waste Discharge and Waste Discharge Requirements (Low Threat Waiver) R5-2018-0085. Small temporary construction dewatering projects are projects that discharge groundwater to land from excavation activities or dewatering of underground utility vaults. Dischargers seeking coverage under the General Order or Waiver must file a Notice of Intent with the Central Valley Water Board prior to beginning discharge.
For more information regarding the Low Threat General Order and the application process, visit the Central Valley Water Board website at:
http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/board_decisions/adopted_orders/water_quality/2003/ wqo/wqo2003-0003.pdf
For more information regarding the Low Threat Waiver and the application process, visit the Central Valley Water Board website at:
https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/centralvalley/board_decisions/adopted_orders/waiv ers/r5-2018-0085.pdf
Limited Threat General NPDES Permit
If the proposed project includes construction dewatering and it is necessary to discharge the groundwater to waters of the United States, the proposed project will require coverage under a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit. Dewatering discharges are typically considered a low or limited threat to water quality and may be covered under the General Order for Limited Threat Discharges to Surface Water (Limited Threat General Order). A complete Notice of Intent must be submitted to the Central Valley Water Board to obtain coverage under the Limited Threat General Order. For more information regarding the Limited Threat General Order and the application process, visit the Central Valley Water Board website at:
https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/centralvalley/board_decisions/adopted_orders/gene ral_orders/r5-2016-0076-01.pdf
NPDES Permit
If the proposed project discharges waste that could affect the quality of surface waters of the State, other than into a community sewer system, the proposed project will require coverage under a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit. A complete Report of Waste Discharge must be submitted with the Central Valley Water Board to obtain a NPDES Permit. For more information regarding the NPDES Permit and the application process, visit the Central Valley Water Board website at: https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/centralvalley/help/permit/ #18..
- 889 -
Martin Tivoli Subdivision Project - 5 - 6 March 2025
San Joaquin County
If you have questions regarding these comments, please contact me at (916) 464-4684 or [email protected].
Peter G. Minkel
Engineering Geologist
cc: State Clearinghouse unit, Governor’s Office of Planning and Research, Sacramento
#18..
- 890 -
MARTIN TIVOLI SUBDIVISION INITIAL STUDY
PAGE 187
APPENDIX F: MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING
PROGRAM
#18..
- 891 -
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM 4.0
Page-1
This document is the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) for the Modesto Martin Tivoli Subdivision (Project). This MMRP has been prepared pursuant to Section 21081.6 of the California Public Resources Code, which requires public agencies to “adopt a reporting and monitoring program for the changes made to the project or conditions of project approval, adopted in order to mitigate or avoid significant effects on the environment.” An MMRP is required for the proposed Project because the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) has identified significant adverse impacts, and measures have been identified to mitigate those impacts.
The numbering of the individual mitigation measures follows the numbering sequence as found in the IS/MND.
4.1 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
The MMRP, as outlined in the following table, describes mitigation timing, monitoring responsibilities, and compliance verification responsibility for all mitigation measures identified in this IS/MND.
The City of Modesto will be the primary agency responsible for implementing the mitigation measures and will continue to monitor mitigation measures that are required to be implemented during the operation of the proposed Project.
The MMRP is presented in tabular form on the following pages. The components of the MMRP are described briefly below:
• Mitigation Measures: The mitigation measures are taken from the IS/MND in the same order that they appear in that document.
• Mitigation Timing: Identifies at which stage of the project mitigation must be completed. • Monitoring Responsibility: Identifies the agency that is responsible for mitigation monitoring.
• Compliance Verification: This is a space that is available for the monitor to date and initial when the monitoring or mitigation implementation took place. #18..
- 892 -
4.0 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
Page-2
TABLE MMRP-1: EXISTING MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
MITIGATION MEASURE
MONITORING
RESPONSIBILITY
MONITORING ACTIONS
MONITORING REPORTING/
RESPONSIBILITY
SCHEDULE
AIR QUALITY
Mitigation Measure E.1. The construction plans for each group of building permits shall incorporate the following recommendations from the District to minimize emissions during construction phases:
• The project developers shall review Regulation VIII of the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District
regulations and submit a compliance plan to the City
of Modesto prior to commencing any phase of
construction. The compliance plan must demonstrate
that the current requirements of Regulation VIII will be implemented.
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.
• Prior to the issuance of construction contracts, the
project developers shall perform a review of new
technology, as it relates to heavy-duty equipment, to
determine what, if any, advances in emissions
reduction are available for use. It is anticipated that in the near future both NOx and PM10 control equipment
will be available. The San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District should be consulted during this
process.
Project Developers Project Developers shall
consult with SJVAPCD and
identify available new
technology and shall
incorporate requirements
for new technology in
construction contracts.
Project Developers shall
report to the Community
and Economic
Development Director
on new technology to be
included.
The Project Developers shall
incorporate available new
technology in construction
contracts.
• The project developers shall limit traffic speed on
unpaved roads to 15 miles per hour.
Project Developers The construction foreman
or liaison shall post speed
limit signs and ensure that
construction vehicle
operators travel at or less
than 15 mph.
The construction
foreman or liaison shall
monitor speed limits.
Project Developers shall
monitor compliance
The Project Developers shall
install speed limit signs as
part of the site preparation
process prior to issuance of
a grading permit. Implement
#18..
- 893 -
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM 4.0
Page-3
MITIGATION MEASURE
MONITORING
RESPONSIBILITY
MONITORING ACTIONS
MONITORING REPORTING/
RESPONSIBILITY
SCHEDULE
throughout the
construction duration.
measures throughout the
construction duration.
• The project developers shall install sandbags or other control measures to prevent silt runoff to public
roadways from sites with a slope greater than 1
percent.
Project Developers All slopes shall be
measured by the Project
Developers and identified
on the building permit plan
set submitted. The
construction foreman or
liaison shall oversee the
placement of sandbags or
other runoff control
measure(s) on all slopes
determined to have a slope
greater than 1 percent.
The construction
foreman or liaison shall
monitor runoff control
measure(s) and shall
conduct weekly runoff
control measure(s)
inspections and shall
submit results in a
monthly report to the
Community and
Economic Development
Director.
The building permit
submittal shall identify slope
measurements. Implement
measures throughout the
construction duration.
• The project developers shall install wheel washers for all exiting trucks, or wash off all trucks and equipment leaving the site, to prevent track-out of soil to public roadways.
Project Developers The construction foreman
or liaison shall ensure that
wheel washers and/or
equipment washers are in
place at all points of exit
from the site and are
correctly implemented.
Construction foreman or
liaison shall record
inspections in a daily
construction log and
submit results in a
monthly report to the
Community and
Economic Development
Director.
The washers shall be
provided prior to issuance of
grading or building permit,
whichever occurs first.
Implement measures
throughout the construction
duration.
• The project developers shall install windbreaks at
windward sides of construction areas, if necessary to
prevent wind-blown dust.
Project Developers Windbreaks shall be
installed by the Project
Developers. The
construction foreman or
liaison shall ensure that
windbreaks are correctly
placed and implemented.
The construction
foreman or liaison shall
inspect installed
windbreaks on a weekly
basis and record
inspections in the
construction log.
Inspection results shall
be submitted in a
monthly report to the
Windbreaks shall be
installed by the Project
Developers prior to the
issuance of grading or
building permit, whichever
occurs first. Implement
measures throughout the
construction duration.
#18..
- 894 -
4.0 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
Page-4
MITIGATION MEASURE
MONITORING
RESPONSIBILITY
MONITORING ACTIONS
MONITORING REPORTING/
RESPONSIBILITY
SCHEDULE
Community and
Economic Development
Director.
• The project developers shall suspend excavation and
grading activity when winds exceed 20 miles per hour.
Project Developers Project developers shall
install wind speed
measuring devices and
ensure that these devices
are correctly located and
calibrated.
The construction
foreman shall cease all
excavating and grading
activities when wind
speed measuring devices
indicate speeds over 20
mph. Suspension of
construction activity due
to wind speeds shall be
recorded in the
construction log.
Construction reports
shall be submitted to the
Community and
Economic Development
Director on a monthly
basis.
Wind speed measuring
devices shall be installed by
the Project Developers prior
to the issuance of grading or
building permit, whichever
occurs first. Implement
measures throughout the
construction duration
• The project developers shall limit the area subject to excavation, grading, and other construction activity at any one time.
Project Developers The project sponsor shall
provide a written
statement with any request
for development permits or
other permits involving
movement of soil
supporting a determination
that the request minimizes
the amount of exposed soil
on the project site during
the relevant construction
period. The Community
and Economic
Development Director will
The construction
foreman or liaison shall
ensure that construction
activities do not exceed
the allowable area of
excavation and grading
activity permitted on the
site and shall oversee
implementation of any
required best
management practices.
The construction
foreman or liaison shall
record excavation and
Project Developer shall
provide a plan to reduce soil
exposure prior to the
issuance of grading or
building permit, whichever
occurs first. Implement
measures throughout the
construction duration.
#18..
- 895 -
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM 4.0
Page-5
MITIGATION MEASURE
MONITORING
RESPONSIBILITY
MONITORING ACTIONS
MONITORING REPORTING/
RESPONSIBILITY
SCHEDULE
either accept the report or
require additional means to
reduce the amount of
exposed soil, such as
hydroseeding or planting
vegetation with irrigation,
in areas that are proposed
to be exposed for more
than 20 days with no
construction activity.
Construction shall comply
with the General
Construction Permit.
grading activities in a
construction log on a
daily basis and submit
results in a monthly
report to the Community
and Economic
Development Director.
• The project developers shall ensure that the
accumulation of mud or dirt is expeditiously removed
from adjacent public streets at least once every 24
hours when construction activities are occurring (the
use of dry rotary bushes is expressly prohibited except where preceded or accompanied by sufficient wetting
to limit the visible dust emissions).
Project Developers The construction foreman
or liaison shall establish
and implement a daily
street sweeping schedule
during construction
activities that involve
movement of soil.
The construction
foreman or liaison shall
monitor daily street
sweeping and provide a
daily log. Results shall be
submitted in a monthly
report to the Community
and Economic
Development Director.
Project Developer shall
provide a daily street
sweeping schedule prior to
the issuance of grading or
building permit, whichever
occurs first. Implement
measures throughout the
construction duration.
• The project developers shall use alternative-fuel
construction equipment, where feasible.
Project Developers Project Developers shall
consult with SJVAPCD to
identify feasible goals for
equipment use. These
goals shall be incorporated
into construction contracts.
The Project Developers
shall use alternative-fuel
construction equipment
throughout the
construction duration,
where feasible.
The Project Developers
shall report to the
Community and
Economic Development
Director the alternativefuel equipment to be
used in each phase.
Project Developer shall
provide a list of any
alternative equipment prior
to the issuance of grading or
building permit, whichever
occurs first. Implement
measures throughout the
construction duration.
#18..
- 896 -
4.0 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
Page-6
MITIGATION MEASURE
MONITORING
RESPONSIBILITY
MONITORING ACTIONS
MONITORING REPORTING/
RESPONSIBILITY
SCHEDULE
• The project developers shall minimize idling time (e.g., to a 10-minute maximum).
Project Developers The construction foreman
or liaison shall limit idling
time on the construction
site to a 10-minute
maximum.
The construction
foreman or liaison shall
monitor idling.
Implement measures
throughout the construction
duration.
• The project developers shall limit the hours of
operation of heavy-duty equipment and/or the
amount of equipment in use to the minimum practical.
Project Developers The construction foreman
or liaison shall limit the
hours of heavy-duty
equipment and/or the
amount of equipment in
use on the construction
site.
The construction
foreman or liaison shall
monitor hours and use of
heavy-duty equipment.
Implement measures
throughout the construction
duration.
• The project developers shall replace fossil-fueled
equipment with electrically driven equivalents
(provided they are not run via a portable generator
set), where feasible.
Project Developers Project Developers shall
incorporate requirements
to replace fossil-fueled
equipment with electrically
driven equivalents, where
feasible.
Project Developers shall
report to the Community
and Economic
Development Director
about electrically driven
equipment to be used in
each phase.
The Project Developers shall
use electrically driven
equipment throughout the
construction duration,
where feasible.
• The project developers shall take steps to curtail
construction activity during periods of high ambient
pollutants concentrations; this may include reducing
construction activity during the peak house of
vehicular traffic on adjacent roadways or ceasing
construction activity during days declared as Spare the Air days by the San Joaquin Valler Air Pollution Control District.
Project Developers The construction foreman
or liaison shall comply with
traffic control programs to
curtail construction
activities during periods of
high ambient pollutant
concentrations based on
advisories from the
SJVAPCD, such as on
declared ‘Spare the Air’
days.
The construction
foreman or liaison shall
curtail or cease
construction activity
based on SJVAPCD
advisories.
During advisory periods,
such as ‘Spare the Air’ days,
construction activity shall be
curtailed or stopped.
• The project developers shall implement activity
management to reduce cumulative short-term
impacts.
Project Developers Project Developers shall
submit and implement an
activity management plan.
Community and
Economic Development
Department shall review
Activity management plan
shall be submitted to and
approved prior to the
issuance of a grading or
#18..
- 897 -
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM 4.0
Page-7
MITIGATION MEASURE
MONITORING
RESPONSIBILITY
MONITORING ACTIONS
MONITORING REPORTING/
RESPONSIBILITY
SCHEDULE
the activity management
plan.
building permit, whichever
occurs first. Implement
measures throughout the
construction duration.
Mitigation Measure E.2a. The site design shall fulfill the following requirements to reduce emissions from motor
vehicle activity:
• The project developers shall incorporate
improvements for transit service, including bus
turnouts, transit loading areas, and shelters.
Project Developers Project Developers shall be
responsible for a plan for
bus turnouts, loading and
shelters along perimeter
streets to the Community
and Economic
Development Department.
The Transit Manager and
City Engineer shall
review and approve the
plan.
Review and approval of
transit service
improvements shall occur
before approval of each
Final Development Plan. All
improvements shall be
completed prior to
certificate of occupancy of
the first phase of
development or as
determined by the FMP and
IFP.
• The project developers shall incorporate sidewalks and bicycle paths throughout the site and connect those
facilities to any nearby pedestrian and bicycle facilities, including those located at open space areas, parks,
schools, or commercial areas.
Project Developers Project Developers shall
submit plans to the
Community and Economic
Development Department
that identify the
appropriate locations of all
pedestrian and bicycle
facilities elements and
implement the plans.
The Community and
Economic Development
Department shall review
the plans.
Review and designation of
pedestrian and bicycle
facilities shall occur before
approval of each Final
Development Plan. All
improvements shall be
completed prior to
certificate of occupancy of
each project.
• The project developers shall incorporate secure bicycle storage and parking facilities throughout the site.
Project Developers Project Developers shall
submit plans to the
Community and Economic
The Community and
Economic Development
Review of on-site bicycle
storage and parking facilities
shall occur before approval
#18..
- 898 -
4.0 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
Page-8
MITIGATION MEASURE
MONITORING
RESPONSIBILITY
MONITORING ACTIONS
MONITORING REPORTING/
RESPONSIBILITY
SCHEDULE
Development Department
that identify all the bicycle
storage and parking
facilities on the project site
and implement the plans.
Department shall review
the plans.
of each Final Development
Plan. All improvements shall
be completed prior to
certificate of occupancy of
each project.
Mitigation Measure E.2b. The project developers shall
prepare a trip reduction plan to reduce emissions from
motor vehicle activity. The plan shall be reviewed and
approved by the City of Modesto prior to occupation of
each element of the proposed project. To be compliant with the policies of the Urban Area General Plan, the trip
reduction plan shall address how the following features would be implemented:
• Provision of matching services (for participants
in carpools and vanpools) by employers with
over 100 weekday employees or coordination
with Caltrans’ “Commuter Computer” program;
• Employer-based dissemination of commute
information;
• Employer subsidies for transit passes and
incorporation of transit stop facilities into site
design;
• A program to guarantee rideshare participants a
ride home in case of emergency;
• Flex-time scheduling;
• Site plan design which encourages pedestrian
movement between adjacent land uses;
• Incentives such as preferred location of 4
percent of parking for carpoolers and hybrid or
other clean-fuel vehicles; and
• Encouraging employers to experiment with
telecommuting options, where feasible.
Project Developers Project Developers shall
submit trip reduction plans,
and ensure, at a minimum,
that all of the required
elements are included in
the plan.
Project Developers shall
ensure that all measures
detailed in the trip
reduction plan are being
carried out.
The trip reduction plan
shall be submitted for
review and approval by
the Community and
Economic Development
Department prior to
certificate of occupancy
of each phase of the
project.
The Project Developers
shall submit status
results of the trip
reduction plan in an
annual report to the
Community and
Economic Development
Director.
The trip reduction plan shall
be submitted and approved
prior to certificate of
occupancy of each
applicable project.
Implement measures
according to the plan.
#18..
- 899 -
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM 4.0
Page-9
MITIGATION MEASURE
MONITORING
RESPONSIBILITY
MONITORING ACTIONS
MONITORING REPORTING/
RESPONSIBILITY
SCHEDULE
Mitigation Measure E.2c. The site design shall fulfill the following requirements to reduce emissions from energy
consumption:
• The project developers shall incorporate energy
efficient building design features including automated
control systems for heating and air conditioning and
overall energy efficiency at least 10 percent beyond the requirements of the California Energy Code (Title 24,
California Code of Regulations), using features such as increased wall and ceiling insulation beyond Energy
Code requirements, light colored roof materials to
reflect heat, and energy efficient lighting and lighting controls.
Project Developers Project Developers shall
submit construction
drawings showing energy
efficient building design
features and implement
the measures.
The Building Division
shall review and approve
all construction plans to
ensure that all required
energy efficiency
measures are included.
Prior to building permit
issuance of each project,
construction plans shall
show that all energy
efficient measures are
included. Implement
measures prior to certificate
of occupancy.
