EXHIBIT H
STATE AUDIT DOCUMENT REQUIREMENTS FOR THE GRANTEE
The following provides a list of documents typically required by State Auditors and general guidelines for the Grantee. List of documents pertains to both State funding and the Grantee’s Local Cost Share and details the documents/records that State Auditors would need to review in the event of this Grant Agreement is audited.
The Grantee should ensure that such records are maintained for each funded project.
State Audit Document Requirements
Internal Controls
1. Organization chart (e.g., Agency’s overall organization chart and organization chart for the State funded Program/Project).
2. Written internal procedures and flowcharts for the following:
a) Receipts and deposits
b) Disbursements
c) State reimbursement requests
d) Expenditure tracking of State funds
e) Guidelines, policy, and procedures on State funded Program/Project
3. Audit reports of the Agency internal control structure and/or financial statements within the last two years.
4. Prior audit reports on the State funded Program/Project.
State Funding:
1. Original Grant Agreement, any amendment(s) and budget modification documents.
2. A listing of all bond-funded grants, loans, or subventions received from the State.
3. A listing of all other funding sources for each Program/Project.
Contracts:
1. All subcontractor and consultant contracts and related or partners’ documents, if applicable.
2. Contracts between the Agency and member agencies as related to the State funded Program/Project.
Invoices:
1. Invoices from vendors and subcontractors for expenditures submitted to the State for payments under the Grant Agreement.
2. Documentation linking subcontractor invoices to State reimbursement, requests and related Grant Agreement budget line items.
3. Reimbursement requests submitted to the State for the Grant Agreement.
Cash Documents:
1. Receipts (copies of warrants) showing payments received from the State.
2. Deposit slips (or bank statements) showing deposit of the payments received from the State.
3. Cancelled checks or disbursement documents showing payments made to vendors, subcontractors, consultants, and/or agents under the grants or loans.
4. Bank statements showing the deposit of the receipts.
Accounting Records:
1. Ledgers showing entries for funding receipts and cash disbursements.
2. Ledgers showing receipts and cash disbursement entries of other funding sources.
3. Bridging documents that tie the general ledger to requests for Grant Agreement reimbursement.
Administration Costs:
1. Supporting documents showing the calculation of administration costs.
Docusign Envelope ID: EF15A821-321E-4231-A829-6F6F23D735CC #19..
- 960 -
Grant Agreement No. 4600014796 – Amendment 1
Personnel:
1. List of all contractors and Agency staff that worked on the State funded Program/Project.
2. Payroll records including timesheets for contractor staff and the Agency personnel who provided services charged to the program
Project Files:
1. All supporting documentation maintained in the project files.
2. All Grant Agreement related correspondence.
Docusign Envelope ID: EF15A821-321E-4231-A829-6F6F23D735CC #19..
- 961 -
Grant Agreement No. 4600014796 – Amendment 1
EXHIBIT I
LOCAL PROJECT SPONSORS AND PROJECT LOCATIONS
The Grantee has assigned, for each project, a Local Project Sponsor (LPS). LPSs may act on behalf of the Grantee for the purposes of individual project management, oversight, compliance, and operations and maintenance. LPSs are identified for each sponsored Project below:
Local Project Sponsor Agency Designation
Sponsored Project: Empire Community Well 312 Treatment System & Flush Line Project Sponsor Agency: City of Modesto
Agency Address: 1010 10th Street, Modesto, CA 95354
Project Location: Modesto, California (37.631002000000002, -120.89973) Docusign Envelope ID: EF15A821-321E-4231-A829-6F6F23D735CC #19..
- 962 -
Grant Agreement No. 4600014796 – Amendment 1
Local Project Sponsor Agency Designation
Sponsored Project: Water Supply Reliability Project
Sponsor Agency: Contra Costa Water District
Agency Address: 1331 Concord Avenue, Concord, CA 94520
Project Location: San Joaquin River Funding Area
Docusign Envelope ID: EF15A821-321E-4231-A829-6F6F23D735CC #19..
- 963 -
Grant Agreement No. 4600014796 – Amendment 1
EXHIBIT J
APPRAISAL SPECIFICATIONS
For property acquisitions funded by this Grant Agreement, the Grantee shall submit an appraisal for review and approval by the Department of General Services or DWR’s Real Estate Branch prior to reimbursement or depositing State funds into an escrow account. This information should be submitted at least 90 days prior to a reimbursement request to account for review time. All appraisal reports, regardless of report format, shall include all applicable Appraisal Specifications below. Appraisals for a total compensation of $150,000 or more shall be reported as a Self-Contained Appraisal Report. Appraisals for a total compensation of less than $150,000 may be reported as a Summary Appraisal Report, which includes all information necessary to arrive at the appraiser’s conclusion. Appraisal Specifications 14, 16, 21, 23-25, and 28 shall be a narrative analysis regardless of the reporting format.
1. Title page with sufficient identification of appraisal assignment.
2. Letter of transmittal summarizing important assumptions and conclusions, value estimate, date of value and date of report.
3. Table of contents.
4. Assumptions and Limiting Conditions, Extraordinary Assumptions, and Hypothetical Conditions as needed.
5. Description of the scope of work, including the extent of data collection and limitations, if any, in obtaining relevant data.
6. Definition of Fair Market Value, as defined by California Code of Civil Procedure, § 1263.320.
7. Photographs of subject property and comparable data, including significant physical features and the interior of structural improvements, if applicable.
8. Copies of Tax Assessor’s plat map with the subject marked along with all contiguous assessor’s parcels that depict the ownership.
9. A legal description of the subject property, if available.
10. For large, remote or inaccessible parcels, provide aerial photographs or topographical maps depicting the subject boundaries.
11. Three (3) year subject property history, including sales, listings, leases, options, zoning, applications for permits, or other documents or facts that might indicate or affect use or value.
12. Discussion of any current Agreement of Sale, option, or listing of subject property. This issue required increased diligence since state agencies often utilize non-profit organizations to quickly acquire sensitive habitat parcels using Option Agreements. However, due to confidentiality clauses, the terms of the Option are often not disclosed to the State. If the appraiser discovers evidence of an Option or the possible existence of an Option, and the terms cannot be disclosed due to a confidentiality clause, then the appraiser is to cease work and contact the client.
13. Regional, area, and neighborhood analyses. This information may be presented in a summary format.
14. Market conditions and trends including identification of the relevant market area, a discussion of supply and demand within the relevant market area, and a discussion of the relevant market factors impacting demand for site acquisition and leasing within the relevant market area. This information may be presented in a summary format.
15. Discussion of subject land/site characteristics (size, topography, current use, elevations, zoning and land use issues, development entitlements, General Plan designation, utilities, offsite improvements, access, land features such as levees and creeks, offsite improvements, easements and Docusign Envelope ID: EF15A821-321E-4231-A829-6F6F23D735CC #19..
- 964 -
Grant Agreement No. 4600014796 – Amendment 1
encumbrances, covenants, conditions and restrictions, flood and earthquake information, toxic hazards, water rights, mineral rights, toxic hazards, taxes and assessments, etc.).
16. Description of subject improvements including all structures, square footage, physical age, type of construction, quality of construction, condition of improvements and/or identification of any permanent plantings. Discussion of construction cost methodology, costs included and excluded, accrued depreciation from all causes, remaining economic life, items of deferred maintenance and cost to cure, and incurable items. Construction cost data shall include cost data source, date of estimate or date of publication of cost manual, section and page reference of cost manual, copies of cost estimate if provided from another source, replacement or reproduction cost method used, and supporting calculations including worksheets or spreadsheets.
17. Subject property leasing and operating cost history, including all items of income and expense.
18. Analysis and conclusion of the larger parcel for partial taking appraisals. For partial taking appraisals, Appraisal Specifications generally apply to the larger parcel rather than an ownership where the larger parcel is not the entire ownership.
19. Include a copy of a recent preliminary title report (within the past year) as an appraisal exhibit. Discuss the title exceptions and analyze the effect of title exceptions on fair market value.
20. For appraisals of partial takings or easements, a detailed description of the taking or easement area including surface features and topography, easements, encumbrances or improvements including levees within the subject partial take or easement, and whether the take area is characteristic of the larger parcel. Any characteristics of the taking area, including existing pre-project levees that render the take area different from the larger parcel shall be addressed in the valuation.
21. Opinion of highest and best use for the subject property, based on an in-depth analysis supporting the concluded use which includes the detail required by the complexity of the analysis. Such support typically requires a discussion of the four criteria of tests utilized to determine the highest and best use of a property. If alternative feasible uses exist, explain and support market, development, cash flow, and risk factors leading to an ultimate highest and best use decision.
22. All approaches to market value applicable to the property type and in the subject market. Explain and support the exclusion of any usual approaches to value.
23. Map(s) showing all comparable properties in relation to the subject property.
24. Photographs and plat maps of comparable properties.
25. In-depth discussion of comparable properties, similarities and differences compared to the subject property, adjustments to the comparable data, and discussion of the reliability and credibility of the data as it relates to the indicated subject property value. Improved comparable sales which are used to compare to vacant land subject properties shall include an allocation between land and improvements, using methodology similar to methodology used in item 16 above to estimate improvement value when possible, with an explanation of the methodology used.
26. Comparable data sheets.
a. For sales, include information on grantor/Grantee, sale/recordation dates, listed or asking price as of the date of sale, highest and best use, financing, conditions of sale, buyer motivation, sufficient location information (street address, post mile, and/or distance from local landmarks such as bridges, road intersections, structures, etc.), land/site characteristics, improvements, source of any allocation of sale price between land and improvements, and confirming source. b. For listings, also include marketing time from list date to effective date of the appraisal, original list price, changes in list price, broker feedback, if available.
Docusign Envelope ID: EF15A821-321E-4231-A829-6F6F23D735CC #19..
- 965 -
Grant Agreement No. 4600014796 – Amendment 1
c. For leases, include significant information such as lessor/lessee, lease date and term, type of lease, rent and escalation, expenses, size of space leased, tenant improvement allowance, concessions, use restrictions, options, and confirming source. When comparing improved sales to a vacant land subject, the contributory value of the improvements shall be segregated from the land value.
27. For appraisals of easements, a before and after analysis of the burden of the easement on the fee, with attention to how the easement affects highest and best use in the after condition. An Easement Valuation Matrix or generalized easement valuation references may be used ONLY as a reference for a secondary basis of value.
28. For partial taking and easement appraisals, valuation of the remainder in the after condition and analysis and identification of any change in highest and best use or other characteristics in the after condition, to establish severance damages to the remainder in the after condition, and a discussion of special and general benefits, and cost to cure damages or construction contract work.
29. There are occasions where properties involve water rights, minerals, or salable timber that require separate valuations. If an appraisal assignment includes water rights, minerals, or merchantable timber that requires separate valuation, the valuation of the water rights, minerals, or merchantable timber shall be completed by a credentialed subject matter specialist.
30. For partial taking and easement appraisals, presentation of the valuation in California partial taking acquisition required format.
31. Implied dedication statement.
32. Reconciliation and final value estimate. Include analysis and comparison of the comparable sales to the subject, and explain and support conclusions reached.
33. Discussion of any departures taken in the development of the appraisal.
34. Signed Certification consistent with the language found in Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice.
35. If applicable, in addition to the above, appraisals of telecommunication sites shall also provide:
a. A discussion of market conditions and trends including identification of the relevant market, a discussion of supply and demand within the relevant market area and a discussion of the relevant market factors impacting demand for site acquisition and leasing within the relevant market area. b. An analysis of other leases comparable to subject property. Factors to be discussed in the analysis include the latitude, longitude, type of tower, tower height, number of rack spaces, number of racks occupied, placement of racks, power source and adequacy, back-up power, vault and site improvements description and location on site, other utilities; access, and road maintenance costs.
Docusign Envelope ID: EF15A821-321E-4231-A829-6F6F23D735CC #19..
- 966 -
Grant Agreement No. 4600014796 – Amendment 1
EXHIBIT K
INFORMATION NEEDED FOR ESCROW PROCESSING AND CLOSURE
The Grantee shall provide the following documents to the State Project Representative during the escrow process. Property acquisition escrow documents shall be submitted within the term of this Grant Agreement and after a qualified appraisal has been approved. Name and Address of Title Company Handling the Escrow Escrow Number
Name of Escrow Officer
Escrow Officer’s Phone Number
Dollar Amount Needed to Close Escrow
Legal Description of Property Being Acquired
Assessor’s Parcel Number(s) of Property Being Acquired Copy of Title Insurance Report
Entity Taking Title as Named Insured on Title Insurance Policy Copy of Escrow Instructions in Draft Form Prior to Recording for Review Purposes Copy of Final Escrow Instructions
Verification that all Encumbrances (i.e., Liens, Back Taxes, and Similar Obligations) have been Cleared Prior to Recording the Deed to Transfer Title
Copy of Deed for Review Purposes Prior to Recording
Copy of Deed as Recorded in County Recorder’s Office
Copy of Escrow Closure Notice
Docusign Envelope ID: EF15A821-321E-4231-A829-6F6F23D735CC #19..
- 967 -
Grant Agreement No. 4600014796 – Amendment 1
EXHIBIT L
PROJECT MONITORING PLAN GUIDANCE
Introduction
For each project contained in Exhibit A, please include a brief description of the project (maximum ~150 words) including project location, implementation elements, need for the project (what problem will the project address) and responds to the requirements listed below.
Project Monitoring Plan Requirements
The Project Monitoring Plan shall contain responses to the following questions:
What are the anticipated project physical benefits?
What are the corresponding numeric targets for each project benefit? How will proposed numeric targets be measured?
What are baseline conditions?
When will the targets be met (e.g., upon project completion, five years after completion)? How often will monitoring be undertaken (e.g., monthly, yearly). Where are monitoring point locations (e.g., meter located at…, at stream mile…)? Include relevant maps.
How will the project be maintained (e.g., irrigation, pest management, weed abatement)? What will be the frequency and duration of maintenance proposed activities? Are there any special environmental considerations (e.g., resource agency requirements, permit requirements, CEQA/NEPA mitigation measures)?
Who is responsible for collecting the samples (i.e., who is conducting monitoring and/or maintenance)?
How, and to whom, will monitoring results be reported (e.g., paper reports, online databases, public meetings)?
What adaptive management strategies will be employed if problems are encountered during routine monitoring or maintenance?
What is the anticipated life of the project?
Docusign Envelope ID: EF15A821-321E-4231-A829-6F6F23D735CC #19..
- 968 -
Grant Agreement No. 4600014796 – Amendment 1
EXHIBIT M
INVOICE GUIDANCE FOR ADMINISTRATIVE AND OVERHEAD CHARGES The funds provided pursuant to this Agreement may only be used for costs that are directly related to the funded Project. The following provides a list of typical requirements for invoicing, specifically providing guidance on the appropriate methods for invoicing administrative and direct overhead charges.
Administration Charges
Indirect and General Overhead (i.e., indirect overhead) charges are not an allowable expense for reimbursement. However, administrative expenses that are apportioned directly to the project are eligible for reimbursement. Cost such as rent, office supplies, fringe benefits, etc. can be “Direct Costs” and are eligible expenses as long as:
There is a consistent, articulated method for how the costs are allocated that is submitted and approved by the Grant Manager. The allocation method must be fully documented for auditors. A “fully-burdened labor rate” can be used to capture allowable administrative costs. The administrative/overhead costs can never include:
o Non-project specific personnel and accounting services performed within the Grantee or an LPS’ organization
o Generic markup
o Tuition
o Conference fees
o Building and equipment depreciation or use allowances Using a general overhead percentage is never allowed
Labor Rates
The Grantee must provide DWR with supporting documentation for personnel hours (see personnel billing rates letter in example invoice packet). The personnel rate letter should be submitted to the DWR Grant Manager prior to submittal of the first invoice. The supporting documentation must include, at a minimum, employee classifications that will be reimbursed by grant funds and the corresponding hourly rate range.
These rates should be “burdened”; the burdened rate must be consistent with the Grantee’s/Local Project Sponsors standardized allocation methodology. The supporting documentation should also provide an explanation of what costs make up the burdened rate and how those costs were determined. This information will be used to compare against personnel hours summary table invoice back up documentation. Periodic updates may be needed during the life of the grant which would be handled through a revised billing rate letter.
Docusign Envelope ID: EF15A821-321E-4231-A829-6F6F23D735CC #19..
- 969 -
CITY OF MODESTO
COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
DATE OF MEETING:
June 10, 2025
Date: May 7, 2025
TO: Mayor and City Council
THROUGH: Joseph P. Lopez, City Manager
FROM: William Wong, Director of Utilities
SUBJECT: Award 2018-2019 Lift Station Improvements Project CONTACT: Peter Barberis, Associate Civil Engineer
[email protected], 209-571-5544
DESCRIPTION:
Consider approving the Plans and Specifications for the 2018-2019 Lift Station Improvements Project, accepting the Bid, and Awarding a Construction Contract to TSI Engineering, Inc., of North Highlands, CA, in the amount of $2,403,786, authorizing 20% in contingency (if needed), for a total payment amount not to exceed $2,884,544. (Funding Source: Wastewater Fund) STRATEGIC PLAN ELEMENT:
The recommended action supports the 2025-2026 City of Modesto Strategic Plan Initiatives, Goal D: Provide safe, efficient, and reliable infrastructure through proactive community investment, maintenance, and sustainability efforts.
BACKGROUND:
The Codoni Lift Station is located at the south end of Codoni Avenue and conveys wastewater flows through various trunks lines and on to the Regional Water Recycling Facility – Sutter Campus.
It has been determined that the existing lift station has excess capacity, as the current flows are significantly lower than was previously designed for. A combination of low flows and corrosive industrial wastewater discharge has led to considerable deterioration in both the influent and discharge piping and has resulted in several Sanitary Sewer Overflows at this site.
Due to the aforementioned issues, Utilities Operations and Maintenance Staff have requested a redesign of the existing lift station to transition from a wet well - dry well system to a submersible pump configuration.
The planned improvements include:
Removal of Existing Lift Station, including Concrete Slab, Electrical Panels, and Fencing Installation of New Concrete Wet Well Including Two Pumps #20..
- 970 -
City Council, June 10, 2025
Award 2018-2019 Lift Station Improvements Project
Installation of New Dry Vault and Associated Piping
Installation of New Electrical Cabinets and Associated Shade Canopy Installation of New Ornamental Iron Fencing
Installation of New Reinforced Concrete Slab
Replacement of One Existing Manhole
Installation of One New Manhole
Restoration of Two Existing Manholes
Installation of Approximately 100 Feet of New Sanitary Sewer Main Replacement of Approximately 200 Feet of Existing Sanitary Sewer Main By reconfiguring the current lift station and installing appropriately sized pumps, the conveyance system will be enhanced, leading to improved operational efficiency; helping to prevent future failures and eliminating the need for emergency repairs.
DISCUSSION:
The project was advertised for bid on February 26, 2025. Bids were publicly opened on March 25, 2025, pursuant to City Charter Section 1307, and TSI Engineering Inc., of North Highlands, CA, was the sole bidder.
TSI Engineering Inc.’s bid was 6.65% above the Engineer’s Estimate. Bidder competition and participation was not as anticipated as the City received only one bid.
In an effort to better understand why the level of participation in the bid process was not as expected, staff reached out to several contractors who did not submit bids but were present at the mandatory pre-bid meeting on March 11, 2025, held at the project site. The contractor’s responses included the following:
Project Scope Scheduling Conflicts
General/Unspecified Lack of Interest/Capacity to Bid on the Project Modesto Municipal Code Section 8-3.203 generally requires all purchases, which meet or exceed $100,000 for material, equipment, or contractual services to follow the formal bid procedures. The award of a Contract for the construction of the 2018-2019 Lift Station Improvements Project to TSI Engineering Inc., of North Highlands, CA, conforms to the Modesto Municipal Code because the City complied with the formal bid procedures and TSI Engineering Inc. was the lowest responsive and responsible bidder.
While the contingency policy is utilized for each Construction Contract awarded by the City, it is not written into each contract, nor is it a guaranteed amount included in the final compensation to the contractor.
The City’s “Change Order Approval Policy” enacted by Council Resolution No. 1994-443 on July 19, 1994, revised on July 9, 2019, by Council Resolution No. 2019-326, and revised a second time on September 12, 2023 by Council Resolution No. 2023-405, established a Contract change order authority of 10% for Construction Contracts of this dollar value. However, given the nature of this project where unforeseen conditions may exist when dealing with existing construction, and other unaccounted for issues may arise, it is likely that this project could exceed the Director’s Authority of 10% ($240,379) of the Construction Contract amount of #20..
- 971 -
City Council, June 10, 2025
Award 2018-2019 Lift Station Improvements Project
$2,403,786. Therefore, staff is requesting that the Director’s Authority to issue change orders be increased to 20% ($480,758) of the Construction Contract amount.
FISCAL IMPACT:
The total estimated cost for the construction phase of this project is $3,365,112. Expenses associated with this effort are housed in the following Capital Improvement Program Project:
101090 – 2018/2019 Lift Station Improvements
ANTICIPATED CONSTRUCTION EXPENDITURES
Construction $2,403,786
Construction Contingency (20%) $480,758
Construction Administration – City Staff $360,568
Engineering/Design/Administration – City Staff $120,000 TOTAL $3,365,112
A budget adjustment in the amount of $2,346,844 from Wastewater Reserves will be necessary to fund the Construction Phase of this project.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION:
This item was considered by the Economic Development Committee at the meeting held on May 5, 2025, where it was recommended that it be forwarded to Council.
CEQA/NEPA REQUIREMENTS:
Environmental review has been provided through a Categorical Exemption under CEQA Section 15302 (Replacement or Reconstruction) Class 2, (c).
RECOMMENDED COUNCIL ACTION:
Staff Recommendations:
Resolution approving the Plans and Specifications for the 2018-2019 Lift Station Improvements Project; accepting the Bid and Awarding a Construction Contract to TSI Engineering Inc., of North Highlands, CA, in the amount of $2,403,786, authorizing the Director of Engineering Services to approve Change Orders up to the cumulative amount of $480,758, 20% of the original contract price, for a total payment amount not to exceed $2,884,544 and authorizing the City Manager, or his designee, to execute the Contract.
Resolution amending the Fiscal Year 2024-25 Capital Improvement Program Budget in the amount of $2,346,844 to fund the Construction Phase of the 2018-2019 Lift Station Improvements Project and authorizing the City Manager, or his designee, to implement the provisions of the resolution.
Approved by:
William Wong, Director of Utilities
Joseph P. Lopez, City Manager
#20..
- 972 -
City Council, June 10, 2025
Award 2018-2019 Lift Station Improvements Project
Attachments:
1. Resolutions (2)
2. Construction Contract - TSI Engineering Inc.
3. Bid Results
4. Bid Waiver
#20..
- 973 -
06/10/2025/Utilities/PBarberis/Item XX 1 2025-XX
MODESTO CITY COUNCIL
RESOLUTION NO. 2025-XX
RESOLUTION APPROVING THE PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR THE 2018-2019 LIFT STATION IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT; ACCEPTING THE
BID AND AWARDING A CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT TO TSI
ENGINEERING INC., OF NORTH HIGHLANDS, CA, IN THE AMOUNT OF $2,403,786, AUTHORIZING THE DIRECTOR OF ENGINEERING SERVICES
TO APPROVE CHANGE ORDERS UP TO THE CUMULATIVE AMOUNT OF $480,758, 20% OF THE ORIGINAL CONTRACT PRICE, FOR A TOTAL PAYMENT AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $2,884,544 AND AUTHORIZING THE
CITY MANAGER, OR HIS DESIGNEE, TO EXECUTE THE CONTRACT
WHEREAS, the Codoni Lift Station is located at the south end of Codoni Avenue and conveys wastewater flows through various trunks lines and on to the Regional Water Recycling Facility – Sutter Campus; and
WHEREAS, the existing lift station was designed with excessive capacity, as the actual flows are significantly lower than was previously anticipated; and WHEREAS, a combination of low flows and corrosive industrial discharge has led to considerable deterioration in both the influent and discharge piping and has resulted in several Sanitary Sewer Overflows at this site; and WHEREAS, due to the aforementioned issues, Utilities Operations and Maintenance Staff have requested a redesign of the existing lift station to transition from a wet well - dry well system to a submersible pump configuration; and WHEREAS, by reconfiguring the current lift station and installing appropriately sized pumps, the conveyance system will be enhanced, leading to improved operational efficiency, helping to prevent future failures and eliminating the need for emergency repairs; and
WHEREAS, the project was advertised for bids on February 26, 2025; and #20..
- 974 -
06/10/2025/Utilities/PBarberis/Item XX 2 2025-XX
WHEREAS, on March 25, 2025, bids were publicly opened, pursuant to City Charter Section 1307, and one bid was received; and
WHEREAS, TSI Engineering Inc., of North Highlands, CA, was the sole bidder; and
WHEREAS, Modesto Municipal Code Section 8-3.203 generally requires all purchases, which meet or exceed $100,000 for material, equipment or contractual services to follow the formal bid procedures; and
WHEREAS, the award of a Contract for the construction of the 2018-2019 Lift Station Improvements Project to TSI Engineering Inc., of North Highlands, CA, conforms to the Modesto Municipal Code because the City complied with the formal bid procedures and TSI Engineering Inc. was the lowest responsive and responsible bidder.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Modesto that it hereby approves the plans and specifications for the 2018-2019 Lift Station Improvements Project, accepts the bid of $2,403,786, authorizes the Director of Engineering Services to approve Change Orders up to the cumulative amount of $480,758, 20% of the original Contract price, for a total payment amount not to exceed $2,884,544, and awards a Construction Contract to TSI Engineering Inc., of North Highlands, CA.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Manager, or his designee, is hereby authorized to execute the Contract, in a form approved by the City Attorney. #20..
- 975 -
06/10/2025/Utilities/PBarberis/Item XX 3 2025-XX
The foregoing resolution was introduced at a regular meeting of the Council of the City of Modesto held on the 3rd day of June 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:
DIANA NAYARES-PEREZ, CMC,
City Clerk
(SEAL)
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
BY: ____________________________________
JOSE M. SANCHEZ, City Attorney
#20..
- 976 -
06/10/2025/Utilities/PBarberis/Item XX 1 2025-XX
MODESTO CITY COUNCIL
RESOLUTION NO. 2025-XX
RESOLUTION AMENDING THE FISCAL YEAR 2024-25 CAPITAL
IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM BUDGET IN THE AMOUNT OF $2,346,844 TO FUND THE CONSTRUCTION PHASE OF THE 2018-2019 LIFT STATION
IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER, OR
HIS DESIGNEE, TO IMPLEMENT THE PROVISIONS OF THE RESOLUTION WHEREAS, certain budgetary transactions are necessary in the amount of $2,346,844, in order to fund the 2018-2019 Lift Station Improvements Project, and WHEREAS, the Fiscal Year 2024-25 Capital Improvement Program Budget must be amended.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Modesto that it hereby approves the amendment of the Fiscal Year 2024-25 Capital Improvement Program Budget in the amount of $2,346,844.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Manager, or his designee, is hereby authorized to implement the provisions of this resolution. #20..
- 977 -
06/10/2025/Utilities/PBarberis/Item XX 2 2025-XX
The foregoing resolution was introduced at a regular meeting of the Council of the City of Modesto held on the 3rd day of June 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:
DIANA NAYARES-PEREZ, CMC,
City Clerk
(SEAL)
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
BY: ____________________________________
JOSE M. SANCHEZ, City Attorney
#20..
- 978 -
#20..
- 979 -
#20..
- 980 -
#20..
- 981 -
#20..
- 982 -
#20..
- 983 -
#20..
- 984 -
#20..
- 985 -
#20..
- 986 -
#20..
- 987 -
#20..
- 988 -
#20..
- 989 -
#20..
- 990 -
#20..
- 991 -
#20..
- 992 -
Bid Tabulation Wednesday, March 26, 2025
Project Title: 2018-2019 Lift Station Improvements
Project ID #: 2025-009
Vault ID #: 12-D-0563
Account #: 101090
Bid Opening: 3/25/2025 at 11:00 AM
Basis of Award: By Base Bid Designer: Pezzoni Electrical Engineering Design Manager: Peter Barberis
Project Description: This project includes fully removing existing Lift Station facilities at the South end of Codoni Ave and installing a new lift station, including concrete pad, electrical panels, and fencing. This will include the installation of 2 new sewer manholes and approximately 373 linear feet of gravity fed 8-inch PVC pipe.
Item # Item Description Units Quantity Unit Price Extension Apparent Low Bidder
TSI Engineering, Inc.
(916) 571-5731 4600 Roseville Road, Suite 140, North Highlands, CA 95660 Base Bid
1 Mobilization and Demobilization LS 1 $84,975.00 $84,975.00 2 Demolition and Disposal (Including Sewer LS 1 $77,500.00 $77,500.00 Abandonment)
3 Shoring, Bracing, and Sheeting LS 1 $148,900.00 $148,900.00 4 Potholing LS 1 $26,000.00 $26,000.00
5 Furnish & Install 8" PVC Sewer Main LF 375 $321.00 $120,375.00 6 Furnish & Install 6" PVC Force Main LF 15 $650.00 $9,750.00 7 Furnish & Install 48" Sewer Manhole EA 2 $38,340.00 $76,680.00 8 Connect New Pipe to Ex SSMH EA 2 $2,078.00 $4,156.00
9 Connect Ex Pipes to New SSMH EA 3 $2,660.00 $7,980.00 10 Connect to Ex 6" SFM LS 1 $5,700.00 $5,700.00
11 Concrete Lift Station Structure, Pumps, and LS 1 $470,000.00 $470,000.00 Appurtenances
12 Concrete Dry Vault LS 1 $113,500.00 $113,500.00
13 Concrete Slab (at Lift Station) LS 1 $38,500.00 $38,500.00 14 Hatches (H20 Rated) LS 1 $31,700.00 $31,700.00
15 Electrical LS 1 $631,000.00 $631,000.00
16 Iron Fence & Gates LS 1 $69,200.00 $69,200.00
17 Hot Mix Asphalt TON 150 $516.00 $77,400.00
18 Class II Aggregate Base CY 270 $186.00 $50,220.00
19 Traffic Control and Signage LS 1 $281,900.00 $281,900.00 20 Restore Road Striping LS 1 $9,350.00 $9,350.00
21 CCTV Pipeline Inspection LF 390 $20.00 $7,800.00
22 Bypass Pumping LS 1 $24,500.00 $24,500.00
23 Structural Calculations LS 1 $17,000.00 $17,000.00
24 Water Pollution Control Plan (WPCP) LS 1 $16,500.00 $16,500.00 #20..
- 993 -
25 Stan County Encroachment Permit LS 1 $3,200.00 $3,200.00 Total: $2,403,786.00
Percent From Engineer's Estimate: 6.65%
Engineer's Estimate
Base Bid
1 Mobilization and Demobilization LS 1 $75,000.00 $75,000.00 2 Demolition and Disposal (Including Sewer LS 1 $150,000.00 $150,000.00 Abandonment)
3 Shoring, Bracing, and Sheeting LS 1 $150,000.00 $150,000.00 4 Potholing LS 1 $50,000.00 $50,000.00
5 Furnish & Install 8" PVC Sewer Main LF 375 $180.00 $67,500.00 6 Furnish & Install 6" PVC Force Main LF 15 $250.00 $3,750.00 7 Furnish & Install 48" Sewer Manhole EA 2 $22,000.00 $44,000.00 8 Connect New Pipe to Ex SSMH EA 2 $6,000.00 $12,000.00 9 Connect Ex Pipes to New SSMH EA 3 $6,000.00 $18,000.00 10 Connect to Ex 6" SFM LS 1 $14,000.00 $14,000.00
11 Concrete Lift Station Structure, Pumps, and LS 1 $450,000.00 $450,000.00 Appurtenances
12 Concrete Dry Vault LS 1 $85,000.00 $85,000.00
13 Concrete Slab (at Lift Station) LS 1 $20,000.00 $20,000.00 14 Hatches (H20 Rated) LS 1 $35,000.00 $35,000.00
15 Electrical LS 1 $670,000.00 $670,000.00
16 Iron Fence & Gates LS 1 $85,000.00 $85,000.00
17 Hot Mix Asphalt TON 150 $180.00 $27,000.00
18 Class II Aggregate Base CY 270 $150.00 $40,500.00
19 Traffic Control and Signage LS 1 $35,000.00 $35,000.00 20 Restore Road Striping LS 1 $30,000.00 $30,000.00
21 CCTV Pipeline Inspection LF 390 $10.00 $3,900.00
22 Bypass Pumping LS 1 $150,000.00 $150,000.00
23 Structural Calculations LS 1 $20,000.00 $20,000.00
24 Water Pollution Control Plan (WPCP) LS 1 $15,000.00 $15,000.00 25 Stan County Encroachment Permit LS 1 $3,200.00 $3,200.00 Total: $2,253,850.00
#20..
- 994 -
#20..
- 995 -
#20..
- 996 -
#20..
- 997 -
#20..
- 998 -
#20..
- 999 -
#20..
- 1000 -
#20..
- 1001 -
#20..
- 1002 -
#20..
- 1003 -
#20..
- 1004 -
#20..
- 1005 -
#20..
- 1006 -
#20..
- 1007 -
#20..
- 1008 -
CITY OF MODESTO
COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
DATE OF MEETING:
June 10, 2025
Date: May 6, 2025
TO: Mayor and City Council
THROUGH: Joseph P. Lopez, City Manager
FROM: Jessica Hill, Director of Community and Economic Development SUBJECT: General Plan Amendment for Residential Density Increase, Amendment to Title 10 of the Modesto Municipal Code for Consistency with the General Plan and Allowance of Duplexes in the Low Density Residential (R-1) Zone, and Adoption of a Programmatic Environmental Impact Report for the General Plan CONTACT: Michael Hren, AICP, Principal Planner, [email protected], 209-577-5273 DESCRIPTION:
Hearing to consider approving an Amendment to the Modesto Urban Area General Plan for an increase in residential densities, an Amendment to Title 10 of the Modesto Municipal Code for the increase of residential densities, allowance of duplexes on all lots in the low density residential (R-1) zones, and adoption of a Programmatic Environmental Impact Report for the Modesto Urban Area General Plan. (Funding Source: General Fund) STRATEGIC PLAN ELEMENT:
This item is consistent with the 2025-2026 Strategic Plan’s Area of Focus: Economic Vitality Goals and Strategies, Goal E: Drive Economic Vitality. Strategy 1 of Goal E is to update the General Plan consistent with city vision; this General Plan Amendment follows through on the vision of the Housing Element and aligns it with the Modesto Municipal Code.
BACKGROUND:
On December 5, 2023, Resolution 2023-532, adopted the Modesto 2023-2031 Housing Element (“the Housing Element”), which was subsequently found in substantial compliance with State Housing Element Law per Gov. Code § 65580 et seq by the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD).
The Housing Element includes Program A-3, General Plan and Zoning Densities, which requires the City to revise the densities of residential zones in the General Plan, and to amend Title 10 (Zoning Regulations) of the Modesto Municipal Code (MMC) to align with the General Plan.
The Housing Element also includes Program A-11, Facilitate Missing Middle/Middle Income Housing, which requires the City to amend MMC Title 10 to allow duplexes to be approved ministerially on all lots in the Low Density Residential (R-1) zone. #21..
- 1009 -
City Council, June 10, 2025
General Plan Amendment for Residential Density Increase, Amendment to Title 10 of the Modesto Municipal Code for Consistency with the General Plan and Allowance of Duplexes in the Low Density Residential (R-1) Zone, and Adoption of a Programmatic Environmental Impact Report for the General Plan
In order to implement these changes, the City has prepared a new Programmatic Environmental Impact Report (PEIR) that reflects the adopted General Plan, and all General Plan Amendments and rezonings that have occurred since the last adoption; this CEQA document analyzes the changes to the General Plan and Zoning Ordinance required by the Housing Element.
DISCUSSION:
The adopted Housing Element requires the proposed changes to the General Plan and Zoning Ordinance regarding residential density. The Housing Element specifies that “As part of the General Plan update, the City will revise the densities so that the zoning and General Plan densities align. Specifically, the City will:
Revise R-1 to increase the maximum from 7.5 to 10.9 dwelling units per acre (du/acre). Revise R-2 to increase the maximum from 14.5 to 22 du/acre. Revise R-3 to increase the minimum from 21.8 to 22 du/acre and increase the maximum from 29 to 45 du/acre.”
The proposed ranges of densities for both the General Plan and the Zoning Ordinance are shown below.
Proposed Residential Densities, General Plan and Zoning Ordinance Zone Existing
Minimum
Proposed Minimum Existing
Maximum
Proposed Maximum
R-1 - - 7.5 du/acre 10.9 du/acre
R-2 10.9 du/acre 10.9 du/acre 14.5 du/acre 22 du/acre
R-3 21.8 du/acre 22 du/acre 29 du/acre 45 du/acre
The Housing Element requires that these changes be implemented by December 31, 2026. As the City’s larger General Plan update efforts will not be complete by that date, staff has brought forward these changes at this time.
The density changes accomplish several desired outcomes. First, the changes provide consistency between the General Plan and the Zoning Ordinance. At present, the maximum R-1, minimum R-2, and minimum R-3 densities vary between the two documents.
The proposed changes align all residential zones’ regulations between the General Plan and the Zoning Ordinance, allowing applicants to more easily understand expectations and by what standards applications and proposals are reviewed.
Additionally, the changes eliminate gaps in the possible densities allowed. According to the current General Plan, no developments of 7.6 to 10.8 du/acre are permitted in any residential zone, nor are developments of 14.6 to 21.7 du/acre.
The proposed changes eliminate these gaps and allow for developments of all densities at or below the proposed maximum R-3 density to be constructed within the City. #21..
- 1010 -
City Council, June 10, 2025
General Plan Amendment for Residential Density Increase, Amendment to Title 10 of the Modesto Municipal Code for Consistency with the General Plan and Allowance of Duplexes in the Low Density Residential (R-1) Zone, and Adoption of a Programmatic Environmental Impact Report for the General Plan
Finally, the proposed changes increase the maximum R-3 density to 45 du/acre. Per California Government Code 65583.2, for the number of units calculated to accommodate its share of the regional housing need for lower income households, a jurisdiction in a metropolitan county such as Modesto must have sites allowing at least 30 dwelling units per acre. Changing the allowable density for at least one zone in the City to at least 30 du/acre is necessary for Modesto to meet its obligations for these lower income households as determined by HCD for the Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA).
Upon further analysis, increasing the maximum density of the R-3 zone to 45 dwelling units per acre allowed vacant R-3 parcels in the City to qualify toward the 11,248 units of capacity the City needed to have zoned to accommodate its fair share of the overall regional housing need. For the Housing Element to remain in compliance with State Housing Law, the change to the maximum density allowed in the R-3 must take place. The changes in total reflect Modesto following through on the commitments made in the Housing Element, which will be reviewed both internally and by HCD over its eight-year life cycle.
The Housing Element states, “To increase the variety of housing choice and opportunity in singlefamily neighborhoods, the City will amend the zoning code to allow duplexes to be approved ministerially on all lots in the R-1 zone with a single-family residential use (approximately 38,000 lots).”
Modesto currently allows duplexes on corner lots in the R-1 Zone by right, per MMC 10-3.217.
Allowing duplexes on all R-1 lots builds on this existing direction and will encourage the development of additional housing throughout the City, including in high-resource areas primarily comprised of detached single-family residences. The regulations of the R-1 zone related to development standards will remain in effect for duplexes. Front setbacks of fifteen (15) feet, side setbacks of five (5) feet, rear setbacks of ten (10) feet, maximum lot coverage of fifty (50) percent, and height maximums of two (2) stories or thirty (30) feet, whichever is less, will all apply to duplexes as they do for individual residences under the current code.
Staff also added a definition of “duplex” in Chapter 2, amended other sections to ensure that the City remains compliant with State Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) law, and updated the allowable uses table for consistency with the allowable uses for Mixed-Use Pedestrian (MU-P) and MixedUse Highway (MU-H) in Chapter 7.
For decades, Modesto has benefitted from its adoption of the General Plan Master Environmental Impact Report (MEIR). The MEIR allowed streamlining and cost reduction for analysis under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) by allowing the City to conduct upfront environmental analysis so that projects did not need to do this on an individual basis. This process was a significant time and monetary cost reduction for project proponents, as opposed to providing detailed analysis in the form of individualized CEQA documents.
Also, after nearly two decades, the City has had numerous General Plan Amendments and rezonings that have occurred since the adoption of the MEIR, and simple recertification did not take those changes into account. Instead, the City has prepared a new Programmatic Environmental Impact Report (PEIR), which incorporates new laws, standards, and regulations #21..
- 1011 -
City Council, June 10, 2025
General Plan Amendment for Residential Density Increase, Amendment to Title 10 of the Modesto Municipal Code for Consistency with the General Plan and Allowance of Duplexes in the Low Density Residential (R-1) Zone, and Adoption of a Programmatic Environmental Impact Report for the General Plan
into its analysis, and takes into consideration the amendments and changes to zoning that have taken place since 2008. Additionally, PEIR documents do not require a recertification like the MEIR.
Since the City needed to prepare environmental documentation to assess the potential impacts of the density changes, staff chose to address the need for an updated General Plan EIR with the density and duplex updates in a single environmental document, rather than address them separately. Because the scope of the PEIR covers the entirety of the General Plan boundaries, the City Council will need to make a Statement of Overriding Considerations in order to adopt the PEIR. This is similar to what was required in the adoption of the Modesto MEIR and is typical of citywide EIR documents.
FISCAL IMPACT:
The changes to the General Plan and Title 10 of the Municipal Code were completed by staff, using regular departmental budget. The cost of developing the PEIR was approximately $150,000 and is being paid for by the existing planning budget through the on-call contract with De Novo consulting. No additional funds are requested at this time.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION:
At its May 5, 2025, regular meeting, the Planning Commission unanimously recommended (6-0) adoption of an Amendment to the Modesto Urban Area General Plan to amend the densities of residential zones and to certify the EIR. The Planning Commission also unanimously recommended (6-0) that the City Council adopt an Ordinance updating Title 10 of the Modesto Municipal Code.
CEQA REQUIREMENTS:
An Initial Study/Environmental Impact Report, Environmental Assessment No. EA/C&ED No. 2024-38, has been prepared by the City of Modesto that analyzed the proposed changes to the Municipal Code, and the Planning Commission has determined that, on the basis of the whole record before it, that in addition to the mitigation measures provided therein, that the City Council should certify that the PEIR complies with CEQA and adopt a Statement of Overriding Considerations as well as written findings in accordance with State CEQA Guidelines Section 15091 and 15093.
RECOMMENDED COUNCIL ACTION:
Staff Recommendations:
Resolution approving an Amendment to the Modesto Urban Area General Plan to amend the densities of residential zones and certifying the final Environmental Impact Report.
Motion introducing and waiving the first reading of an Ordinance amending Title 10 (Zoning Regulations) of the Modesto Municipal Code, amending Chapter 2 (Definitions), Article 1 (Definitions); Chapter 3 (Land Use Regulations), Article 1 (Permitted and Conditional Land Uses); Chapter 3, Article 2 (Specific Land Use Regulations); Chapter 4 (Development Standards), Article 1 (Residential Zones); and Chapter 4, Article 5 (Accessory Dwelling Units). #21..
- 1012 -
City Council, June 10, 2025
General Plan Amendment for Residential Density Increase, Amendment to Title 10 of the Modesto Municipal Code for Consistency with the General Plan and Allowance of Duplexes in the Low Density Residential (R-1) Zone, and Adoption of a Programmatic Environmental Impact Report for the General Plan
Approved by: ______________________________________
Jessica Hill, Community & Economic Development
Director
__________________________________
Joseph P. Lopez, City Manager
Attachments:
1. Resolution adopting General Plan Amendment and certifying EIR
2. Exhibit A General Plan Amendment
3. Exhibit B Environmental Assessment No. EA/C&ED No. 2024-38
4. Exhibit C CEQA Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations
5. Ordinance updating Title 10 of the MMC
6. Programmatic Environmental Impact Report
7. General Plan Amendment Text
#21..
- 1013 -
06/10/2025/CED/JHill/Item 1 2025-XXX
CITY COUNCIL
RESOLUTION NO. 2025-XX
RESOLUTION APPROVING AN AMENDMENT TO THE MODESTO URBAN
AREA GENERAL PLAN TO AMEND THE DENSITIES OF RESIDENTIAL
ZONES AND CERTIFYING THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
REPORT
WHEREAS, a General Plan for the City of Modesto entitled “City of Modesto Urban Area General Plan” (UAGP), was adopted by the City Council by Resolution No. 95-409 on August 15, 1995, in accordance with Section 65300 of the Government Code; and
WHEREAS, said General Plan has been amended by Modesto City Council Resolution Nos. 95-584, 96-20, 96-338, 96-639, 97-3, 97-137, 97-158, 98-293, 99-162, 99- 564, 2000-303, 2000-633, 2001-47, 2001-476, 2002-154, 2002-526, 2003-101, 2003-122, 2007-066, 2007-599, 2008-142, 2008-583, 2009-419, 2011-253, 2011-254, 2011-436, 2012-430, 2014-17, 2014-422, 2015-262, 2016-34, 2017-21, 2019-109, 2022-101, 2022- 193, 2022-449, 2024-022, and 2025-164, copies of which are on file in the office of the City Clerk; and
WHEREAS, Government Code Section 65358 permits the amendment of General Plans by the legislative body; and
WHEREAS, on December 5, 2023, the City Council adopted Resolution 2023-532, adopting the Modesto 2023-2031 Housing Element (hereinafter “the Housing Element”); and
#21..
- 1014 -
06/10/2025/CED/JHill/Item 2 2025-XXX
WHEREAS, on April 10, 2024, the California Department of Housing and Community Development found Modesto’s Housing Element in substantial compliance with State Housing Element Law per Gov. Code § 65580 et seq; and WHEREAS, the Housing Element includes Program A-3, General Plan and Zoning Densities, which requires the City to revise the densities of the residential zones as discussed in the General Plan; and
WHEREAS, the City is concurrently proposing an Ordinance to update the Modesto Municipal Code (CODE-24-003) for concurrence with the General Plan as amended and for other items as required by the Housing Element; and WHEREAS, an Initial Study has been prepared as required by CEQA, which concluded that an Environmental Impact Report should be prepared; and WHEREAS, a Programmatic Environmental Impact Report for the Modesto Urban Area General Plan was prepared, which concluded that the City Council would need to adopt a statement of overriding considerations as well as written findings in accordance with State CEQA Guidelines Section 15091 and 15093; and WHEREAS, a 45-day public review period for the proposed Environmental Impact Report began on February 28, 2025, and concluded on April 15, 2025; and WHEREAS, the City received two (2) public comment letters on the draft Environmental Impact Report and has made changes to the document as a result, addressing their contents and providing responses thereto within the Final EIR; and #21..
- 1015 -
06/10/2025/CED/JHill/Item 3 2025-XXX
WHEREAS, a public hearing was held by the Planning Commission on May 5, 2025, in Chambers, 1010 Tenth Street, Modesto, California, at which hearing evidence both oral and documentary was received and considered, and at which the Planning Commission recommended that the City Council approve the amendments to the Urban Area General Plan as described in Exhibit “A”, attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference, to make certain findings, and to certify the Environmental Impact Report; and
WHEREAS, a public hearing was held by the City Council of the City of Modesto on June 10, 2025, in Chambers, 1010 Tenth Street, Modesto, California, at which hearing evidence both oral and documentary was received and considered.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Modesto, that:
1. An Environmental Impact Report, Environmental Assessment No.
EA/C&ED No. 2024-38, has been prepared by the City of Modesto and provided as “Exhibit B”, attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference, that analyzed the proposed General Plan Amendment and the associated Ordinance to update the Municipal Code, and the City Council has determined that, on the basis of the whole record before it, that in addition to the mitigation measures provided therein, the City Council hereby certifies the Environmental Impact Report and adopts a Statement of Overriding Considerations as well as written findings in accordance with State CEQA Guidelines Section 15091 and 15093. The CEQA Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations are provided as “Exhibit C”, attached hereto, and incorporated herein by reference. In accordance with State CEQA Guidelines Section 15090, the City Council certifies that:
i. The final EIR has been completed in compliance with CEQA; and ii. The final EIR was presented to the City Council, the decisionmaking body of the lead agency, the City of Modesto, and that the #21..
- 1016 -
06/10/2025/CED/JHill/Item 4 2025-XXX
City Council reviewed and considered the information contained in the final EIR prior to approving the project; and
iii. The final EIR reflects the City of Modesto’s independent judgment and analysis.
2. The proposed amendment to the General Plan implements the requirements of the adopted Housing Element and makes the General Plan more internally consistent.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Modesto that it hereby adopts amendments to the Urban Area General Plan as described in “Exhibit A”, attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference.
The foregoing resolution was introduced at the regular meeting of the Council of the City of Modesto held on the 10th day of June 2025, by Councilmember ______, who moved its adoption, which motion being duly seconded by ______ 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:
#21..
- 1017 -
06/10/2025/CED/JHill/Item 5 2025-XXX
BY: ______________________________________
JOSE M. SANCHEZ, City Attorney
#21..
- 1018 -
06/10/2025/CED/JHill/Item 6 2025-XXX
EXHIBIT "A"
General Plan Amendment
#21..
- 1019 -
06/10/2025/CED/JHill/Item 7 2025-XXX
EXHIBIT "B"
Environmental Assessment No. EA/C&ED No. 2024-38
https://www.modestogov.com/DocumentCenter/View/23856/Modesto-General-PlanFinal-Environmental-Impact-Report #21..
- 1020 -
06/10/2025/CED/JHill/Item 8 2025-XXX
EXHIBIT "C"
CEQA Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations #21..
- 1021 -
City of Modesto
Urban Area General Plan III-1
March 2019
Chapter III
Community Development Policies
This chapter contains the “instructions” for building the actual physical components of the City of Modesto (City) in a manner consistent with Chapter II. This chapter establishes the proposed general distribution and extent of land uses within the Modesto Urban Area General Plan. It contains Land Use policies to guide the physical development of Modesto, within three areas defined in Chapter II:
Downtown Area, Baseline Developed Area, and Planned Urbanizing Area. This chapter also provides the Land Use Diagram and Land Use Designations for the Modesto Urban Area General Plan. This chapter complies with Section 65302(a) of the California Government Code.
A. LAND USE DIAGRAM
Figure III-1 is the Land Use Diagram, which presents the general distribution of land uses within the Modesto Urban Area General Plan boundary. The Land Use Diagram conforms to Section 65302(a) of the Government Code, and is hereby adopted and incorporated into this Modesto Urban Area General Plan.
The word “Diagram” is distinguished from “Map” in the context of a California Attorney General Opinion (67 Cal.Ops.Atty.Gen. 75, 77), to provide a certain limited degree of flexibility in applying the Land Use Designations to specific parcels.
B. ADOPTED GENERAL PLAN LAND USE DESIGNATIONS
The following Land Use Designations are presented on the Land Use Diagram (Figure III-1). These designations describe the extent of each land use type within the Modesto Urban Area. Each Land Use Designation includes standards of population density and building intensity, in conformance with Government Code Section 65302(a), and each is summarized in Table III-1, below. #21..
- 1022 -
Chapter III. Community Development Policies
City of Modesto
Urban Area General Plan III-2
March 2019
Table III-1. General Plan Land Use Designations
Land Use
Designation Non-Residential Intensity Guidance* Residential Density Guidance Residential N/A Low-Density Residential
(R1 zoning) – up to 10.9 du /
gross acre
Medium-Density Residential
(R2 zoning) – 10.9 to 22 du /
gross acre
Medium-High-Density
Residential (R3 zoning) –
22 to 45 du / gross acre
Mixed Use FAR = 0.35 SF bldg / SF of gross
acreage of non-Residential area
Average 14 du / gross acre of
Residential area
Commercial FAR = 0.35 SF bldg / SF of gross
acreage of the area
N/A
Industrial FAR = 0.30 to 0.50 SF bldg / SF of
gross acreage of the area
N/A
Downtown FAR = 1.0-14.0 SF bldg / SF of gross
acreage of the entire area
FAR = 1.0-14.0. Residential
density is not otherwise limited.
Village
Residential
4% of area designated Village
Residential
FAR = 0.35 SF bldg / SF of gross
acreage of the non-residential area
6.6 du / gross acre for entire CPD
BusinessCommercialResidentialApproximately 70% of acreage designated Business-CommercialResidential
FAR = 0.4 SF bldg. / SF of gross
acreage of the area
Approximately 30% of acreage
designated BusinessCommercial-Residential
10-30 du / gross acre
Regional
Commercial
FAR = 0.35 SF bldg / SF of gross
acreage of the area
N/A
Business Park FAR = 0.40 SF bldg / SF of gross
acreage of the area
N/A
Open Space N/A Low Density Residential –
max. 1.0 du / 10 acres
CPD = Specific plan District FAR = Floor Area Ratio SF = square foot du = dwelling unit N/A = not applicable
* FAR is calculated by dividing the total square footage of building floorspace by the total square footage of the property that it is located on.
#21..
- 1023 -
Chapter III. Community Development Policies
City of Modesto
Urban Area General Plan III-3
March 2019
1. Residential (R)
a. Purpose and Intent
To provide for residential uses throughout the Modesto Urban Area. Residential uses include single-family detached housing, single-family attached housing, multi-family housing, and mobile homes. Small-lot single-family residential development is encouraged, subject to applicable zoning regulations, design guidelines and General Plan criteria. Compatible uses in the residential designation may include schools, parks, and religious or community facilities. Existing small-scale commercial and office uses are also deemed compatible. b. Location Criteria
This designation may be applied anywhere within the Modesto Urban Area General Plan where residential land uses would be compatible with other existing and planned land uses. c. Land Use Intensity
The land use intensity is a typical density of 6.6 dwelling units per gross acre, to a maximum of 10.9 dwelling units per gross acre, on an area-wide basis without requiring a General Plan Amendment, and between 10.9 and 45.0 dwelling units per gross acre for multi-family housing.