• The project developers shall design buildings with
windows and/or skylights oriented to maximize
natural cooling and heating in accordance with the
California Energy Commission’s 2005 Building Energy
Efficiency Standards.
Project Developers Project Developers shall
submit construction
drawings showing energy
efficient building design
features and implement
the measures.
The Building Division
shall review and approve
all construction plans to
ensure that all required
energy efficiency
measures are included.
Prior to building permit
issuance of each project,
construction plans shall
show that all energy
efficient measures are
included. Implement
measures prior to certificate
of occupancy.
• The project developers shall incorporate approved
deciduous trees to provide shade on the south- and
west-facing sides of buildings.
Project Developers Project Developers shall
submit site plans showing
shade trees on the southand west-facing sides of
buildings and implement
the plans.
The Department of
Parks, Recreation and
Neighborhoods shall
review and approve all
landscape plans.
Prior to building permit
issuance of each project,
landscape plans shall be
approved. Implement
measures prior to certificate
of occupancy.
CULTURAL RESOURCES
#18..
- 900 -
4.0 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
Page-10
MITIGATION MEASURE
MONITORING
RESPONSIBILITY
MONITORING ACTIONS
MONITORING REPORTING/
RESPONSIBILITY
SCHEDULE
Policy VII.F.3.[c]: Any project that involves earth-disturbing activities within previously undisturbed soils in an area determined to be archaeologically or culturally sensitive by the City of Modesto through consultation with Native
American tribes or bands and a qualified archaeologist
should be required to carry out the following mitigation measures, at a minimum:
1. If prehistoric archaeological remains are
discovered during project construction
(inadvertent discoveries), all work in the area of
the find shall cease, and a qualified archaeologist
should be retained by the project sponsor to
investigate the find, and make recommendations
as to treatment and mitigation. In the event of
the discovery of a burial, human bone, or
suspected human bone all excavation or grading
in the vicinity of the find should halt immediately
and the area of the find should be protected and
the project applicant immediately should notify
the County Coroner of the find and comply with
the provisions of California Health and Safety
Code Section 7050.5, including California Public
Resources Code Section 5097.98, if applicable. If
human remains are identified, the project
sponsor should also retain a Native American
monitor;
2. A qualified archaeological monitor should be
present and should have the authority to stop
and redirect grading activities, in consultation
with the Native Americans and their designated
monitors, to evaluate the significance of any
Native American archaeological resources
discovered on the property;
3. Native American monitors from the appropriate
Native American Tribes, as determined by the
NAHC should be allowed to monitor all
groundbreaking activities, including all
Project developers Project developers shall
notify the City of Modesto
if any cultural resources,
including prehistoric or
historic artifacts, or other
indications of
archaeological resources
are found during grading
and construction activities
City of Modesto through
consultation with Native
American tribes or bands
and a qualified
archaeologist
During grading and
construction activities.
#18..
- 901 -
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM 4.0
Page-11
MITIGATION MEASURE
MONITORING
RESPONSIBILITY
MONITORING ACTIONS
MONITORING REPORTING/
RESPONSIBILITY
SCHEDULE
archaeological testing and data recovery
excavations that are likely to affect Native
American resources, as determined by a qualified
archaeologist. The project proponent should be
responsible for compensating Native American
monitors. If human remains are discovered, the
NAHC should assign a Most Likely Descendent
(MLD); and,
4. The landowner agrees to relinquish ownership of
all Native American human remains and
associated burial artifacts that are found within
the project area, to the appropriate Native
American MLD, as assigned by the NAHC, for
proper treatment and disposition. The MLD will
decide whether or not standard archaeological
analysis will be allowed on human remains and
associated artifacts from burials.
5. If paleontological resources are discovered
during earth-moving activities, the construction
crew shall immediately cease work in the vicinity
of the find, and the City’s Planning Manager shall
be notified. A qualified paleontologist shall
evaluate the resource and prepare a proposed
mitigation plan in accordance with Society of
Vertebrate Paleontology guidelines. The
proposed mitigation plan may include a field
survey of additional construction areas, sampling
and data recovery procedures, museum storage
coordination for any specimen recovered, and a
report of findings. Recommendations determined
by the lead agency to be necessary and feasible
shall be implemented before construction
activities can resume at the site where the
paleontological resources were discovered.
#18..
- 902 -
4.0 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
Page-12
MITIGATION MEASURE
MONITORING
RESPONSIBILITY
MONITORING ACTIONS
MONITORING REPORTING/
RESPONSIBILITY
SCHEDULE
GEOLOGY, SOILS, AND SEISMICITY
Mitigation Measure J.1: In locations underlain by
expansive soils and/or non-engineered fill, the designers of foundations and improvements (including sidewalks, roads, and utilities) shall consider these conditions. The designlevel geotechnical investigation, to be prepared by licensed professionals and approved by the City Building
Department, shall include measures to ensure potential
damages related to expansive soils and non-uniformly
compacted fill are minimized. Mitigation options may
range from removal of the problematic soils and
replacement, as needed, with properly conditioned and
compacted fill, to design and construction of improvements to withstand the forces exerted during the expected shrink swell cycles and settlements.
Project Developers Project Developers shall
retain a licensed
professional to prepare a
geotechnical report and
implement the measures
Building Division shall
review and approve the
site specific grading
plans.
The geotechnical report shall
be prepared and approved
prior to the issuance of
grading or building permit,
whichever occurs first.
Implement recommended
measures during
construction.
Mitigation Measure J.2. Prior to issuance of a grading
permit, a site-specific grading plan shall be prepared by a licensed professional and submitted to the City Building Department for review and approval. The plan shall include specific recommendations for mitigating potential
settlement associated with fill placement and areas of
different fill thickness.
Project Developers Project Developers shall
retain a licensed
professional to prepare
site-specific grading plans
and implement the plans
Building Division shall
review and approve the
site specific grading
plans.
The site specific grading plan
shall be prepared and
approved prior to issuance of
a grading permit.
Implement recommended
measures during
construction.
HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
Mitigation Measure G.2: Conduct remaining Phase I
Environmental Site Assessments, conduct site
investigations, and implement remediation as necessary.
Project Developers Project Developers shall
retain a registered
environmental assessor to
conduct Phase I
Environmental Site
Assessments on properties
where the assessment was
not previously prepared
The Community and
Economic Development
Department shall review
and approve the Phase I
Environmental Site
Assessments.
Conduct Phase I
Environmental Site
Assessments prior to
issuance of grading or
building permit, whichever
occurs first. Remediation
shall be implemented prior
to issuance of grading or
#18..
- 903 -
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM 4.0
Page-13
MITIGATION MEASURE
MONITORING
RESPONSIBILITY
MONITORING ACTIONS
MONITORING REPORTING/
RESPONSIBILITY
SCHEDULE
and implement the
remediation.
building permit or as
determined by the Phase I
ESA.
HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
Mitigation Measure I.1: The proponent shall prepare a
SWPPP for each development project under the specific
plan (or one Master SWPPP for all development) designed to reduce potential impacts to surface water quality
through the construction period of all of the project
components (whether or not the particular portion of the projects disturbs more than one acre). The SWPPP shall
emphasize measures designed to minimize erosion and offsite sedimentation.
Project Developers Project Developers shall
prepare and implement
SWPPP
The City Engineer shall
review the SWPPP
Complete the SWPPP prior to
issuance of a grading or
building permit, whichever
occurs first, for each project.
SWPPP measures shall be
implemented during grading
and construction for each
project.
Mitigation Measure I.2: The City shall ensure that
development under the proposed project meets all the
requirements of the current Municipal NPDES Permit
(NPDES Permit No. R5-2003-0132 as amended by Order No.
R5-2002-0182) for operation-phase water quality
treatment.
Project Developers Project Developers shall
prepare a site drainage
plan or require
construction contractor to
prepare plan. Implement
plan.
City Engineer shall
review and approve
drainage plans.
Drainage plan shall be
prepared prior to issuance of
a grading permit and shall be
implemented during grading
and construction for each
project.
Mitigation Measure I.3a: As a condition of approval of the final grading and drainage plans for the first project
proposed in the plan area, the developer must acquire
written approval from the MID to discharge runoff to the MID Main Canal (up to 5.0 cfs), and provide this
documentation to the City of Modesto Public Works
Department.
Project Developers Project Developers shall be
responsible for plans to
discharge runoff to the MID
Main Canal. The developer
must acquire written
approval from the MID or
the City of Modesto and
Modesto Irrigation District
must enter into an
agreement to discharge
water in to the MID Main
Canal.
City Engineer shall
coordinate the
agreement with MID and
develop an alternative
design if necessary
Securing MID approval to
discharge runoff into the
MID Main Canal shall be
completed and implemented
or an approved alternative
design shall be implemented
prior to approval of the first
final grading and drainage
plans or as determined by
the FMP and IFP
#18..
- 904 -
4.0 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
Page-14
MITIGATION MEASURE
MONITORING
RESPONSIBILITY
MONITORING ACTIONS
MONITORING REPORTING/
RESPONSIBILITY
SCHEDULE
Alternative stormwater
drainage design must be
approved if MID approval is
not obtained.
Mitigation Measure I.3b: As a condition of approval of the final grading and drainage plans for all projects proposed. • Include adequately sized detention facilities to
accommodate anticipated runoff associated with
the 100-year storm event. A licensed professional
engineer shall prepare the final drainage plan for
the project and plans must be submitted to the
City of Modesto Public Works for review and
approval.
• Include drainage components that are designed
in compliance with City of Modesto standards.
The grading and drainage plans shall be reviewed
for compliance with these requirements by the
Department of Public Works; and
• • Establish a funding mechanism for
maintenance and annual inspections of the
detention basin, drainage ditches, and drainage
inlets. Any accumulation of sediment or other
debris shall be promptly removed. An annual
report documenting the inspection and any
remedial action conducted shall be submitted to
the City of Modesto Public Works Department for
review.
Project Developers Prepare site drainage plan
or require construction
contractor to prepare plan.
Project Developers shall
implement plan
City Engineer The final grading and
drainage plans shall be
approved prior to issuance of
a grading permit and shall be
implemented prior to
acceptance of improvements
or issuance of building
permit, whichever occurs
first, or where appropriate as
determined by the FMP and
IFP.
An alternative temporary
retention basin may be
considered for regional
commercial development.
Mitigation Measure I.4: The TSP project proponent shall:
• Design and construct the proposed on-site
development so that the sheet flow flooding
generated from the upstream watershed that can
Project Developers Prepare site drainage plan
or require construction
contractor to prepare plan.
Project Developers shall
implement plan. Project
City Engineer The final grading and
drainage plans shall be
approved prior to issuance of
a grading permit and shall be
implemented prior to
#18..
- 905 -
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM 4.0
Page-15
MITIGATION MEASURE
MONITORING
RESPONSIBILITY
MONITORING ACTIONS
MONITORING REPORTING/
RESPONSIBILITY
SCHEDULE
occur in the region will be safely passed through
the proposed development. These flows shall be
contained within the streets and be dispersed on
the downstream side of the project site in a
manner that does not concentrate or increase the
flows, ensuring that the potential for increased
erosion or flooding downstream is minimized.
• Ensure that finished floor elevations of all
residential, commercial, and industrial structures
be a minimum of one foot above the elevation of
100-year sheetflood.
• Contribute their fair share of the cost to design
and construct the proposed northeast flood
control solution.
Developers shall contribute
fair share of infrastructure
costs into a fund.
acceptance of improvements
or certificate of occupancy,
whichever occurs first.
Mitigation Measure I.8: Prior to approval of a grading plan for development of a particular parcel of the Specific Plan area, a well survey shall be conducted to determine the location and characteristics of each well for that particular parcel.
Project Developers Project Developers shall
conduct a well survey to
determine location and
characteristics of each well.
The survey shall be
conducted by a state
registered geologist or
engineer, and results shall
be submitted to the City
Engineer and implemented
by the developers.
The City Engineer shall
review the well survey
and determine whether
the well be abandoned
or sealed.
The well survey shall be
conducted prior to approval
of a grading permit for
development of the Specific
Plan area and shall be
implemented prior to
certificate of occupancy.
TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES
Policy VII.F.3.[c]: Any project that involves earth-disturbing activities within previously undisturbed soils in an area determined to be archaeologically or culturally sensitive by the City of Modesto through consultation with Native
American tribes or bands and a qualified archaeologist
Project developers Project developers shall
notify the City of Modesto
if any cultural resources,
including prehistoric or
historic artifacts, or other
City of Modesto through
consultation with Native
American tribes or bands
During grading and
construction activities.
#18..
- 906 -
4.0 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
Page-16
MITIGATION MEASURE
MONITORING
RESPONSIBILITY
MONITORING ACTIONS
MONITORING REPORTING/
RESPONSIBILITY
SCHEDULE
should be required to carry out the following mitigation measures, at a minimum:
1. If prehistoric archaeological remains are
discovered during project construction
(inadvertent discoveries), all work in the area of
the find shall cease, and a qualified archaeologist
should be retained by the project sponsor to
investigate the find, and make recommendations
as to treatment and mitigation. In the event of
the discovery of a burial, human bone, or
suspected human bone all excavation or grading
in the vicinity of the find should halt immediately
and the area of the find should be protected and
the project applicant immediately should notify
the County Coroner of the find and comply with
the provisions of California Health and Safety
Code Section 7050.5, including California Public
Resources Code Section 5097.98, if applicable. If
human remains are identified, the project
sponsor should also retain a Native American
monitor;
2. A qualified archaeological monitor should be
present and should have the authority to stop
and redirect grading activities, in consultation
with the Native Americans and their designated
monitors, to evaluate the significance of any
Native American archaeological resources
discovered on the property;
3. Native American monitors from the appropriate
Native American Tribes, as determined by the
NAHC should be allowed to monitor all
groundbreaking activities, including all
archaeological testing and data recovery
excavations that are likely to affect Native
American resources, as determined by a qualified
archaeologist. The project proponent should be
responsible for compensating Native American
monitors. If human remains are discovered, the
indications of
archaeological resources
are found during grading
and construction activities
and a qualified
archaeologist
#18..
- 907 -
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM 4.0
Page-17
MITIGATION MEASURE
MONITORING
RESPONSIBILITY
MONITORING ACTIONS
MONITORING REPORTING/
RESPONSIBILITY
SCHEDULE
NAHC should assign a Most Likely Descendent
(MLD); and,
4. The landowner agrees to relinquish ownership of
all Native American human remains and
associated burial artifacts that are found within
the project area, to the appropriate Native
American MLD, as assigned by the NAHC, for
proper treatment and disposition. The MLD will
decide whether or not standard archaeological
analysis will be allowed on human remains and
associated artifacts from burials.
If paleontological resources are discovered during earthmoving activities, the construction crew shall immediately cease work in the vicinity of the find, and the City’s Planning Manager shall be notified. A qualified paleontologist shall evaluate the resource and prepare a proposed mitigation plan in accordance with Society of Vertebrate Paleontology guidelines. The proposed mitigation plan may include a
field survey of additional construction areas, sampling and data recovery procedures, museum storage coordination
for any specimen recovered, and a report of findings.
Recommendations determined by the lead agency to be
necessary and feasible shall be implemented before
construction activities can resume at the site where the paleontological resources were discovered.
UTILITIES AND SERVICES SYSTEMS
Mitigation Measure L.1. Prior to or concurrent with
development, the project sponsors and any project
applicants for future development in the Tivoli Specific Plan area shall install all on-site collection system improvements which are necessary to serve the development. Prior to
issuance of a building permit, the project applicants will be required to contribute toward their fair share of the
required off-site collection system improvements through Project Developers Project Developers shall be
responsible for installation
of on-site collection system
improvements and shall
contribute a fair share of
the costs to construct off
site collection system
improvements. Project
City Engineer shall
review and approve
infrastructure
improvements to ensure
that the City’s Standard
Specifications are
incorporated.
All improvements shall be
completed prior to issuance
of the first building permit of
Phase I or as determined by
the FMP and IFP.
#18..
- 908 -
4.0 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
Page-18
MITIGATION MEASURE
MONITORING
RESPONSIBILITY
MONITORING ACTIONS
MONITORING REPORTING/
RESPONSIBILITY
SCHEDULE
payment of future capacity charges, as adopted by the City or through an equivalent funding measure. In addition,
prior to or concurrent with development, the project
developers shall fund and install all off-site infrastructure which are necessary to serve the development.
Developers shall fund and
construct all off-site
infrastructure necessary to
serve the project site.
Mitigation Measure L.2. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the project applicants will be required to contribute toward their fair share of the required wastewater
treatment and disposal facilities through payment of future capacity charges, as adopted by the City, or through an equivalent funding measure. In addition, the City cannot commence tertiary treatment without a new NPDES permit
from the RWQCB. The RWQCB is encouraged to issue the
new NPDES permit in a manner that would allow for
successful implementation of the City’s proposed tertiary treatment. While the City is optimistic that an appropriate NPDES permit will eventually be issued, this action is
beyond the City’s jurisdiction and control and therefore the City cannot assure that the necessary treatment and
disposal infrastructure will be permitted prior to
development.
Project Developers
and City of Modesto
City of Modesto shall
ensure that Project
Developers contribute a
fair share of the costs to
construct wastewater
treatment and disposal
system improvements. City
of Modesto shall be
responsible for obtaining a
new NPDES permit.
Department of Public
Works
Prior to issuance of any
building permit
Mitigation Measure M.2. In order to maintain adequate
water pressure in the City’s delivery system, it would be necessary to install two new wells that would have a
combined capability to meet or exceed the project’s peakhour demand of 2,160 gallons per minute and maximumday demand of approximately 6.57 af/day. One well must be fully developed and operational by the time of the initial project development. The second well must be provided
and operational during the second phase of development
or as determined by the City of Modesto.