2. Mixed Use (MU)
a. Purpose and Intent
To characterize those areas in Modesto Urban Area that are already developed and that contain a mixture of all or some of the following uses in close proximity to each other:
residential, commercial, office, and/or institutional. Additional purpose and intent of the MU designation is to provide for future development opportunities for mixed uses. In the existing Baseline Developed Area where this designation is applied, zoning controls land use on a specific parcel.
b. Location Criteria
This designation may be applied to those areas of the Modesto Urban Area that are already developed and contain a mixture of uses as described above. This designation may also be applied to areas outside of the Baseline Developed Area where mixed-use development would be appropriate.
c. Land Use Intensity
For new development, the land use mix should include residential uses and non-residential uses including but not limited to institutional, office, and commercial uses. For residential uses, the intensity should average approximately 14 dwelling units per acre over the entire residential area, with project-specific density to be consistent with zoning. For nonresidential uses, the guiding intensity is a Floor Area Ratio of approximately 0.35. #21..
- 1024 -
Chapter III. Community Development Policies
City of Modesto
Urban Area General Plan III-4
March 2019
3. Commercial (C)
a. Purpose and Intent
To provide for a range of Commercial uses to serve the current and projected needs of Modesto’s population. This designation encompasses a variety of service and retail uses, including but not limited to business, medical, and professional offices (other than large office campuses), neighborhood retail centers, convenience retail, highway-oriented commerce (restaurants, gas stations, automotive repair, and service), and Regional Commercial uses.
b. Location Criteria
Commercial land uses in Modesto are generally located at intersections along major arterial streets and expressways. The Modesto Zoning Code presents additional criteria for the location and type of Commercial uses.
c. Land Use Intensity
The guiding intensity is a Floor Area Ratio of approximately 0.35.
4. Industrial (I)
a. Purpose and Intent
To provide for industrial uses in the Modesto Urban Area. This designation provides for the full range of industrial uses, including but not limited to manufacturing, food processing, trucking, packing, and recycling, as well as those enterprises which may want to combine office and production aspects of their business in the same complex. b. Location Criteria
Industrial land uses in Modesto are generally located within larger tracts of land oriented towards Freeway 99 and/or one of the three railroads serving the Urban Area. c. Land Use Intensity
The guiding intensity is a Floor Area Ratio of approximately 0.50.
5. Downtown (D)
a. Purpose and Intent
Downtown Modesto should be the focal point of community life and the social, cultural, business, governmental and entertainment center of Stanislaus County. This vision will be achieved through partnerships between private enterprise and government agencies. The City #21..
- 1025 -
Chapter III. Community Development Policies
City of Modesto
Urban Area General Plan III-5
March 2019
shall take the lead through strategic investments in public infrastructure and by recruiting and assisting with new private investment.
Housing will be an integral part of Downtown Modesto, to be complemented by and stimulated by a safe and attractive, tree-lined environment. Modern transportation systems shall provide convenient transportation to and within the Downtown Area. Vertical mixeduse development is allowed, and is encouraged by the Downtown zones. b. Location Criteria
The Downtown designation shall be applied within the original downtown grid / City center and limited surrounding areas. The Land Use Diagram (Exhibit III-1) indicates the boundaries of this area.
c. Land Use Intensity
Residential and non-residential development should conform to the standards, regulations and criteria contained within the City of Modesto’s Downtown Zoning District regulations and/or other zoning code regulations that apply within the Downtown area. The applicable guiding intensity is a Floor Area Ratio between 1.0 and 14.0.
6. Village Residential (VR)
a. Purpose and Intent
To provide for the development of urban “villages.” Villages are to be comprised of mixeduse, compact, pedestrian- and transit-oriented neighborhoods that are intended to accommodate a variety of residential product types, such as detached houses on small lots, multi-family housing and senior housing, in addition to neighborhood-serving non-residential uses. The Comprehensive Planning District Exhibits beginning on page 22 of this Chapter provide general guidance, as applicable, for policy implementation of the Village Residential Designation. Villages should be comprehensively planned using the Specific Plan process presented in Section III-D, below.
b. Location Criteria
This designation may be applied to areas throughout the Planned Urbanizing Area, as shown in Figure II-1. As areas designated Village Residential are entitled, annexed and developed, the General Plan land use designation should be changed to Residential. c. Land Use Intensity
The Comprehensive Planning Districts (CPDs) presented in Section III-D, below, contain the actual land use mix and intensities for each CPD.
Residential: The residential density within a CPD is typically 6.6 dwelling units per gross acre for the entire district. Small-lot single-family residential development is encouraged, subject to applicable zoning regulations, design guidelines and General Plan criteria.
Consistent with the Housing Element, at least 15 percent of the residentially-designated land #21..
- 1026 -
Chapter III. Community Development Policies
City of Modesto
Urban Area General Plan III-6
March 2019
area shall be reserved for multi-family development at a minimum density of 22.0 dwelling units per acre. The maximum multi-family residential density is 45.0 dwelling units per acre.
Commercial: Approximately four (4) percent of lands designated Village Residential shall be devoted to commercial uses, with a guiding intensity of 0.35 FAR.
7. Business Commercial Residential (BCR)
a. Purpose and Intent
To provide for a combination of land uses, including Business Park, Commercial and Residential, in close proximity in order to reduce vehicle trips. This designation is intended to accommodate employment-intensive uses, and medium-high-density residential uses, with a variety of goods and services readily available. The desired result is compact and walkable development that integrates a mix of land uses such that opportunities to live near employment, shopping and service centers are created.
b. Location Criteria
This designation may be applied to areas within the Planned Urbanizing Area, as shown in Figure II-1, at locations that have adequate access to regional traffic routes and transit corridors. This designation is intended for those areas where the combination of land uses would be appropriate and compatible with neighboring uses. c. Land Use Intensity
The land use mix should be a minimum of 55 percent and maximum of 70 percent of gross acreage devoted to business park uses; a minimum of 20 percent and a maximum of 30 percent of gross acreage to be devoted to residential uses; and, a minimum of 10 percent and a maximum of 20 percent of gross acreage devoted to commercial uses. Vertical mixed-use development is also encouraged.
For residential uses, densities should be between 10 and 30 dwelling units per gross acre, respectively. For non-residential uses, the guiding intensity is approximately 0.4 FAR. #21..
- 1027 -
Chapter III. Community Development Policies
City of Modesto
Urban Area General Plan III-7
March 2019
Example photos to illustrate BCR development concept
8. Regional Commercial (RC)
a. Purpose and Intent
To provide for large-scale commercial areas and regional retail Commercial uses serving the needs of the entire region. Regional Commercial uses serve a much larger population by providing commercial activities not needed on a regular basis. Their location is primarily determined by major transportation routes which allow convenient access. b. Location Criteria
This designation may be applied anywhere within the Modesto Urban Area General Plan area that is located with adequate access to regional traffic routes and transit corridors. c. Land Use Intensity
The land use intensity is a Floor Area Ratio of approximately 0.35.
9. Business Park (BP)
a. Purpose and Intent
To provide for areas of light industrial and employment-intensive uses, and to produce an environment conducive to industries and employers seeking an aesthetically attractive “campus-like” setting. Regional Commercial uses are also permitted in Business Parks. b. Location Criteria
This designation may be applied anywhere within the Modesto Urban Area General Plan area that has adequate access to regional traffic routes and transit corridors. c. Land Use Intensity
Business Parks should have a campus-like setting, with a guiding intensity of approximately
0.40 FAR.
10. Open Space (OS)
a. Purpose and Intent
To provide for regional recreational open space (active and passive) along the Tuolumne River, Stanislaus River, and Dry Creek. Community and neighborhood parks and other smaller open space areas can be accommodated within any Land Use Designation. In the Open Space designation, planned land uses shall include low-impact recreational facilities, #21..
- 1028 -
Chapter III. Community Development Policies
City of Modesto
Urban Area General Plan III-8
March 2019
public ownership, low-density residential, and agriculture. New development within areas designated Open Space shall be designed to not detract from habitat value or passive recreational uses, nor increase flood potential.
b. Location Criteria
This designation is applied along the Tuolumne and Stanislaus Rivers and Dry Creek. c. Land Use Intensity
For residential uses in the Open Space designation, the density shall not exceed one (1) dwelling unit per ten (10) acres.
11. Salida Community Plan (SCP)
a. Purpose and Intent
If the Salida Comprehensive planning district is annexed to the City of Modesto, the City does not propose to change any land use directions from those established by Stanislaus County. Therefore, the Salida Community Plan, as adopted by Stanislaus County, will continue to guide growth and development for this area, even upon annexation to the City. b. Location Criteria
This designation is applied only in the Salida Comprehensive planning district, as shown in Exhibit III-1. These are precisely the same boundaries as for the Salida Community Plan adopted by Stanislaus County as of January 1, 1995.
c. Land Use Intensity
The Stanislaus County General Plan, in effect as of January 1, 1995, contained ten Land Use Designations to guide development within the Salida Community Plan. School sites were also designated in the Community Plan. These Land Use Designations are described in detail in the “Salida Comprehensive planning district,” presented in Section III-D. #21..
- 1029 -
Chapter III. Community Development Policies
City of Modesto
Urban Area General Plan III-9
March 2019
C. LAND USE GOALS AND POLICIES
The Land Use Designations presented above are supplemented by Land Use goals and policies, which are presented and categorized below. The following goals and policies are intended to achieve these objectives: smart growth and sustainable development; reduced per capita vehicle miles travelled and improved air quality; and, maximized efficiencies of infrastructure systems and delivery of services.
1. Overall
Goal III.A
Zoning Consistency. Maintain and enhance consistency between the General Plan (land use designations and policies) and zoning.
Policy III.A.1
Parcel-Specific Zoning. Zoning within the incorporated City limits should be, and generally is, consistent with the General Plan Land Use Designations as presented on the Land Use Diagram.
However, because these designations are broad in nature, there may be minor instances in which the existing zoning for a particular property is not consistent with the Land Use Designation for the property. These situations are still considered to be consistent with the overall goals and policies of the General Plan, and development of these properties may occur consistent with zoning.
Policy III.A.2
Rezoning. Rezonings should also be consistent with the General Plan Land Use Designations.
However, rezonings involving less than five (5) acres may occur even if they are not consistent with the Land Use Designation for the property, as long as the rezoning can be found consistent with the Land Use goals and policies of the General Plan. Rezonings of five (5) acres or more that are inconsistent with the applicable Land Use Designation(s) will require a General Plan amendment.
Goal III.B
Quality of Life. Maintain and improve the integrity of the existing developed City, and promote complete, sustainable, compatible and high-quality development – for living, working, shopping and recreation – across the entire city.
Policy III.B.1
Infill Incentives. Facilitate infill development through active leadership and strategic provision of infrastructure and services, and supporting land uses. Provide incentives for infill development, redevelopment and growth in existing urbanized areas to enhance community character, optimize infrastructure investments, support increased transit use, promote non-motorized transportation, increase housing diversity and enhance commercial viability. Structure fee programs so that infill development is “priced” according to its relative infrastructure efficiencies and the communitywide benefits to be realized. (Air quality, public health, energy conservation, environmental justice) Policy III.B.2
Existing City. To maximize economic and social benefits, and resource efficiencies, prioritize and focus new development within the existing City limits. This will strengthen existing neighborhoods and maximize efficiencies of utility / infrastructure systems. New development will be accessible by all modes of transportation, both motorized and non-motorized, with an emphasis on availability of public services. (Air quality, public health, energy conservation, environmental justice) #21..
- 1030 -
Chapter III. Community Development Policies
City of Modesto
Urban Area General Plan III-10
March 2019
Policy III.B.3
Property Maintenance. Encourage owners of visually unattractive or poorly-maintained properties to upgrade existing deficiencies, whether related to structures, outdoor storage / activities, and/or any other maintenance issues, in order to improve their visual quality. (environmental justice)
2. Neighborhoods
Promote and facilitate a fabric of complete, cohesive, pedestrian-friendly and family-oriented neighborhoods across the entire City. New neighborhoods are to be integrated with existing neighborhoods, through contextual design consideration, compact development patterns and application of Neighborhood Compatibility Guidelines and other applicable development guidelines.
Goal III.C
Neighborhoods. Create neighborhoods that are complete, compact and sustainable so that housing, jobs, shopping and transit access are within easy walking distance. Include a mix of compatible land uses within close proximity, contain a diversity of housing types to accommodate a wide range of economic levels and age groups, and have a center focus that combines commercial, civic, cultural, and recreational uses in order to facilitate high-quality living environments. Access to healthy foods and grocery stores that sell fresh fruits and vegetables is a high priority. (Air quality, public health, energy conservation, environmental justice)
Policy III.C.1
Complete Neighborhoods. Complete neighborhoods promote livability, sustainability and safety for all residents. Neighborhoods are to contain: a mix of housing types including affordable and market-rate; a range of services and facilities such as schools, parks, retail, services & civic facilities; transit access within a half-mile of all dwelling units; and, complete streets with tree canopy cover that accommodate both motorized and non-motorized mobility. (Air quality, public health, energy conservation, environmental justice)
Policy III.C.2
Protect Established Neighborhoods. Preserve, protect, and enhance established neighborhoods by providing sensitive transitions between and among adjoining neighborhoods, and by requiring new development – both private and public – to respect and respond to those existing physical characteristics, buildings, streetscapes, open spaces, and urban form that contribute to the overall character and livability of the neighborhood. (environmental justice) Policy III.C.3
Neighborhood Shopping Centers. Locate neighborhood shopping centers, preferably at the intersection of two arterial streets, in each neighborhood. Neighborhood shopping center should include full-service food stores with fresh fruits and vegetables. (environmental justice) #21..
- 1031 -
Chapter III. Community Development Policies
City of Modesto
Urban Area General Plan III-11
March 2019
Policy III.C.4
Diverse Centers. Encourage development of local, citywide and regional mixed-use centers that address different community needs and market sectors, and that compliment and are well-integrated with surrounding neighborhoods. (Air quality, public health) Policy III.C.5
New Neighborhood Core. All parts of new neighborhoods should be within a half-mile of a central gathering place that is located on a collector street or minor arterial and that includes public space, shopping areas, transit access, and community-supportive facilities and services. (Air quality, public health)
Policy III.C.6
Traditional Grid and Pedestrian Safety. Design new neighborhoods with traditional grid block sizes ranging from 300 to 400 feet in length. Separate sidewalks from the curb with a minimum eight-foot (8’) landscaped parkway. Construct context-appropriate traffic-calming improvements, such as traffic circles and intersection bulbouts. (Air quality, public health, energy conservation) Policy III.C.7
Connections to Transit. New neighborhoods include transit stops that support and connect to the citywide transit system, and that are within a half-mile walking distance of all dwelling units. (Air quality, public health, energy conservation)
Policy III.C.8
Neighborhood Schools. Neighborhoods should contain sufficient K-12 schools necessary to serve them. Locate schools on Collector streets, preferably at or near the intersection of two Collector streets. Locate neighborhood parks (see Chapter VI for parks standards) adjacent to school sites.
New schools and parks should be surrounded by streets on all sides wherever possible to encourage access by walking and bicycling. (Air quality, public health, energy conservation) Great, Safe Neighborhoods
Complete Neighborhoods promote livability and safety for residents of all ages, incomes and cultural backgrounds. Characteristics of complete neighborhoods include the following:
A mix of housing types affordable to all income levels; A neighborhood watch group and/or other neighborhood-scale organizations; At least one vibrant commercial or civic activity area that provides neighborhood identity; Services and facilities including full-service grocery stores, schools, parks, & other public spaces; Substantial tree canopy & general landscaping, combined with lighting enhance safety; An interconnected street network with short blocks and very few cul-de-sacs; Convenient access to public transportation and high-quality bicycle & pedestrian facilities; and, School sites that are central to neighborhoods.
#21..
- 1032 -
Chapter III. Community Development Policies
City of Modesto
Urban Area General Plan III-12
March 2019
Policy III.C.9
Senior Housing Development. Encourage the development of senior housing in neighborhoods that are accessible to public transit, commercial services, and health & community facilities. (Air quality, public health, energy conservation, environmental justice) Policy III.C.10
Neighborhood Open Space. Neighborhoods should contain an ample supply of specialized open space in the form of squares, greens and parks, whose frequent use is encouraged through placement and design. Provide linkages between such areas and surrounding neighborhoods.
Policy III.C.11
Development Guidelines. Apply Neighborhood Compatibility Guidelines, Multi-Family Residential Design Guidelines, Guidelines for Small-Lot Single-Family Residential Developments, and other adopted development guidelines, as appropriate to new construction, additions to existing structures, replacement of existing buildings / land uses, and other neighborhood improvements.
Policy III.C.12
Residential Design. For new residential development, include a range of lot sizes, varied setbacks, and orient buildings to the street (e.g. entry, windows).
Policy III.C.13
Transitions in Scale. Scale and massing of new development in higher-density centers and corridors should provide appropriate transitions in building height and bulk that are sensitive to the physical and visual character of adjoining neighborhoods.
Safe Schools
Safe Schools promote accessibility, education, exercise, healthy food choices and role models for Modesto’s youth. Characteristics of Safe Schools include the following:
A convenient network of sidewalks and pedestrian improvements in general to assist students in getting to school, regardless of their available transportation mode choice options; A well-developed network of bicycle lanes, paths and trails to allow safe and convenient access to schools for those students that choose to bike to school; Healthy foods, including fresh fruits and produce, that are consistently available at school; Extended outdoor playtime and recreational facilities, and a formal physical education program;
Qualified, competent and experienced teachers and faculty, including counselors and police department staff; and,
A central location to neighborhoods, and prominent placement along the connector street network in the Planned Urbanizing Area.
#21..
- 1033 -
Chapter III. Community Development Policies
City of Modesto
Urban Area General Plan III-13
March 2019
3. Major Transportation Corridors
This General Plan acknowledges the “land use-transportation connection” by providing direction with regard to both public and private investment along major transportation corridors. Future corridor studies will provide detailed guidance for site design, land use mix, and development intensity, in addition to transportation options and “Complete Streets.”
Goal III.D
Corridor Studies. Corridor Studies guide infill development, and re-use / recycling of existing development, along major transportation corridors. Such development will balance vehicular circulation and access against all other travel modes – both motorized and non-motorized. Development along major transportation corridors should mix land uses effectively so that housing, retail and service needs are combined with pedestrian-friendly facilities and gathering places. (Air quality, public health, energy conservation, environmental justice)
Policy III.D.1
Study Corridors. The following “Major Transportation Corridors” are the best candidates for reinvestment, based in part on the connectivity they provide between downtown and other parts of the City / surrounding region (see Figure III-2):
i. McHenry Avenue / SR108;
ii. Yosemite Avenue / SR132;
iii. Crows Landing Road;
iv. Paradise Road;
v. Maze Boulevard;
vi. N. 9th Street; and,
vii. other corridor(s) as needed.
Policy III.D.2
Corridor Study Topics. Corridor Studies will address the following:
i. Transportation mode priority (includes transit, bicycle and pedestrian); ii. Street design;
iii. Land use designations;
iv. Development standards & design guidelines;
v. Pedestrian safety; and,
vi. other considerations as applicable.
Goal III.E
Corridor Development. Development along major transportation corridors that occurs pursuant to an adopted corridor study should be compact, mixed-use, transit- / bicycle- / pedestrian-friendly, and scaled appropriately to match the context and transition to existing nearby neighborhoods. (Air quality, public health, energy conservation, environmental justice)
Policy III.E.1
Transit Oriented Development. Locate higher-density, transit-oriented, mixed-use development (TOD) along major transportation corridors near significant intersections and public transportation facilities. Development density along major transportation corridors should increase with proximity to transit stops and decrease with distance from transit stops in order to encourage increased transit ridership. Establish specific thresholds, standards and guidelines for TOD and other development types in the applicable corridor study documentation. (Air quality, public health, energy conservation, environmental justice)
#21..
- 1034 -
Chapter III. Community Development Policies
City of Modesto
Urban Area General Plan III-14
March 2019
Policy III.E.2
Corridor Mixed-Use Infill. Promote mixed-use infill development along major transportation corridors through the use of corridor studies, zoning, flexible development standards, density bonuses and other development incentives. Locate such development along the back of sidewalk, and oriented to frame the street, while incorporating public plazas and pedestrian amenities that will create people-oriented centers for living, working and gathering. (environmental justice) Policy III.E.3
Corridor Residential Infill. Encourage high-quality, compact, multi-story residential infill development along major transportation corridors, through design criteria contained within applicable corridor study documentation. Minimize parking requirements where appropriate.
Maintain compatibility with form and function of nearby existing neighborhoods through use of applicable design guidelines.
Policy III.E.4
Corridor Study Implementation. Corridor studies may include a form-based code component to guide subsequent development, in order to provide clear and consistent development standards.
Other potential implementation mechanisms include, and are not limited to, mixed-use and/or overlay zoning, specific plans, and design guidelines.
Policy III.E.5
Corridor Features. Promote the transformation of major transportation corridors, via formal corridor studies, into boulevards that are attractive, comfortable, and safe for pedestrians and cyclists by incorporating the following design features: (Air quality, public health, energy conservation, environmental justice)
i. Wide sidewalks to accommodate pedestrian traffic, amenities and landscaping; ii. Class I, II or IV bicycle facilities;
iii. On-street parking between sidewalks and travel lanes; iv. Few curb cuts and driveways;
v. Enhanced pedestrian street crossings;
vi. Compatible interface with adjacent existing residential neighborhoods; vii. Buildings located at the back of sidewalk;
viii. Building entrances oriented to the street;
ix. Transparent ground floor frontage;
x. Street trees and furnishings; and,
xi. Pedestrian-scale lighting and signage.
The following exhibits reflect development concepts that include some of these features. These concepts, while shown within the context of existing development on surrounding properties, are not intended in any way to dictate or restrict development options or alternative designs that would otherwise be consistent with this General Plan and applicable zoning regulations.
4. Downtown
The City of Modesto will continue to focus on Downtown as the cultural, social, business and activity center of Modesto. Implementation of the City’s Downtown Form-Based zoning code will assist in facilitating progress toward meeting the policy objectives reflected below. #21..
- 1035 -
Chapter III. Community Development Policies
City of Modesto
Urban Area General Plan III-15
March 2019
Goal III.F
Downtown Focus. Downtown Modesto is a high-priority area for both public and private investment.
Therefore, the City should prioritize and focus infrastructure investments here. Downtown is planned to become a more urban, higher-density, mixed-use, pedestrian-oriented, economically vibrant, innovative center for living, working, socializing and recreating. (Air quality, public health, energy conservation, environmental justice)
Policy III.F.1
Density and Mix. Implement higher density, mixed-use development to create a balanced, vibrant downtown and active neighborhood centers by streamlining development processing, offering public parking for projects with parking structures (in lieu of the provision of private parking), reducing fees and providing for deferral of fees.
Policy III.F.2
Downtown Housing. Housing in the Downtown Area should include a variety of unit types and densities, ranging from medium to very high, to act as a catalyst for other types of development.
Policy III.F.3
Support Downtown Businesses. Enhance downtown businesses by establishing new downtown residential and mixed-use development, which will provide customers for downtown businesses.
Policy III.F.4
Public Spaces. Enhance the visual appeal of Modesto’s public spaces by upgrading existing parks, plazas, and streets, and by creating new parks and plazas.
Policy III.F.5
Sense of Place. Develop a cohesive design along roadway corridors to help establish a sense of orientation and aid with navigation, by using consistent shade tree species, lighting and street furniture between adjoining street sections along the corridors. Develop historic 10th and J Streets as attractive, pedestrian-oriented streets.
Policy III.F.6
Downtown Development. Higher-density, transit-oriented, mixed-use development (TOD) within the Downtown area should be strategically located near the most significant intersections and public transportation facilities such as the multi-modal transportation station. TOD should be designed and oriented toward these and any other major transportation facilities, as they are among the most important building blocks for Downtown Modesto’s future. (Air quality, public health, energy conservation, environmental justice)
Policy III.F.7
Reduce Trips by Car. Reduce the use of automobiles and the need to own a car by prioritizing infrastructure for pedestrians, bicycles, buses, and rail over automobile infrastructure, which also reduces the need for off-street parking. (Air quality, public health, energy conservation, environmental justice)
Policy III.F.8
Downtown Accessibility. Develop a context-sensitive circulation system that prioritizes and facilitates pedestrians, bicycles, and transit, and which also accommodates automobiles. (Air quality, public health, energy conservation, environmental justice) #21..
- 1036 -
Chapter III. Community Development Policies
City of Modesto
Urban Area General Plan III-16
March 2019
Policy III.F.9
Downtown Multi-Modal Transportation Center. Support development of a downtown multimodal transportation center, and its connectivity to various transportation modes, to act as a catalyst for intensified mixed-use development within the downtown area. (Air quality, public health, energy conservation, environmental justice)
Policy III.F.10
Cultural Amenities. Continue to support existing cultural amenities Downtown, and encourage development of additional amenities that promote the City as the regional center for social activity.
Policy III.F.11
Building Height Transitions. Maintain height standards for Downtown and adjoining transition areas consistent with the General Plan vision for a higher-density Downtown and sensitive transitions to surrounding neighborhoods.
5. Commercial / Retail Centers
This General Plan will guide design and development of new shopping centers, and will also be applied to re-development of existing retail and commercial centers. Retail activity should be accessible by all transportation modes, particularly for non-motorized modes, and is intended to be designed consistent with applicable zoning regulations and development guidelines.
Goal III.G
Connectivity and Centers. Commercial development should strengthen the vehicular, pedestrian and visual connections between shopping centers and their surrounding neighborhoods, and between neighboring retail sites, through physical improvements, public transit and coordinated land use and transportation planning. (Air quality, public health, energy conservation, environmental justice) Policy III.G.1
Making Shopping Centers More Pedestrian Friendly. Support the transformation of autooriented shopping centers currently characterized by retail strips surrounded by large surface parking lots into pedestrian- and bicycle-friendly places. Retail activity and shopping in general should be designed for pedestrian, bicyclist and transit user safety and convenience. Wide sidewalks, crosswalks, clear and well-lit storefront windows, varied building facades, awnings, street furniture, public art, extensive landscaping and pedestrian-scaled signage are among the design components to be considered. (Air quality, public health, energy conservation, environmental justice)
Policy III.G.2
Building Orientation. For new shopping center development, and for renovation of older shopping centers where feasible, locate buildings at the “front” of the site (at or near the back of sidewalk) and parking at the “back” of the site, behind the buildings. This policy is intended to be applied where contextually-appropriate, primarily in the more walkable areas of the City.
Policy III.G.3
Commercial Design. Incorporate high-quality design features into shopping center development, including the following:
Interconnected streets and walkable blocks connected to transit facilities; Buildings sited around common plazas, courtyards, walkways and open spaces; #21..
- 1037 -
Chapter III. Community Development Policies
City of Modesto
Urban Area General Plan III-17
March 2019
A complete signage program for business identification and way-finding; Attractive landscaping and lighting to promote pedestrian activity; and, Clearly-marked driveways, pedestrian routes and building entries that minimize potential conflicts among trucks, autos, bicycles and pedestrians.
Policy III.G.4
Commercial Development Guidelines. Apply neighborhood Compatibility Guidelines, Design Guidelines for Commercial & Industrial Development, and other applicable development guidelines, as appropriate to new construction, additions to existing structures, replacement of existing buildings / land uses, and other commercial development activity.
6. Employment Centers
The following goals and policies are to guide design and development of new business park, industrial and office development (employment centers), and will also be applied to re-development of employment centers. Employment centers should improve the City’s economy by decreasing the local unemployment rate and increasing the amount of money circulating through the local economy. Therefore, the City should monitor the availability of land area for new employment centers in order to ensure a balanced supply of available land. Employment centers should be easily accessible by all transportation modes, and should be designed consistent with applicable zoning regulations and design guidelines.
Goal III.H.
Employment Centers. Locate employment-intensive uses, such as medical and professional offices, light industry, R&D and skill training, in appropriate areas as designated by the General Plan and the zoning map. Locate Business Parks, Industrial development and other employment centers near access points to major transportation facilities so that they are accessible by all modes of transportation.
Policy III.H.1
Priority Areas. Besides Downtown, the Kiernan Business Park (KBP) area is the highest priority for employment center development. KBP will develop further as a more distinctive and attractive business park / office park that caters to medical, professional, technological and similar businesses in a campus-like setting.
Policy III.H.2
Employment Center Design. Design employment center development to accommodate safe and convenient walking, biking and transit use, and provide a high-quality campus-like environment, characterized by the following: (Air quality, public health, energy conservation) Interconnected streets and walkable blocks;
Buildings sited around common plazas, courtyards, walkways and open spaces; On-site landscaping and buffers between buildings and properties; Visual screening of areas for outdoor storage, processing and/or other industrial operations; A thoughtful and well-executed signage program for business identification and way-finding; Landscaping and lighting to promote pedestrian activity; Clearly-marked driveways, pedestrian routes and building entries that minimize potential conflicts among trucks, autos, bicycles and pedestrians; and, Control of operations regarding lighting, noise, odors, vibrations, hazardous / toxic materials, heavy equipment / truck access and any other environmental considerations that may affect nearby properties.
#21..
- 1038 -
Chapter III. Community Development Policies
City of Modesto
Urban Area General Plan III-18
March 2019
Policy III.H.3
Employment Center Guidelines. Apply adopted Design Guidelines, such as those for Commercial & Industrial Development, as appropriate to new construction, additions to existing structures, replacement of existing buildings / land uses, and other employment center development.
Policy III.H.4
Accessory Support Uses. Employment centers should incorporate accessory uses such as public open space, transit facilities, child-care facilities, health clubs, professional offices and non-office retail uses, based on the size and location of the development, as appropriate.
D. COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING DISTRICTS
Each of the Comprehensive Planning Districts (CPDs) delineated on the Land Use Diagram (Figure III-1) are further described in this Section. All Specific Plans adopted to implement a given CPD shall include a text narrative and a map or diagram, conforming to the requirements of the relevant CPD. The minimum planning area for a new specific plan is approximately 480 acres, or as otherwise determined adequate for true comprehensive planning of new growth areas. For those CPDs where a specific plan has already been adopted, no exhibit is shown. Open Space CPDs are regulated via the applicable park system master plan.
1. Principal Comprehensive Planning District Policies
The following Principal CPD policies apply to all CPDs, regardless of whether they are located in the Baseline Developed Area or the Planned Urbanizing Area.
Policy III.I.1
CPD Implementation. Specific Plans, as defined in Chapter VIII, should be used for the implementation of the CPDs presented in Figure III-1.
Policy III.I.2
CPD Property Owners. Since each CPD contains a number of properties, unified direction from affected property owners should be encouraged, particularly for privately-initiated applications. In the case of disparate or unknown development intentions, the City may proactively seek consensus from affected property owners.
Policy III.I.3
CPD Specific Plans. The Specific Plan(s) within each CPD should follow the policies and procedures as outlined in the City of Modesto’s Specific Plan Procedures and Preparation Guide (Guide), which identifies all subsequent land use approvals required to be consistent with the Specific plan. The Guide should be updated in order to keep it current with regard to policies and practices.
Policy III.I.4
Specific Plan Financing. Each Specific Plan should be accompanied by a long-range financing strategy that provides reasonable estimates of the costs of on- and off-site infrastructure to support the proposed development pattern. The strategy should generally address public facility funding for any development project that serves to implement the subject Specific Plan. If new public facilities #21..
- 1039 -
Chapter III. Community Development Policies
City of Modesto
Urban Area General Plan III-19
March 2019
are required that will also serve the broader community, the Specific Plan should include options for broad-based funding mechanisms. Each Specific Plan should address the need to provide water, wastewater and storm drainage infrastructure, in the context of the required Facilities Master Plan and Infrastructure Master Plan (prepared at developer’s expense).
Policy III.I.5
Public Safety Funding. With each Specific Plan, prepare a long-range financing strategy that provides reasonable estimates of the long-term public safety facilities, maintenance and operational costs. Identify funding mechanisms for these costs within the financing strategy documentation.
Policy III.I.6
Specific Plan-CPD Relationship. More than one Specific Plan may be processed within a given CPD, as long as the remaining area within the CPD can still comply with the General Plan policies presented in this chapter. Conversely, a Specific Plan can be used to implement more than one CPD, when those districts are adjoining. A CPD may consist of more than one Specific Plan provided that the Specific Plans are consistent, compatible, and complement one another. This is particularly important for issues related to, but not limited to, land use plans, circulation plans and the Specific Plans’ financing sections (which must be correlated to provide for adequate infrastructure throughout the CPD). If Specific Plans are adopted at different times within a CPD, the first Specific Plan should include an infrastructure plan for the entire CPD.
2. Adoption of Comprehensive Planning Districts
On the following pages, 16 CPDs are hereby adopted as Exhibits III-2 through III-17 inclusive.
Exhibits for those CPDs where a specific plan(s) has been adopted for the entire area are not shown.
Brief descriptions of these CPDs are summarized in Exhibit III-1. The order presented does not imply the order in which each Specific Plan should be processed. To the contrary, no phasing or sequencing of development is intended through the CPD process, as long as each Specific Plan conforms to the requirements of its respective CPD.
In addition to the scenario noted above where a specific plan(s) has already been adopted for a given CPD, certain CPDs have other special considerations that result in no need to include an Exhibit reflecting development assumptions and policies applicable to their respective specific plan process. For example, development in the Tuolumne River CPD is governed by the Tuolumne River Regional Park (TRRP) Master Plan. The boundaries of this CPD match the boundaries of the TRRP Master Plan area.
#21..
- 1040 -
Chapter III. Community Development Policies
City of Modesto
Urban Area General Plan III-20
March 2019
Exhibit III-1, Page 1 of 2: Comprehensive Planning Districts Summary Exhibit No.
Comprehensive
Planning District (CPD)
Land Use Designations
within the CPD Acreage
Dwelling
Units Jobs
BASELINE DEVELOPED AREA
Downtown Area Downtown 710 3,500 40,200
Baseline Developed Area
(excludes Downtown)
Residential, Commercial,
Industrial, Mixed Use
22,540 81,870 135,160
Baseline Developed Area subtotals 23,250 85,370 175,360 PLANNED URBANIZING AREA – Inside Sphere of Influence
(N/A) Coffee / Claratina Residential 160 1,080 ---
Commercial 10 --- 240
III-3 College West Business Park 230 --- 5,980
(N/A) Dry Creek Open Space 510 50 ---
III-4 Empire North Village Residential
Residential
160
60 1,060
400
110
---
III-5 Fairview Village Residential
Residential
Commercial
140
210
20 920
1,390
---
100
---
480
III-6 Hetch-Hetchy Village Residential 790 5,030 550
Regional Commercial 170 --- 4,080
III-7 Highway 132 Business Park
Residential
630
30 ---
60 16,380
---
III-8 Johansen Village Residential 600 3,810 420
III-9 Kiernan / Carver Residential 240 1,580 ---
Regional Commercial 70 --- 1,680
Business Park 300 --- 7,800
Business-Comm-Res 490 2,940 7,640
Mixed Use 50 420 480
III-11 Kiernan / McHenry Business Park 370 --- 9,620
Regional Commercial 100 --- 2,400
(N/A) North Beyer Residential 160 960 ---
Mixed Use 20 160 200
III-12 Paradise / Carpenter Village Residential 810 5,110 570 (N/A) Pelandale / Snyder Residential
Commercial
360
20 2,380
---
---
480
Mixed Use 10 80 100
III-13 Roselle / Claribel Village Residential
Residential
840
380
5,540
2,510
590
---
Regional Commercial 110 --- 2,640
Business-Comm-Res
Commercial
260
30 1,560
---
4,060
720
#21..
- 1041 -
Chapter III. Community Development Policies
City of Modesto
Urban Area General Plan III-21
March 2019
Exhibit III-1, Page 2 of 2: Comprehensive Planning Districts Summary Exhibit No.
Comprehensive
Planning District (CPD)
Land Use Designations
within the CPD Acreage
Dwelling
Units Jobs
PLANNED URBANIZING AREA – Inside Sphere of Influence (cont’d) (N/A)
(N/A)
Tuolumne River
Village One
Open Space
Residential
1,630
1,510
160
9,970
---
---
III-15 Whitmore / Carpenter
Mixed Use
Business-Comm-Res
Commercial
Village Residential
10 340
40 690
80 1,800
---
4,380
100
5,300
960
480
Planned Urbanizing Area – Inside Sphere of Influence subtotals 12,560 53,430 74,160 PLANNED URBANIZING AREA – Outside Sphere of Influence
III-2
III-9
III-10
III-14
Beckwith / Dakota
Kiernan / Carver
Kiernan / Carver North
Salida &
Business Park
Regional Commercial
Business Park
Business Park
Salida Community Plan
690
350
230
490
4,310
---
---
---
---
(B)
17,940
8,400
5,980
12,740
(B)
Stanislaus River Open Space 740 (B) (B)
Total Acreage, Dwelling Units & Jobs in the Planned Urbanizing Area – Outside Sphere of Influence subtotals
6,810 45,060
GRAND TOTALS
Total Acreage, Dwelling Units & Jobs in the Baseline Developed Area and the Planned Urbanizing Area – Inside Sphere of Influence 35,810 138,800 249,520
Total Acreage, Dwelling Units & Jobs within the entire planning area 42,620 138,800 294,580 (A) Acreages, population estimates, and employment estimates rounded to the nearest ten (10). (B) The Salida Community Plan and Stanislaus River CPDs are administered by Stanislaus County. (C) Total population of approximately 390,000 assumed at 2040 (or later) based on traffic analyses. (D) Assumed Village Residential and Residential gross density = 6.6 du / acre (E) Assumed Business Park employee density = 26 per acre (F) Assumed Regional Commercial and Commercial employee density = 24 per acre (G) Assumed Village Residential employee density = 0.7 per acre #21..
- 1042 -
Chapter III. Community Development Policies
City of Modesto
Urban Area General Plan III-22
March 2019
E. SENATE BILL 244 – DISADVANTAGED UNINCORPORATED COMMUNITIES Senate Bill 244 (SB244), which was signed into law in 2011, requires that local agencies analyze the Disadvantaged Unincorporated Communities (DUC) within their Spheres of Influence (SOI). Based on information provided by the State of California Department of Water Resources, and the criteria set forth in SB244, Modesto has a total of nine (9) individual DUCs within its Sphere of Influence. Figure III-3, below, shows the boundaries of each DUC. The following information describes the DUCs and the general infrastructure needs for each, including rough cost estimates, and an overview of funding.
1. Disadvantaged Unincorporated Community Infrastructure Needs Area 1: “West Modesto” – Water
The City provides water service to all but a few parcels in Area 1. Area 1 has some adequately-sized 10” to 16” water mains which provide a strong backbone system for water supply. However, there are many existing 4” and 6” steel mains that are prone to leaking and calcification with age, resulting in reduced pipe capacity and efficiency. The water system’s smaller pipes will require future upsizing in order to meet City Standards. A sufficient and reliable source of potable water to meet the existing and expected demands is available from both ground water and surface water supplies.
The City has an annual Pipeline Strengthen and Replacement Program of about $4M to $5M per year, prioritized to replace smaller and older water mains throughout the water system – both within and outside the City limits. The “Robertson Road” and “Hilltop” neighborhoods within Area 1 have been upsized with new water mains. Because the City already owns, maintains and provides water in Area 1, there are no additional costs to extend water service. The estimated cost for system improvements to upsize older, undersized mains for Area 1 is $10.8M.
Area 1: “West Modesto” – Wastewater
The City does not provide sanitary sewer services to Area 1 except for the residential area south of Robertson Rd., a portion of Paradise Rd., and a few parcels along the fringe of the City limits. Area 1 is otherwise served by individual septic systems. The City’s 54” West Trunk runs along Grimes Ave. and Paradise Rd. The existing City wastewater collection mains are mostly within the City limits and along the boundary of Area 2. Due to the size and existing boundary configuration of Area 1, connections to the sanitary sewer system may require several points of extension to serve properties fronting individual streets. It is estimated that approximately 46,000 lineal feet (LF) of 8” PVC sewer pipe would need to be installed throughout Area 1. The 2007 Wastewater Collection System Master Plan (WWMP) indicates that new 15” diameter sub-trunks are to be extended from the West Trunk to serve the area west of Carpenter Rd., which includes Area 1.
A detailed wastewater system hydraulic capacity analysis has not been specifically prepared for the existing sanitary sewer infrastructure in order to identify wastewater system improvements, beyond the conceptual pipeline assumptions in this preliminary analysis (e.g., lift stations, treatment plant expansion, etc.), that would make up the backbone facilities required to serve Area 1. The estimated cost to construct the 15” subtrunks and 8” mains is $25.8M.
#21..
- 1043 -
Chapter III. Community Development Policies
City of Modesto
Urban Area General Plan III-23
March 2019
Area 1: “West Modesto” – Storm Drainage
Area 1 does not have an existing storm drainage system other than a few rockwells. Storm water management consists of runoff to parcel frontages from rural roads, as there are typically no curbs & gutters. The Robertson Rd. Neighborhood, south of Robertson Rd, does have several rockwells for drainage of some local street intersections, but this neighborhood would still be considered to have substandard storm drainage infrastructure.
The 2008 Storm Drainage Master Plan (SDMP) locates Area 1 within the large subbasin 41 (east of Carpenter Rd.), subbasin 26 (west of Carpenter Rd.) and a few parcels in subbasin 24 (west of Modesto Irrigation District Lateral 4). Storm water collected in subbasins 41 and 24 will be conveyed in pipelines in these subbasins, through the adjacent subbasin 26, to a detention basin, pump station and outfall to the Tuolumne River. Proposed trunks that would serve Area 1 include 24” to 78” pipes that would also serve limited areas within the City limits. For Area 1 within subbasins 41 and 24, the SDMP identifies approximately 17,000 LF of storm trunk pipeline. For Area 1 within subbasins 26, the SDMP identifies approximately 4,450 LF of storm trunks, including the outfall to Tuolumne River. The estimated costs for master plan storm water infrastructure (trunks, basin, pump station), and curb and gutter street improvements, are:
Estimated Costs – Gravity System
24” to 78” pipe, basin, pump station: $30M
Curb & Gutter: $9.5M
An alternative storm water management approach consisting of installing drywells in specific areas of most need to mitigate any local flooding of streets may be feasible, and would require some curb and gutter installation. The installation and maintenance of full curb and gutter for the entire Area 1 along with approximately 375 drywells may prove economically infeasible. The drywell method of storm water management would be highly-dependent on groundwater levels, since high levels would interfere with drywell efficiency and storm water quality impact requirements. However, to remain consistent with other DUC areas where drywell costs are presented, the estimated costs for drywells and curb and gutter for Area 1 are:
Estimated Costs – Drywell System
375 Drywells: $19M
Curb & Gutter: $9.5M
Area 1: “West Modesto” – Structural Fire Protection
Area 1 is served by the Burbank / Paradise and Woodland Fire Districts, which are staffed largely by volunteers. Upgrading the water system infrastructure in Area 1 as described above, in addition to the installation of fire hydrants as needed, would improve the responsible agencies’ ability to provide fire suppression needs. The cost estimate shown above for water system enhancements would also generally apply to fire protection infrastructure needs.
Area 2: “Riverdale Park” – Water
The Riverdale Park Tract Community Services District (CSD) supplies water from a single groundwater well to most of Area 2 (aka Riverdale Park or Riverdale). The majority of the area already has 8” PVC water pipes and a few 6” mains installed in the late 1980s. The parcels on Vivian Rd. are served by private wells. A detailed water system analysis has not been prepared for this area. Such an analysis #21..
- 1044 -
Chapter III. Community Development Policies
City of Modesto
Urban Area General Plan III-24
March 2019
would identify water system improvements, beyond the existing pipelines identified above, that would make up the backbone facilities required to serve the community. However, based on the Engineer’s Report, the City’s Water System Standards, general knowledge of the area’s water system, and fairly recent completion of various off-site water system facilities in the vicinity, a sufficient and reliable source of potable water to meet the expected demands of the area could reasonably be made available.
The City has an agreement with the Riverdale CSD to provide water on an emergency temporary basis in the event that the community’s groundwater well is compromised in some way. This agreement has been exercised in the past, most notably when severe flooding of the area shut down the well. Since Area 2 is already served by the Riverdale CSD, costs of new water system improvements would be the responsibility of the Riverdale CSD. There are two scenarios, other than annexation, in which the City of Modesto might need to consider providing a permanent water supply: 1) if the Riverdale CSD were to request that the City of Modesto provide a permanent water supply due to a significant failure of the community’s well or if groundwater quality issues required expensive and cost–prohibitive treatment of groundwater; and, 2) if the Riverdale CSD were to request that the City take over ownership and maintenance of the water system, including water supply. Both of these scenarios assume no groundwater supply from the existing well since it is unlikely that the City would maintain the well if it were to take over the system. So long as the existing well is operational, the water supply is potable, and the Riverdale CSD continues to serve this community, Modesto is not considering provision of water service to this area, except on an emergency basis as described above. However, the City has planned for the contingency of water service to this area to fulfill its agreement to serve emergency water supply and also under buildout of the Whitmore-Carpenter Comprehensive Planning District (CPD), which includes the Riverdale Park area.
Under Scenario 1, described above, where the Riverdale CSD would retain ownership and maintenance of the water system, a permanent water supply and delivery from the City’s system would require an upsizing of the Hatch Rd. pipe connection to 12” from the City to Riverdale, removal of the existing well facility, some hydraulic modeling, and payment of the applicable connection fee. Scenario 2, described above, assumes costs to upsize the supply main to 12”, upsize the Hatch Rd. main to 12”, abandon the existing well, install additional valves, meters and boxes, possible upsizing of some 6” water mains, connection fees, additional hydraulic modeling, and system testing, flushing and backflow devices. The estimated costs of improvements for both scenarios are: Scenario 1 – $350K; and, Scenario 2 – $1.4M.
The Engineer’s Report also identified master plan infrastructure to serve future development of the Carpenter-Whitmore CPD, which includes Area 2, and proposed roughly six miles of new 12” water mains to serve the CPD plus new water supply and system storage capacity. In addition, smaller 8” pipes for individual streets would also be required as part of future subdivision development. However, in order to serve only Area 2, and assuming such service might occur without full development of the Carpenter-Whitmore CPD, it was determined that the estimated costs for infrastructure identified with either Scenario 1 or Scenario 2 would likely be adequate for those existing demands.
Area 2: “Riverdale Park” – Wastewater
The City does not provide sanitary sewer service to Area 2. Area 2 is in the Riverdale CSD and served by individual septic systems. The City does not have existing sewer system infrastructure in the vicinity that could serve Area 2. The City’s General Plan and the WWMP presume that future development of the Carpenter-Whitmore CPD which includes Area 2 would largely determine the infrastructure required to serve this community. The WWMP proposes serving this area as part of specific plan development for the Whitmore-Carpenter CPD whereby a new sewer trunk would be extended from Ustick Rd. at Imperial #21..
- 1045 -
Chapter III. Community Development Policies
City of Modesto
Urban Area General Plan III-25
March 2019
Dr. to Whitmore Ave., then west on Whitmore Ave. to serve the CPD west of Carpenter Rd. Per the WWMP, about three miles of new sewer trunk and a sewer lift station would be needed.
Serving the Riverdale Park community exclusive of new development in the Carpenter-Whitmore CPD would require a sewer system of less capacity, although it would be challenging considering the distance from existing City facilities, available right of way, and likely other existing obstacles impacting constructability. The following infrastructure at a minimum would be required: at least one sewer lift station and force main, the extension of infrastructure from the existing City system to Carpenter Rd. along Hatch Rd., a sewer collection system of 8” pipes, and the abandonment of individual septic systems as each property connects to the system. The nearest potential existing City infrastructure is on Monticello Ln. at least 2,000 feet east of the Carpenter Rd. / Hatch Rd. intersection. The estimated conceptual cost to extend sewer infrastructure to Area 2 is $7.7M.
A detailed wastewater system hydraulic capacity analysis has not been conducted specifically on the existing sewer infrastructure or exclusively for Area 2 in order to identify additional new wastewater system facilities, beyond the pipelines and lift station identified in this conceptual analysis. Cost estimates for master plan elements as presented in the 2007 WWMP are not being presented here since the extension of large sewer trunks would be functionally inadequate to convey the relatively low flows from only Area 2. These large facilities would also cost several million dollars more than a dedicated system to serve just Area 2.
Area 2: “Riverdale Park” – Storm Drainage
The storm drainage method, if any, in Area 2 is not documented, and is most likely non-existent or perhaps served by a few rockwells. The community does not have curbs and gutters and thus most likely lacks a positive or centralized storm drainage system. The CSD may be responsible for storm drainage, although the County may maintain it as well. The soils in this area drain relatively well, with high infiltration rates and thus providing for reduced runoff issues.
The City plan for providing storm water management is addressed in the SDMP as part of the larger Whitmore-Carpenter CPD area. The SDMP identifies Area 2 to be in the future sub-basin 27. Within subbasin 27, the SDMP identifies approximately 1,500 lf of 30” pipe, along Hatch Rd. to serve the Riverdale area, which would convey storm water to a future detention basin and pump station with a discharge to the Tuolumne River. Additional smaller collection system pipes (usually 12” to 24”) would also be required to convey storm water from Riverdale Park to the future 30” trunk. The estimated costs for master plan infrastructure (trunk, basin, pump station), and curb and gutter street improvements, are:
Estimated Costs – Gravity System
30” pipe, basin, pump station: $4.6M
Curb & Gutter: $1.9M
An alternative storm water management approach for Riverdale Park would consist of installing drywells in areas of most need to mitigate any local flooding of streets or installing full curb and gutter along with approx. 62 drywells. The drywell method of storm water management would be highly dependent on groundwater levels since high levels would interfere with drywell efficiency and storm water quality requirements. The estimated costs for drywells, and curb and gutter street improvements, are:
Estimated Costs – Drywell System
62 Drywells: $3M
Curb & Gutter: $1.9M
#21..
- 1046 -
Chapter III. Community Development Policies
City of Modesto
Urban Area General Plan III-26
March 2019
Area 2: “Riverdale Park” – Structural Fire Protection
Area 2 is served by the Burbank / Paradise Fire District, which is staffed largely by volunteers.
Upgrading the water system infrastructure in Area 2 as described above, in addition to the installation of fire hydrants as needed, would improve the responsible agency’s ability to provide fire suppression needs.
The cost estimate shown above for water system enhancements would also generally apply to fire protection infrastructure needs.
Area 3: “Rouse-Colorado” – Water
The City currently provides water service to most developed properties within Area 3. Most of the water distribution mains are sized to current City standards for residential and commercial uses. Only one or two streets, Colorado St being the longest, have smaller 4” and 6” mains, which is not unusual for older neighborhoods and/or areas such as this that were formerly served by the Del Este Water Company.
Area 3 has few vacant parcels, and any future growth potential would mostly be limited to intensification and sub-parceling of larger underdeveloped lots located primarily north of Figaro Ave. The 4” and 6” mains in Colorado Ave. from Garden Ave. to South Ave., and the 8” steel main in Rouse Ave. from Sutter Ave. to Sunset Ave., are likely to require replacement in the future as leak and repair frequency increases with time. The costs for system improvements to upsize mains likely would be included in the City’s annual Pipeline Strengthen and Replacement budget for the entire water system in future years.
Because the City already owns, maintains and provides water in Area 3, there are no additional costs to extend water to this DUC. The estimated costs for system improvements to upsize older, undersized mains for Area 3 is $1.6M
Area 3: “Rouse-Colorado” – Wastewater
The City currently provides sanitary sewer service to about 15% of Area 3 with the majority of these services along Garden Ave. The unserved developed parcels have septic systems. The area has relatively few vacant parcels and therefore future growth potential is limited to intensification and sub-parceling of larger underdeveloped lots, located primarily north of Figaro Ave.
Providing full sanitary sewer service to this area has been studied in the WWMP in terms of larger sewer trunk and treatment systems capacity, and the WWMP anticipates this area would be served in the future.
The Sutter Sewer Trunk was identified in the WWMP as not having adequate peak wet-weather capacity to serve existing demands or build-out of its tributary area that includes Area 3. System improvement plans have been developed to address these capacity issues. The City is currently analyzing / designing a new large sewer trunk in the area to mitigate existing constraints and future capacity needs of the Sutter Trunk. With this design, capacity would be available for Area 3 once the new trunk is constructed. New mains extended from this new trunk would likely consist of 8” pipelines. The estimated cost of these 8” mains is $4.7M.
Area 3: “Rouse-Colorado” – Storm Drainage
Area 3 does not have an existing storm drainage system and storm water management consists of runoff to parcel frontages from rural roads (no curbs or gutters). The SDMP shows Area 3 within the large subbasin 41. Proposed trunks that would also serve this Area 3 include 48” and 54” pipes to a future Detention Basin and outfall to the Tuolumne River via pump station. The estimated costs for master plan infrastructure components (trunk, basin, pump station), and curb and gutter street improvements, are:
#21..
- 1047 -
Chapter III. Community Development Policies
City of Modesto
Urban Area General Plan III-27
March 2019
Estimated Costs – Gravity System
48” / 54” pipe, basin, pump station: $2.9M
Curb & Gutter: $2M
An alternative storm water management approach for Area 3 would consist of installing drywells in areas of most need to mitigate any local flooding of streets, or installing full curb and gutter along with approximately 75 drywells. The drywell method of storm water management would be highly dependent on groundwater levels, since high levels would interfere with drywell efficiency and storm water quality requirements. The estimated costs for drywells, and curb and gutter street improvements, are:
Estimated Costs – Drywell System
75 Drywells: $3.6M
Curb & Gutter: $2M
Area 3: “Rouse-Colorado” – Structural Fire Protection
Area 3 is served by the Burbank / Paradise Fire District, which is staffed largely by volunteers.
Upgrading the water system infrastructure in Area 3 as described above, in addition to the installation of fire hydrants as needed, would improve the responsible agency’s ability to provide fire suppression needs.
The cost estimate shown above for water system enhancements would also generally apply to fire protection infrastructure needs.