Project Developers Project Developers shall be
responsible for
providing/funding the
wells. Wells are installed by
the City of Modesto
The City Engineer shall
review and approve the
proposed wells.
First well to be developed
and operational prior to the
issuance of the first building
permit of the first phase of
development or as
determined by the FMP and
IFP.
Second well to be developed
and operational prior to or
concurrent with the
issuance of the first building
permit of the second phase
#18..
- 909 -
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM 4.0
Page-19
MITIGATION MEASURE
MONITORING
RESPONSIBILITY
MONITORING ACTIONS
MONITORING REPORTING/
RESPONSIBILITY
SCHEDULE
of development or as
determined by the FMP and
IFP.
#18..
- 910 -
4.0 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
Page-20
TABLE MMRP-2: NEW MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
MITIGATION MEASURE
MONITORING
RESPONSIBILITY
MONITORING
ACTIONS
MONITORING
REPORTING/
RESPONSIBILITY
SCHEDULE
NOISE
Mitigation Measure NOI-1: The following measures shall be incorporated into the Project on-site construction operations:
• Noise-generating construction activities within the Project area shall adhere to the time restrictions of the City of Modesto General Plan to the maximum extent feasible. • All noise-producing Project equipment and vehicles using internal-combustion engines shall be equipped with manufacturers-recommended mufflers and be maintained in good working condition. • All mobile or fixed noise-producing equipment used on the Project site that are regulated for noise output by a federal, state, or local agency shall comply with such regulations while in the course of Project activity. • Material stockpiles and mobile equipment staging, parking, and maintenance areas shall be located as far as practicable from the existing residences to the north.
• Project area and site access road speed limits shall be established and enforced during the construction period.
• In the event that unusual circumstances or emergencies prevent certain Project construction activities from complying with the Modesto requirements, then a noise control plan shall be developed to ensure that sufficient mitigation is implemented during Project construction to ensure adverse noise impacts are avoided.
• Notification of construction hours and durations shall be provided to the existing residences to the north of the project site.
Project
Developers
Project
Developers shall
incorporate
sound
mitigation
measures
City of Modesto
Community
Development
Division
Prior to issuance
of building permits
Mitigation Measure NOI-2: The following measures shall be incorporated into the design:
• A solid noise barrier measuring 7 feet in height relative to backyard elevation should be constructed adjacent to the residences abutting Oakdale Road. The noise barrier locations are shown on Figure 2 in the Environmental Noise Assessment (Bollard 2024). (See Appendix C in the Initial Study for this figure). • The traffic noise barrier could take the form of masonry wall, earthen berm, or a combination of the two.
Other materials may be acceptable but should be reviewed by an acoustical consultant prior to use. • All north, west, and south-facing second-floor windows of residences proposed adjacent to Oakdale Road shall have a minimum Sound Transmission Class (STC) rating of 32. Figure 2 shows the residences where this mitigation measure would apply. (See Appendix C in the Initial Study for this figure).
Project
Developers
Project
Developers shall
incorporate
sound
mitigation
measures
City of Modesto
Community
Development
Division
Prior to issuance
of building permits
#18..
- 911 -
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM 4.0
Page-21
MITIGATION MEASURE
MONITORING
RESPONSIBILITY
MONITORING
ACTIONS
MONITORING
REPORTING/
RESPONSIBILITY
SCHEDULE
• Air conditioning shall be provided for all residences of this development to allow occupants to close doors and windows as desired for acoustic isolation.
Mitigation Measure NOI-3: The following shall be incorporated into the design:
• All west, south and east-facing second-floor windows of residences proposed adjacent to the southern site boundary where commercial development would occur in the future (plus 2 lots to the east), shall have a minimum Sound Transmission Class (STC) rating of 32. Figure 2 shows the residences where this mitigation measure would apply. (See Appendix C in the Initial Study for this figure).
Project
Developers
Project
Developers shall
incorporate
sound
mitigation
measures
City of Modesto
Community
Development
Division
Prior to issuance
of building permits
#18..
- 912 -
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM 4.0
Page-22
This page left intentionally blank.
#18..
- 913 -
#18..
- 914 -
#18..
- 915 -
#18..
- 916 -
#18..
- 917 -
#18..
- 918 -
CITY OF MODESTO
COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
DATE OF MEETING:
May 13, 2025
Date: April 14, 2025
TO: Mayor and City Council
THROUGH: Joseph P. Lopez, City Manager
FROM: Jessica Hill, Community and Economic Development Director SUBJECT: Development Agreement by and between City of Modesto and DASCO Olivewood LLC regarding Area Plan No. 6 of the Tivoli Specific Plan CONTACT: Katharine Martin, Senior Planner,
[email protected] 209-577-5465
DESCRIPTION:
Hearing to consider the adoption of a proposed Development Agreement between the City of Modesto and DASCO Olivewood LLC regarding Area Plan No. 6 of the Tivoli Specific Plan. (Funding Source: Developer Funded)
STRATEGIC PLAN ELEMENT:
The recommended action supports the City’s 2020-2025 Strategic Plan Goal E:
“Economic Vitality” Area of Focus by attracting residential development and associated infrastructure to support the community’s housing needs today and in the future.
BACKGROUND:
The 454-acre Tivoli Specific Plan, bounded by the future Claratina Avenue to the north, Sylvan Avenue to the south, Oakdale Road to the west, and Roselle Avenue to the east, was adopted by the City Council on February 26, 2008 by Ordinance No. 3479-C.S. The Specific Plan provides for uses including commercial, school, parks, and residential development of a variety of densities as outlined by the land use diagram and development standards of the Specific Plan. The Tivoli Specific Plan is divided into multiple Area Plans. Each Area Plan ensures that the street circulation, utility infrastructure, land use, density, and project design will conform to the principles of the Specific Plan, and requires adoption by the Planning Commission prior to development.
The Specific Plan also provides for Planning Commission consideration of small-lot residential development proposals, through a Final Development Plan.
On October 19, 2021, Mid Valley Engineering Inc. (MVE, Inc.) submitted an application for Tivoli Area Plan No. 6, a 58-acre portion of the Specific Plan bounded by McReynolds Avenue to the west, Roselle Avenue to the east, and Sylvan Avenue to the south. The application also includes a Final Development Plan and Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map (“VTSM”) to divide a 9.41-acre portion of Area Plan No. 6 into 74 small- #19..
- 919 -
City Council, May 13, 2025
Development Agreement by and between City of Modesto and DASCO Olivewood LLC regarding Area Plan No. 6 of the Tivoli Specific Plan
lot single-family residential lots, 17 landscape/paseo lots, 12 common driveway and utility easement lots, and one Remainder lot containing an existing residence that is located on Roselle Avenue.
On October 6, 2023, the Applicant applied for a Development Agreement, to facilitate development of the proposed VTSM, in particular for the installation of a roundabout at the intersection of McReynolds Avenue and future “Street C” of the VTSM. Additionally, the Development Agreement allows the VTSM to be valid for ten years.
DISCUSSION:
Development Agreement: On October 6, 2023, the Applicant filed an application for a Development Agreement (“Agreement”). The Agreement outlines the responsibilities of both parties and timelines for development, with a ten-year development schedule. Of note are the provisions in the Agreement for the procurement of street right-of-way and installation of a roundabout at the intersection of McReynolds Avenue and future “Street C” of the VTSM, with approval of the roundabout design to be approved by the City Engineer prior to recordation of a Final Map, and installation to be complete either before issuance of the 65th building permit for a single-family residence within the subdivision or the first building permit for any lot that backs up to McReynolds Avenue. However, the Agreement provides that the applicant is excused from constructing the roundabout if it requires acquisition of right-of-way from third party property owners, and neither the City nor Developer are able to obtain the right-of-way after good faith efforts. The term of the Agreement is proposed for ten years from its effective date unless terminated sooner, and all entitlements for the project would need to be vested during that time.
FISCAL IMPACT:
All entitlement fees for this item have been paid by the Applicant in accordance with the fee schedule adopted by the City Council. In addition, the project will be subject to all applicable adopted development impact fees prior to building permit issuance to offset the City’s fiscal impact of development.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION:
This item comes to the City Council from the Planning Commission, who at their regularly scheduled hearing on April 21, 2025, approved the abovementioned VTSM, Area Plan, and Final Development Plan for the Olivewood project, and considered the proposed Development Agreement, recommending approval by the City Council.
CEQA/NEPA REQUIREMENTS:
The project was previously studied by the Tivoli Specific Plan Final EIR (SCH No. 2005072125), certified by the City Council on February 26, 2008 by Resolution No. 2008-141.
Staff has prepared an Initial Study, Environmental Assessment No. EA/C&ED 2024-05, which concluded that the potential environmental effects of the proposed project have been adequately addressed within the context of the Tivoli Specific Plan Final EIR.
Although the proposed overall project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in the Tivoli #19..
- 920 -
City Council, May 13, 2025
Development Agreement by and between City of Modesto and DASCO Olivewood LLC regarding Area Plan No. 6 of the Tivoli Specific Plan
Specific Plan Final EIR, pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to the Final EIR, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, that pursuant to Section 15182 of the CEQA Guidelines, no new environmental review is required.
RECOMMENDED COUNCIL ACTION:
Staff Recommendations:
Resolution approving that the following subsequent project is within the scope of the Tivoli Specific Plan Final Environmental Impact Report (SCH 2005072125):
Development Agreement by and between the City of Modesto and DASCO Olivewood LLC regarding Area Plan No. 6 of the Tivoli Specific Plan.
Motion introducing and waiving the first reading of an Ordinance approving a Development Agreement by and between the City of Modesto and DASCO Olivewood LLC regarding Area Plan No. 6 of the Tivoli Specific Plan. (DASCO Olivewood LLC and City of Modesto)
Approved by:
Jessica Hill, Director of C&ED
Joseph P. Lopez, City Manager
Attachments:
1. Resolution
2. City Council Ordinance
3. Development Agreement
4. Financial Interest Disclosure Form
5. Levine Act Form
#19..
- 921 -
05/13/2025/CED/JHill/Item# 1 2025-
MODESTO CITY COUNCIL
RESOLUTION NO. 2025-XX
RESOLUTION APPROVING THAT THE FOLLOWING SUBSEQUENT
PROJECT IS WITHIN THE SCOPE OF THE TIVOLI SPECIFIC PLAN FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (SCH NO. 2005072125):
DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF MODESTO AND
DASCO OLIVEWOOD LLC REGARDING AREA PLAN NO. 6 OF THE TIVOLI
SPECIFIC PLAN
WHEREAS, on February 26, 2008, by Resolution 2008-141, City Council of the City of Modesto certified the Final Environmental Impact Report (“Final EIR”) (SCH No. 2005072125) for the Tivoli Specific Plan, and
WHEREAS, DASCO Olivewood LLC has proposed a new Development Agreement regarding Area Plan No. 6 of the Tivoli Specific Plan, and WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 21157.1 of the Public Resources Code, the City of Modesto’s Community & Economic Development Department prepared an Environmental Assessment Initial Study EA/C&ED 2024-05 (“Initial Study”) which analyzed whether the subsequent project may cause any significant effect on the environment that was not examined in the Tivoli Final EIR and whether the subsequent project was described in the Tivoli Final EIR as being within the scope of the report, and
WHEREAS, in accordance with CEQA guidelines beginning on April 20, 2025, the City caused to be published a 20-day notice of the City’s intent to make a finding that the subsequent project conforms with the Tivoli Final EIR, and WHEREAS, said matter was considered by the City Council at a duly noticed public hearing which was held on May 13, 2025, at 5:30 p.m., in the Tenth Street Place Chambers located at 1010 Tenth Street, Modesto, California. #19..
- 922 -
05/13/2025/CED/JHill/Item# 2 2025-
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Modesto that the Council has reviewed and considered the Initial Study prepared for the proposed Development Agreement, a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit “A”, and incorporated herein by reference, and based on substantial evidence in the Initial Study makes the following findings:
1. An Initial Study was prepared by the City of Modesto that analyzed whether the subsequent project may cause any significant effect on the environment that was not examined in the Tivoli Final EIR and whether the subsequent project was described in the Final EIR as being within the scope of the report.
2. The Initial Study, Environmental Assessment No. EA/C&ED 2024-05, found that although the overall project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in the Tivoli Specific Plan Final EIR, pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to the Final EIR, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, that pursuant to Section 15182 of the CEQA Guidelines, no new environmental review is required.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Modesto that the Community & Economic Development Director is hereby authorized and directed to file a notice of approval or determination within five (5) business days with the Stanislaus County Clerk pursuant to Section 21152 of the Public Resources Code. #19..
- 923 -
05/13/2025/CED/JHill/Item# 3 2025-
The foregoing resolution was introduced at a regular meeting of the Council of the City of Modesto held on the 13th day of May 2025, by Councilmember , who moved its adoption, which motion being duly seconded by Councilmember , was upon roll call carried and the resolution adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Councilmembers:
NOES: Councilmembers:
ABSENT: Councilmembers:
ATTEST: ________________________________
DIANE NAYARES-PEREZ, CMC,
City Clerk
(SEAL)
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
BY: ___________________________________________
JOSE M. SANCHEZ, City Attorney
#19..
- 924 -
05/13/2025/CED/JHill/Item# 4 2025-
EXHIBIT A
Initial Study
EA/C&ED 2024-05
#19..
- 925 -
- 1 - ORDINANCE NO. 3795-C.S.
EFFECTIVE DATE: July 3, 2025
ORDINANCE NO. 3795-C.S.
AN ORDINANCE APPROVING A DEVELOPMENT
AGREEMENT BY AND BETWEEN THE CITY OF MODESTO
AND DASCO OLIVEWOOD LLC REGARDING AREA PLAN NO.
6 OF THE TIVOLI SPECIFIC PLAN (DASCO OLIVEWOOD LLC
AND CITY OF MODESTO)
WHEREAS, Government Code Section 65864, et seq., authorizes the City to enter into binding development agreements with any person or persons having a legal or equitable interest in real property for the development of such property and authorizes the City to establish procedures for the application and consideration of such agreements, and WHEREAS, by City Council Resolution No. 97-492, adopted on August 26, 1997, the City Council has established procedures and requirements for the consideration of development agreements; and
WHEREAS, by City Council Resolution No. 2011-075, adopted on March 8, 2011, the City Council modified said procedures and requirements for the consideration of development agreements; and
WHEREAS, an application for Planning Commission consideration and approval of Tivoli Area Plan No. 6, located at the northwest corner of Sylvan Avenue and Roselle Avenue was filed by Mid Valley Engineering on October 19, 2021 and revised on May 18, 2022 in accordance with Section 9.4.1 of the Tivoli Specific Plan; and WHEREAS, said application was made concurrently with an application for Final Development Plan (Project ID: FDP-21-003) and a Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map “Olivewood” (Project ID: TSM-21-006) to divide 9.41 acres into 74 small-lot singlefamily residential lots, 17 landscape/paseo lots, 12 common driveway and utility #19..
- 926 -
- 2 - ORDINANCE NO. 3795-C.S.
EFFECTIVE DATE: July 3, 2025
easement lots, and one Remainder lot within Area Plan No. 6, located between McReynolds Avenue and Roselle Avenue, north of Sylvan Avenue; and WHEREAS, on October 6, 2023, DASCO Olivewood, LLC applied for a Development Agreement with the City in order to facilitate the development of the Olivewood project, in particular off-site improvements including the installation of a roundabout at the intersection of McReynolds Avenue and future “Street C” of the Olivewood Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map, attached hereto and referenced as Exhibit “A”; and
WHEREAS, a public hearing was scheduled for the May 6, 2024 Planning Commission meeting, and after the publication of the public hearing notice for the above hearing, the developer submitted a revised Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map for review by staff and outside agencies, and as a result Planning staff requested that the hearing be continued to the May 20, 2024 Planning Commission meeting; and WHEREAS, to allow for additional time to review the revised Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map, at the May 20, 2024 Planning Commission meeting, Planning staff requested that the matter be continued to the June 3, 2024 Planning Commission meeting, for which the Commission made a motion to continue the item to the June 3, 2024 hearing; and
WHEREAS, on May 29, 2024 Planning staff received a request from the developer for continuance of the matter to a date uncertain, for which the Commission made a motion at the June 3, 2024 hearing to continue the matter to a date uncertain; and WHEREAS, on October 28, 2024, the developer submitted a revised Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map for review by staff and outside agencies, and based on #19..
- 927 -
- 3 - ORDINANCE NO. 3795-C.S.
EFFECTIVE DATE: July 3, 2025
comments provided, the developer submitted a revised Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map on February 7, 2025; and
WHEREAS, a duly noticed public hearing was held by the Planning Commission of the City of Modesto on April 21, 2025 in the Tenth Street Place Chambers located at 1010 10th Street, Modesto, California, for the purpose of considering the abovementioned Area Plan No. 6, Final Development Plan and Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map, and making a recommendation to the City Council concerning the proposed Development Agreement, at which hearing evidence both oral and documentary was received and considered, and
WHEREAS, after said public hearing, the Modesto City Planning Commission, by Resolutions No. 2025-xx, 2025-xx and 2025-xx, adopted on April 21, 2025, approved the abovementioned Area Plan No. 6, Final Development Plan, and Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map of the Olivewood project, and
WHEREAS, by Resolution No. 2025-xx, also adopted on April 21, 2025, the Modesto City Planning Commission recommended to the City Council approval of the proposed Development Agreement by and between the City of Modesto and DASCO Olivewood LLC regarding Area Plan No. 6 of the Tivoli Specific Plan, because the proposed Development Agreement is consistent with the goals, objectives, policies, standards, programs and uses in the General Plan and Tivoli Specific Plan of the City of Modesto because the resulting development would be consistent with the Tivoli Specific Plan in land use and intensity; the proposed Development Agreement is consistent with the specific content and other requirements of City Council Resolution No. 97-492, the City’s subdivision and zoning provisions of the Modesto Municipal Code, and #19..