Area 4: “Bret Harte” – Water
The City provides water service to all developed lots in Area 4. The area is developed with only a few vacant parcels. Area 4 has a significant number of streets with 6” and some 4” water mains, which have been prone to leaks and breaks with increasing frequency. The City’s Pipeline Strengthen and Replacement program has been implementing projects in this area for the last two years to replace these older mains with new, larger pipes. This program results in improved water pressure and significantly reduced maintenance needs and water losses. Because the City already owns, maintains and provides water in Area 4, there are no additional costs to extend water. The estimated cost for system improvements to upsize older, undersized mains for Area 4 is $2.8M.
Area 4: “Bret Harte” – Wastewater
The City currently provides sewer service to all developed lots in Area 4. This DUC is fully-developed with only a few vacant lots remaining. The existing sewer system in Area 4 was installed between 1987 and 1995. Sewer main sizes include a few 6” pipes, but mostly range in size from 8” up to 33”. These trunk lines are sufficient to serve the demands of Area 4 under all hydrologic conditions per City Standards. There are no identified wastewater system improvements needed for Area 4.
Area 4: “Bret Harte” – Storm Drainage
Area 4 does not have an existing gravity pipe storm drainage system. Storm water management mostly consists of runoff to parcels from rural roads (no curbs or gutters) or in some instances rockwells that drain the surrounding roadway. The SDMP shows Area 4 in subbasin 9. Proposed trunks that would serve Area 4 include 36” to 72” pipes conveying storm water to a future detention basin and outfall to the Tuolumne River via pump station. The 72” pipe and detention basin would also serve the adjoining subbasins 11 and 43. The estimated cost for master plan infrastructure (trunks, basin, pump station), and curb and gutter street improvements, are:
#21..
- 1048 -
Chapter III. Community Development Policies
City of Modesto
Urban Area General Plan III-28
March 2019
Estimated Costs – Gravity System
36” / 72” pipe, basin, pump station: $10M
Curb & Gutter: $5.8M
An alternative storm water management approach for Area 4 would consist of installing drywells in areas of most need to mitigate any local flooding of streets or installing full curb and gutter along with approximately 200 drywells. The drywell method of storm water management is highly-dependent on groundwater levels, since high levels would interfere with drywell efficiency and storm water quality requirements. The estimated costs for drywells, and curb and gutter street improvements, are:
Estimated Costs – Drywell System
Drywells: $9.9M
Curb & Gutter: $5.8M
Area 4: “Bret Harte” – Structural Fire Protection
Area 4 is served by the Industrial Fire Protection District, which provides service via a Joint Powers Agency that includes the Cities of Modesto and Ceres. Staff employed by the Modesto and Ceres Fire Departments provide service throughout the Industrial Fire Protection District. Upgrading the water system infrastructure in Area 4 as described above, in addition to the installation of fire hydrants as needed, would improve the responsible agencies’ ability to provide fire suppression needs. The cost estimate shown above for water system enhancements would also generally apply to fire protection infrastructure needs.
Area 5: “Olivero / Hatch” – Water
The City provides water to service to nearly all developed parcels within Area 5, which is mostly developed with just a few vacant parcels north of Hatch Rd. Undersized water mains (6” and smaller) exist within the Olivero Rd. and Glacier Ave. rights-of-way. The City’s water Engineer’s Report indicates that larger mains in Crows Landing Rd. and Hatch Rd. are hydraulically sufficient to serve this area. The estimated cost for system improvements to upsize older, undersized mains for Area 5 is $5.7M.
Area 5: “Olivero / Hatch” - Wastewater
The City provides wastewater service to some portions of Area 5 west of Crows Landing Rd., but does not have sewer system infrastructure along Olivero Rd. Properties that are not served by the City’s sewer infrastructure utilize an on-site septic system. The area is mostly developed, with a few undeveloped parcels north of Hatch Rd. Most of the individual properties in Area 5 – developed or not – are relatively large and rural in character.
The 2007 WWMP did not identify any specific project improvements for Area 5 because the pipes needed to serve would be 8”, which is generally smaller than master plan-level elements. However, the WWMP does contemplate provision of wastewater service of this area. Specifically, an 8” main connecting to the 30” trunk crossing Hatch Rd. would serve parcels on Olivero Rd. and Hatch Rd. Additional 8” mains would also serve the area north of Hatch Rd. for Glacier Ave. and Crater Ave., with connections to the 30” trunk in Cascade Ave. The estimated cost to install the 8” pipes in this area is $4.6M. #21..
- 1049 -
Chapter III. Community Development Policies
City of Modesto
Urban Area General Plan III-29
March 2019
Area 5: “Olivero / Hatch” – Storm Drainage
Area 5 does not have an existing gravity pipe storm drainage system north of Hatch Rd. This area does have some rockwells, generally along Crater Ave. and Glacier Ave. The Olivero Rd. / Jim Wy. and Olivero Rd. / Crows Landing Rd. intersections have catch basins that gravity stormwater flow to local storage basins, but no system along Olivero Rd itself. The 2008 SDMP has identified the Olivero Rd. area as part of sub-basin 11 and the area north of Hatch Rd. as part of Sub-basin 43. Sub-basins 11 and 43 will have gravity pipe systems conveying storm water to a storage Detention Basin with a pump station and discharge to the Tuolumne River.
The estimated costs to construct master planned infrastructure for Area 5 are included in the infrastructure for Area 4, and no additional master planned infrastructure is required. Estimated costs have not been specifically identified for these smaller pipes but since there are only a few streets in this area, conceptually, the estimated cost would likely be approximately $300,000. Such a system would also require the installation of curb and gutter. The estimated cost for master plan infrastructure (trunk, basin, pump station), and curb and gutter street improvements, are:
Estimated Costs – Gravity System
36” / 72” pipe, basin, pump station: $0 (See cost estimate for Area 4, above) Curb & Gutter: $1.3M
Small storm pipes: $300,000
An alternative storm water management approach for Area 5 would consist of installing drywells in areas of most need to mitigate any local flooding of streets or installing full curb and gutter along with approx. 43 drywells. The drywell method of storm water management would be highly dependent on groundwater levels, since high levels would interfere with drywell efficiency and storm water quality requirements. The estimated costs for drywells and curb and gutter are:
Estimated Costs – Drywell System
43 Drywells: $2.1M
Curb & Gutter: $1.3M
Area 5: “Olivero / Hatch” – Structural Fire Protection
Area 5 is served by the Industrial Fire Protection District, which provides service via a Joint Powers Agency that includes the Cities of Modesto and Ceres. Staff employed by the Modesto and Ceres Fire Departments provide service throughout the Industrial Fire Protection District. Upgrading the water system infrastructure in Area 5 as described above, in addition to the installation of fire hydrants as needed, would improve the responsible agencies’ ability to provide fire suppression needs. The cost estimate shown above for water system enhancements would also generally apply to fire protection infrastructure needs.
Area 6: “Parklawn” - Water
The City currently provides water service to all developed parcels in Area 6, which is fully-developed with residential and limited commercial uses. This area has sufficient existing 10” and 12” mains connecting it to the City’s water distribution network and, as such, the City’s water system Engineer’s Report does not call for backbone distribution infrastructure improvements for this area. #21..
- 1050 -
Chapter III. Community Development Policies
City of Modesto
Urban Area General Plan III-30
March 2019
Area 6 does have a large number of 4” mains located in alleys that serve the connections to individual parcels, which is not uncommon for former Del Este areas or older neighborhoods built in the 1940s and 1950s. The leak frequency of these older mains is not particularly high compared to other higher priority areas. However, these mains will likely need to be replaced with larger pipes in the future. The estimated cost for system improvements to upsize older, undersized mains for Area 6 is $1.7M.
Area 6: “Parklawn” - Wastewater
The City of Modesto and County of Stanislaus entered into a formal agreement in 2013 to use County funding to construct a sanitary sewer system for this area. Improvements included 8” and 12” mains and a lift station located on Nelson Way that, via a force main, conveys flows to the existing 15” Oats Ct. gravity subtrunk. This project was completed in 2015, after which the City accepted ownership and maintenance responsibilities. Individual parcels are allowed to connect to City sewer service.
Area 6: “Parklawn” – Storm Drainage
With the exception of a few rockwells, Area 6 does not have an existing storm drainage system. Storm water management consists of runoff to parcel frontages from rural roads that lack no curbs and gutters.
The 2008 SDMP identifies this area within the larger subbasin 10 tributary area. Proposed trunk lines that would serve Area 6 would also be sized to serve the subbasin 10 area south of Parklawn, and would consist of 54” to 72” pipes that would convey storm water to the same detention basin proposed for DUC Areas 4 and 5, with an outfall to the Tuolumne River. The estimated cost for master plan infrastructure (trunk, basin, pump station), and curb and gutter street improvements, are:
Estimated Costs – Gravity System
36” / 72” pipe, basin, pump station: $6.5M
Curb & Gutter: $1.2M
An alternative storm water management approach for Area 6 would consist of installing drywells in areas of most need to mitigate any local flooding of streets or installing full curb and gutter along with an estimated 70 drywells. The drywell method of storm water management would be highly dependent on groundwater levels, since groundwater would interfere with drywell efficiency and storm water quality requirements. The estimated costs for drywells, and curb and gutter street improvements, are:
Estimated Costs – Drywell System
70 Drywells: $3.5M
Curb & Gutter: $1.2M
Another potential option for Area 6 in lieu of the proposed larger SDMP master planned storm water system or drywells could be the installation of a smaller gravity system with conveyance to an underground storage and percolation system at the existing park located south of Parklawn Ave. This storm water management method has not yet been reviewed for feasibility in terms of existing groundwater levels and other considerations, nor have costs been calculated. A concept cost estimate may be in the $4M dollar range, including the smaller pipes. Curb and gutter street improvements would also be required.
Area 6: “Parklawn” – Structural Fire Protection
Area 6 is served by the Industrial Fire Protection District, which provides service via a Joint Powers Agency that includes the Cities of Modesto and Ceres. Staff employed by the Modesto and Ceres Fire #21..
- 1051 -
Chapter III. Community Development Policies
City of Modesto
Urban Area General Plan III-31
March 2019
Departments provide service throughout the Industrial Fire Protection District. Upgrading the water system infrastructure in Area 6 as described above, in addition to the installation of fire hydrants as needed, would improve the responsible agencies’ ability to provide fire suppression needs. The cost estimate shown above for water system enhancements would also generally apply to fire protection infrastructure needs.
Area 7: “South 7Th Street Mobilehome Parks” – Water
Area 7 consists of just two parcels developed with mobile homes and is part of a larger, mostly nonresidential, unincorporated area included within the City’s water service area. The southernmost of the two parcels, located on S. 7th St., is served with a City water connection from a 10” water main, which is sufficiently sized to serve the existing development. The northern parcel, located at Crows Landing Rd. and S. 7th St., is not currently served by City water, although an existing 12” water main is located nearby along Zeff Rd.
The 10” and 12” mains along and across S. 7th St. are sufficient for the existing mobile homes. A future infrastructure project might consist of extending the existing 10” water main in S. 7th St. to Zeff Rd., though there is no indication this is necessary to serve the northern parcel. At such time as the northern parcel requests water service through the “Will Serve” process, the City will provide information regarding specific water system improvements required to serve this parcel. A lower-cost option might be to extend a dedicated service pipe about 275’ from the 12” Zeff Rd. pipeline to serve these mobile homes.
No cost estimates are being provided for this area since there appear to be reasonably adequate City facilities in the area from which to extend water service.
Area 7: “South 7Th Street Mobilehome Parks” – Wastewater Area 7 consists of two parcels described above under “Water.” Neither of these parcels is connected to the City’s wastewater system. It is assumed that the mobilehome parks are served by septic systems.
The WWMP study included the larger area in which these two parcels are located in terms of downstream trunk and wastewater treatment capacity. There is an existing 24” sewer trunk fronting the southern parcel on S. 7th St. that could serve this parcel. Sewer infrastructure that might provide service to the northern parcel does not exist. A sewer main would need to be extended north along S. 7th St. or north along Crows Landing Rd. from the existing 24” trunk to provide service to this parcel. The estimated cost to extend a small main to serve the northern parcel is $500K.
Area 7: “South 7Th Street Mobilehome Parks” – Storm Drainage Area 7 consists of two parcels developed with mobile home parks. Since these are privately-developed parcels, the City does not have any plan or expectation to provide storm drainage as these areas that are entirely under private land ownerships with no internal public roadways. Parcels such as these would normally be required to provide their own on-site storm drainage management systems. Typically, this would consist of a series of rockwells or horizontal drain pipes to manage runoff on the property.
If the larger surrounding unincorporated area were to be annexed to Modesto, the City would look at the need for off-site public right-of-way storm drainage needs along S. 7th St., Crows Landing Rd. and Zeff Rd. The SDMP includes this area in subbasin 43. Master planned infrastructure to serve the area north of SR99 to Zeff Rd. includes 36” to 54” pipes that would convey storm water to a detention basin and outfall via pump station to the Tuolumne River. Subbasin 43 is proposed to share the same detention basin and #21..
- 1052 -
Chapter III. Community Development Policies
City of Modesto
Urban Area General Plan III-32
March 2019
pump station facility and some large trunks with subbasins 9, 10, and 11. The estimated costs for master plan infrastructure (trunk, basin, pump station), and curb and gutter street improvements, are:
Estimated Costs – Gravity System
36” / 54” pipe, basin, pump station: $2.9M
Curb & Gutter: $800K
An alternative storm water management approach for the unincorporated County area that includes Area 7 could consist of installing drywells in areas of most need to mitigate any local flooding of streets or installing full curb and gutter along with an estimated 105 drywells. The drywell method of storm water management would be highly dependent on groundwater levels, since high groundwater could interfere with drywell efficiency and storm water quality requirements. The estimated costs for drywells, and curb and gutter street improvements, are:
Estimated Costs – Drywell System
105 Drywells: $5.2M
Curb & Gutter: $800K
Area 7: “South 7Th Street Mobilehome Parks” – Structural Fire Protection Area 4 is served by the Industrial Fire Protection District, which provides service via a Joint Powers Agency that includes the Cities of Modesto and Ceres. Staff employed by the Modesto and Ceres Fire Departments provide service throughout the Industrial Fire Protection District. Upgrading the water system infrastructure in Area 4 as described above, in addition to the installation of fire hydrants as needed, would improve the responsible agencies’ ability to provide fire suppression needs. The cost estimate shown above for water system enhancements would also generally apply to fire protection infrastructure needs.
Area 8: “Airport Neighborhood” – Water
The City currently provides water service to all developed parcels in Area 8, which is fully-developed with just a handful of vacant parcels remaining. In the early 2010s, the City installed several new mains in Area 8 to replace the older and smaller deficient pipes. Water main sizes consist of 8” to 12” and are sufficient for the residential development in this area. No cost estimates are provided as the area has adequate existing water system infrastructure and therefore no foreseeable system improvements.
Area 8: “Airport Neighborhood” – Wastewater
There is no City wastewater service provided to Area 8. The WWMP did include this area in its study in terms of downstream trunk and treatment capacity, but did not identify specific infrastructure improvements to serve it because pipe sizes are generally smaller than master plan-level elements. The City has an existing 60” sewer trunk along Oregon Dr. (the “River Trunk”) to which this area’s parcels located south of Hyde St. would connect utilizing 8” to 12” mains. The few parcels located north of Hyde St. would connect to the existing Yosemite Ave. main, which conveys flows to the 30” Santa Rosa Ave.
Trunk and then to the 60” River Trunk.
The City and County entered into agreements whereby City staffing provided sewer system design services and the County provided construction management and funding to construct a full sewer system for this area. Construction of this project is phased as funding becomes available. Phase 1 is to serve about 79 parcels along Kerr Ave. Completion of the full project will depend on availability of #21..
- 1053 -
Chapter III. Community Development Policies
City of Modesto
Urban Area General Plan III-33
March 2019
construction funding and is expected to be completed in no more than three (3) phases. The County will pursue construction funding for the remaining phases. The total estimated cost of the project is $9.5M.
Area 8: “Airport Neighborhood” – Storm Drainage
With the exception of a few rockwells, Area 8 does not have a storm water management system. Streets within Area 8 generally lack curb and gutter. The SDMP has identified the majority of this area as within sub-basin 59 (north of MID Lateral 1) and a portion in subbasin 74 (south of MID Lateral 1). In subbasin 59, the SDMP proposes about 4,600 lf of 42” to 54” trunks and a discharge to Dry Creek. In subbasin 74, which includes some of Area 8 but also the developed area south of Oregon Dr, the SDMP proposes about 1,800 lf of 48-in to 60-in trunks to route storm water to the Tuolumne River Regional Park. For a gravity storm drainage system, installation of curb and gutter would typically be necessary. Estimated costs for master planned infrastructure, and curb and gutter street improvements, are:
Estimated Costs – Gravity System
42” / 60” pipe and pump station: $4.3M
Curb & Gutter: $2.9M
An alternative storm water management approach to a gravity pipe system could be the installation of drywells in areas of most need to mitigate any local flooding of streets or installing full curb and gutter along with drywells. For Area 8, approximately 100 drywells would be required to serve the entire area.
The drywell method of storm water management would be highly dependent on groundwater levels, since high groundwater interferes with drywell efficiency and storm water quality requirements. The estimated costs for drywells, and curb and gutter street improvements, are:
Estimated Costs – Drywell System
100 Drywells: $5M
Curb & Gutter: $2.9M
Area 8: “Airport Neighborhood” – Structural Fire Protection Area 8 is served by the Stanislaus Consolidated Fire District, which is staffed largely by volunteers.
Upgrading the water system infrastructure in Area 8 as described above, in addition to the installation of fire hydrants as needed, would improve the responsible agency’s ability to provide fire suppression needs.
The cost estimate shown above for water system enhancements would also generally apply to fire protection infrastructure needs.
Area 9: “Empire” – Water
The City provides water in the unincorporated community of Empire (Area 9) to all but a few of the developed parcels. City water is also provided to Empire Elementary School and Glick Middle School.
The community is largely built out within the current community plan and water service area. There are three active City water wells in the vicinity of Area 9 and existing water mains range between 4” and 12” pipes. The water system in Empire is part of the larger City of Modesto water distribution system.
There is no indication of significant hydraulic issues in Empire according to the City’s water Engineer’s Report, likely due to existence of 12” backbone pipes, local groundwater supply and proximity to surface water transmission mains. The older and smaller steel 4” and 6” distribution mains are prone to increasing frequency of leakage and breaking as they age, which can result in higher impacts to the limited capacity of smaller pipelines. The leak frequency in Empire does not indicate a significant issue #21..
- 1054 -
Chapter III. Community Development Policies
City of Modesto
Urban Area General Plan III-34
March 2019
at this time compared to the current higher priority areas of the water system. However, with time, these older and smaller mains would be identified for replacement. Because the City already owns, maintains and provides water to Area 9, there are no additional costs to extend water infrastructure here. The estimated cost to upsize older, undersized mains for Area 9 is 5.2M.
Area 9: “Empire” – Wastewater
The City of Modesto provides wastewater treatment for the unincorporated community of Empire (Area 9) by accepting wastewater from the Empire Sanitary District (ESD) via a 10” sewer main along Yosemite Ave. The City of Modesto owns, operates, and maintains the conveyance system in Empire which consists of 6” to 10” gravity mains and no sewer lift stations.
Area 9 is mostly developed within the current Empire community plan and ESD service area. The existing 10” main is historically deficient for design peak wet weather hydraulic conditions. The City’s downstream 10” main on S. McClure Rd. is also capacity deficient. The City’s WWMP includes plans for conveyance and treatment capacity to serve Empire, and the City serves as ex-officio governing board for the ESD. The City’s 10” mains have been identified as requiring an upsize to meet existing peak wetweather flows. The estimated cost to upsize the existing main is $3.8M.
Area 9: “Empire” – Storm Drainage
Area 9 has some gravity storm drainage systems managed by the County with a discharge pipe along Santa Fe Ave. to the Tuolumne River. The tributary (“catchment”) area for this existing river discharge is the Yosemite Ave. corridor and the older downtown area. The areas on the north end of the community have a gravity system that flows to rockwells. The older part of the community, roughly north of Yosemite Ave. and south of McCoy Ave. do not have curb and gutter. The area generally north of McCoy Ave. has curb and gutter. The County has made improvements to these storm drainage systems over the last decade, though the City does not have any specific information. The County is also presenting a proposal for a low-impact development storm drainage project to the Community that would also include enlarging the existing discharge pipe size from 36” to 66” and which would allow for expanding the existing gravity system to include areas on the north end of the community. The County project has a total estimated cost of about $15M.
The SDMP identifies the Empire area as sub-basin 7 and proposed pipes ranging from 36” to 66” and also the need to increase the storm outfall pipe from 36” to 66”. Smaller pipes for streets that may not have a gravity system in place have not been identified or confirmed with the County. The estimated cost for master planned infrastructure is $7.5M.
Area 9: “Empire” – Structural Fire Protection
Area 9 is served by the Stanislaus Consolidated Fire District, which is staffed largely by volunteers.
Upgrading the water system infrastructure in Area 9 as described above, in addition to the installation of fire hydrants as needed, would improve the responsible agency’s ability to provide fire suppression needs.
The cost estimate shown above for water system enhancements would also generally apply to fire protection infrastructure needs.
2. Funding
The nine (9) DUC areas that are the subject of this SB244 analysis were previously developed under the jurisdiction of Stanislaus County with residential and other land uses. Therefore, the County is generally #21..
- 1055 -
Chapter III. Community Development Policies
City of Modesto
Urban Area General Plan III-35
March 2019
responsible for identifying the necessary funding for construction of infrastructure systems consistent with City standards, prior to the City’s consideration for annexation. All other infrastructure components, such as streets, street lights, curb gutter & sidewalk, etc., are also typically required to be installed by the County. Subject to a formal Infrastructure Improvement Agreement (IIA), the City would inspect all infrastructure improvements installed by the County, prior to acceptance as a condition of annexation.
This infrastructure funding and construction model has been effective in several neighborhoods that are located in the general area of the DUCs (south and west Modesto). The Shackelford neighborhood, which is located northeast of Area #5, has been improved by the County and annexed to the City. Other neighborhoods, such as Bret Harte, Robertson Road and Parklawn, have had sewer system improvements designed and constructed by the County, and it is reasonable to expect that other infrastructure improvements will occur in these areas – subject to a formal IIA – as a pre-condition of annexation.
The State of California Office of Planning and Research has published a Technical Advisory for SB244, which describes several potential funding sources and mechanisms. Among these are “…taxes, benefit assessments, bonds and exactions (including impact fees).” In addition, several state funding programs are listed: California Department of Health Safe Drinking Water State Revolving Fund; State Water Resources Control Board Revolving Fund Program; State Water Resources Control Board Small Community Wastewater Grant Program; Department of Water Resources Integrated Regional Water Management Grant Program; Sustainable Communities Planning Grant and Incentive Program; United States Department of Agriculture Rural Development Grants and Loans; and, Community Development Block Grant Funds.
The County of Stanislaus has funded infrastructure improvements within neighborhoods located in areas identified as DUCs via a combination of funding sources, including some referenced above. Specifically, improvements to the Shackelford neighborhood were funded through Redevelopment Agency monies, the County Road Fund, Tobacco Settlement funds, and Congestion Relief. Infrastructure improvements in the Parklawn neighborhood were funded via Community Development Block Grant funds and a State Water Board grant. Redevelopment Agency funds were also used for sanitary sewer system improvements to the Bret Harte and Robertson Road neighborhoods.
Finally, the City’s most recent Municipal Services Review (MSR) documentation (2004) describes the various utilities and services needed to support buildout of the Modesto Sphere-of-Influence. The 2004 MSR concludes that sufficient water, wastewater, storm drainage and fire protection services can be made available to accommodate growth and development contemplated by the General Plan. Subsequent to preparation of the 2004 MSR, the City doubled its wastewater processing capacity – from 30 mgd to 60 mgd – which results in further certainty regarding Modesto’s ability to ultimately provide sewer service to both: 1. new growth areas; and, 2. exiting developed areas such as DUCs.
3. Disadvantaged Unincorporated Community Policies
The following policies apply to all DUCs, regardless of whether they are classified as an “island community” or “fringe community” as defined within SB244.
Policy III.E.1.
Coordinate with the County of Stanislaus regarding long-term planning for provision of services, including but not limited to: water, wastewater, storm drainage, streets, street lights and public safety. (Public health, environmental justice)
#21..
- 1056 -
Chapter III. Community Development Policies
City of Modesto
Urban Area General Plan III-36
March 2019
Policy III.E.2.
Consistent with General Plan Policy II.C.1., consider UGR analysis in odd-numbered years. When the UGR documentation is prepared, include analyses of the utilities, infrastructure and services, and the associated funding considerations, for all DUCs within the City of Modesto Sphere of Influence. The most recent UGR documentation is incorporated herein in its entirety by this reference.
#21..
- 1057 -
FINAL
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
FOR THE
MODESTO URBAN AREA GENERAL PLAN
APRIL 30, 2025
Prepared for:
City of Modesto
1010 10th Street
Modesto, CA 95354
(209) 577-5200
Prepared by:
De Novo Planning Group
1020 Suncast Lane, Suite 106
El Dorado Hills, CA 95762
(916) 812-7927
D e N o v o P l a n n i n g G r o u p
A L a n d U s e P l a n n i n g , D e s i g n , a n d E n v i r o n m e n t a l F i r m #21..
- 1058 -
#21..
- 1059 -
FINAL
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
FOR THE
MODESTO URBAN AREA GENERAL PLAN
APRIL 30, 2025
Prepared for:
City of Modesto
1010 10th Street
Modesto, CA 95354
(209) 577-5200
Prepared by:
De Novo Planning Group
1020 Suncast Lane, Suite 106
El Dorado Hills, CA 95762
(916) 812-7927
#21..
- 1060 -
#21..
- 1061 -
TABLE OF CONTENTS TOC
Final Environmental Impact Report – Modesto Urban Area General Plan TOC-1
FINAL EIR
Chapter Page Number
Executive Summary..................................................................................................................... ES-1
1.0 Introduction .........................................................................................................................1.0-1
1.1 Purpose and Intended Uses of the EIR ...................................................................1.0-1
1.2 Environmental Review Process...............................................................................1.0-3
1.3 Organization of the Final EIR ..................................................................................1.0-5
2.0 Comments on Draft EIR and Responses ..............................................................................2.0-1
2.1 Introduction ............................................................................................................2.0-1
2.2 List of Commenters.................................................................................................2.0-2
2.3 Comments and Responses......................................................................................2.0-3
3.0 Revisions and Errata ............................................................................................................3.0-1
3.1 Revisions to the Draft EIR .......................................................................................3.0-1 #21..
- 1062 -
TOC TABLE OF CONTENTS
TOC-2 Final Environmental Impact Report – Modesto Urban Area General Plan This page left intentionally blank
#21..
- 1063 -
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ES
Final Environmental Impact Report – Modesto Urban Area General Plan ES-1
INTRODUCTION
The City of Modesto, as lead agency, determined that the density changes from Housing Element Programs A-2 and A-4, which changed the maximum and realistic densities expected to be developed within the existing General Plan land uses, is a "project" within the meaning of CEQA.
CEQA requires the preparation of an EIR prior to approving any project that may have a significant impact on the environment. The City certified a Master EIR in 2019, but since that time the City has adopted programs directing increases to residential densities.