- 928 -
- 4 - ORDINANCE NO. 3795-C.S.
EFFECTIVE DATE: July 3, 2025
Government Code Section 65864 et se.; as per Sections 15162, 15168(c) and 15182 of the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") Guidelines, this project is within the scope of the projects covered by the Tivoli Specific Plan Final EIR and no new environmental document or findings are required by CEQA; and WHEREAS, said matter was set for a public hearing of the City Council to be held at 5:30 p.m., on May 13, 2025, in the City Council Chambers, City Hall, 1010 - 10th Street, Modesto, California, at which date and time said duly noticed public hearing of the Council was held for the purpose of considering the proposed Development Agreement by and between the City and DASCO Olivewood LLC regarding Area Plan No. 6 of the Tivoli Specific Plan; and
WHEREAS, Section 65867.5 of the Government Code provides that a development agreement is a legislative act which shall be approved by ordinance and is subject to referendum; and
WHEREAS, said Government Code section further provides that a development agreement shall not be approved unless the legislative body finds that the provisions of the agreement are consistent with the general plan and any applicable specific plan.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED the Council of the City of Modesto does ordain as follows:
SECTION 1. FINDINGS. The Council of the City of Modesto hereby finds and determines as follows:
1. The Development Agreement is consistent with the goals, objectives, policies, standards, programs and uses in the General Plan and Tivoli Specific Plan of the City of Modesto because the resulting development would be consistent with the Tivoli Specific Plan in land use and intensity.
#19..
- 929 -
- 5 - ORDINANCE NO. 3795-C.S.
EFFECTIVE DATE: July 3, 2025
2. The proposed Development Agreement is consistent with the specific content and other requirements of City Council Resolution No. 97-492, the City’s subdivision and zoning provisions of the Modesto Municipal Code, and Government Code Section 65864 et se.
3. As per Sections 15162, 15168(c) and 15182 of the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") Guidelines, this project is within the scope of the projects covered by the Tivoli Specific Plan Final EIR and no new environmental document or findings are required by CEQA.
SECTION 2. APPROVAL OF DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT. The
Development Agreement between DASCO Olivewood LLC and City, is hereby approved. A copy of which is on file in the Office of the City Clerk.
SECTION 3. EXECUTION BY CITY. The City of Modesto, a municipal corporation, has authorized the execution of the Development Agreement by its City Manager and attestation by its City Clerk on behalf of the City of Modesto.
SECTION 4. RECORDING OF AGREEMENT. Pursuant to Government Code Section 65868.5, no later than ten (10) days after the effective date of this Ordinance, the City clerk is hereby directed to record with the County Recorder a copy of the Development Agreement which shall describe the land subject thereto.
SECTION 5. EFFECTIVE DATE. This ordinance shall go into effect and be in full force and operation from and after thirty (30) days after its final passage and adoption.
SECTION 6. PUBLICATION. At least two (2) days prior to its final adoption, copies of this ordinance shall be posted in at least three (3) prominent and distinct locations in the City; and a notice shall be published once in The Modesto Bee, the #19..
- 930 -
- 6 - ORDINANCE NO. 3795-C.S.
EFFECTIVE DATE: July 3, 2025
official newspaper of the City of Modesto, setting forth the title of this ordinance, the date of its introduction and the places where this ordinance is posted. #19..
- 931 -
- 7 - ORDINANCE NO. 3795-C.S.
EFFECTIVE DATE: July 3, 2025
The foregoing Ordinance was introduced at a regular meeting of the Council of the City of Modesto held on the 13th day of May 2025, by Councilmember ??, who moved its introduction and passage to print, which motion being duly seconded by Councilmember ??, was upon roll call carried and ordered printed and published by the following vote:
AYES: Councilmembers: Alvarez, Bavaro, Escutia-Braaton, Ricci, Williams, Wright, Mayor Zwahlen
NOES: Councilmembers: None
ABSENT: Councilmembers: None
APPROVED: _____________________________
SUE ZWAHLEN, Mayor
ATTEST:
By: _________________________________
DIANE NAYERES-PEREZ, City Clerk
(SEAL)
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
By: _________________________________
JOSE M. SANCHEZ, City Attorney
#19..
- 932 -
- 8 - ORDINANCE NO. 3795-C.S.
EFFECTIVE DATE: July 3, 2025
FINAL ADOPTION CLAUSE
The foregoing ordinance, having been published as required by the Charter of the City of Modesto, and coming on for final consideration at the regular meeting of the Council of the City of Modesto held on the 3rd day of June 2025, Councilmember ?? moved its final adoption, which motion being duly seconded by Councilmember ??, was upon roll call carried and the ordinance adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Councilmembers: Alvarez, Bavaro, Escutia-Braaton, Ricci, Williams, Wright, Mayor Zwahlen
NOES: Councilmembers: None
ABSENT: Councilmembers: None
APPROVED: ________________________
SUE ZWAHLEN, MAYOR
ATTEST: ___________________________________
DIANE NAYARES-PEREZ, City Clerk
Effective Date: July 3, 2025
#19..
- 933 -
5671899.1
RECORDING REQUESTED BY AND
WHEN RECORDED MAIL TO:
City of Modesto
1010 10th Street
PO Box 642
Modesto, CA 95342
Attn: Community Development Director
Exempt from Recording Fees
Pursuant to Government
Code Sections 6103 and 27383
______________________________________________________________________________ APN: 083-004-060 (Space Above This Line Reserved for Recorder’s Use Only) 083-004-059
DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT
BY AND BETWEEN
THE CITY OF MODESTO
AND
DASCO OLIVEWOOD, LLC
OLIVEWOOD SUBDIVISION
#19..
- 934 -
1 Development Agreement
Olivewood Subdivision
DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT
THIS DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT (this “Development Agreement” or this “Agreement”) is entered into as of ________________, 2025 (the “Agreement Date”) by and between the City of Modesto, a charter city (“City”), and DASCO Olivewood, LLC, a California Limited Liability Company (“Developer”). City and Developer are referred to individually as “Party,” and collectively as the “Parties.”
RECITALS
This Agreement is entered upon the basis of the following facts, understandings and intentions of City and Developer.
A. The lack of certainty in the approval of development projects can result in a waste of resources, escalate the cost of housing and other development, and discourage investment in and commitment to comprehensive planning that would make maximum efficient utilization of resources at the least economic cost to the public.
B. In order to strengthen the public planning process, encourage private participation in comprehensive planning and reduce the economic costs and risk of development, the Legislature of the State of California enacted Section 65864 et seq. of the Government Code (the “Development Agreement Legislation”), which authorizes City to enter into a development agreement for real property with any person having a legal or equitable interest in such property in order to establish certain development rights in the property. Pursuant to Government Code Section 65865(c), City has adopted procedures and requirements for the consideration of Development Agreements within the City.
C. The Developer is the owner of certain property located in the City, known as County Assessor’s Parcel Numbers 083-004-059 and 083-004-060 (the “Property”), as more particularly described in Exhibit A attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference.
D. Developer intends to construct a residential subdivision consisting of seventy-four (74) single family homes (the “Project”). Construction of the Project includes construction of a number of public improvements, including but not limited to a traffic roundabout located at the intersection of McReynolds and Street C of the Project’s tentative subdivision map.
E. The complexity, magnitude and long-range nature of the Project would be difficult for Developer to undertake if City had not determined, through this Development Agreement, to inject a sufficient degree of certainty in the land use regulatory process to justify the substantial financial investment associated with development of the Project. As a result of the execution of this Development Agreement, both Parties can be assured that the Project can proceed without disruption caused by a change in City planning and development policies and requirements, which assurance will thereby reduce the actual or perceived risk of planning, financing and proceeding with construction of the Project.
F. City has determined that by entering into this Development Agreement: (1) City will ensure the productive use of property and foster orderly growth and quality development in #19..
- 935 -
2 Development Agreement
Olivewood Subdivision
City; (2) development will proceed in accordance with the goals and policies set forth in the City of Modesto General Plan (the “General Plan”) and Tivoli Specific Plan (the “Specific Plan”) and will implement City’s stated General Plan and Specific Plan policies; (3) City will receive increased property tax revenues; and (4) City will benefit from increased housing for residents of City that are created by the Project.
G. Developer has applied for, and City has granted, the Project Approvals (as defined in Section 1.5) in order to protect the interests of its citizens in the quality of their community and environment.
H. On February 26, 2008, the City Council previously adopted Resolution #2008-141 certifying an environmental impact report for the Specific Plan entitled, “Tivoli Specific Plan Project Final Environmental Impact Report (SCH # 2005072125) (the “Tivoli Specific Plan EIR”), and adopting a Mitigation Monitoring and Report Program for the Project. The Project was contemplated by the Tivoli Specific Plan EIR. The City has determined that no circumstances exist that would require the preparation of a subsequent EIR for the Project pursuant to California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) Guidelines Section 15162.
I. City has also undertaken, pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (Public Resources Code Section 21000 et seq., hereinafter “CEQA”), the required analysis of the environmental effects that would be caused by the Project. Pursuant to the CEQA Guidelines, (Title 14 California Code of Regulations Section 15000 et seq.), the City Council has determined that the Project is within the scope of the Tivoli Specific Plan Final EIR and is exempt from further environmental review pursuant to CEQA Regulations 15162, 15168(c), and 15182 on ________________, 2025.
J. In addition to the Project Approvals, the Project may require various additional land use and construction approvals, termed Subsequent Approvals (as defined in Section 1.5.4), in connection with development of the Project.
K. City has given the required notice of its intention to adopt this Development Agreement and has conducted public hearings thereon pursuant to Government Code Section 65867. As required by Government Code Section 65867.5, City has found that the provisions of this Development Agreement and its purposes are consistent with the goals, policies, standards and land use designations specified in City’s General Plan and Specific Plan.
L. On ________, 2025, the City of Modesto Planning Commission (the “Planning Commission”), the initial hearing body for purposes of development agreement review, recommended approval of this Development Agreement pursuant to Resolution No. ____.
M. On ________, 2025, the City of Modesto City Council (the “City Council”) adopted its Ordinance No. ____ (the “Approving Ordinance”) approving this Development Agreement and authorizing its execution. The Approving Ordinance will take effect on _______________, 2025.
N. For the reasons recited herein, City and Developer have determined that the Project is a development for which this Development Agreement is appropriate. This Development Agreement will eliminate uncertainty regarding Project Approvals (including the #19..
- 936 -
3 Development Agreement
Olivewood Subdivision
Subsequent Approvals), thereby encouraging planning for, investment in and commitment to develop the Property in a manner beneficial to the City and surrounding properties. Continued use and development of the Property will in turn provide substantial employment and property tax benefits, and contribute to the provision of needed infrastructure enhancements and public benefits, thereby achieving the goals and purposes for which the Development Agreement Legislation was enacted and ensuring consistency with the City’s General Plan and Specific Plan.
O. The terms and conditions of this Development Agreement have undergone extensive review by City staff, the Planning Commission and the City Council at publicly noticed meetings and have been found to be fair, just and reasonable and in conformance with the City General Plan, Specific Plan, and the Development Agreement Legislation, and, further, the City Council finds that the economic interests of City’s residents and the public health, safety and welfare will be best served by entering into this Development Agreement.
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants and promises set forth herein, City and Developer agree as follows:
ARTICLE 1.
GENERAL PROVISIONS
1.1. Parties.
1.1.1. City. City is a California municipal corporation, with offices located at 1010 10th Street, Modesto, CA 95342. “City,” as used in this Development Agreement, includes the City of Modesto and any assignee of or successor to its rights, powers and responsibilities.
1.1.2. Developer. Developer is a California Limited Liability Company located at 1117 L Street; Modesto, California, 95354. “Developer,” as used in this Development Agreement, includes any permitted assignee or successor-in-interest as herein provided.
1.2. Property Subject to this Development Agreement.
The Property known as APNs 083-004-059 and 083-004-060, as more particularly described in Exhibit A, is subject to this Development Agreement.
1.3. Term of the Agreement.
The term (“Term”) of this Development Agreement will commence upon the Effective Date and shall continue in full force and effect for a period of ten (10) years, unless earlier terminated as provided in this Agreement. The Term has been established by the Parties as a reasonable estimate of the time required to develop the Project and obtain the benefits of the Project.
1.4. The Project.
1.4.1. General. Developer intends to subdivide the Property and construct seventy-four (74) single family homes on the Property (the “Project”). Construction of the #19..
- 937 -
4 Development Agreement
Olivewood Subdivision
Project includes construction of a number of public improvements, including but not limited to design and construction of a new traffic roundabout described in this Section 1.4.
1.4.2. Community Facilities District. Developer has agreed to consent to the inclusion of the Property within the City’s planned Community Facilities District for the Tivoli Specific Plan Area, to be known as Community Facilities District No. 2024-1 (Tivoli) (the “District”) formed under the Mello-Roos Community Facilities Act of 1982 (Government Code § 53311 et. seq.). The District will be established to fund certain infrastructure and various services. Formation of the District shall occur prior to the recording of the final map for the Project. The District will impose a specified One-Time Facilities Special Tax, Annual Facilities Special Tax, and Annual Maintenance Special Tax. The taxes imposed by the District on the Project shall not exceed the maximum amounts set forth in Exhibit C, attached hereto and incorporated herein. The One-Time Facilities Special Tax and Annual Maintenance Special Tax shall increase annually on July 1 by the greater of (i) the percentage increase, if any, in the construction cost index for the San Francisco region for the prior twelve (12) month period as published in the Engineering News Record or other comparable source if the Engineering News Record is discontinued or otherwise not available, or (ii) four percent (4%). The Annual Facilities Special Tax shall increase annually on July 1 by two percent (2%).
1.4.3. Improvements.
a. Public Subdivision Improvements. Developer shall construction all public improvements identified in the vesting tentative subdivision map (“VTSM”) attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference as Exhibit B and all other Project Approvals, and dedicate such improvements to the City.
b. Traffic Roundabout. Without limiting section (a) above, the Developer shall design and construct a traffic roundabout at McReynolds and Street C of the Project’s tentative subdivision map (the “Roundabout”). The Roundabout shall be designed and constructed in accordance with the VTSM attached hereto and incorporated herein as Exhibit B..
Developer’s actual and reasonable cost to design and construct the Roundabout (the “Roundabout Cost”), shall be a credit against the One-Time Facilities Special Taxes imposed by the District and due for the Project upon building permit issuances. If the Roundabout Cost exceeds the One-Time Facilities Special Taxes due for the Project, the Developer shall be entitled to be reimbursed by the District from the proceeds of One Time Facilities Special Tax received by the District from other development projects within the District, if and when such special taxes are received by the District. The Developer shall not be entitled to receive payment or reimbursement from any other source. The actual cost of constructing the Roundabout and the amount of the One-Time Facilities Special Taxes credited for the Project shall either be (i) reimbursed to Developer if the actual cost of constructing the Roundabout exceeds the total amount of the One-Time Facilities Special Taxes credited by the District or; (ii) paid by the Developer if the actual cost of constructing the Roundabout is less than the total amount of the One-Time Facilities Special Taxes credited by the District. The Roundabout Cost shall be as approved by the City Engineer upon the submittal by Developer of all documentation reasonably required by the City Engineer. Developer shall cause all work performed in connection with the Roundabout to be performed in compliance with all applicable laws, ordinances, rules and regulations of federal, state, City or municipal governments or agencies now in force or that may be enacted hereafter, including without limitation and to the #19..
- 938 -
5 Development Agreement
Olivewood Subdivision
extent applicable, California prevailing wage laws pursuant to Labor Code Section 1770 et seq., and the regulations pursuant thereto.
c. Roundabout at C Street and McReynolds Avenue. Developer shall plan, design, bid, and construct a traffic Roundabout “as required by and consistent with the terms and conditions contained in this subsection b and the VTSM. The obligation to construct the Roundabout shall be an obligation of this Development Agreement. Prior to, or at the time the first final map for the Project is recorded, Developer shall make an irrevocable offer to dedicate real property it owns to the City as necessary to accommodate the Roundabout. If construction of the Roundabout as planned requires property not owned by the Developer, then the Developer shall make a good faith effort to obtain the minimum amount of such real property necessary to facilitate construction and operation of the proposed Roundabout roadway (“Third-Party Dedication”).
For the purposes of this section, a good faith effort shall mean, at a minimum, that the Developer contacted the relevant property owners in writing via certified mail at least four times to negotiate the acquisition or dedication of such Third-Party Dedication. If the relevant owners do not respond after four (4) attempts or are unwilling to transfer such required Third-Party Dedication, then Developer shall have satisfied this obligation. If Developer is required to purchase the ThirdParty Dedication through the City’s efforts to obtain, the purchase price shall be added to the Roundabout Cost and fully reimbursable to Developer.
Prior to recording the first final map for the Project, the Developer shall submit to the City Engineer and receive approval of complete design plans for the Roundabout. The Developer shall complete construction of the Roundabout prior to the earlier of either obtaining a building permit for the 65th single family home in the Project or the first building permit for any of the parcels that back McReynolds Avenue.
Without limiting the foregoing, Developer shall not be required to start construction of the Roundabout until all of the following events occur:
1. The City approves design and construction drawings for the Roundabout;
2. The City has reviewed and approved the Engineer’s Estimate of the cost of the Roundabout. The cost of the Roundabout shall be a credit against the One-Time Facilities Special Taxes imposed by the District and due for the Project upon building permit issuances.
3. City and Developer have entered into an agreement providing that the difference between the actual cost of constructing the Roundabout and the amount of the OneTime Facilities Special Taxes credited for the Project shall either be (i) reimbursed to Developer if the actual cost of constructing the Roundabout exceeds the total amount of the One-Time Facilities Special Taxes credited by the District or; (ii) paid by the Developer if the actual cost of constructing the Roundabout is less than the total amount of the One-Time Facilities Special Taxes credited by the District (“Acquistion and Shortfall Agreement”);
4. All necessary right-of-way to construct the Roundabout has been dedicated to the City and/or obtained by the City for any areas outside the Developer’s Property; and #19..