CEQA Guidelines section 15162 sets forth the conditions and facts that require a public agency, in considering project changes or changed circumstances relating to a project that was the subject of a previously certified Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR), to prepare a so-called “subsequent EIR.” The City determined that the density increases directed by the Housing Element qualify as new information that has become available, which was not known and could not have been known at the time that the Master EIR was certified because it did not exist. In the Laurel Heights decision, the California Supreme Court noted that the CEQA Guidelines "generally define 'new information' as information which shows that the project will have new or more severe 'significant effects' on the environment not disclosed in the prior EIR." (Laurel Heights Improvement Association v. Regents of the University of California (1993) 6 Cal.4th 1112, citing Guidelines Section 15162(a)(3)). The City has also determined that it would like to update its traffic analysis to conform to new VMT regulations (SB 743). A new Program-level EIR would evaluate the impacts related to the new information (i.e. density changes) that was not known when the 2019 EIR was prepared as well as VMT. The new EIR reuses existing information and data from the Master EIR that remains relevant and unchanged, and supplements the data/analysis where necessary to address the new information that is necessary. The City also examined the proposed changes to the General Plan’s land use designations to accommodate the changes contemplated by the City’s recently revised Housing Element.
This Final EIR was prepared to address comments received in response to the Draft EIR. The City has prepared a written response to the Draft EIR comments, and made textual changes to the Draft EIR where warranted. The responses to the comments are provided in this Final EIR in Chapter 2.0, and all changes to the text of the Draft EIR are summarized in Chapter 3.0. Responses to comments received during the comment period for the Draft EIR do not involve any new significant impacts or “significant new information” that would require another recirculation of the Draft EIR pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
In 2011, the City of Modesto launched its most recent City-initiated General Plan Update, after being awarded a US HUD-DOT-EPA federal planning grant as one of 14 San Joaquin Valley cities known as the Smart Valley Places (SVP) consortium. The comprehensive General Plan update was a multi-year project that ultimately resulted in changes to nearly every chapter, section, and #21..
- 1064 -
ES EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
ES-2 Final Environmental Impact Report – Modesto Urban Area General Plan element of Modesto’s General Plan. The City certified a Master EIR on March 6, 2019 and adopted the Modesto Urban Area General Plan (UAGP).
The adopted UAGP is Modesto’s long-term, comprehensive guide for development. Its 40,600-acre Planning Area reaches beyond the city limits and sphere of influence. The UAGP Growth Strategy establishes three geographic areas within the plan: (1) the Downtown Area; (2) the Baseline Developed Area; and, (3) the Planned Urbanizing Area. The adopted UAGP includes a comprehensive set of goals, policies and exhibits that establish the direction, scale / magnitude and priorities associated with Modesto’s growth and development.
Amendments to the 2019 General Plan and Zoning Code
Since adoption of the UAGP in 2019, the City has approved amendments to the UAGP from time to time, as internal and external factors resulted in a need to update the document or maps.
Examples of internal factors may include changing priorities and recognition of new opportunities; external factors may include new state laws and changing physical conditions or property owner requests – both development-related and environmental.
One recent change to the UAGP that is prompting the preparation of this EIR, changes made in the City of Modesto’s 2023-2031 6th Cycle Housing Element. This Housing Element sets forth the City’s overall housing objectives in the form of goals, policies, and programs. One specific program provided in the Housing Element required amendments to the zoning ordinance to rezone four corridors to mixed-use, and to change zoning densities to allow more residential development. Per Housing Element Program A-2, the City rezoned parcels on McHenry, Sisk, Oakdale, and Yosemite to new Mixed-Use-Pedestrian (MU-P) and Mixed-Use-Highway (MU-H) zones, and modified P-D parcels to allow for 45 du/ac in order to create a net new capacity for 21,014 units within the City.
This is an added capacity of almost twice the RHNA of 11,248, and almost three times the remaining RHNA need after factoring in pending projects and ADUs. These zoning amendments were completed in December 2023. Beyond these zoning amendments, the Housing Element also directed the City to increase the maximum density of the R-1 zone from 7.5 to 10.9, the R-2 zone from 14.5 to 22, and the maximum density of the R-3 zone from 29 to 45, as noted in Program A-3.
This will also create opportunity for higher density residential development throughout the City.
The Housing Element further directed the City to amend the zoning code to allow duplexes to be approved ministerially on all lots in the R-1 zone with a single-family residential use, as noted in Program A-11. The City intends to implement this program by making duplexes a permitted use in the R-1 zone and performing its ministerial review through the existing Building Permit process.
The amendments to the Zoning Code were intended to occur across all opportunity categories, with specific geographic targeting in the higher resource areas. About 45 percent of the rezone area (13,774 units) is in high or higher resource areas, creating substantial new opportunities for housing mobility, new housing choices, affordability, and lower-income housing in eastern and northern neighborhoods. About 33 percent of the land area of the City was in an area of high or highest resource. As about 45 percent of the rezone area is in an area of high or highest resource, the rezone is promoting housing mobility and housing choice in higher resource areas at a disproportionately higher rate than the City’s existing state. The City determined that the #21..
- 1065 -
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ES
ES-3 Final Environmental Impact Report – Modesto Urban Area General Plan amendments to the Zoning Code were significant and meaningful enough to overcome currently identified patterns and trends.
The Housing Element indicated that the increase the densities of the R-1, R-2, and R-3 zones were intended to ensure there is continuity of permitted densities between residential zones and align more closely with recommended densities in the General Plan. Table ES-1 provides the Zoning and Density Guidance as directed in Program A-4.
TABLE ES-1: ZONING AND DENSITY GUIDANCE
GENERAL PLAN LAND USE DESIGNATION EXISTING DENSITY PROPOSED DENSITY Low Density Residential (R-1) Up to 7.5 du/ac Less than 10.9 du/ac Medium Density Residential (R-2) 10.9 to 14.5 du/ac 10.9 to 22 du/ac Medium High Density Residential (R-3) 21.8 to 29 du/ac 22 to 45 du/ac Mixed Use (MU) Average 14 du/ac Average 14 du/ac1
Mixed-Use-Pedestrian (MU-P) N/A 22 to 45 du/ac2
Mixed-Use-Highway (MU-H) N/A 22 to 45 du/ac2
Downtown (D) FAR: 1 - 14 FAR: 1 - 14
Village Residential (VR) 6.6 du/ac 6.6 du/ac
Business-Commercial-Residential (BCR) 30% of ac 30% of ac Open Space (OS) 1 du/10 ac 1 du/10 ac
SOURCE: CITY OF MODESTO, GENERAL PLAN COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT POLICIES, 2019, AND 2023-2031 6TH CYCLE HOUSING ELEMENT.
1The RHNA and zoning is not reliant on the 14 du/ac. This land use designation reflects previously existing uses. The average of 14 du/ac was originally intended to be an average of the whole land use designation area, and is not enforced on a project-by-project basis. The new mixed-use zones will reflect new densities. 2The Mixed- Use Zones allow a range of high-density development up to 45 du/ac.
Current Project
The project analyzed in the EIR consists of two parts. First, the City will examine, at a project level, proposed amendments to the General Plan land use designations to ratify and conform the General Plan land use designations with the changes adopted in the General Plan’s Housing Element. This would include amendments to UAGP Chapter III Community Development Policies.
The amendments to Chapter III include:
• Revisions to Section B. Adopted General Plan Land Use Designations to reflect the updated densities as follows.
o Table III-1 General Plan Land Use Designations on page III-2will be updated under the Residential Density Guidance and Population Intensity columns to reflect the density and intensity changes.
o Section B.1.C (Residential-R) on page III-3 will be updated to reflect the density and intensity changes.
#21..
- 1066 -
ES EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
ES-4 Final Environmental Impact Report – Modesto Urban Area General Plan o Section B.2.C (Mixed Use-MU) on page III-3 will be updated to reflect the new “Mixed Use-Pedestrian and Mixed Use-Highway” uses, as well as the associated density and intensity changes.
o Section B.6.C (Village Residential -VR) on page III-5 will be updated • Revisions to Section D. Comprehensive Planning Districts to reflect the updated densities as follows.
o Exhibit III-1, Page 1 of 2: Comprehensive Planning Districts Summary will be updated under the dwelling units column to reflect the density and intensity changes. (page III-20)
o Exhibit III-1, Page 2 of 2: Comprehensive Planning Districts Summary will be updated under the dwelling units column to reflect the density and intensity changes. (page III-21)
Approval of these changes will create internal consistency within the General Plan and the density changes approved in the Housing Element Update. Rejection of these changes would mean the City would need to look at new/different changes to the Housing Element in order to comply with the City’s housing obligations.
In addition to the above General Plan amendment changes, the City will examine environmental topics in light of legislative directives that have changed since the 2019 EIR was certified. For instance, the traffic analysis in the 2019 EIR is a level of service analysis, whereas the State has more recently directed that CEQA analyze traffic using a Vehicle Miles Traveled analysis.
Other Efforts to Update General Plan
The City of Modesto is currently embarking on a new comprehensive update to the UAGP that will look toward the City’s long-term future to reflect the issues, ideas, and aspirations of today, and plan toward the year 2050. That UAGP Update is in the early stages of a multi-year process, and is not anticipated to conclude until 2026 or later. This EIR is not intended to cover the Update to the General Plan.
ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT
Section 15126.6 of the CEQA Guidelines requires an EIR to describe a reasonable range of alternatives to the project or to the location of the project which would reduce or avoid significant impacts, and which could feasibly accomplish the basic objectives of the proposed project. The alternatives analyzed in this EIR are briefly described as follows:
• No Project (No Build) Alternative: The No Project Alternative is the continuation of the existing adopted General Plan into the future. Thus, No Project Alternative as envisioned in the existing adopted General Plan, and as analyzed in the 2019 General Plan EIR, would be compared to the impacts that would occur with the proposed amendments to the General Plan and Zoning Ordinance (i.e. residential density changes). #21..
- 1067 -
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ES
ES-5 Final Environmental Impact Report – Modesto Urban Area General Plan • Increased Density Concentration Alternative: The Increased Density Concentration Alternative is like the proposed Project in terms of the proposed amendments to the General Plan and Zoning Ordinance (i.e. residential density changes), however, the focus on density increases would be limited to a few targeted areas (e.g., Downtown Area, Baseline Developed Area) while leaving the other areas (e.g., Planned Urbanizing Area) unchanged.
A comparative analysis of the proposed General Plan and each of the Project alternatives is provided within Section 5.0: Alternatives of the Draft EIR. The comparison shows that the No Project (No Build) Alternative is the environmentally superior alternative. However, as required by CEQA, when the No Project (No Build) Alternative is the environmentally superior alternative, the environmentally superior alternative among the others must be identified. Therefore, the Increased Density Concentration Alternative would be the environmentally superior alternative because all environmental issues would have reduced impacts compared to the proposed Project.
It is noted that neither the No Project Alternative nor the Increased Density Concentration Alternative fully meet all the Project objectives.
COMMENTS RECEIVED
The Draft EIR addressed environmental impacts associated with the proposed Project that are known to the City, were raised during the Notice of Preparation (NOP) process, or raised during preparation of the Draft EIR. The Draft EIR discussed potentially significant impacts associated with aesthetics and visual resources, agricultural resources, air quality, biological resources, biological resources, cultural and tribal resources, geology and soils, greenhouse gas emissions and energy hazards and hazardous materials, hydrology and water quality, land use planning, noise, public services, traffic, utilities, and wildfire.
During the NOP process, several comments were received related to the analysis that were included in the Draft EIR. These comments are included as Appendix A of the Draft EIR, and were considered during preparation of the Draft EIR.
The City received two (2) comment letters regarding the Draft EIR. These comment letters on the Draft EIR are identified in Table 2.0-1 of this Final EIR. The comments received during the Draft EIR review processes are addressed within this Final EIR.
#21..
- 1068 -
ES EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
ES-6 Final Environmental Impact Report – Modesto Urban Area General Plan This page left intentionally blank.
#21..
- 1069 -
INTRODUCTION 1.0
Final Environmental Impact Report – Modesto Urban Area General Plan 1.0-1 This Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) was prepared in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the State CEQA Guidelines (Section 15132). The City of Modesto is the lead agency for the environmental review of the Modesto Urban Area General Plan (UAGP, General Plan, General Plan Update, or Project) and has the principal responsibility for approving the project. This FEIR assesses the expected environmental impacts resulting from approval and adoption of the proposed Amendments to the General Plan and Zoning Ordinance as described more fully in Section 2.0 of the Draft EIR.
1.1 PURPOSE AND INTENDED USES OF THE EIR
CEQA REQUIREMENTS FOR A FINAL EIR
This FEIR for the General Plan has been prepared in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and State CEQA Guidelines. State CEQA Guidelines Section 15132 requires that an FEIR consist of the following:
• the Draft Environmental Impact Report (Draft EIR) or a revision of the draft; • comments and recommendations received on the Draft EIR, either verbatim or in summary; • a list of persons, organizations, and public agencies commenting on the Draft EIR; • the responses of the lead agency to significant environmental concerns raised in the review and consultation process; and
• any other information added by the lead agency.
In accordance with State CEQA Guidelines Section 15132(a), the Draft EIR is incorporated by reference into this Final EIR.
An EIR must disclose the expected environmental impacts, including impacts that cannot be avoided, growth-inducing effects, impacts found not to be significant, and significant cumulative impacts, as well as identify mitigation measures and alternatives to the proposed project that could reduce or avoid its adverse environmental impacts. CEQA requires government agencies to consider and, where feasible, minimize environmental impacts of proposed projects, and obligates them to balance a variety of public objectives, including economic, environmental, and social factors.
PURPOSE AND USE
The City of Modesto, as lead agency, determined that the UAGP is a "project" within the meaning of CEQA. CEQA requires the preparation of an EIR prior to approving any project that may have a significant impact on the environment. The City certified a Master EIR in 2019, but since that time new requirements for environmental analysis have occurred that warrant additional analysis of the UAGP.
CEQA Guidelines section 15162 sets forth the conditions and facts that require a public agency, in considering project changes or changed circumstances relating to a project that was the subject of a previously certified Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR), to prepare a so-called “subsequent #21..
- 1070 -
1.0 INTRODUCTION
1.0-2 Final Environmental Impact Report – Modesto Urban Area General Plan EIR.” When an EIR has been certified, a subsequent EIR is required if (PRC Section 21166; CEQA Guidelines Section 15162):
(1) “Substantial changes are proposed in the project which will require major revisions” to the EIR “due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects;” (2) “Substantial changes occur with respect to the circumstances,” and those changes will require “major revisions” to the EIR “due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects;” or
(3) “New information of substantial importance, which was not known and could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time” of preparation of the EIR, becomes available. Such information must show either: the project will have one or more significant effects not discussed in the previous EIR; significant effects previously examined will be substantially more severe; mitigation measures or alternatives previously found to be infeasible would in fact be feasible and would substantially reduce one or more significant effects of the project, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative; or mitigation measures or alternatives which are considerably different from those analyzed in the previous EIR would substantially reduce one or more significant effects on the environment, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative.
As one court explained in 2021, “…a subsequent EIR is necessary ‘[w]hen the previous EIR must be rewritten from the ground up to make its environmental analysis adequate.” (California Coastkeeper Alliance v. State Lands Commission (2021) 64 Cal.App.5th 36, 59, quoting 2 Kostka & Zischke, Practice Under the Cal. Environmental Quality Act (Cont.Ed.Bar 2d ed. 2019) § 19.5, p. 19- 9 and City of Irvine v. County of Orange (2015) 238 Cal.App.4th 526, 539.) Given that the 2019 Master EIR’s five-year certification period has lapsed, combined with multiple previous amendments to the General Plan and currently proposed changes to the General Plan, the City determined that there is there new information that has become available, which was not known and could not have been known at the time that the Master EIR was certified because it did not exist. In addition, the City has determined that, due to regulatory changes associated with SB743, which redefined the methodology and thresholds for traffic analyses to a VMT standard, the City would like to update its analysis of traffic impacts to use the VMT standard. In the Laurel Heights decision, the California Supreme Court noted that the CEQA Guidelines "generally define 'new information' as information which shows that the project will have new or more severe 'significant effects' on the environment not disclosed in the prior EIR." (Laurel Heights Improvement Association v. Regents of the University of California (1993) 6 Cal.4th 1112, citing Guidelines Section 15162(a)(3)). A new Program-level EIR would evaluate the impacts related to the new information that was not known when the 2019 EIR was prepared. The new EIR reuses existing information and data from the Master EIR that remains relevant and unchanged, and supplements the data/analysis where necessary to address the new information that is necessary. #21..
- 1071 -
INTRODUCTION 1.0
Final Environmental Impact Report – Modesto Urban Area General Plan 1.0-3 This EIR will be used as the primary environmental document to evaluate all subsequent planning and permitting actions associated with the General Plan. Subsequent actions that may be associated with the General Plan are identified in Chapter 2.0, Project Description. This EIR may also be used by other agencies within Stanislaus County.
1.2 ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW PROCESS
The review and certification process for the EIR has involved, or will involve, the following general procedural steps:
NOTICE OF PREPARATION
The City of Modesto circulated a Notice of Preparation (NOP) of an EIR for the proposed project on September 27, 2024 to trustee and responsible agencies, the State Clearinghouse, and the public.
A scoping meeting was held on October 11, 2024. No public or agency comments on the NOP related to the EIR analysis were presented or submitted during the scoping meeting. However, during the 30-day public review period for the NOP, which ended on October 27, 2024, three written comment letters were received on the NOP. A summary of the NOP comments is provided later in this chapter. The NOP and all comments received on the NOP are presented in Appendix A.
NOTICE OF AVAILABILITY AND DRAFT EIR
The City published a public Notice of Availability (NOA) for the Draft EIR on February 28, 2025 inviting comment from the general public, agencies, organizations, and other interested parties.
The NOA was filed with the State Clearinghouse (SCH # 2024091127) and the County Clerk, and was published in the Modesto Bee pursuant to the public noticing requirements of CEQA. The Draft EIR was available for public review from February 28, 2025 through April 15, 2025 at 5:00 p.m. The Public Draft General Plan was also available for public review and comment during this period.
The Draft EIR contains a description of the project, description of the environmental setting, identification, and analysis of project impacts, as well as an analysis of project alternatives, identification of significant irreversible environmental changes, growth-inducing impacts, and cumulative impacts. The Draft EIR identifies issues determined to have no impact or a less than significant impact, and provides detailed analysis of potentially significant and significant impacts
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS/FINAL EIR
The City received two comment letters during the 45-day review period for the Draft EIR. In accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15088, this Final EIR responds to the written comments received on the Draft EIR. The Final EIR also contains minor edits to the Draft EIR, which are included in Chapter 3.0 (Revisions and Errata). This document and the Draft EIR, as amended herein, constitutes the Final EIR.
#21..
- 1072 -
1.0 INTRODUCTION
1.0-4 Final Environmental Impact Report – Modesto Urban Area General Plan
CERTIFICATION OF THE EIR/PROJECT CONSIDERATION
The Modesto City Council will review and consider the Final EIR. If the City Council finds that the Final EIR is "adequate and complete," then it may certify it in accordance with CEQA. The rule of adequacy generally holds that an EIR can be certified if:
1) The EIR shows a good faith effort at full disclosure of environmental information; and 2) The EIR provides sufficient analysis to allow decisions to be made regarding the proposed project in contemplation of environmental considerations.
Upon review and consideration of the Final EIR, the Modesto City Council may take action to approve, revise, or reject the project. A decision to approve the Modesto Urban Area General Plan, for which this EIR identifies significant environmental effects, must be accompanied by written findings in accordance with State CEQA Guidelines Sections 15091 and 15093.
Policies and actions to mitigate potential environmental impacts have been incorporated into the project, to the extent feasible. No additional mitigation is feasible or available, as described in Chapters 3.1 through 4.0 of the Draft EIR. The annual report on general plan status required pursuant to the Government Code will serve as the monitoring and reporting program for the project.
1.3 ORGANIZATION OF THE FINAL EIR
This Final EIR has been prepared consistent with Section 15132 of the State CEQA Guidelines, which identifies the content requirements for Final EIRs. This Final EIR is organized in the following manner:
CHAPTER 1.0 – INTRODUCTION
Chapter 1.0 briefly describes the purpose of the environmental evaluation, identifies the lead agency, summarizes the process associated with preparation and certification of an EIR, and identifies the content requirements and organization of the Final EIR.
CHAPTER 2.0 – COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES
Chapter 2.0 provides a list of commenters, copies of written comments made on the Draft EIR (coded for reference), and responses to those written comments.
CHAPTER 3.0 – REVISIONS AND ERRATA
Chapter 3.0 consists of minor revisions to the Draft EIR in response to comments on the Draft EIR.
The revisions to the Draft EIR do not change the intent or content of the analysis or mitigation. #21..
- 1073 -
COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES 2.0
Final Environmental Impact Report – Modesto Urban Area General Plan 2.0-1
2.1 INTRODUCTION
No new significant environmental impacts or issues, beyond those already covered in the Draft EIR (DEIR) for the proposed Project, were raised during the comment period. Responses to comments received during the comment period do not involve or reveal any new significant impacts or add any “significant new information” that would require recirculation of the DEIR pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5.
CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5(a) states that: New information added to an EIR is not “significant” unless the EIR is changed in a way that deprives the public of a meaningful opportunity to comment upon a substantial adverse environmental effect of the project or a feasible way to mitigate or avoid such an effect (including a feasible project alternative) that the project’s proponents have declined to implement. “Significant new information” requiring recirculation includes, for example, a disclosure showing that: (1) A new significant environmental impact would result from the project or from a new mitigation measure proposed to be implemented. (2) A substantial increase in the severity of an environmental impact would result unless mitigation measures are adopted that reduce the impact to a level of insignificance. (3) A feasible project alternative or mitigation measure considerably different from others previously analyzed would clearly lessen the environmental impacts of the project, but the project’s proponents decline to adopt it. (4) The draft EIR was so fundamentally and basically inadequate and conclusory in nature that meaningful public review and comment were precluded. (Mountain Lion Coalition v. Fish and Game Com. (1989) 214 Cal.App.3d 1043)
2.2 LIST OF COMMENTERS
Table 2-1 lists the comments on the Draft EIR that were submitted to the City during the 45-day public review period. The assigned comment letter number, letter date, letter author, and affiliation, if presented in the comment letter or if representing a public agency, are also listed. The City received two comment letters during the 45-day review period for the Draft EIR.
TABLE 2-1: LIST OF COMMENTERS
RESPONSE
LETTER
INDIVIDUAL OR
SIGNATORY
AFFILIATION DATE
A Mark Montelongo San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District April 15, 2025 B Julie Vance California Department of Fish and Wildlife April 15, 2025
2.3 COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
REQUIREMENTS FOR RESPONDING TO COMMENTS ON A DEIR
CEQA Guidelines Section 15088 requires that lead agencies evaluate all timely comments on the DEIR and respond in writing to all significant environmental issues raised in such comments. The written response must address the significant environmental issue raised and provide a detailed response, #21..
- 1074 -
2.0 COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES
2.0-2 Final Environmental Impact Report – Modesto Urban Area General Plan especially when specific comments or suggestions (e.g., additional mitigation measures) are not accepted. In addition, the written response must reflect a good faith and reasoned analysis. However, lead agencies need only to respond to significant environmental issues associated with the proposed Project and do not need to provide all the information requested by the commenter, if a good faith effort at full disclosure is made in the EIR (CEQA Guidelines Section 15204).
CEQA Guidelines Section 15204 recommends that commenters provide detailed comments that focus on the sufficiency of the DEIR in identifying and analyzing the possible environmental impacts of the proposed Project and ways to avoid or mitigate the significant effects of the proposed Project, and that commenters provide evidence supporting their comments. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15064, an effect shall not be considered significant in the absence of substantial evidence.
CEQA Guidelines Section 15088 also recommends that revisions to the DEIR be noted as a revision in the DEIR or as a separate section of the Final EIR. Chapter 3.0 of this Final EIR identifies all revisions to the DEIR.
RESPONSES TO COMMENT LETTERS
Written comments on the DEIR are reproduced on the following pages, along with responses to those comments. To assist in referencing comments and responses, the following coding system is used:
● Each letter is lettered or numbered (i.e., Letter A) and each comment within each letter is numbered (i.e., comment A-1, comment A-2).
REVISIONS AND ERRATA
Where changes to the DEIR text result from the response to comments, those changes are included in the response and identified with revision marks (underline for new text, strike out for deleted text). #21..
- 1075 -
COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES 2.0
Final Environmental Impact Report – Modesto Urban Area General Plan 2.0-3 A-1
A-2
#21..
- 1076 -
2.0 COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES
2.0-4 Final Environmental Impact Report – Modesto Urban Area General Plan A-2 Cont.
A-5
A-3
A-4
#21..
- 1077 -
COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES 2.0
Final Environmental Impact Report – Modesto Urban Area General Plan 2.0-5 A-5 Cont.
A-6
#21..
- 1078 -
2.0 COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES
2.0-6 Final Environmental Impact Report – Modesto Urban Area General Plan A-6 Cont.
A-7
#21..
- 1079 -
COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES 2.0
Final Environmental Impact Report – Modesto Urban Area General Plan 2.0-7 A-8
A-9
A-10
#21..
- 1080 -
2.0 COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES
2.0-8 Final Environmental Impact Report – Modesto Urban Area General Plan A-11
#21..
- 1081 -
COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES 2.0
Final Environmental Impact Report – Modesto Urban Area General Plan 2.0-9 A-11 Cont.
#21..
- 1082 -
2.0 COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES
2.0-10 Final Environmental Impact Report – Modesto Urban Area General Plan A-11 Cont.
#21..
- 1083 -
COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES 2.0
Final Environmental Impact Report – Modesto Urban Area General Plan 2.0-11 A-11 Cont.
#21..
- 1084 -
2.0 COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES
2.0-12 Final Environmental Impact Report – Modesto Urban Area General Plan A-12
#21..
- 1085 -
COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES 2.0
Final Environmental Impact Report – Modesto Urban Area General Plan 2.0-13 Response to Letter A: Mark Montelongo, San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District
Response A-1: The commenter provides an introductory statement to the comment letter. No response to this comment is warranted.
Response A-2: The commenter states that nearly all development projects within the San Joaquin Valley Air Basin, from the Modesto Urban Area General Plan to individual projects have the potential to generate air pollutants, making it more difficult to attain state and federal ambient air quality standards.
Land use decisions are critical to improving air quality within the San Joaquin Valley Air Basin because land use patterns greatly influence transportation needs, and motor vehicle emissions are the largest source of air pollution in the Valley. Land use decisions and project design elements such as preventing urban sprawl, encouraging mix-use development, and project design elements that reduce vehicle miles traveled (VMT) have proven to be beneficial for air quality. More specifically, the DEIR concludes Project air quality emissions impacts will exceed District significance thresholds and thus result in significant and unavoidable impacts. As such, the District recommends that the DEIR incorporate strategies that reduce VMTs. Design element options for VMT reduction can be found at the SJVAPCD’s website.