- 939 -
6 Development Agreement
Olivewood Subdivision
5. As an affirmative obligation of the City under this Agreement, the City shall obtain any right-of-way or easement necessary to extend sewer services north in the Tivoli Specific Plan’s proposed Aria Way, and then east within the future right-of-way of dedication to serve the Project.
6. Prior to the approval of the Improvement Plans, the City shall be responsible to ensure that the land for the dual-use basin, including any right-of-way or easements necessary to construct the storm drainage conveyance system to the dual-use basin to serve the Project, has been obtained. The City shall not impose any fees or costs on the Project to obtain said land, rightof-way, or easements. If the City does not obtain the required land, right-of-way, or easements necessary to meet the storm drainage needs of the Olivewood development, the City shall allow the construction of a temporary basin and reimburse the Developer the construction cost for any and all temporary improvements required that do not follow the Tivoli Facilities Master Plan. d. Temporary Improvements at C Street and McReynolds Avenue. As part of the offsite development of the Project, Developer shall construct a three way stop sign control at the intersection of C Street and McReynolds Avenue. The Parties shall regard this as a temporary improvement and it shall be removed when constructing the Roundabout. e. Compliance with Applicable Laws. Developer shall cause all work performed in connection with the Roundabout to be performed in compliance with all applicable laws, ordinances, rules and regulations of federal, state, City or municipal governments or agencies now in force or that may be enacted hereafter, including without limitation and to the extent applicable, California prevailing wage laws pursuant to Labor Code Section 1770 et seq., and the regulations pursuant thereto.
1.4.4. Nuisance. Developer shall not use or permit the use of any portion of the Project for any offensive, noisy or dangerous trade, business manufacturing activity or occupation; for any activity which constitutes a nuisance or violated public policy; in violation of any law, ordinance rule or regulation of any governmental authority with jurisdiction over any portion of the Project.
1.5. Project Approvals.
Developer has applied for and obtained various environmental and land use approvals and entitlements related to the development of the Project, as described below. For purposes of this Development Agreement, the term “Project Approvals” means all of the approvals, plans and agreements described in this Section 1.5 and shall include all Project Approvals to (i) subdivide the Property into seventy-four (74) parcels (ii) construct seventy-four (74) new singlefamily homes on such newly created parcels, (iii) construct certain infrastructure improvements to serve the new single-family residences, and (iv) construct those other improvements as more fully set forth and described in that certain City of Modesto development application (DEV-23- 001) submitted by Developer to the City on October 13, 2021, together with those plans and other information approved by the Planning Commission on ________, 2025 by Resolution No. ______________. City and Developer agree to work diligently and in good faith toward appropriate planning entitlements and building permit approvals for each phase of construction. #19..
- 940 -
7 Development Agreement
Olivewood Subdivision
1.5.1. CEQA Exemption. Pursuant to the CEQA, on _________, 2025 The City Council determined that the Project is within the scope of the Tivoli Specific Plan Final EIR and is exempt from further environmental review pursuant to CEQA Regulations 15162, 15168(c), and 15182 by Ordinance No ____________ .
1.5.2. Development Agreement. On ________, 2025, following Planning Commission review and recommendation, and after a duly noticed public hearing, the City Council, by Ordinance No. _____, approved this Development Agreement and authorized its execution.
1.5.3. Other Concurrent Project Approvals. In order to develop the Project as contemplated in this Development Agreement, the following land use approvals shall be required a. Tentative Subdivision Map. A tentative subdivision map is required for the creation of the new lots. A tentative subdivision map was approved by the Planning Commission on __________ by Resolution No. _________._which is attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference as though set forth fully herein as Exhibit F. The Final Map shall be reviewed and approved by in accordance with Sections 4-4.604 of the City of Modesto Municipal Code;
b. Development Plan Review. Development Plan Review is required for the construction of the seventy-four (74) single family residences pursuant to Section 10-
9.1002 of the City of Modesto Zoning Code. The Development Plan Review was approved by the Planning Commission on __________ by Resolution No. _________. c. Area Plan Approval. Area Plan approval is required for development of the Project pursuant to Section 9.4 of the Specific Plan. Tivoli Area Plan No. 6 was approved by the Planning Commission on __________ by Resolution No. _________.
1.5.4. Subsequent Approvals. In order to develop the Project as contemplated in this Development Agreement, the Project may require land use approvals, entitlements, development permits, and use and/or construction approvals other than those listed in Section 1.5 above, which may include, without limitation: development plans, amendments to applicable conditional use permits, variances, subdivision approvals, street abandonments, design review approvals, demolition permits, improvement agreements, infrastructure agreements, grading permits, building permits, right-of-way permits, lot line adjustments, design review, lot line adjustments, site plans, sewer and water connection permits, certificates of occupancy, parcel maps, lot splits, landscaping plans, master sign programs, transportation demand management programs, encroachment permits, and amendments thereto and to the Project Approvals (collectively, “Subsequent Approvals”). At such time as any Subsequent Approval applicable to the Property is approved by the City, then such Subsequent Approval shall become subject to all the terms and conditions of this Development Agreement applicable to Project Approvals and shall be treated as a “Project Approval” under this Development Agreement. #19..
- 941 -
8 Development Agreement
Olivewood Subdivision
ARTICLE 2.
DEVELOPMENT OF THE PROPERTY
2.1. Project Development.
Developer shall have a vested right to develop the Project on the Property, in accordance with the Vested Elements (defined in Section 2.2).
2.2. Vested Elements.
The permitted uses of the Property, the minimum and maximum density, the intensity of use, the maximum height and size of the proposed dwellings, provisions for reservation or dedication of land for public purposes, the conditions, terms, restrictions, and requirements for subsequent discretionary actions, the provisions for public improvements and financing of public improvements, and the other terms and conditions of development applicable to the Property are as set forth in:
a. The City of Modesto General Plan and Tivoli Specific Plan as of the Effective Date, including any General Plan Amendments (“Applicable General Plan”); b. The Zoning Ordinance of City on the Effective Date (“Applicable Zoning Ordinance”);
c. Other rules, regulations, ordinances and policies of City applicable to development of the Property on the Effective Date, except for any and all fees applicable to the development, which shall be vested as set forth in Section 2.6.2 of this Agreement, (collectively, together with the Applicable General Plan and the Applicable Zoning Ordinance, the “Applicable Rules”); and
d. The Project Approvals, as they may be amended from time to time with Developer’s consent; and are hereby vested in Developer, subject to, and as provided in, the provisions of this Development Agreement (the “Vested Elements”). City hereby agrees to be bound with respect to the Vested Elements, subject to Developer’s compliance with the terms and conditions of this Development Agreement.
2.3. Development Construction Completion.
2.3.1. Timing of Development; Pardee Finding. Because the California Supreme Court held in Pardee Construction Co. v. City of Camarillo, 37 Cal.3d 465 (1984), that the failure of the parties therein to provide for the timing of development resulted in a lateradopted initiative restricting the timing of development to prevail over the parties’ agreement, it is the Parties’ intent to cure that deficiency by acknowledging and providing that, subject to any infrastructure phasing requirements that may be required by the Project Approvals, Developer shall have the right (without obligation) to develop the Property in such order and at such rate and at such times as Developer deems appropriate within the exercise of its subjective business judgment.
#19..
- 942 -
9 Development Agreement
Olivewood Subdivision
2.3.2. Moratorium. No City-imposed moratorium or other limitation (whether relating to the rate, timing or sequencing of the development or construction of all or any part of the Property, whether imposed by ordinance, initiative, resolution, policy, order or otherwise, and whether enacted by the City Council, an agency of City, the electorate, or otherwise) affecting parcel or subdivision maps (whether tentative, vesting tentative or final), building permits, occupancy certificates or other entitlements to use or service (including, without limitation, water and sewer) approved, issued or granted within City, or portions of City, shall apply to the Property to the extent such moratorium or other limitation is in conflict with this Development Agreement; provided, however, the provisions of this Section 2.3.2 shall not affect City’s compliance with moratoria or other limitations mandated by other governmental agencies or court-imposed moratoria or other limitations.
2.3.3. No Other Requirements. Nothing in this Development Agreement is intended to create any affirmative development obligations to develop the Project at all, or liability in Developer under this Development Agreement if the development fails to occur.
2.4. Effect of Project Approvals and Applicable Rules; Future Rules.
2.4.1. Governing Rules. Except as otherwise explicitly provided in this Development Agreement, development of the Property shall be subject to (a) the Project Approvals and (b) the Applicable Rules.
2.4.2. Changes in Applicable Rules; Future Rules.
a. To the extent any changes in the Applicable Rules, or any provisions of future General Plans, Specific Plans, Zoning Ordinances or other rules, regulations, ordinances or policies (whether adopted by means of ordinance, initiative, referenda, resolution, policy, order, moratorium, or other means, adopted by the City Council, Planning Commission, or any other board, commission, agency, committee, or department of City, or any officer or employee thereof, or by the electorate) of City (collectively, “Future Rules”) are not in conflict with the Vested Elements, such Future Rules shall be applicable to the Project. b. To the maximum extent permitted by law, City shall prevent any Future Rules from invalidating or prevailing over all or any part of this Development Agreement, and City shall cooperate with Developer and shall undertake such actions as may be necessary to ensure this Development Agreement remains in full force and effect. City shall not support, adopt or enact any Future Rule, or take any other action which would violate the express provisions or spirit and intent of this Development Agreement or the Project Approvals.
Developer reserves the right to challenge in court any Future Rule that would conflict with the Vested Elements or this Development Agreement or reduce the development rights provided by this Development Agreement.
c. A Future Rule that conflicts with the Vested Elements shall nonetheless apply to the Property if, and only if (i) consented to in writing by Developer; (ii) it is determined by City and evidenced through findings adopted by the City Council confirming that the change or provision is reasonably required in order to prevent a condition dangerous to the public health or safety, that there are no feasible alternatives to the imposition of such change or #19..
- 943 -
10 Development Agreement
Olivewood Subdivision
provision and how such change or provision would alleviate the dangerous condition; (iii) it is required by changes in State or Federal law as set forth in Section 2.4.3 below; (iv) it consists of changes in, or new fees permitted by, Section 2.6; or (v) it is otherwise expressly permitted by this Development Agreement.
d. Prior to the Effective Date, the Parties shall have prepared two (2) sets of the Project Approvals and Applicable Rules, one (1) set for City and one (1) set for Developer. If it becomes necessary in the future to refer to any of the Project Approvals or Applicable Rules, the contents of these sets are presumed for all purposes of this Development Agreement, absent clear clerical error or similar mistake, to constitute the Project Approvals and Applicable Rules.
2.4.3. Changes in State or Federal Laws. In accordance with California Government Code Section 65869.5, in the event that state or federal laws or regulations enacted after the Effective Date (“State or Federal Law”) prevent or preclude compliance with one or more provisions of this Development Agreement, the Parties shall meet in good faith to determine the feasibility of any modification or suspension of this Development Agreement that may be necessary to comply with such State or Federal Law and to determine the effect such modification or suspension would have on the purposes and intent of this Development Agreement and the Vested Elements. Following the meeting between the Parties, the provisions of this Development Agreement may, to the extent feasible, and upon mutual agreement of the Parties, be modified or suspended, but only to the minimum extent necessary to comply with such State or Federal Law. In such an event, this Development Agreement, together with any required modifications, shall continue in full force and effect. In the event that the State or Federal Law operates to frustrate irremediably and materially the vesting of development rights to the Project as set forth in this Agreement, Developer may terminate this Agreement. In addition, Developer shall have the right to challenge (by any method, including litigation) the State or Federal Law preventing compliance with, or performance of, the terms of this Development Agreement and, in the event that such challenge is successful, this Development Agreement shall remain unmodified and in full force and effect, unless (i) Developer fails to commence construction under valid permits under the Term of this Development Agreement, or (ii) Developer fails to submit a written request to City prior to the expiration date of any construction permits for an extension of time as allowed under the Zoning Ordinance.
2.4.4. Conflicts. In the event of an irreconcilable conflict between the provisions of the Project Approvals (on the one hand) and the Applicable Rules (on the other hand), the provisions of the Project Approvals shall apply. In the event of a conflict between the Project Approvals (on the one hand) and this Development Agreement, in particular, (on the other hand), the provisions of this Development Agreement shall control.
2.5. Processing Subsequent Approvals. City will accept, make completeness determinations, and process, promptly and diligently, to completion all applications for Subsequent Approvals for the Project, in accordance with the terms of this Development Agreement.
2.5.2. Scope of Review of Subsequent Approvals. By approving the Project Approvals, City has made a final policy decision that the Project is in the best interests of the #19..
- 944 -
11 Development Agreement
Olivewood Subdivision
public health, safety and general welfare. Accordingly, City shall not use its authority in considering any application for a discretionary Subsequent Approval to change the policy decisions reflected by the Project Approvals or otherwise to prevent or delay development of the Project as set forth in the Project Approvals. Instead, the Subsequent Approvals shall be deemed to be tools to implement those final policy decisions. The scope of the review of applications for Subsequent Approvals shall be limited to a review of substantial conformity with the Vested Elements and the Applicable Rules (except as otherwise provided by Section 2.4), and compliance with CEQA. Where such substantial conformity/compliance exists, City shall not deny an application for a Subsequent Approval for the Project.
2.6. Development Fees, Exactions; and Conditions. General. All fees, exactions, dedications, reservations or other impositions to which the Project would be subject, but for this Development Agreement, are referred to in this Development Agreement either as “Processing Fees” (as defined in Section 2.6.1) or “Capital Facilities Fees” (as defined in Section 2.6.2).
2.6.1. Processing Fees. “Processing Fees” mean fees charged on a citywide basis to cover the cost of City review of applications for any permit or other review by City departments. Applications for Subsequent Approvals for the Project shall be charged Processing Fees to allow City to recover its actual and reasonable costs of processing Developer’s Subsequent Approvals with respect to the Project.
2.6.2. Impact Fees.
a. “Capital Facilities Fees”, also known as CFF means monetary fees, exactions or impositions, other than taxes or assessments, whether established for or imposed upon the Project individually or as part of a class of projects, that are imposed by City on the Project in connection with any Project Approval for the Project for any purpose, including, without limitation, defraying all or a portion of the cost of public services and/or facilities construction, improvement, or operation and maintenance attributable to the burden created by the Project. Any fee, exaction or imposition imposed on the Project which is not a Processing Fee is a Capital Facilities Fees. Developer agrees to pay the specific Capital Facilities Fees in the amounts listed in Exhibit D, attached hereto and incorporated herein. Such amounts may only be adjusted annually by the City on or about July 1 for inflation, as measured by the change in the San Francisco Bay Area Engineering News Record Construction Cost Index through the month of December the year preceding each inflationary adjustment. b. The Developer shall pay the Impact Fees prior to the issuance of the building permit for each unit of the Project, except that the Developer may defer payment until the issuance of a certificate of occupancy in accordance with the requirements of Government Code Section 66000 et seq. Developer may request to defer payment of, or receive credit for payment of, the Capital Facilities Fees as provided in the City Capital Facilities Fee Policies and Procedures adopted September 22, 2020 by Resolution No. 2020-407. c. The Parties agree that in the event of a transfer of all or a portion of the Subject Property to a third party (“Subsequent Property Owner”), Owner may retain the right to receive fee credits so long as the Subsequent Property Owner pays the applicable capital facility fee without any Credits provided for in this Agreement and the obligations relative to #19..
- 945 -
12 Development Agreement
Olivewood Subdivision
Owner and any Subsequent Property Owner are clearly allocated in an Assignment and Assumption Agreement.
2.6.3. Conditions of Subsequent Approvals. In connection with any Subsequent Approvals, City shall have the right to impose reasonable conditions including, without limitation, normal and customary dedications for rights of way or easements for public access, utilities, water, sewers, and drainage necessary for the Project; provided, however, such conditions and dedications shall not be inconsistent with the Applicable Rules or Project Approvals, nor inconsistent with the development of the Project as contemplated by this Agreement.
b. No conditions imposed on Subsequent Approvals shall require dedications or reservations for, or construction or funding of, public infrastructure or public improvements beyond those already included in the Project Approvals. In addition, any and all conditions imposed on Subsequent Approvals for the Project must comply with Sections 2.6.1 and 2.6.2 herein.
2.7. Life of Project Approvals and Subdivision Maps.
2.7.1. Life of Tentative Map. The terms of any tentative map for the Property, any amendment or reconfiguration thereto, or any subsequent tentative map, shall be automatically extended such that such tentative maps remain in effect for a period of time coterminous with the Term of this Development Agreement.
2.7.2. Life of Other Project Approvals. The term of all other Project Approvals, shall be automatically extended such that these Project Approvals remain in effect for a period of time at least as long as the Term of this Development Agreement.
2.7.3. Termination of Agreement. In the event that this Development Agreement is terminated prior to the expiration of the Term of the Development Agreement, the term of any tentative map or any other Project Approval and the vesting period for any final subdivision map approved as a Project Approval shall be the term otherwise applicable to the approval (including any extensions), which shall commence to run on the date that the termination of this Development Agreement takes effect.
2.8. Further CEQA Environmental Review.
2.8.1. Reliance on CEQA Exemption. City has also undertaken, pursuant to the CEQA, the required analysis of the environmental effects that would be caused by the Project.
The City Council has determined that the Project is within the scope of the Tivoli Specific Plan Final EIR and is exempt from further environmental review pursuant to CEQA Regulations 15162, 15168(c), and 15182. It is agreed that, in acting on any discretionary Subsequent Approvals for the Project, City will rely on this determination to satisfy the requirements of CEQA to the fullest extent permissible by CEQA and City will not require a new initial study, negative declaration, EIR or subsequent or supplemental EIR unless required by CEQA. #19..