This comment is noted. The VMT results indicate the VMT per capita and the VMT per service population With Project and With Project plus Employment Growth are expected to decrease compared to 2019 and 2046 No Project within both the City and the full Planning Area. This represents an improvement in VMT efficiency compared to the current General Plan. The proposed General Plan would further the fundamental goals of the SJVAPCD in reducing emissions of criteria pollutants associated with vehicle miles traveled, would assist the city in achieving a more balanced jobs to housing ratio, and would increase opportunities for transit ridership in Modesto and the surrounding areas. The list of policies provided in the Regulatory Setting would work to further criteria pollutant emissions, including reviewing projects for conformance with applicable air quality plans and regulations, reducing energy demands, and implementing methods to reduce vehicle miles traveled.
Response A-3: The commenter recommends that future development projects utilize the cleanest available off-road construction equipment to reduce impacts from construction-related diesel exhaust.
This comment is noted. Each individual project will be required to comply with Rule 9510, which provides incentives for individual projects to utilize the cleanest fleets for construction. Many projects will utilize contractors that have construction fleets that are modern can cleanest available.
The fleets used will be reflected in the AIA for individual projects.
Response A-4: The commenter states that, in some cases, for future development projects, the City may determine that a project be approved as an allowed use by not requiring a project-specific discretionary approval from the City. The commenter states that the SJVAPCD recommends that the Draft EIR include language supported by policy requiring such projects to prepare a technical assessment in consultation with the SJVAPCD.
#21..
- 1086 -
2.0 COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES
2.0-14 Final Environmental Impact Report – Modesto Urban Area General Plan This comment is noted. The City will require all future development under the General Plan to comply with all applicable SJVAPCD rules and regulations, including requirements to perform technical analysis and apply mitigation when thresholds are exceeded.
Response A-5: The commenter states that a Prioritization and/or HRA should be performed for individual development projects to determine health impacts. The commenter also states that the HRAs should include all potential air emissions from future development projects, which include emissions from construction of the project, as well as on-going operation activities. The commenter describes two common sources of TACs. The commenter describes the threshold within the SJVAPCD’s Prioritization calculator that should be used to determine whether a detailed HRA is required. The commenter also describes that, prior to performing an HRA, the commenter strongly recommends that land use agencies/project proponents develop and submit for SJVAPCD review a health risk modeling protocol that outlines the sources and methodologies that will be used to perform the HRA. The commenter then provides the thresholds of significance for cancer and non-cancer HRA risks. The commenter also provides contact information to send files to the SJVAPCD for review. The commenter also provides a recommended measure that development projects resulting in TAC emissions should be located an adequate distance from residential areas and other sensitive receptors according to the CARB’s Air Quality and Land Use Handbook: A Community Health Perspective.
Regarding the commenter’s comments regarding potential individual project risks associated with TACs, this comment is noted. Individual projects with the City of Modesto would be required to conduct detailed HRAs, should their Prioritization scores exceed 10, which is the threshold provided by the SJVAPCD. Policy VII.H.2.v states that a Construction Health Risk Assessment shall be required on a project-by-project basis if, at the direction of SJVAPCD after applicant consultation, the specific project is considered to have a potentially significant project-level health risk impact, through refined modeling using 2015 OEHHA guidance (or the latest accepted methodology), to identify impacts and, if necessary, include measures determined by SJVAPCD to reduce exposure. (Policy VII.H.2.v). Also, Policy VII.H.2.w specifies that future development that includes sensitive receptors (such as schools, hospitals, daycare centers, or retirement homes) located within the setback distances from highways, railroads, local roadways, and stationary sources specified below shall require site-specific analysis to determine the level of TAC and PM2.5 exposure. This analysis shall be conducted following methodology and procedures recommended by SJVAPCD and OEHHA.
These existing policies are consistent with the recommendation provided by the commenter.
Response A-6: The commenter describes the requirements for an ambient air quality analysis. The commenter states that an ambient air quality analysis is recommended to be performed for any future development projects with emissions that exceed 100 pounds per day of any pollutant.
This comment is noted. An ambient air quality analysis is not required for the General Plan, since it is a programmatic-level of analysis that does not directly result in development. Ambient air quality analyses will be required for individual projects at the project level. No further response to this comment is warranted.
#21..
- 1087 -
COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES 2.0
Final Environmental Impact Report – Modesto Urban Area General Plan 2.0-15 Response A-7: The commenter recommends that the Draft EIR include a feasibility discussion on implementing a VERA as a mitigation measure for future individual development projects.
This comment is noted. Individual development projects would undergo independent CEQA review; therefore, a discussion of the appropriateness of implementing a VERA for individual development projects would make sense during CEQA review for each individual development project. A determination on including site specific mitigation is based, in part, on the specific characteristics of the site, end user, and the building(s) that would be constructed on each individual lot. Those characteristics would help determine the need and applicability of future development requirements, each future project will be reviewed for air quality impacts and opportunities for emission reduction strategies to reduce emissions. Future projects will be reviewed and required to meet relevant General Plan and SJVAPCD standards, and future projects will be referred to the SJVAPCD for review and comment. Various General Plan policies and implementing actions require development, infrastructure, and planning projects be reviewed for consistency with SJVAPCD requirements during the CEQA review process. Project applicants are required to prepare air quality analyses to address SJVAPCD and General Plan requirements, which include analysis and identification of mitigation measures to reduce significant impacts to less than significant or the maximum extent feasible where impacts cannot be mitigated to less than significant.
Given that a VERA is a “Voluntary Agreement,” the feasibility of entering into such an agreement cannot be measured broadly at a programmatic level because the terms of the agreement and the party’s willingness to “agree” to such terms is not known. A “voluntary agreement” cannot be mandated through CEQA because it cannot be guaranteed that the terms of the agreement would be agreeable to both parties. Nevertheless, the City recognizes that a VERA is one method that can be used to try to reduce emissions. The City can educate applicants on the benefits of a VERA, and recommend consulting with the SJVAPCD to see if such “voluntary agreement” can be reached. No further response to this comment is warranted.
Response A-8: The commenter states that utilizing electric lawn care equipment can provide residents with immediate economic, environmental, and health benefits. The commenter states that the SJVAPCD recommends the Project proponent consider the SJVAPCD’s Clean Green Yard Machines (CGYM) program, which provides incentive funding for replacement of existing gas-powered lawn and garden equipment.
This comment is noted. Individual projects would be required to provide their own environmental assessments to determine air quality, greenhouse gas, and/or energy impacts from their projects. If future individual projects may generate air quality, greenhouse gas, and/or energy impacts that would exceed the applicable thresholds, these future projects may consider implementing the recommended measure at the individual project level. Each project will also be subject to any rules and regulations imposed by the SJVAPCD at the time of the project. No further response to this comment is warranted.
#21..
- 1088 -
2.0 COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES
2.0-16 Final Environmental Impact Report – Modesto Urban Area General Plan Response A-9: The commenter states that it is the policy of the State of California that renewable energy resources and zero-carbon resources supply 100 percent of retail sales of electricity to California and end-use customers by December 31, 2045. The commenter states that the SJVAPCD supports the City’s consideration to incorporate solar power systems as an emission reductions strategy for future development projects.
This comment is noted. The City requires solar power systems in accordance with State law. The commenter states their support for the City’s consideration to incorporate solar power systems as an emission reductions strategy for future development projects. No response to this comment is warranted.
Response A-10: The commenter recommends that all nonresidential buildings be designed to provide electric infrastructure to support the use of on-road zero emissions vehicles, such as Medium-Heavy Duty trucks and HHD trucks associated with a commercial project. The commenter notes that to support and accelerate the installation of electric vehicle charging equipment and development of required infrastructure, the SJVAPCD offers incentives to public agencies, businesses, and property owners of multi-unit dwellings to install electric charging infrastructure (Level 2 and 3 chargers). The purpose of the SJVAPCD’s Charge Up! Incentive program is to promote clean air alternative-fuel technologies and the use of low or zero-emission vehicles. The SJVAPCD recommends that the City and project proponents install electric vehicle chargers at project sites, and at strategic locations.
This comment is noted. Individual development projects would undergo independent CEQA review; therefore, a discussion of the appropriateness of installing electric vehicle chargers at individual development projects would make most sense during CEQA review for each individual development project. If future individual projects may generate air quality, greenhouse gas, and/or energy impacts that would exceed the applicable thresholds, these future projects may consider implementing these recommended measures at the individual project level. In addition, it should also be noted that the Omnibus Low-NOx Rule was approved by CARB August 28, 2020, which will require heavy-duty truck engine NOx emissions to be cut to approximately 90 percent below current standards in 2027. The rule also places nine additional regulatory requirements on new heavy-duty trucks and engines. Those additional requirements include a 50 percent reduction in particulate matter emissions, stringent new low-load and idle standards, a new in-use testing protocol, extended deterioration requirements, a new California-only credit program, and extended mandatory warranty requirements. No further response to this comment is warranted.
Response A-11: The commenter provides a list of SJVAPCD rules and regulations that individual projects may be subject to as they develop.
This comment is noted. Individual projects would be required to comply with all applicable SJVAPCD rules and regulations. No further response to this comment is warranted.
Response A-12: The commenter states that future development projects may require environmental review and air emissions mitigation. The commenter states that a project’s referral documents and #21..
- 1089 -
COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES 2.0
Final Environmental Impact Report – Modesto Urban Area General Plan 2.0-17 environmental review documents should be provided to the SJVAPCD for review. The commenter provides a hyperlink to their CEQA Guidance document.
This comment is noted. No response to this comment is warranted. #21..
- 1090 -
2.0 COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES
2.0-18 Final Environmental Impact Report – Modesto Urban Area General Plan B-1
#21..
- 1091 -
COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES 2.0
Final Environmental Impact Report – Modesto Urban Area General Plan 2.0-19 B-1 Cont.
B-2
B-3
#21..
- 1092 -
2.0 COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES
2.0-20 Final Environmental Impact Report – Modesto Urban Area General Plan B-4
B-3 Cont.
B-5
B-6
#21..
- 1093 -
COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES 2.0
Final Environmental Impact Report – Modesto Urban Area General Plan 2.0-21 B-6 Cont.
B-7
B-8
#21..
- 1094 -
2.0 COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES
2.0-22 Final Environmental Impact Report – Modesto Urban Area General Plan B-8 Cont.
B-9
#21..
- 1095 -
COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES 2.0
Final Environmental Impact Report – Modesto Urban Area General Plan 2.0-23 B-9 Cont.
B-10
#21..
- 1096 -
2.0 COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES
2.0-24 Final Environmental Impact Report – Modesto Urban Area General Plan B-10 Cont.
B-11
B-12
#21..
- 1097 -
COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES 2.0
Final Environmental Impact Report – Modesto Urban Area General Plan 2.0-25 B-12 Cont.
B-13
#21..
- 1098 -
2.0 COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES
2.0-26 Final Environmental Impact Report – Modesto Urban Area General Plan B-13 Cont.
B-14
B-15
#21..
- 1099 -
COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES 2.0
Final Environmental Impact Report – Modesto Urban Area General Plan 2.0-27 B-15 Cont.
B-16
B-17
#21..
- 1100 -
2.0 COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES
2.0-28 Final Environmental Impact Report – Modesto Urban Area General Plan B-17 Cont.
B-18
#21..
- 1101 -
COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES 2.0
Final Environmental Impact Report – Modesto Urban Area General Plan 2.0-29 B-18 Cont.
B-19
B-20
#21..
- 1102 -
2.0 COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES
2.0-30 Final Environmental Impact Report – Modesto Urban Area General Plan B-20 Cont.
B-21
B-22
B-23
#21..
- 1103 -
COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES 2.0
Final Environmental Impact Report – Modesto Urban Area General Plan 2.0-31 B-24
#21..
- 1104 -
2.0 COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES
2.0-32 Final Environmental Impact Report – Modesto Urban Area General Plan #21..
- 1105 -
COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES 2.0
Final Environmental Impact Report – Modesto Urban Area General Plan 2.0-33 #21..
- 1106 -
2.0 COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES
2.0-34 Final Environmental Impact Report – Modesto Urban Area General Plan B-25
#21..
- 1107 -
COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES 2.0
Final Environmental Impact Report – Modesto Urban Area General Plan 2.0-35 B-25 Cont.
#21..
- 1108 -
2.0 COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES
2.0-36 Final Environmental Impact Report – Modesto Urban Area General Plan B-25 Cont.
#21..
- 1109 -
COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES 2.0
Final Environmental Impact Report – Modesto Urban Area General Plan 2.0-37 B-25 Cont.
#21..
- 1110 -
2.0 COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES
2.0-38 Final Environmental Impact Report – Modesto Urban Area General Plan B-25 Cont.
#21..
- 1111 -
COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES 2.0
Final Environmental Impact Report – Modesto Urban Area General Plan 2.0-39 B-25 Cont.
#21..
- 1112 -
2.0 COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES
2.0-40 Final Environmental Impact Report – Modesto Urban Area General Plan B-25 Cont.
#21..
- 1113 -
COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES 2.0
Final Environmental Impact Report – Modesto Urban Area General Plan 2.0-41 B-25 Cont.
#21..
- 1114 -
2.0 COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES
2.0-42 Final Environmental Impact Report – Modesto Urban Area General Plan B-25 Cont.
#21..
- 1115 -
COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES 2.0
Final Environmental Impact Report – Modesto Urban Area General Plan 2.0-43 B-25 Cont.
#21..
- 1116 -
2.0 COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES
2.0-44 Final Environmental Impact Report – Modesto Urban Area General Plan B-25 Cont.
#21..
- 1117 -
COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES 2.0
Final Environmental Impact Report – Modesto Urban Area General Plan 2.0-45 Response to Letter B: Julie Vance, California Department of Fish and Wildlife
Response B-1: The commenter provides an introductory statement to the comment letter. This introduction presents the CDFW role, discusses unlisted species, and nesting birds.
These introductory statements are noted. No response to this comment is warranted.
Response B-2: The commenter provides a summary of the proposed Modesto UAGP, including the proponent, objective, and location.
This summary is noted. No response to this comment is warranted.
Response B-3: The commenter provides an introductory paragraph to comments provided in the letter.
This introductory paragraph is noted. No response to this comment is warranted.
Response B-4: The commenter indicates that CDFW submitted a Notice of Preparation (NOP) comment letter to the City of Modesto for the Plan on October 28, 2024 (CDFW NOP Letter), with recommended mitigation measures for special-status species that could potentially be impacted by the Plan. The commenter notes that the CDFW NOP Letter does not appear to have been acknowledged by the City of Modesto and is not included as an interested agency letter in the Executive Summary for the DEIR. As such, CDFW has included the CDFW NOP Letter as Attachment 1 to this comment letter to provide further background on the comments and recommendations
This comment is noted. Revisions are warranted to address this comment. This includes the addition of the comment letter to Appendix A of the Draft EIR. Additionally, the City of Modesto has reviewed this NOP comment letter and made various revisions throughout the Draft EIR to reflect responses to the comment. This includes revisions to the Executive Summary, Introduction, and Biological Resources sections of the Draft EIR. All revisions are documented in Section 3.0 of this Final EIR.
Response B-5: The commenter notes that the DEIR acknowledges that the Plan area is within the geographic range of special-status species and proposes specific mitigation measures for some species to reduce impacts to less than significant. However, the comment notes that CDFW has concerns about the ability of some the proposed mitigation measures to reduce potential impacts to less than significant and avoid unauthorized take for special-status species including, but not limited to: the State and federally endangered riparian brush rabbit (Sylvilagus bachmani riparius); the State threatened Swainson’s hawk (Buteo swainsoni) and tricolored blackbird (Agelaius tricolor); the State and federally threatened California tiger salamander (Ambystoma californiense); the State fully protected white-tailed kite (Elanus leucurus); the State candidate western burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia) and Crotch’s bumble bee (Bombus crotchii); the State species of special concern and federally endangered riparian San Joaquin Valley woodrat (Neotoma fuscipes riparia); the State species of special concern and federally proposed threatened northwestern pond turtle (Actinemys marmorata) and western spadefoot (Spea hammondii); the State species of special concern Central Valley fall-run Chinook salmon-Evolutionary Significant Unit (ESU) (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha); the State species of special concern and federally #21..
- 1118 -
2.0 COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES
2.0-46 Final Environmental Impact Report – Modesto Urban Area General Plan threatened green sturgeon-southern Distinct Population Segment (DPS) (Acipenser medirostris); the State species of special concern hardhead (Mylopharodon conocephalus), Pacific lamprey (Tospehnus lentatus), Sacramento hitch (Lavinia exilicauda exilicauda), riffle sculpin (Cottus gulosus), and Sacramento splittail (Pogonichthys macrolepidotus); the State species of special concern and federally threatened steelhead-Central Valley DPS (Oncorhynchus mykiss irideus); the federally threatened vernal pool fairy shrimp (Branchinecta lynchi); and the federally endangered vernal pool tadpole shrimp (Lepidurus packardi).
This comment serves as an introduction to the more specific and focused comment and explanation for individual species presented in this comment. More focused comments and responses are provided in Response B-6 through B-18 below. It is noted that there are revisions that have been made to address these comments. All revisions are documented in Section 3.0 of this Final EIR.
Response B-6: This comment is related to the riparian brush rabbit discussion in Section 3.4 Biological Resources. The comment indicates that the Plan area is within the known geographic range of riparian brush rabbit (RBR) and the DEIR notes that the species has no potential to occur within the Plan area. The commenter states that CDFW does not concur that RBR has no potential to occur within the Plan area as there is a historical occurrence documented within 3 ½ miles of the Plan area (CDFW 2025) and based on aerial imagery and the information provided in the DEIR, suitable habitat appears to be present along the Stanislaus and Tuolumne riparian corridors. As RBR has the potential to be impacted by projects tiered from the Plan, CDFW recommends that projects tiered from the Plan perform focused habitat assessments and/or focused surveys where appropriate habitat has been identified, immediately prior to the initiation of ground disturbance activities. If RBR presence is detected, consultation is recommended for guidance on mitigation measures such avoidance, minimization, and mitigation. If take cannot be avoided, take authorization.
This comment is noted. The riparian habitat along the Stanislaus and Tuolumne River is potential habitat for RBR, however, it is documented in the CNDDB that the carrying capacity and potential for establishing a healthy population of RBR along these corridors is questionable. The CNDDB records indicated that the documented RBR occurrences within 3.5 miles mentioned by the commenter are from translocated individuals from 1993 through the early part of the 2000s. The CNDDB records also indicate that the monitoring of these translocated populations shows that the population has declined since the translocation effort. There is even a 2010 prediction noted in the CNDDB that extinction of the translocated RBR population due to habitat conditions being a biological bottleneck. While there appears to still be a small population from the translocated individuals, it can be concluded that there is very limited potential for a sustained population of RBR without human intervention. Regardless, the City has policies regarding riparian habitat that are consistent with state and federal law, and are considered best practices for protecting riparian and wetland habitat. Additionally, SWPH-2, -3, and -4 are General Plan policies that appropriately require surveys, avoidance, and minimization measures for biological resources and special status species, including for RBR. The policy is not intended to provide detailed guidance for each individual species that could possibly be found. Instead, there are existing uniformly applied standards and #21..
- 1119 -
COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES 2.0
Final Environmental Impact Report – Modesto Urban Area General Plan 2.0-47 regulations embodied in federal and state law that are administered by regulatory agencies (USFWS and CDFW) and applied under consultation and authorization by the regulatory agencies when and if a special status species is found. The mitigation recommendation is applicable when the initial field survey/assessment determines the potential for this species to be present, but is not appropriately applied to all projects throughout the Plan area. Adherence to these policies will protect the riparian habitat along the Stanislaus and Tuolumne Rivers. The RBR is not a species that will inhabit non-riparian habitat, so it is not expected to be impacted by development outside riparian areas. No errata changes are necessary.
Response B-7: This comment is related to the Swainson’s hawk discussion in Section 3.4 Biological Resources. The comment reiterates requirements from Policy SWPH-4 ((UAGP Policy VII-E.3[c]) that are intended to mitigate impacts to Swainson’s hawk. The commenter indicates that CDFW concurs with the requirements but recommends a no disturbance buffer from ¼ mile to ½ mile.
This comment is noted. Revisions are warranted to address this comment. SWPH-4 is revised to include the following text: “For some birds, especially raptor species such as white-tailed kites, nodisturbance buffers up to ½ mile are recommended by CDFW. Establishment of buffers should be established in consultation with CDFW.” All revisions are documented in Section 3.0 of this Final EIR.
Response B-8: This comment is related to the tri-colored blackbird discussion in Section 3.4 Biological Resources. The commenter indicates there is a historical occurrence documented within 3 miles of the Plan area (CDFW 2025). The commenter acknowledges that SWPH-2 and SWPH-3 are provided to mitigate for potential impacts to the species, but notes that CDFW recommends the following to be incorporated into the DEIR and implemented for projects that are tiered or approved under this Plan.
Recommended Mitigation Measure 1: TRBL Surveys: CDFW recommends that construction be timed to avoid the normal bird breeding season (February 1 through September 15). However, if construction must take place during the breeding season, CDFW recommends that a qualified biologist conduct surveys for nesting TRBL no more than 10 days prior to the start of implementation to evaluate presence/absence of TRBL nesting colonies in proximity to project activities and to evaluate potential project-related impacts.
Recommended Mitigation Measure 2: TRBL Avoidance Buffer: If an active TRBL nesting colony is found during the pre-construction surveys, CDFW recommends implementation of a minimum 300-foot no-disturbance buffer around the colony in accordance with CDFW’s “Staff Guidance Regarding Avoidance of Impacts to Tricolored Blackbird Breeding Colonies on Agricultural Fields in 2015” (CDFW 2015). CDFW recommends that this buffer remain in place until the breeding season has ended or until a qualified biologist has determined that nesting has ceased, the birds have fledged and are no longer reliant upon the colony or parental care for survival. It is important to note that TRBL colonies can expand over time. For this reason, CDFW also recommends conducting pre-construction surveys of an identified nesting colony within 10 days prior to the start of ground or vegetation disturbing activities to reassess the colony’s real extent. #21..
- 1120 -
2.0 COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES
2.0-48 Final Environmental Impact Report – Modesto Urban Area General Plan Recommended Mitigation Measure 3: TRBL Take Authorization: If a TRBL nesting colony is detected during surveys, consultation with CDFW is warranted to discuss how to implement the project and avoid take, or if avoidance is not feasible, to acquire an ITP, pursuant to Fish and Game Code section 2081 subdivision (b), prior to any ground-disturbing activities.
This comment is noted. SWPH-2, -3, and -4 are General Plan policies that appropriately require surveys, avoidance, and minimization measures for biological resources and special status species, including for avian species such as tri-colored blackbird. The policy is not intended to provide detailed guidance for each individual species that could possibly be found. Instead, there are existing uniformly applied standards and regulations embodied in federal and state law that are administered by regulatory agencies (USFWS and CDFW) and applied under consultation and authorization by the regulatory agencies when and if a special status species is found. The mitigation recommendation is applicable when the initial field survey/assessment determines the potential for this species to be present, but is not appropriately applied to all projects throughout the Plan area.
Revisions are warranted to address some of this comment. All revisions are documented in Section
3.0 of this Final EIR.
Response B-9: This comment is related to the California tiger salamander discussion in Section 3.4 Biological Resources. The commenter indicates that the Plan area is within the range of California tiger salamander (CTS), but that the DEIR notes that the species has no potential to occur within the Plan area.
CDFW does not concur that CTS has no potential to occur within the Plan area (CDFW 2025). Based on aerial imagery, suitable habitat appears present within certain portions of the Plan area such as the storage ponds and canals present throughout the Plan area. As CTS has the potential to be impacted by projects tiered from this Plan, CDFW recommends the following be incorporated into the DEIR and implemented for projects that are tiered or approved under this Plan within areas of suitable CTS habitat.
Recommended Mitigation Measure 4: CTS Protocol Level Surveys: CDFW recommends that a qualified biologist conduct protocol-level surveys in accordance with the USFWS “Interim Guidance on Site Assessment and Field Surveys for Determining Presence or a Negative Finding of the California Tiger Salamander” (USFWS 2003) at the appropriate time of year to determine the existence and extent of CTS breeding and refugia habitat for projects tiered from this Plan within suitable habitat. The protocol-level surveys for CTS require more than one survey season and are dependent upon sufficient rainfall to complete. As a result, consultation with CDFW and USFWS is recommended well in advance of beginning the surveys and prior to any planned vegetation or ground-disturbing activities. CDFW advises that the protocol level survey also include a 100-foot buffer around the project area in all areas that could support CTS. Please be advised that protocol-level survey results are viable for two years after the results are reviewed by CDFW.
Recommended Mitigation Measure 5: CTS Avoidance Buffer: If CTS protocol-level surveys are not conducted, CDFW advises that a minimum 50- foot no-disturbance buffer be delineated around all small mammal burrows in suitable upland refugia habitat within and/or adjacent to potential or known breeding habitat. Further, CDFW recommends potential or known breeding #21..
- 1121 -
COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES 2.0
Final Environmental Impact Report – Modesto Urban Area General Plan 2.0-49 habitat within and/or adjacent to the project area be delineated with a minimum 250-foot nodisturbance buffer. Both upland burrow and wetland breeding no-disturbance buffers are intended to minimize impacts to CTS habitat and avoid take of individuals.
Recommended Mitigation Measure 6: CTS Take Authorization: If through surveys it is determined that CTS are occupying or have the potential to occupy the project area, consultation with CDFW is warranted to determine if the project can avoid take. If take cannot be avoided, take authorization through the acquisition of an ITP, pursuant to Fish and Game Code section 2081 subdivision (b) is necessary to comply with CESA. As stated above, in the absence of protocol surveys, the applicant can assume presence of CTS within the project area and obtain an ITP from CDFW.
This comment is noted. The recommendation for CTS protocol level surveys (Recommended Mitigation Measure 4) is appropriate if there is both suitable habitat and potential for presence proximate to a development site, however, it is not appropriate to require such intensive and timeconsuming surveys for all projects within the planning area, especially if there is no evidence of suitable habitat on or in the vicinity of the site. For specific projects proposed under the Plan, it is appropriate to perform the assessment-level surveys for this species under the protocol, and based on the results, it can be determined whether the multi-year surveys are appropriate. The City does not agree that the presence of a canal or pond alone is an indication of presence of this species. It is notable that occurrences of this species have not been documented in Modesto by CDFW or biologists with experience in the area for over 50 years. As is noted in the DEIR, this species is believed to be extirpated from Modesto. This is based on much of Modesto being developed/urbanized, and areas that are not urbanized have been intensively ground disturbed from agricultural practices over the last 100 years which eliminates these areas as upland estivation habitat. Additionally, the recommendation for an avoidance buffer (Recommended Mitigation Measure 5) is not appropriate for all small mammal burrows. If this species is present then avoidance buffers would be appropriate, however, ground burrows are common throughout the region while CTS is extremely rare and believed to be extirpated. Protecting all ground burrows is not logical if CTS is not present. The recommendation for take authorization is appropriate if surveys indicate presence. Revisions are warranted to address this comment. Page 3.4-20 of the DEIR, which contains Table 3.4-3 is revised is reflect a Low potential for presence as opposed to No potential. SWPH-4 is revised to include the following text: “A qualified biologist shall conduct surveys to assess the existence and extent of California tiger salamander breeding and refugia habitat. Habitat assessment surveys should establish whether suitable habitat is present, and whether additional protocol level surveys are necessary to determine presence/absence. If protocol-level surveys for California tiger salamander are deemed necessary based on the habitat assessment, it is anticipated that multi-seasonal surveys will be necessary to meet the protocol…If through surveys it is determined that California tiger salamander is occupying the project area, consultation with CDFW is warranted to determine if the project can avoid take. If take cannot be avoided, take authorization through the acquisition of an ITP, pursuant to Fish and Game Code section 2081 subdivision (b) is necessary to comply with CESA. As stated above, in the absence of protocol surveys, the applicant #21..