- 946 -
13 Development Agreement
Olivewood Subdivision
2.8.2. Subsequent CEQA Review. In the event that any additional CEQA documentation is legally required for any discretionary Subsequent Approval for the Project, then the scope of such documentation shall be focused, to the extent possible consistent with CEQA, on the specific subject matter of the Subsequent Approval, and the City shall conduct such CEQA review as expeditiously as possible.
2.9. Developer’s Right to Rebuild. Developer may renovate or rebuild the Project within the Term of this Agreement should it become necessary due to natural disaster, changes in seismic requirements, or should the buildings located within the Project become functionally outdated, within Developer’s sole discretion, due to changes in technology. Any such renovation or rebuilding shall be subject to the Vested Elements, shall comply with the Project Approvals, the building regulations existing at the time of such rebuilding or reconstruction, and the requirements of CEQA.
ARTICLE 3.
ANNUAL REVIEW
3.1. Annual Review. The annual review required by California Government Code Section 65865.1 will be conducted for the purposes and in the manner stated in those laws as further provided herein. As part of that review, City and Developer shall have a reasonable opportunity to assert action(s) that either Party believes have not been undertaken in accordance with this Development Agreement, to explain the basis for such assertion, and to receive from the other Party a justification for the other Party’s position with respect to such action(s), and to take such actions as permitted by law. The procedure set forth in this Article shall be used by Developer and City in complying with the annual review requirement. The City and Developer agree that the annual review process will review compliance by Developer and City with the obligations under this Development Agreement but will not review compliance with other Project Approvals or other agreements between City and Developer.
3.2. Commencement of Process; Developer Compliance Letter.
At least sixty (60) days prior to the anniversary of the Effective Date each year, Developer shall submit a letter to the City’s Community Development Director requesting annual review of this Agreement and demonstrating Developer’s good faith compliance with the material terms and conditions of this Development Agreement and shall include in the letter a statement that the letter is being submitted to City pursuant to the requirements of Government Code Section 65865.1. Developer shall include with its letter any materials and information reasonably requested by the Community Development Director. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the Development Agreement shall remain in full force and effect and shall automatically renew each year, continuing its validity irrespective of whether Developer submits the letter or commences the annual review process.
3.3. Community Development Director Review.
Within sixty (60) days after the receipt of Developer’s letter, the Community Development Director shall review Developer’s submission and determine whether Developer has, for the year under review, demonstrated good faith compliance with the material terms and #19..
- 947 -
14 Development Agreement
Olivewood Subdivision
conditions of this Development Agreement. If Developer has demonstrated good faith compliance, than the Community Development Directorshall make such a finding and send a letter back to Developer describing the Community Development Director’s finding and any comments. Upon the request of the Developer, the Community Development Director may issue “Finding of Compliance”, in a form approved by the City Attorney, to be recorded at Developer’s expense in the Stanislaus County’s Recorder’s Office to reflect the results of the annual review.
3.4. Community Development DirectorNoncompliance Finding.
If the Community Development Director finds and determines that there is substantial evidence that Developer has not complied in good faith with the material terms and conditions of this Development Agreement and that Developer is in material breach of this Development Agreement for the year under review, the Community Development Director shall issue and deliver to Developer a written “Notice of Default” specifying in detail the nature of the failures in performance that the Community Development Director claims constitutes material noncompliance, all facts demonstrating substantial evidence of material noncompliance, and the manner in which such noncompliance may be satisfactorily cured in accordance with the Development Agreement. In the event that the material noncompliance is an Event of Default pursuant to ARTICLE 5 herein, the Parties shall be entitled to their respective rights and obligations under both ARTICLE 3 and 5 herein, except that the particular entity allegedly in default shall be accorded only one of the 60-day cure periods referred to in Sections 3.5 and 5.1 herein.
3.5. Cure Period.
If the Community Development Director finds that Developer is not in compliance, the Community Development Director shall grant a reasonable period of time for Developer to cure the alleged noncompliance. The Community Development Director shall grant a cure period of at least sixty (60) days and shall extend the sixty (60) day period if Developer is proceeding in good faith to cure the noncompliance and additional time is reasonably needed. At the conclusion of the cure period, the Community Development Director shall either (i) find that Developer is in compliance; or (ii) find that Developer is not in compliance. If the Developer is not in compliance, the Community Development Director may record a Finding of Noncompliance against the Property in the Stanislaus County Recorder’s Office.
3.6. Appeal of Noncompliance Finding to City Council.
Upon the expiration of the cure period and a finding that the Developer is not in compliance, the Developer may file a written appeal of such determination, along with the applicable fee, with the City Clerk within fifteen (15) days of delivery of the Community Development Director’s determination. If no appeal is timely filed, the determination of noncompliance is final. Any appeal of the Director’s decision shall be heard by the City Council.
Notice of such appeal shall be provided in the same manner as required by Government Code section 65867. The Community Development Director shall prepare a staff report to the City Council which shall include, in addition to Developer’s letter, (i) demonstration of City’s good #19..
- 948 -
15 Development Agreement
Olivewood Subdivision
faith compliance with the terms and conditions of this Development Agreement; (ii) the Notice of Default; and (iii) a description of any cure undertaken by Developer during the cure period.
3.7. Delivery of Documents.
At least five (5) days prior to any City hearing regarding Developer’s compliance with this Development Agreement, City shall deliver to Developer all staff reports and all other relevant documents pertaining to the hearing. At the hearing the City Council shall consider oral and written testimony and evidence submitted by the Developer and Community Development Director.
3.8. City Council Compliance Finding.
If the City Council, following a noticed public hearing pursuant to Section 3.6, determines that Developer is in compliance with the material terms and conditions of this Development Agreement, the annual review shall be deemed concluded. City shall, at Developer’s request, issue and have recorded a Certificate of Compliance indicating Developer’s compliance with the terms of this Development Agreement.
3.9. City Council Noncompliance Finding.
If the City Council, at a properly noticed public hearing pursuant to Section 3.6, finds and determines that Developer has not complied in good faith with the material terms or conditions of this Development Agreement and that Developer is in material breach of this Development Agreement, the Community Development Director shall record a Finding of Noncompliance against the Property in the Stanislaus County Recorder’s Office.
3.10. Termination due to Non-Compliance.
If the City records a Finding of Noncompliance pursuant to the procedures set forth herein, thereafter the City Council shall hold a public hearing regarding termination or modification of this Development Agreement. Notification of intention to modify or terminate this Development Agreement shall be delivered to Developer by certified mail containing:
(i) the time and place of the City Council hearing; (ii) a statement as to whether City proposes to terminate or modify this Development Agreement and the terms of any proposed modification; and (iii) any other information reasonably necessary to inform Developer of the nature of the proceedings. At the time of the hearing, Developer shall be given an opportunity to be heard.
The City Council may impose conditions to the action it takes as necessary to protect the interests of City; provided that any modification or termination of this Development Agreement pursuant to this provision shall bear a reasonable nexus to, and be proportional in severity to the magnitude of, the alleged breach, and in no event shall termination be permitted except in accordance with ARTICLE 5 herein.
3.11. Relationship to Default Provisions.
The above procedures supplement and do not replace that provision of Section 5.1 of this Development Agreement whereby either City or Developer may, at any time, assert matters which either Party believes have not been undertaken in accordance with this Development #19..
- 949 -
16 Development Agreement
Olivewood Subdivision
Agreement by delivering a written Notice of Default and following the procedures set forth in Section 5.1.
3.12. Reimbursement of City's Costs Incurred in Bringing About Cure.
Developer shall be obligated to reimburse to City all costs, expenses, damages and attorneys’ fees incurred as a result of any Developer default including all costs incurred in bringing about Developer's cure of any such default.
ARTICLE 4.
AMENDMENTS
4.1. Amendments to Development Agreement Legislation.
This Development Agreement has been entered into in reliance upon the provisions of the Development Agreement Legislation as those provisions existed at the Effective Date. No amendment or addition to those provisions or any other federal or state law and regulation that would materially adversely affect the interpretation or enforceability of this Development Agreement or would prevent or preclude compliance with one or more provisions of this Development Agreement shall be applicable to this Development Agreement unless such amendment or addition is specifically required by the change in law, or is mandated by a court of competent jurisdiction. In the event of the application of such a change in law, the Parties shall meet in good faith to determine the feasibility of any modification or suspension that may be necessary to comply with such new law or regulation and to determine the effect such modification or suspension would have on the purposes and intent of this Development Agreement and the Vested Elements. Following the meeting between the Parties, the provisions of this Development Agreement may, to the extent feasible, and upon mutual agreement of the Parties, be modified or suspended but only to the minimum extent necessary to comply with such new law or regulation. If such amendment or change is permissive (as opposed to mandatory), this Development Agreement shall not be affected by same unless the Parties mutually agree in writing to amend this Development Agreement to permit such applicability. Developer and/or City shall have the right to challenge any new law or regulation preventing compliance with the terms of this Development Agreement, and in the event such challenge is successful, this Development Agreement shall remain unmodified and in full force and effect. The Term of this Development Agreement may be extended for the duration of the period during which such new law or regulation precludes compliance with the provisions of this Development Agreement.
4.2. Amendments to or Cancellation of Development Agreement.
This Development Agreement may be amended from time to time or canceled in whole or in part by mutual consent of both Parties in writing in accordance with the provisions of the Development Agreement Legislation. Review and approval of an amendment to this Development Agreement shall be strictly limited to consideration of only those provisions to be added or modified. No amendment, modification, waiver or change to this Development Agreement or any provision hereof shall be effective for any purpose unless specifically set forth in a writing that expressly refers to this Development Agreement and signed by the duly authorized representatives of both Parties. All amendments to this Development Agreement #19..
- 950 -
17 Development Agreement
Olivewood Subdivision
shall be recommended for approval by the Planning Commission and approved by the City Council and, upon such approval, will become part of the Project Approvals.
4.3. Operating Memoranda.
The provisions of this Development Agreement require a close degree of cooperation between City and Developer and development of the Property hereunder may demonstrate that refinements and clarifications are appropriate with respect to the details of performance of City and Developer. If and when, from time to time, during the Term of this Development Agreement, City and Developer agree that such clarifications are necessary or appropriate, City and Developer shall effectuate such clarifications through operating memoranda approved by City and Developer, which, after execution, shall be attached hereto as addenda and become a part hereof, and may be further clarified from time to time as necessary with future approval by City and Developer. No such operating memoranda shall constitute an amendment to this Development Agreement requiring public notice or hearing. The City Manager, in consultation with the City Attorney, shall make the determination on behalf of City whether a requested clarification may be effectuated pursuant to this Section 4.3 or whether the requested clarification is of such a character to constitute an amendment hereof pursuant to Section 4.2 above. The City Manager shall be authorized to execute any operating memoranda hereunder on behalf of City.
4.4. Amendments to Project Approvals.
Notwithstanding any other provision of this Development Agreement, Developer may seek and City may review and grant amendments or modifications to the Project Approvals (including the Subsequent Approvals) subject to the following (except that the procedures for amendment of this Development Agreement are set forth in Section 4.2 herein).
4.4.1. Amendments to Project Approvals. Project Approvals (except for this Development Agreement the amendment process for which is set forth in Section 4.2) may be amended or modified from time to time, but only at the written request of Developer or with the written consent of Developer (at its sole discretion) and in accordance with Section 2.4. All amendments to the Project Approvals shall automatically become part of the Project Approvals, except to the extent such amendments are considered by the Community Development Director, in his or her sole discretion, to constitute a major amendment. In such case, Developer consents to any major amendment’s review before the Planning Commission for approval or recommendation to the City Council, whose review and approval or denial shall be final. The maximum height and size of the proposed buildings, the conditions, terms, restrictions and requirements for subsequent discretionary actions, and the other terms and conditions of development as set forth in all such amendments, except those considered by the Community Development Director to be a major amendment, shall be automatically vested pursuant to this Development Agreement, without requiring an amendment to this Development Agreement.
Amendments to the Project Approvals shall be governed by the Project Approvals and the Applicable Rules, subject to Section 2.4. City shall not request, process or consent to any amendment to the Project Approvals that would affect the Property or the Project without Developer’s prior written consent unless a Project Approval has not been activated within two #19..
- 951 -
18 Development Agreement
Olivewood Subdivision
(2) years of commencement of the Term of this Development Agreement or a Project Approval has expired.
4.4.2. Administrative Amendments. Upon the request of Developer for an amendment or modification of any Project Approval, the Community Development Director or his/her designee shall determine: (a) whether the requested amendment or modification is minor when considered in light of the Project as a whole; and (b) whether the requested amendment or modification substantially conforms with the material terms of this Development Agreement and the Applicable Rules. If the Community Development Director or his/her designee finds that the requested amendment or modification is both minor and substantially conforms with the material terms of this Development Agreement and the Applicable Rules, the amendment or modification shall be determined to be an “Administrative Amendment,” and the Development Services Director/City Engineer or his or her designee may approve the Administrative Amendment, without public notice or a public hearing. Without limiting the generality of the foregoing, lot line adjustments, minor alterations in vehicle circulation patterns or vehicle access points, variations in the location of structures that do not substantially alter the design concepts of the Project, substitution of comparable landscaping for any landscaping shown on any development plan or landscape plan, variations in the location or installation of utilities and other infrastructure connections and facilities that do not substantially alter design concepts of the Project, and minor adjustments to the Property legal description shall be deemed to be minor amendments or modifications. Any request of Developer for an amendment or modification to a Project Approval that is determined not to be an Administrative Amendment as set forth above shall be subject to review, consideration and action pursuant to the Applicable Rules and this Agreement.
ARTICLE 5.
DEFAULT, REMEDIES AND TERMINATION
5.1. Events of Default.
Subject to any extensions of time by mutual consent of the Parties in writing, and subject to the provisions of Section 9.2 hereof regarding permitted delays and a Mortgagee’s right to cure pursuant to Section 8.3 hereof, any failure by either Party to perform any material term or provision of this Development Agreement (not including any failure by Developer to perform any term or provision of any other Project Approvals) shall constitute an “Event of Default,” (i) if such defaulting Party does not cure such failure within sixty (60) days (such sixty (60) day period is not in addition to any (60) day cure period under Article 3, if Article 3 is applicable) following written notice of default from the other Party, where such failure is of a nature that can be cured within such sixty (60) day period, or (ii) if such failure is not of a nature which can be cured within such sixty (60) day period, the defaulting Party does not within such sixty (60) day period commence substantial efforts to cure such failure, or thereafter does not within a reasonable time prosecute to completion with diligence and continuity the curing of such failure.
Any notice of default given hereunder shall specify in detail the nature of the failures in performance that the noticing Party claims constitutes the Event of Default, all facts constituting substantial evidence of such failure, and the manner in which such failure may be satisfactorily cured in accordance with the terms and conditions of this Development Agreement. During the #19..
- 952 -
19 Development Agreement
Olivewood Subdivision
time periods herein specified for cure of a failure of performance, the Party charged therewith shall not be considered to be in default for purposes of (a) termination of this Development Agreement, (b) institution of legal proceedings with respect thereto, or (c) issuance of any approval with respect to the Project. The waiver by either Party of any default under this Development Agreement shall not operate as a waiver of any subsequent breach of the same or any other provision of this Development Agreement.
5.2. Meet and Confer.
During the time periods specified in Section 5.1 for cure of a failure of performance, the Parties shall meet and confer in a timely and responsive manner, to attempt to resolve any matters prior to litigation or other action being taken, including without limitation any action in law or equity; provided, however, nothing herein shall be construed to extend the time period for this meet and confer obligation beyond the 60-day cure period referred to in Section 5.1 (even if the 60-day cure period itself is extended pursuant to Section 5.1) unless the Parties agree otherwise in writing.
5.3. Remedies and Termination.
If, after notice and expiration of the cure periods and procedures set forth in Sections 5.1 and 5.2, the alleged Event of Default is not cured, the non-defaulting Party, at its option, may institute legal proceedings pursuant to Section 5.4 of this Development Agreement and/or terminate this Development Agreement pursuant to Section 5.5 herein. In the event that this Development Agreement is terminated pursuant to Section 5.5 herein and litigation is instituted that results in a final decision that such termination was improper, then this Development Agreement shall immediately be reinstated as though it had never been terminated.
5.4. Legal Action by Parties.
5.4.1. Remedies. Either Party may, in addition to any other rights or remedies, institute legal action to cure, correct or remedy any default, enforce any covenant or agreement herein, enjoin any threatened or attempted violation thereof, enforce by specific performance the obligations and rights of the Parties hereto or to obtain any remedies consistent with the purpose of this Development Agreement. All remedies shall be cumulative and not exclusive of one another, and the exercise of any one or more of these remedies shall not constitute a waiver or election with respect to any other available remedy. Without limiting the foregoing, Developer reserves the right to challenge in court any Future Rules that would conflict with the Vested Elements or the Subsequent Approvals for the Project or reduce the development rights provided by the Project Approvals.
5.4.2. No Damages. In no event shall either Party, or its boards, commissions, officers, agents or employees, be liable in damages for any default under this Development Agreement, it being expressly understood and agreed that the sole legal remedy available to either Party for a breach or violation of this Development Agreement by the other Party shall be an action in mandamus, specific performance or other injunctive or declaratory relief to enforce the provisions of this Development Agreement by the other Party, or to terminate this Development Agreement. This limitation on damages shall not preclude actions by a Party to #19..
- 953 -
20 Development Agreement
Olivewood Subdivision
enforce payments of monies or the performance of obligations requiring an obligation of money from the other Party under the terms of this Development Agreement including, but not limited to obligations to pay attorneys’ fees and obligations to advance monies or reimburse monies. In connection with the foregoing provisions, each Party acknowledges, warrants and represents that it has been fully informed with respect to, and represented by counsel of such Party’s choice in connection with, the rights and remedies of such Party hereunder and the waivers herein contained, and after such advice and consultation has presently and actually intended, with full knowledge of such Party’s rights and remedies otherwise available at law or in equity, to waive and relinquish such rights and remedies to the extent specified herein, and to rely to the extent herein specified solely on the remedies provided for herein with respect to any breach of this Development Agreement by the other Party.
5.5. Termination.
5.5.1. Expiration of Term. Except as otherwise provided in this Development Agreement, this Development Agreement shall be deemed terminated and of no further effect upon the expiration of the Term of this Development Agreement as set forth in Section 1.3.
5.5.2. Survival of Obligations. Upon the termination or expiration of this Development Agreement as provided herein, neither Party shall have any further right or obligation with respect to the Property under this Development Agreement except with respect to any obligation that is specifically set forth as surviving the termination or expiration of this Development Agreement. The termination or expiration of this Development Agreement shall not affect the validity of the Project Approvals (other than this Development Agreement) for the Project.
5.5.3. Termination by City. Notwithstanding any other provision of this Development Agreement, City shall not have the right to terminate this Development Agreement with respect to all or any portion of the Property before the expiration of its Term unless City complies with all termination procedures set forth in the Development Agreement Legislation and there is an alleged Event of Default by Developer and such Event of Default is not cured pursuant to ARTICLE 3 herein or this ARTICLE 5 and Developer has first been afforded an opportunity to be heard regarding the alleged default before the City Council and this Development Agreement is terminated only with respect to that portion of the Property to which the default applies.
ARTICLE 6.
COOPERATION AND IMPLEMENTATION
6.1. Further Actions and Instruments.
Each Party to this Development Agreement shall cooperate with and provide reasonable assistance to the other Party and take all actions necessary to ensure that the Parties receive the benefits of this Development Agreement, subject to satisfaction of the conditions of this Development Agreement. Upon the request of any Party, the other Party shall promptly execute, with acknowledgment or affidavit if reasonably required, and file or record such required instruments and writings and take any actions as may be reasonably necessary under the terms of #19..
- 954 -
21 Development Agreement
Olivewood Subdivision
this Development Agreement to carry out the intent and to fulfill the provisions of this Development Agreement or to evidence or consummate the transactions contemplated by this Development Agreement.
6.2. Regulation by Other Public Agencies.
Other public agencies not within the control of City may possess authority to regulate aspects of the development of the Property separately from or jointly with City, and this Development Agreement does not limit the authority of such other public agencies.
Nevertheless, City shall be bound by, and shall abide by, its covenants and obligations under this Development Agreement in all respects when dealing with any such agency regarding the Property. To the extent that City, the City Council, the Planning Commission or any other board, agency, committee, department or commission of City constitutes and sits as any other board, agency, commission, committee, or department, it shall not take any action that conflicts with City’s obligations under this Agreement unless required to by any State or Federal law.
6.3. Other Governmental Permits and Approvals; Grants.
Developer shall apply in a timely manner in accordance with Developer’s construction schedule for the permits and approvals from other governmental or quasi-governmental agencies having jurisdiction over the Project as may be required for the development of, or provision of services to, the Project. Developer shall comply with all such permits, requirements and approvals. City shall cooperate with Developer in its endeavors to obtain (a) such permits and approvals and (b) any grants for the Project for which Developer applies.
6.4. Cooperation in the Event of Legal Challenge.
6.4.1. The filing of any third party lawsuit(s) against City or Developer relating to this Agreement, the Project Approvals or other development issues affecting the Property shall not delay or stop the development, processing or construction of the Project or approval of any Subsequent Approvals, unless the third party obtains a court order preventing the activity. City shall not stipulate to or cooperate in the issuance of any such order.
6.4.2. In the event of any administrative, legal or equitable action instituted by a third party challenging the validity of any provision of this Development Agreement, the procedures leading to its adoption, the Project Approvals for the Project or the portions of the LRPMP applicable to the Property and this Project (“Initial Litigation Challenge”), Developer and City each shall have the right, in its sole discretion, to elect whether or not to defend such action, to select its own counsel, and to control its participation and conduct in the litigation in all respects permitted by law. If an Initial Litigation Challenge is filed, upon receipt of the petition, the Parties will have 20 days to meet and confer regarding the merits of such Initial Litigation Challenge and to determine whether to defend against the Initial Litigation Challenge, which period may be extended by the Parties’ mutual agreement so long as it does not impact any litigation deadlines.
If, after meeting and conferring, the Parties mutually agree to defend against the Initial Litigation Challenge, then the following shall apply: (i) the Parties hereby agree to affirmatively cooperate in defending said action and to execute a joint defense and confidentiality agreement #19..
- 955 -
22 Development Agreement
Olivewood Subdivision
in order to share and protect information, under the joint defense privilege recognized under applicable law; (ii) for the purposes of cost-efficiency and coordination, the Parties shall first consider defending the Initial Litigation Challenge jointly, with counsel and under terms of joint representation mutually acceptable to the City and Developer (each in its sole discretion), at the Developer’s sole cost and expense; and (iii) if the Parties cannot reach timely and mutual agreement on a joint counsel, and Developer continues to elect (in its sole discretion) to defend against the Initial Litigation Challenge, then Developer shall take the lead role defending such Initial Litigation Challenge and may, in its sole discretion, elect to be represented by the legal counsel of its choice, in which case, City, at its expense, may elect to be separately represented by the outside legal counsel of its choice in any such action or proceeding. The City Manager is authorized to negotiate and enter into a joint defense agreement in a form acceptable to the City Attorney. Such joint defense agreement shall also provide that any proposed settlement of an Initial Litigation Challenge shall be subject to City’s and Developer’s approval, each in its reasonable discretion.
As part of the cooperation in defending an action, City and Developer shall coordinate their defense in order to make the most efficient use of legal counsel and to share and protect information. Developer and City shall each have sole discretion to terminate its defense at any time. If Developer elects, in its sole and absolute discretion, not to defend against the Initial Litigation Challenge, it shall deliver written notice to the City regarding such decision. If Developer elects not to defend, the City has the right, but not the obligation, to proceed to defend against the Initial Litigation Challenge and shall take the lead role defending such Initial Litigation Challenge and may, in its sole discretion, elect to be represented by the legal counsel of its choice, at its sole cost and expense. If Developer elects not to defend, the City has the right, but not the obligation, to terminate this Agreement and consider the Developer’s application for any related Project Approvals withdrawn. The City shall not settle any third party litigation of Project Approvals without Developer’s consent, which consent shall not be unreasonably withheld, conditioned or delayed.
6.5. Revision to Project.
In the event of a court order issued as a result of a successful legal challenge, City shall, to the extent permitted by law or court order, in good faith seek to comply with the court order in such a manner as will maintain the integrity of the Project Approvals and avoid or minimize to the greatest extent possible (i) any impact to the development of the Project as provided for in, and contemplated by, the Vested Elements, or (ii) any conflict with the Vested Elements or frustration of the intent or purpose of the Vested Elements.
6.6. State, Federal or Case Law.
Where any state, federal or case law allows City to exercise any discretion or take any act with respect to that law, City shall, in an expeditious and timely manner, at the earliest possible time, (a) exercise its discretion in such a way as to be consistent with, and carry out the terms of, this Development Agreement and (b) take such other actions as may be necessary to carry out in good faith the terms of this Development Agreement.
#19..
- 956 -
23 Development Agreement
Olivewood Subdivision
6.7. Defense of Agreement.
City shall take all actions that are necessary or advisable to uphold the validity and enforceability of this Development Agreement. If this Development Agreement is adjudicated or determined to be invalid or unenforceable, City agrees, subject to all legal requirements, to consider modifications to this Development Agreement to render it valid and enforceable to the extent permitted by applicable law. Developer shall pay all of City’s costs, including attorneys’ fees and experts’ costs, incurred to modify or defend this Development Agreement.
ARTICLE 7.
TRANSFERS AND ASSIGNMENTS
7.1. Right to Assign.
Developer shall have the right to sell, assign or transfer (“Transfer”) in whole or in part its rights, duties and obligations under this Development Agreement, to any person or entity at any time during the Term of this Development Agreement upon providing notice to City no later than ten (10) days after the effective date of said sale, assignment or transfer. Assignment and assumption of this Development Agreement shall be administered through the form of Assignment and Assumption Agreement attached to this Agreement as Exhibit E, attached hereto and incorporated herein. In the event of a transfer of a portion of the Property, Developer shall have the right to Transfer its rights, duties and obligations under this Development Agreement that are applicable to the transferred portion, and to retain all rights, duties and obligations applicable to the retained portions of the Property. Upon Developer’s request, City shall cooperate with Developer and any proposed transferee to allocate rights, duties and obligations under this Development Agreement and the Project Approvals among the transferred Property and the retained Property.
7.2. Release upon Transfer.
Upon the Transfer of Developer’s rights and interests under this Development Agreement pursuant to Section 7.1, Developer shall automatically be released from its obligations and liabilities under this Development Agreement with respect to that portion of the Property transferred, and any subsequent default or breach with respect to the transferred rights and/or obligations shall not constitute a default or breach with respect to the retained rights and/or obligations under this Development Agreement, provided that (i) Developer has provided to City written notice of such Transfer, and (ii) the transferee executes and delivers to City a written Assignment and Assumption agreement, in substantially the form attached hereto in Exhibit E, in which (a) the name and address of the transferee is set forth and (b) the transferee expressly and unconditionally assumes all of the obligations of Developer under this Development Agreement with respect to that portion of the Property transferred. Upon any transfer of any portion of the Property and the express assumption of Developer’s obligations under this Development Agreement by such transferee, City agrees to look solely to the transferee for compliance by such transferee with the provisions of this Development Agreement as such provisions relate to the portion of the Property acquired by such transferee. A default by any transferee shall only affect that portion of the Property owned by such transferee and shall not cancel or diminish in any way Developer’s rights hereunder with respect to any portion of the Property not owned by such #19..
- 957 -
24 Development Agreement
Olivewood Subdivision
transferee. The transferor and the transferee shall each be solely responsible for the reporting and annual review requirements relating to the portion of the Property owned by such transferor/transferee, and any amendment to this Development Agreement between City and a transferor or a transferee shall only affect the portion of the Property owned by such transferor or transferee. Failure to deliver a written assumption agreement hereunder shall not affect the running of any covenants herein with the land, as provided in Section 7.3 below, nor shall such failure negate, modify or otherwise affect the liability of any transferee pursuant to the provisions of this Development Agreement.
7.3. Covenants Run with the Land.
All of the provisions, agreements, rights, powers, standards, terms, covenants and obligations contained in this Development Agreement shall be binding upon the Parties and their respective successors (by merger, reorganization, consolidation, or otherwise) and assigns, devisees, administrators, representatives, lessees, and all of the persons or entities acquiring the Property or any portion thereof, or any interest therein, whether by operation of law or in any manner whatsoever, and shall inure to the benefit of the Parties and their respective successors (by merger, consolidation or otherwise) and assigns. All of the provisions of this Development Agreement shall be enforceable as equitable servitudes and constitute covenants running with the land pursuant to applicable law, including but not limited to, Section 1468 of the Civil Code of the State of California. Each covenant to do, or refrain from doing, some act on the Property hereunder (i) is for the benefit of such Property and is a burden upon such Property, (ii) runs with such Property, (iii) is binding upon each Party and each successive owner during its ownership of such Property or any portion thereof, and (iv) each person or entity having any interest therein derived in any manner through any owner of such Property, or any portion thereof, and shall benefit the Property hereunder, and each other person or entity succeeding to an interest in such Property.
ARTICLE 8.
MORTGAGEE PROTECTION; CERTAIN RIGHTS OF CURE
8.1. Mortgagee Protection.
This Development Agreement shall not prevent or limit Developer in any manner, at Developer’s sole discretion, from encumbering the Property or any portion thereof or any improvement thereon by any mortgage, deed of trust or other security device securing financing with respect to the Property (“Mortgage”). This Development Agreement shall be superior and senior to any lien placed upon the Property or any portion thereof after the date of recording this Development Agreement, including the lien of any Mortgage. Notwithstanding the foregoing, no breach hereof shall defeat, render invalid, diminish or impair the lien of any Mortgage made in good faith and for value, but all of the terms and conditions contained in this Development Agreement shall be binding upon and effective against and inure to the benefit of any person or entity, including any deed of trust beneficiary or mortgagee (“Mortgagee”) who acquires title to the Property, or any portion thereof, by foreclosure, trustee’s sale, deed in lieu of foreclosure, or otherwise.
#19..
- 958 -
25 Development Agreement
Olivewood Subdivision
8.2. Mortgagee Not Obligated.
Notwithstanding the provisions of Section 8.1 above, no Mortgagee shall have any obligation or duty under this Development Agreement to perform Developer’s obligations or other affirmative covenants of Developer hereunder; provided, however, that a Mortgagee shall not be entitled to devote the Property to any uses or to construct any improvements thereon other than those uses or improvements provided for or authorized by this Development Agreement, or by the Project Approvals and Applicable Rules.
8.3. Notice of Default to Mortgagee; Right of Mortgagee to Cure.
If City receives a notice from a Mortgagee requesting a copy of any Notice of Default given to Developer hereunder and specifying the address for service thereof, then City shall deliver to such Mortgagee, concurrently with service thereon to Developer, any notice given to Developer with respect to any claim by City that Developer has committed a default, and if City makes a determination of noncompliance hereunder, City shall likewise serve notice of such noncompliance on such Mortgagee concurrently with service thereof on Developer. Each Mortgagee shall have the right (but not the obligation) during the same period available to Developer to cure or remedy, or to commence to cure or remedy, the Event of Default claimed or the areas of noncompliance set forth in City’s notice.
8.4. No Supersedure.
Nothing in this ARTICLE 8 shall be deemed to supersede or release a Mortgagee or modify a Mortgagee’s obligations under any subdivision improvement agreement or other obligation incurred with respect to the Project outside this Development Agreement, nor shall any provision of this ARTICLE 8 constitute an obligation of City to such Mortgagee, except as to the notice requirements of Section 8.3.
8.5. Technical Amendments.
City agrees to reasonably consider and approve interpretations and/or technical amendments to the provisions of this Agreement that are required by lenders for the acquisition and construction of the improvements on the Property or any refinancing thereof and to otherwise cooperate in good faith to facilitate Developer’s negotiations with lenders.
ARTICLE 9.
MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS
9.1. Limitation on Liability.
Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in this Development Agreement, in no event shall any member, officer, agent or employee of City be personally liable for any breach #19..
- 959 -
26 Development Agreement
Olivewood Subdivision
of this Development Agreement by City or for any amount which may become due to Developer under the terms of this Development Agreement.
9.2. Force Majeure.
The Term of this Development Agreement and the Project Approvals and the time within which Developer shall be required to perform any act under this Development Agreement shall be extended by a period of time equal to the number of days during which performance of such act is delayed unavoidably and beyond the reasonable control of the Party seeking the delay by strikes, lock-outs and other labor difficulties, Acts of God, inclement weather, failure or inability to secure materials or labor by reason of priority or similar regulations or order of any governmental or regulatory body, changes in local, state or federal laws or regulations, any development moratorium or any action of other public agencies that regulate land use, development or the provision of services prevents, prohibits or delays construction of the Project, enemy action, civil disturbances, wars, terrorist acts, fire, unavoidable casualties, litigation involving this Agreement or the Project Approvals, or any other cause beyond the reasonable control of Developer which substantially interferes with carrying out the development of the Project. Such extension(s) of time shall not constitute an Event of Default and shall occur at the request of any Party. In addition, the Term of this Development Agreement and any subdivision map or any of the other Project Approvals shall not include any period of time during which (i) a development moratorium including, but not limited to, a water or sewer moratorium, is in effect; (ii) the actions of public agencies that regulate land use, development or the provision of services to the Property prevent, prohibit or delay either the construction, funding or development of the Project; or (iii) there is any mediation, arbitration, litigation or other administrative or judicial proceeding pending involving the Vested Elements, or Project Approvals. The Term of the Project Approvals shall therefore be extended by the length of any development moratorium or similar action; the amount of time any actions of public agencies prevent, prohibit or delay the construction, funding or development of the Project; or the amount of time to finally resolve any mediation, arbitration, litigation or other administrative or judicial proceeding involving the Vested Elements, or Project Approvals. Furthermore, in the event the issuance of a building permit for any part of the Project is delayed as a result of Developer’s inability to obtain any other required permit or approval, then the Term of this Development Agreement shall be extended by the period of any such delay.
9.3. Notices, Demands and Communications Between the Parties.
Formal written notices, demands, correspondence and communications between City and Developer shall be sufficiently given if delivered personally (including delivery by private courier), dispatched by certified mail, postage prepaid and return receipt requested, or delivered by nationally recognized overnight courier service, or by electronic facsimile transmission followed by delivery of a “hard” copy to the offices of City and Developer indicated below.
Such written notices, demands, correspondence and communications may be sent in the same manner to such persons and addresses as either Party may from time-to-time designate in writing at least fifteen (15) days prior to the name and/or address change and as provided in this Section 9.3.
City: City of Modesto
#19..
- 960 -
27 Development Agreement
Olivewood Subdivision
1010 10th Street
PO Box 642
Modesto, CA 95342
Attn: Community Development Director
With copies to: City of Modesto
1010 10th Street
PO Box 642
Modesto, CA 95342
Attn: City Attorney
Developer: DASCO Olivewood, LLC
1117 L Street
Modesto, CA 95354
Notices personally delivered shall be deemed to have been received upon delivery.
Notices delivered by certified mail, as provided above, shall be deemed to have been given and received on the first to occur of (i) actual receipt by any of the addresses designated above as the Party to whom notices are to be sent, or (ii) within five (5) days after a certified letter containing such notice, properly addressed, with postage prepaid, is deposited in the United States mail.
Notices delivered by overnight courier service as provided above shall be deemed to have been received twenty-four (24) hours after the date of deposit. Notices delivered by electronic facsimile transmission shall be deemed received upon receipt of sender of electronic confirmation of delivery, provided that a “hard” copy is delivered as provided above.
9.4. Project as a Private Undertaking; No Joint Venture or Partnership. The Project constitutes private development, neither City nor Developer is acting as the agent of the other in any respect hereunder, and City and Developer are independent entities with respect to the terms and conditions of this Agreement. Nothing contained in this Development Agreement or in any document executed in connection with this Development Agreement shall be construed as making City and Developer joint venturers or partners.
9.5. Severability.
If any terms or provision(s) of this Development Agreement or the application of any term(s)or provision(s) of this Development Agreement to a particular situation, is (are) held by a court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid, void or unenforceable, the remainder of this Development Agreement or the application of this Development Agreement to other situations, shall remain in full force and effect unless amended or modified by mutual consent of the Parties. Notwithstanding the foregoing, if any material provision of this Development Agreement, or the application of such provision to a particular situation, is held to be invalid, void or unenforceable, Developer (in its sole and absolute discretion) may terminate this Development Agreement by providing written notice of such termination to City. #19..
- 961 -
28 Development Agreement
Olivewood Subdivision
9.6. Section Headings.
Article and Section headings in this Development Agreement are for convenience only and are not intended to be used in interpreting or construing the terms, covenants or conditions of this Development Agreement.
9.7. Construction of Agreement.
This Development Agreement has been reviewed and revised by legal counsel for both Developer and City, and no presumption or rule that ambiguities shall be construed against the drafting Party shall apply to the interpretation or enforcement of this Development Agreement.
9.8. Entire Agreement.
This Development Agreement, including the Recitals, and exhibits attached hereto and incorporated by reference herein, together with the Project Approvals, constitutes the entire understanding and agreement of the Parties and supersedes all negotiations or previous agreements between the Parties with respect to all or any part of the subject matter hereof. The exhibits and appendices are as follows:
Exhibit A Legal Description of the Property
Exhibit B Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map
Exhibit C CFD Taxes
Exhibit D Capital Facilities Fees
Exhibit E Assignment & Assumption Agreement
9.9. Estoppel Certificates.
Either Party may, at any time during the Term of this Development Agreement, and from time to time, deliver written notice to the other Party requesting such Party to certify in writing that, to the knowledge of the certifying Party, (i) this Development Agreement is in full force and effect and a binding obligation of the Parties, (ii) this Development Agreement has not been amended or modified either orally or in writing, or if amended; identifying the amendments, (iii) the requesting Party is not in default in the performance of its obligations under this Development Agreement, or if in default, to describe therein the nature and amount of any such defaults, and (iv) any other information reasonably requested. The Party receiving a request hereunder shall execute and return such certificate or give a written, detailed response explaining why it will not do so within twenty (20) days following the receipt thereof. The failure of either Party to provide the requested certificate within such twenty (20) day period shall constitute a confirmation that this Agreement is in full force and effect and no modification or default exists.
Either the City Manager or her designee shall have the right to execute any certificate requested by Developer hereunder. City acknowledges that a certificate hereunder may be relied upon by transferees and Mortgagees.
#19..
- 962 -
29 Development Agreement
Olivewood Subdivision
9.10. Recordation.
Pursuant to California Government Code Section 65868.5, within ten (10) days after the later of the Parties’ execution of this Development Agreement or the Effective Date, the City Clerk shall record this Development Agreement with the Contra Costa County Recorder.
Thereafter, if this Development Agreement is terminated, modified or amended, the City Clerk shall record notice of such action with the Contra Costa County Recorder.
9.11. No Waiver.
No delay or omission by either Party in exercising any right or power accruing upon noncompliance or failure to perform by the other Party under any of the provisions of this Development Agreement shall impair any such right or power or be construed to be a waiver thereof. A waiver by either Party of any of the covenants or conditions to be performed by the other Party shall be in writing and signed by a duly authorized representative of the Party against whom enforcement of a waiver is sought, and any such waiver shall not be construed as a waiver of any succeeding breach or non-performance of the same or other covenants and conditions hereof.
9.12. Time Is of the Essence.
Time is of the essence for each provision of this Development Agreement for which time is an element.
9.13. Applicable Law.
This Development Agreement shall be construed and enforced in accordance with the laws of the State of California.
9.14. Attorneys’ Fees.
Should any legal action be brought by either Party because of a breach of this Development Agreement or to enforce any provision of this Development Agreement, the prevailing party shall be entitled to reasonable attorneys’ fees and such other costs as may be found by the court.
9.15. Third Party Beneficiaries.
Except as otherwise provided herein, City and Developer hereby renounce the existence of any third party beneficiary to this Development Agreement and agree that nothing contained herein shall be construed as giving any other person or entity third party beneficiary status.
9.16. Constructive Notice and Acceptance.
Every person who now or hereafter owns or acquires any right, title or interest in or to any portion of the Property is and shall be conclusively deemed to have consented and agreed to every provision contained herein, whether or not any reference to this Development Agreement is contained in the instrument by which such person acquired an interest in the Property. #19..
- 963 -
30 Development Agreement
Olivewood Subdivision
9.17. Counterparts.
This Development Agreement may be executed by each Party on a separate signature page, and when the executed signature pages are combined, shall constitute one single instrument.
9.18. Authority.
The persons signing below represent and warrant that they have the authority to bind their respective Party and that all necessary board of directors’, shareholders’, partners’, city councils’ or other approvals have been obtained.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, City and Developer have executed this Development Agreement as of the date first set forth above.
DEVELOPER:
DASCO Olivewood, LLC
1117 L Street
Modesto, CA 95354
By: __________________________________
Title: __________________________________
CITY:
CITY OF MODESTO
a charter city
By: __________________________________
Joseph P. Lopez, City Manager
ATTESTATION:
By: ________________________
Diane Nayares-Perez, City Clerk
#19..
- 964 -
31 Development Agreement
Olivewood Subdivision
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
By: ________________________
Jose M. Sanchez, City Attorney
SIGNATURES MUST BE NOTARIZED
#19..
- 965 -
5671899.1
EXHIBIT A
LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY
THE LAND REFERRED TO HEREIN BELOW IS SITUATED IN AN UNINCORPORATED AREA, COUNTY OF STANISLAUS, STATE OF CALIFORNIA AND IS DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
PARCEL 1 (APN 083-004-060)
PARCEL 1, PER MAP FILED MARCH 24, 1970 IN VOLUME 8 OF PARCEL MAPS, AT PAGE 62, STANISLAUS COUNTY RECORDS.
EXCEPTING THEREFROM ALL OIL, GAS, PETROLEUM, NAPTHA AND OTHER
HYDROCARBONS AND ALL CHEMICAL GAS, NOW OR HEREAFTER FOUND, SITUATED OR
LOCATED IN ALL OR ANY PART OR PORTION OF THE LANDS HEREIN DESCRIBED LYING THEREIN OR THEREUNDER, AS EXCEPTED AND RESERVED IN THE DEED FROM EDWIN K.
HOATSON AND BETTY JEAN HOATSON, HUSBAND AND WIFE, DATED APRIL 26, 1965 AND RECORDED MAY 3, 1965 IN VOLUME 2029 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS, PAGE 95, INSTRUMENT NO. 17320.
PARCEL 2 (APN 083-004-059)
PARCEL 2, PER MAP FILED MARCH 24, 1970 IN VOLUME 8 OF PARCEL MAPS, AT PAGE 62, STANISLAUS COUNTY RECORDS.
EXCEPTING THEREFROM ALL OIL, GAS, PETROLEUM, NAPTHA AND OTHER
HYDROCARBONS AND ALL CHEMICAL GAS, NOW OR HEREAFTER FOUND, SITUATED OR
LOCATED IN ALL OR ANY PART OR PORTION OF THE LANDS HEREIN DESCRIBED LYING THEREIN OR THEREUNDER, AS EXCEPTED AND RESERVED IN THE DEED FROM EDWIN K.
HOATSON AND BETTY JEAN HOATSON, HUSBAND AND WIFE, DATED APRIL 26, 1965 AND RECORDED MAY 3, 1965 IN VOLUME 2029 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS, PAGE 95, INSTRUMENT NO. 17320.
#19..
- 966 -
EXHIBIT B
VESTING TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP
#19..
- 967 -
EXHIBIT C
COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT TAXES
#19..
- 968 -
EXHIBIT D
CITY OF MODESTO
CAPITAL FACILITY FEES (CFF)
Single-Family Dwelling
TYPE OF FEE/CHARGE FEE FEE AMOUNT/PER DWELLING
1) Administration Fee $357.00
2) Police Fee $766.00
3) Fire Fee $477.00
4) Parks & Air Quality Fee $7,551.00
5) General Government Fee $631.00
6) Streets Fee $8,244.00
7) Transit Fee $120.00
Total: $18,146.00
#19..
- 969 -
EXHIBIT E
ASSIGNMENT & ASSUMPTION AGREEMENT
#19..
- 970 -
#19..
- 971 -
5671899.1
#19..
- 972 -
EXHIBIT F
RESOLUTION NO. _________
#19..
- 973 -
FINANCIAL INTEREST DISCLOSURE FORM GUIDELINES
City ordinance requires that all individuals with a material interest in a decision of the City Council must be disclosed. The following is for your assistance in completing the attached disclosure form:
1. For all of the below, corporate names/LLC’s/limited partnerships are not acceptable in and of themselves, all individuals with an interest of $2000 or more must be disclosed in these cases.
2. Individuals with a material interest include all property owners.
3. Individuals with a material interest include any developer.
4. Individuals with a material interest include any architect, engineer, or other design professional.
5. Individuals with a material interest include the applicant’s attorney or other representative.
6. Individuals with a material interest include any real estate agent who is party to the transaction.
7. Individuals with a material interest include any contractor constructing the project for which the contract has been arranged by the time of the hearing.
The above is for guidance only and not an inclusive list of all individuals at interest. You have a responsibility to determine and list all individuals in accordance with the Tests of Materiality as set forth on the attached.
Community & Economic Development Department
Updated: 06/25/20
#19..
- 974 -
FINANCIAL INTEREST DISCLOSURE FORM
All persons included within the meaning of either of the following tests have a material financial interest in an agreement, or application for development rights, submitted for approval or disapproval by the City Council, and shall be identified by the applicant, by name.
Tests of Materiality:
1. Whether it is foreseeable to a reasonable person that the value of their interest in property available for use by an applicant, or their interest in the applicant itself, may increase or decrease by an amount greater than $2,000.00 as a direct or indirect result of Council action on the applicant's agreement or application for development rights.
2. Whether it is foreseeable to a reasonable person that the person's gross income from the applicant may increase or decrease by a sum greater than $2,000.00 as a direct or indirect result of Council action on the agreement or application for development rights.
It is the legal obligation of all applicants for approval of an agreement or of an application for development rights to verify in writing, under penalty of perjury, that the identity of each person having a material financial interest in the agreement or application or development rights is true, correct and complete. The applicant understands that this information is provided under penalty of perjury, and that intentionally supplying misinformation or deception may result in either invalidation of the agreement or application, or criminal prosecution for misdemeanor violation of the Modesto Municipal Code, or both. Negligent provision of misinformation shall be grounds for invalidation. In accordance with the Modesto Municipal Code, each applicant has a continuing obligation to maintain the truth, accuracy and completeness of the financial interest disclosure information provided below until after final consideration by the City Council of any matter arising out of or relating to the agreement or application.
PROJECT: Olivewood - Tivoli
Phillip Kirk DeLaMare, Manager
PASCO Development, LLC
APPLICANT NAME (type or print)
In accordance with the requirements of Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA”) of 1990, the Fair Employment & Housing Act ("FEHA’), the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (as amended), Government Code section 11135 and other applicable codes, the City of Modesto ("City”) will not discriminate against individuals on the basis of disability in the City's services, programs, or activities. For more information, please visit the City of Modesto website: https://www.modestogov.com/865/Americans-with-Disabilities-Act-ADA Updated: 06/25/20
#19..
- 975 -
NAMES
Property Owner(s)-(Please list name of company and names of individual names of said company) PASCO Development, LLC (Phillip Kirk DeLaMare, Manager) Developer(s)-(Please list name of company and names of individual owner(s) of company) N/A
Architect(s), Engineers) or Other Design Professional(s)-(Please list name of company and names of individual owner(s) of company)
MVP, Inc. (1U7L Street; Modesto, CA 95354)
Attomey(s) or Representative(s)-(Please list name of company and names of individual owner(s) of company)
Ogden Law Firm, PC - Daniel J. Ogden, Esq. ( 1535 J Street, Suite A; Modesto, CA 95354) Real Estate Agent(s)- (Please list name of company and names of individual owner(s) of company) N/A
Contractors)
N/A
Other-(Investors, Trustees, etc.)
N/A
Updated: 06/25/20
#19..
- 976 -
cm oMODESTO
CALIFORNIA
California Levine Act Disclosure
California Government Code Section 84308, also known as the "Levine Act", prohibits City "officers" from participating in any action related to a license, permit, or other entitlement for use (a "proceeding") if such member accepts, solicits, or directs political contributions from a party to the proceeding or their agent totaling more than $500 while the proceeding is pending before the agency, and for twelve (12) months following the date a decision concerning the proceeding has been made. The Levine Act also requires disclosure of such contribution by a party to the proceeding.
Section 84308(a)(4) of the Levine Act defines an "officer" as follows: "Officer" means any elected or appointed officer of an agency, any alternate to an elected or appointed officer of an agency, and any candidate for elective office in an agency. The term "officer" is further defined 2 Cal. Code Regs. Section 18438.1, which states:
An officer of an agency includes only those persons who make, participate in making, or in any way attempt to use their official position to influence a decision in the license, permit, or entitlement for use proceeding, or who exercise authority or budgetary control over the agency of officers who may do so, and:
(1) Serve in an elected position, including an official appointed to an elected position due to an interim vacancy or an election otherwise canceled because the official was the sole candidate for the position; (2) Serve as a member of a board or commission;
(3) Serve as the chief executive of a state agency, or county, city or district of any kind; or (4)Have decision making authority with respect to the proceeding involving a license, permit, or other entitlement for use and is also a candidate for elected office or has been a candidate for elective office in the 12 months prior to the proceeding.
A list of Modesto City Council Board Members can be found online at: Modesto City Council https://modestogov.com/706/Council-Members (modestogov.com). The party making this certification is responsible for determining whether a recipient of a political contribution is a City officer prior to answering the following questions:
1. Have you, your company, or any agent on behalf of you or your company, made any political contributions of more than $500 to any City officer, in the twelve (12) months preceding the date of the submission of your proposals or the anticipated date of any Council action related to this contract?
YES If yes, please identify the Councilmember(s):
2. Do you, or your company, or any agent on behalf of you or your company, anticipate or plan to make any political contribution of more than $500 to any City officer in the twelve (12) months following any Council action related to this contract?
1=1 If yes, please identify the Councilmember(s): yes
#19..
- 977 -
Answering YES to either of the questions above does not preclude the City of Modesto from awarding a contract to your firm or taking any subsequent action related to the contract. It may, however, preclude the identified City officer from participating in any actions related to such contract.
HEREBY CERTIFY UNDER PENALTY OF PERJURY UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA THAT THE FOREGOING IS TRUE AND CORRECT.
Date
TAbo •pEUaAPrA&JT) LLC, /pfHLUf
Company/Applicant Name /<112.^
#19..
- 978 -
CITY OF MODESTO
COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
DATE OF MEETING:
May 13, 2025
Date: April 17, 2025
TO: Mayor and City Council
THROUGH: Joseph P. Lopez, City Manager
FROM: Jessica Hill, Director of Community and Economic Development SUBJECT: CR&D Inc Relocation Request
CONTACT: Sean Rando, Business Analyst,
[email protected], 209-577-5473
DESCRIPTION:
Hearing to consider a relocation request of CR & D Inc. from 439 Maze Boulevard to 1313 McHenry Avenue. (Funding Source: Cannabis Permit Application Fee) STRATEGIC PLAN ELEMENT:
This item is consistent with the City Council 2020-2025 Strategic Plan Goal E, Drive Economy Vitality.
BACKGROUND:
In December of 2017, the City Council adopted Ordinance 3684-C.S. legalizing certain commercial cannabis business operations in particular zoning districts. The City Council was the approving body regarding all cannabis businesses operating in the City. On April 13, 2021, by Resolution No. 2021-132, Council established the Cannabis Permit Review Committee (Committee) and delegated the authority to approve non-dispensary and non-delivery cannabis businesses to that Committee. On March 1, 2022, by Resolution No. 2022-109, the Council expanded the role of the Committee to advise the Council on all cannabis-related issues and renamed the Committee, the Cannabis Program and Permit Review Committee. City Council remains the approval authority for all matters regarding retail dispensaries.
On December 19, 2018, by Resolution 2018-566, the City Council approved and issued eight (8) cannabis retail permits. CR & D Inc (CRD) received a permit to operate a type ten (10) commercial cannabis retail storefront, also known as a dispensary, at 439 Maze Blvd. Following the issuance of a permit, and once the business becomes operational, each permittee is then required to pass annual financial audits and compliance inspections. The audits review business records including point of sale reports, invoices, and Metrc system1 data to verify that all cannabis excise tax payments to the City are accurately calculated based on the actual gross 1 Metrc provides track and trace software services for the California Department of Cannabis Control which monitors the movement of cannabis through the supply chain from cultivation through sale to a consumer: https://cannabis.ca.gov/wpcontent/uploads/sites/2/2022/04/Track-and-Trace_System_5-Steps.pdf #20..
- 979 -
City Council, May 13, 2025
CR&D Inc Relocation Request