- 1122 -
2.0 COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES
2.0-50 Final Environmental Impact Report – Modesto Urban Area General Plan can assume presence of California tiger salamander within the project area and obtain an ITP from CDFW.”
In addition to this additional text provided in SWPH-4, a species description is provided under the impact discussion on page 3.4-47 as follows: “California tiger salamander: The California tiger salamander (CTS) is a federally and State-listed Threatened species. CTS is a large terrestrial salamander that occurs in central California from the Sacramento Valley to the south-central San Joaquin Valley, and in the surrounding foothills of both the Coast Ranges and the Sierra Nevada Mountains. CTS are also recorded from the San Francisco Bay region, Sonoma County, the Monterey Bay region, and the valleys and foothills of San Luis Obispo and Santa Barbara counties. CTS breed in temporary wetland pools, such as vernal pools, and other seasonal wetland bodies where ponded water is present for a minimum of three to four months, extending into the early spring. Such ponds and temporary wetlands provide necessary breeding and larval-stage habitat for the species. Adults spend most of the year in aestivation, underground in the burrows of small mammals, such as the California ground squirrel, or within other suitable subterranean retreats. They emerge at night during winter rain events for brief periods to breed. Aquatic juveniles (larvae) are mostly herbivorous.
CTS normally begin to reproduce after three to five years. There are no documented occurrences of CTS within the General Plan Area and they have been believed to be extirpated from the vicinity. The CDFW, however, has indicated that canals and storage ponds provide suitable habitat. In addition to the CDFW described aquatic habitat, this species also requires refugia (debris, burrows, crevices, barns, sheds, etc.) that could be used by CTS during their estivation period. It is also theoretically possible that a CTS could be present in isolated areas that have not been surveyed, but it would require appropriate refugia and aquatic habitat with an estimated 1.3 miles of each other. Such areas may include upland habitat along farmland fringe, irrigation ditches, roadside ditch, ponds, canals, farm equipment yards, and farmland residences. The paved roads, dirt roads, and tilled farmland provide limited to no habitat because of the frequency of disturbance in these areas. While the potential for presence is deemed low, surveys of projects that have potential habitat that are tiered or approved under the General Plan shall be conducted as a part of the CEQA process.” All revisions are documented in Section 3.0 of this Final EIR.
Response B-10: This comment is related to the white-tailed kite discussion in Section 3.4 Biological Resources. The commenter indicates the Plan area is within the range of white-tailed kite (WTKI) and CDFW indicates that there is WTKI suitable foraging and nesting habitat, including valley foothill riparian, riverine, wetland, grassland and cropland habitats documented in the Plan area. CDFW recommends the following to be incorporated in the DEIR and implemented for projects that are tiered or approved under this Plan.
Recommended Mitigation Measure 7: WTKI Surveys: CDFW recommends a qualified avian biologist conduct surveys for nesting white-tailed kites prior to beginning project-related activities within the Plan area.
Recommended Mitigation Measure 8: WTKI Avoidance Buffer: CDFW recommends a minimum no-disturbance buffer of ½ mile be delineated around active nests of WTKI until the breeding #21..
- 1123 -
COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES 2.0
Final Environmental Impact Report – Modesto Urban Area General Plan 2.0-51 season has ended or until a qualified biologist has determined that the birds have fledged and are no longer reliant upon the nest or parental care for survival. CDFW advises project proponents not to allow reductions in no-disturbance buffer size for WTKI or any fully protected bird species absent a compelling biological or ecological reason to do so. Further consultation with CDFW is warranted to discuss project implementation and take avoidance.
This comment is noted. The DEIR does not conclude the white-tailed kite is not present in the region, rather, it identifies that it is found in several different habitats. Nevertheless, SWPH-2, -3, and -4 are General Plan policies that appropriately require surveys, avoidance, and minimization measures for biological resources and special status species, including for avian species such as white-tailed kite.
Revisions are warranted to address some of this comment. SWPH-4 is revised to include the following text: “For some birds, especially raptor species such as white-tailed kites, no-disturbance buffers up to ½ mile are recommended by CDFW. Establishment of buffers should be established in consultation with CDFW.” All revisions are documented in Section 3.0 of this Final EIR. All revisions are documented in Section 3.0 of this Final EIR.
Response B-11: This comment is related to the western burrowing owl discussion in Section 3.4 Biological Resources. The commenter indicates that the California Fish and Game Commission (FGC) approved western burrowing owl (BUOW) as a potential candidate for listing as a protected species under CESA on October 10, 2024, and published these findings in the California Regulatory Notice Register (Notice Register) on October 25, 2024. As such, BUOW is now a candidate under CESA and receives the same legal protection afforded to an endangered or threatened species (Fish & G. Code, §§ 2074.2 & 2085).
The commenter indicates CDFW does not concur with the procedures for passive relocation outlined in SWPH-4, which states that, “Burrowing owls may be passively relocated if the burrowing owls have been determined not to be actively nesting and the burrowing owl exclusion, mitigation, and monitoring plan has been approved by the City and CDFW.” CDFW does not support passive relocation without prior take authorization as it can result in unauthorized take of the species. CDFW also recommends the following to be incorporated in the DEIR and implemented for projects that are tiered or approved under this Plan.
Mitigation Measure 9: BUOW Take Authorization: If a BUOW or known BUOW den (active or inactive) is detected, and the no- disturbance buffers outlined in the 2012 Staff Report on Burrowing Mitigation are not feasible, consultation with CDFW is warranted to discuss how to implement the project and avoid take. CDFW does not recommend passive relocation as it can result in unauthorized take. If take cannot be avoided, take authorization through the acquisition of an ITP, pursuant to Fish and Game Code section 2081 subdivision (b) is necessary to comply with CESA.
This comment is noted. SWPH-2, -3, and -4 are General Plan policies that appropriately require surveys, avoidance, and minimization measures for biological resources and special status species, including for avian species such as burrowing owl. SWPH-4 provides some more species-specific guidance for burrowing owl. It is noted that there are existing uniformly applied standards and regulations embodied in federal and state law that are administered by regulatory agencies (USFWS and CDFW) and applied under consultation and authorization by the regulatory agencies when and #21..
- 1124 -
2.0 COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES
2.0-52 Final Environmental Impact Report – Modesto Urban Area General Plan if a special status species is found. Specific requirements will be issued by the regulatory agency if the species is deemed present. Revisions are warranted to address some of this comment. Page 3.4- 24 of the DEIR, which contains Table 3.4-3 is revised is reflect a status of Candidate for listing. SWPH4 is revised to include the following text: “If burrowing owl habitat is confirmed present within a maximum of 500 feet of the project site, no visual barriers are present between the project site and the burrowing owl habitat, and no owls were observed to occupy the habitat at the time of the assessment, then one preconstruction site survey (take avoidance survey) shall be conducted no more than 14 days prior to the onset of any ground-disturbing activities. Further, if the preconstruction survey determines that burrowing owls occupy the site and impacts to occupied burrows cannot be avoided, then passive relocation shall be conducted only after authorization by CDFW. CDFW does not recommend passive relocation as it can result in unauthorized take. If take cannot be avoided, take authorization through the acquisition of an ITP, pursuant to Fish and Game Code section 2081 subdivision (b) is necessary to comply with CESA. Prior to passive relocation, a burrowing owl exclusion, mitigation, and monitoring plan will be prepared in accordance with the CDFW Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation (CDFG 2012) and submitted to the City and CDFW for approval before any constructive activities can proceed that may impact the species.” All revisions are documented in Section 3.0 of this Final EIR.
Response B-12: This comment is related to the Crotch’s bumble bee discussion in Section 3.4 Biological Resources. The commenter notes that SWPH-2 and SWPH-3 provide general survey, avoidance, and minimization measures for biological resources, but do not provide species-specific mitigation measures for species such as CBB. As such, CDFW recommends the following to be incorporated into the DEIR and implemented for projects that are tiered or approved under this Plan.
Mitigation Measure 10: CBB Habitat Assessment: CDFW recommends a qualified biologist conduct a habitat assessment to determine if the project area and the immediate surrounding vicinity contain habitat suitable to support CBB. Potential nesting sites, which include all small mammal burrows, perennial bunch grasses, thatched annual grasses, brush piles, old bird nests, dead trees, and hollow logs would need to be documented as part of the assessment.
Mitigation Measure 11: CBB Focused Surveys: If potentially suitable habitat is identified, CDFW recommends that a qualified biologist conduct focused surveys for CBB, and their requisite habitat features following the methodology outlined in the Survey Considerations for California Endangered Species Act Candidate Bumble Bee Species (CDFW 2023).
Mitigation Measure 12: CBB Avoidance Buffer: If CBB is detected, then CDFW recommends that all small mammal burrows and thatched/bunch grasses be avoided by a minimum of 50 feet to avoid take and potentially significant impacts. If ground-disturbing activities will occur during the overwintering period (October through February), consultation with CDFW is warranted to discuss how to implement project activities and avoid take. Any detection of CBB prior to or during project implementation warrants consultation with CDFW to discuss how to avoid take. #21..
- 1125 -
COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES 2.0
Final Environmental Impact Report – Modesto Urban Area General Plan 2.0-53 Mitigation Measure 13: CBB Take Authorization: If take cannot be avoided, take authorization through the acquisition of an ITP, pursuant to Fish and Game Code section 2081 subdivision (b) is necessary to comply with CESA.
This comment is noted. SWPH-2 and -3 are General Plan policies that appropriately require surveys, avoidance, and minimization measures for biological resources and special status species, including for protected bumble bee species. The policy is not intended to provide detailed guidance for each individual species that could possibly be found. Instead, there are existing uniformly applied standards and regulations embodied in federal and state law that are administered by regulatory agencies (USFWS and CDFW) and applied under consultation and authorization by the regulatory agencies when and if a special status species is found. The mitigation recommendation is applicable when the initial field survey/assessment determines the potential for CBB to be present, but is not appropriately applied to all projects throughout the Plan area. SWPH-4 has been updated to more specifically address CBB. Revisions are warranted to address some of this comment. SWPH-4 is revised to include the following text: “Where the habitat assessment identifies the potential for Crotch’s bumble bee, a qualified biologist shall conduct a habitat assessment to determine if the project area and the immediate surrounding vicinity contain habitat suitable to support Crotch’s bumble bee. Potential nesting sites, which include all small mammal burrows, perennial bunch grasses, thatched annual grasses, brush piles, old bird nests, dead trees, and hollow logs would need to be documented as part of the assessment…f potentially suitable habitat is identified, a qualified biologist shall conduct focused surveys for Crotch’s bumble bee, and their requisite habitat features following the methodology outlined in the Survey Considerations for California Endangered Species Act Candidate Bumble Bee Species (CDFW 2023)…If Crotch’s bumble bee is detected, all small mammal burrows and thatched/bunch grasses shall be avoided by a minimum of 50 feet to avoid take and potentially significant impacts. If ground-disturbing activities will occur during the overwintering period (October through February), consultation with CDFW is warranted to discuss how to implement project activities and avoid take. Any detection of Crotch’s bumble bee prior to or during project implementation warrants consultation with CDFW to discuss how to avoid take…If take cannot be avoided, take authorization through the acquisition of an ITP, pursuant to Fish and Game Code section 2081 subdivision (b) is necessary to comply with CESA.” In addition to this additional text provided in SWPH-4, a species description is provided under the impact discussion on page 3.4-47 as follows: “Crotch’s bumble bee: The Crotch’s bumble bee is a State-listed Endangered species. The crotch bumble bee occurs primarily in California, including the Mediterranean region, Pacific Coast, Western Desert, Great Valley, and adjacent foothills through most of southwestern California. It also occurs in Mexico (Baja California and Baja California Sur) and has been documented in southwest Nevada, near the California border. Their natural habitat is grassland and scrub areas, requiring a hotter and drier environment than other bumblebee species.
This species can only tolerate a very narrow range of climatic conditions. This is a non-migratory species of bumble bee that nests underground, often in abandoned rodent dens.” All revisions are documented in Section 3.0 of this Final EIR.
#21..
- 1126 -
2.0 COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES
2.0-54 Final Environmental Impact Report – Modesto Urban Area General Plan Response B-13: This comment is related to the San Joaquin Valley woodrat discussion in Section 3.4 Biological Resources. The commenter indicates that the CDFW does not concur that SJVW has no potential to occur within the Plan area as there is a historical occurrence documented within 3 ½ miles of the Plan area (CDFW 2025) and based on aerial imagery and the information provided in the DEIR, suitable habitat appears present along the Stanislaus and Tuolumne riparian corridors. As SJVW has the potential to be impacted by projects tiered from this Plan, CDFW recommends that projects tiered from this Plan perform focused habitat assessments and/or focused surveys where appropriate habitat has been identified, immediately prior to the initiation of ground disturbance activities. If SJVW presence is detected, consultation with USFWS is recommended for guidance on mitigation measures such avoidance, minimization, and mitigation. If take cannot be avoided, CDFW recommends consultation with the USFWS to comply with the Federal Endangered Species Act.
Mitigation Measure 13: San Joaquin Valley Woodrat Habitat Assessment: Perform focused habitat assessments and/or focused surveys where appropriate habitat has been identified for San Joaquin Valley woodrat, immediately prior to the initiation of ground disturbance activities.
If San Joaquin Valley woodrat presence is detected, consultation with is recommended for guidance on mitigation measures such avoidance, minimization, and mitigation. If take cannot be avoided, CDFW recommends consultation with the USFWS to comply with the Federal Endangered Species Act.
This comment is noted. SWPH-2 and -3 are General Plan policies that appropriately require surveys, avoidance, and minimization measures for biological resources and special status species, including for SJVW. The policy is not intended to provide detailed guidance for each individual species that could possibly be found. Instead, there are existing uniformly applied standards and regulations embodied in federal and state law that are administered by regulatory agencies (USFWS and CDFW) and applied under consultation and authorization by the regulatory agencies when and if a special status species is found. The mitigation recommendation is applicable when the initial field survey/assessment determines the potential for SJVW to be present, but is not appropriately applied to all projects throughout the Plan area. Revisions are warranted to address some of this comment. Page 3.4-25 of the DEIR, which contains Table 3.4-3 is revised is reflect a Low potential for presence as opposed to No potential. A species description is provided under the impact discussion on page 3.4-47 as follows: “San Joaquin Valley Woodrat: The San Joaquin Valley woodrat is a federal-listed Endangered and a State species of special concerns. This species requires wide, dense riparian forests with a thick understory of willows for nesting, while sites with a dominant cottonwood overstory are preferred for foraging. Suitable habitat is present along the Stanislaus and Tuolumne Rivers.” All revisions are documented in Section 3.0 of this Final EIR.
Response B-14: This comment is related to the northwestern pond turtle discussion in Section 3.4 Biological Resources. The commenter notes that the Plan area is within the known geographic range of northwestern pond turtle (NPT) and the DEIR notes that the species has a moderate potential to occur within the Plan area. Additionally, there is a historical occurrence documented within 8 miles of the Plan area (CDFW 2025) and suitable habitat appears to be present within the Plan area. The commenter #21..
- 1127 -
COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES 2.0
Final Environmental Impact Report – Modesto Urban Area General Plan 2.0-55 indicates that SWPH-2 and SWPH-3 are provided to mitigate for potential impacts to the species, however, they provide general survey, avoidance, and minimization measures for biological resources, but do not provide species-specific mitigation measures for species such as NPT. As such, CDFW recommends the following to be incorporated into the DEIR and implemented for projects that are tiered or approved under this Plan that occur within or adjacent to suitable habitat for the species.
Mitigation Measure 14: NPT Focused Surveys: CDFW recommends that a qualified biologist conduct focused surveys for NPT within 10 days prior to project activity, and that focused surveys for nests occur during the egg-laying season of March through August.
Mitigation Measure 15: NPT Avoidance Buffer: CDFW recommends that any NPT nests that are discovered remain undisturbed with a 50-foot no-disturbance buffer maintained around the nest until the eggs have hatched and neonates are no longer in the nest or project areas. If NPT individuals are discovered at the site during surveys or project activities, CDFW recommendsthat they be allowed to move out of the area of their own volition.
This comment is noted. SWPH-2 and -3 are General Plan policies that appropriately require surveys, avoidance, and minimization measures for biological resources and special status species, including for NPT. The policy is not intended to provide detailed guidance for each individual species that could possibly be found. Instead, there are existing uniformly applied standards and regulations embodied in federal and state law that are administered by regulatory agencies (USFWS and CDFW) and applied under consultation and authorization by the regulatory agencies when and if a special status species is found. The mitigation recommendation is applicable when the initial field survey/assessment determines the potential for NPT to be present, but is not appropriately applied to all projects throughout the Plan area. SWPH-4 has been updated to more specifically address NPT. Revisions are warranted to address some of this comment. SWPH-4 is revised to include the following text: “Where the habitat assessment identifies the potential for northwestern pond turtle, a qualified biologist shall conduct focused surveys for northwestern pond turtle within 10 days prior to project activity, and that focused surveys for nests occur during the egg-laying season of March through August…Any NPT nests that are discovered shall remain undisturbed with a 50-foot nodisturbance buffer maintained around the nest until the eggs have hatched and neonates are no longer in the nest or project areas. If NPT individuals are discovered at the site during surveys or project activities, they shall be allowed to move out of the area of their own volition.” All revisions are documented in Section 3.0 of this Final EIR.
Response B-15: This comment is related to the western spadefoot discussion in Section 3.4 Biological Resources. The commenter notes there are historical occurrences within 10 miles of the Plan area and suitable habitat appears to be present within the Plan area. The commenter notes that SWPH-2 and SWPH-3 are provided to mitigate for potential impacts to the species, however they only provide general survey, avoidance, and minimization measures for biological resources, but do not provide speciesspecific mitigation measures for species such as western spadefoot. The commenter recommends that projects tiered from this Plan perform focused habitat assessments and/or focused surveys where appropriate habitat has been identified, immediately prior to the initiation of ground disturbance #21..
- 1128 -
2.0 COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES
2.0-56 Final Environmental Impact Report – Modesto Urban Area General Plan activities. If WESP presence is detected, consultation with USFWS is recommended for guidance on mitigation measures such avoidance, minimization, and mitigation.
This comment is noted. SWPH-2 and -3 are General Plan policies that appropriately require surveys, avoidance, and minimization measures for biological resources and special status species, including for western spadefoot. The policy is not intended to provide detailed guidance for each individual species that could possibly be found. Instead, there are existing uniformly applied standards and regulations embodied in federal and state law that are administered by regulatory agencies (USFWS and CDFW) and applied under consultation and authorization by the regulatory agencies when and if a special status species is found. Revisions are warranted to address some of this comment. SWPH2 is revised to include the following text: “For all lands within the Planned Urbanizing Area, sitespecific surveys shall be conducted by a qualified biologist to determine whether any sensitive natural communities or species are present within the proposed development area. The site-specific surveys should include a habitat assessment that evaluates the suitability and potential for presence of special status species, including avian, terrestrial, and aquatic species. These studies shall particularly focus on proposed development within any lands included within a potential biological resource study area as delineated on Figure V-7-1 in the Final Program Environmental Impact Report (Riparian Corridor Diagram). Prior to considering development applications, the City shall coordinate with the USFWS and CDFW regarding listed species and potential for impacts. The City shall employ the measures recommended by the USFWS and/or CDFW to avoid an incidental take…Conduct surveys at the appropriate season to best determine the likelihood of occurrence and should employ accepted methodologies as determined by CDFW and the USFWS. The results of such surveys should be recorded in the California Natural Diversity Database and onto the City’s existing biological resources map for future planning purposes. (UAGP Policy VII-E.3[a])” All revisions are documented in Section 3.0 of this Final EIR.
Response B-16: This comment is related to the branchiopods discussion in Section 3.4 Biological Resources. The commenter notes that the Plan area is within the known geographic range of Vernal Pool Fairy Shrimp (VPFS) and Vernal Pool Tadpole Shrimp (VPTS) (collectively, branchiopods) and the DEIR notes that both species have a high potential to occur within the Plan area. The commenter also notes that there are historical occurrences documented within the Plan area. SWPH-2 and SWPH-3 are provided to mitigate for potential impacts to the species. However, SWPH-2 and SWPH-3 provide general survey, avoidance, and minimization measures for biological resources, but do not provide speciesspecific mitigation measures for species such as branchiopods. As such, CDFW recommends the following to be incorporated into the DEIR and implemented for projects that are tiered or approved under this Plan that occur within or adjacent to suitable habitat for the species.
Mitigation Measure 16: Branchiopod Protocol Level Surveys and Consultation: CDFW recommends that a qualified biologist conduct protocol level surveys in accordance with the USFWS “Survey Guidelines for the Listed Large Branchiopods” (USFWS 2017) the survey season prior to construction. These surveys would need to be conducted at the appropriate time of year to determine the existence and extent of branchiopods. If through surveys it is determined that #21..
- 1129 -
COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES 2.0
Final Environmental Impact Report – Modesto Urban Area General Plan 2.0-57 branchiopods are occupying or have the potential to occupy the project area, coordination with CDFW is recommended well in advance of any planned vegetation or ground-disturbing activities to determine appropriate avoidance and minimization measures including adequate implementation of no-disturbance buffers. Additionally, consultation with USFWS may be necessary to minimize the potential for federal “take” and/or mitigate for potential impacts.
This comment is noted. SWPH-4 has been updated to more specifically address branchiopods as follows: “Where the habitat assessment identifies the potential for branchiopods, qualified biologist shall conduct protocol level surveys in accordance with the USFWS “Survey Guidelines for the Listed Large Branchiopods” (USFWS 2017) during the survey season prior to construction. These surveys would need to be conducted at the appropriate time of year to determine the existence and extent of branchiopods. If through surveys it is determined that branchiopods are occupying or have the potential to occupy the project area, coordination with CDFW and USFW is required to determine appropriate avoidance and minimization measures and to obtain the necessary take authorizations.” Revisions are warranted to address this comment. All revisions are documented in Section 3.0 of this Final EIR.
Response B-17: This comment is related to the riparian habitat discussion in Section 3.4 Biological Resources. The commenter notes riparian natural communities along the Stanislaus River on the northern border and the Tuolumne River and Dry Creek provide many essential benefits to terrestrial, avian, and aquatic species, including, but not limited to thermal protection, cool water refugia, cover, large woody debris, foraging areas, breeding and rearing sites, habitat, and connectivity corridors, as well as buffers to sedimentation and runoff from adjacent land uses. Direct and indirect impacts into these habitat types can adversely impact sensitive species including but not limited to the RBR, SJVW, Central Valley fall-run Chinook salmon-ESU, green sturgeon southern DPS, hardhead, Pacific lamprey, Sacramento hitch, riffle sculpin, Sacramento splittail, and the steelhead- Central Valley DPS. These impacts can lead to reduction of habitats including cool water and spawning habitat, reduced reproductive success; reduced health and vigor; nest abandonment; loss of foraging habitat that would reduce nesting success (loss or reduced health or vigor of eggs or young); impacts to water quality, and introduction of debris and/or deleterious materials into river habitats. Narrow riparian buffers are considerably less effective in minimizing the effects of adjacent development than wider buffers. CDFW acknowledges that development within the three riparian corridors will follow guidelines in a future Park Master Plan and the current Tuolumne River Regional Park Master Plan. CDFW recommends the DEIR incorporate, and tiered projects establish, sufficient buffer zones between the perimeter of any future projects and the adjacent Stanislaus River, Tuolumne River, and Dry Creek riparian habitat.
This comment is noted. SWPH-4 presents the City’s policies regarding riparian habitat. These policies are consistent with state and federal law, and are considered best practices for protecting riparian and wetland habitat. No errata changes are necessary.
Response B-18: This comment is related to the nesting birds discussion in Section 3.4 Biological Resources. The commenter recommends that all projects tiered from this Plan occur during the bird nonnesting season; however, if ground-disturbing or vegetation-disturbing activities must occur during the #21..
- 1130 -
2.0 COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES
2.0-58 Final Environmental Impact Report – Modesto Urban Area General Plan nesting season (February 1st through September 15th), the Plan applicant is responsible for ensuring that implementation of the Plan does not result in violation of the Migratory Bird Treaty Act or relevant Fish and Game Code sections. The comment also recommends that a qualified biologist conduct a preconstruction survey for active nests no more than 10 days prior to the start of ground or vegetation disturbance to maximize the probability that nests that could potentially be impacted are detected.
CDFW also recommends that surveys cover a sufficient area around the project site to identify nests and determine their status. A sufficient area means any area potentially affected, either directly or indirectly, by the project. In addition to direct impacts (i.e., nest destruction), noise, vibration, and movement of workers or equipment could also affect nests. CDFW recommends that a qualified biologist establish a behavioral baseline of all identified nests. Once project activities begin, CDFW recommends having a qualified biologist continuously monitor nests to detect behavioral changes resulting from the project. If behavioral changes occur, CDFW recommends halting the work causing that change and consulting with CDFW for additional avoidance and minimization measures. The commenter also indicates that if continuous monitoring of identified nests by a qualified biologist is not feasible, CDFW recommends a minimum no-disturbance buffer of 250 feet around active nests of non- listed bird species and a 500-foot no-disturbance buffer around active nests of non- listed raptors. These buffers are advised to remain in place until the breeding season has ended or until a qualified biologist has determined the birds have fledged and are no longer reliant upon the nest or on-site parental care for survival. Variance from these no-disturbance buffers is possible when there is a compelling biological or ecological reason to do so, such as when the project area/site would be concealed from a nest site by topography. CDFW recommends that a qualified biologist advise and support any variance from these buffers and notify CDFW in advance of implementing a variance.
This comment is noted. SWPH-4 presents the City’s policies regarding nesting birds and compliance with MBTA and CFGC as it relates to nesting birds. These policies are consistent with state and federal law, and are considered best practices for protecting nesting birds. No errata changes are necessary.
Response B-19: The commenter recommends consulting with USFWS regarding potential impacts to federally listed species including, but not limited to: RBR, SJVW, CTS, NPT, VPFS, VPTS, green sturgeonsouthern DPS, and steelhead-Central Valley DPS. The federal Endangered Species Act (ESA) is more broadly defined than CESA; take under the ESA also includes significant habitat modification or degradation that could result in death or injury to a listed species by interfering with essential behavioral patterns such as breeding, foraging, or nesting. Consultation with the USFWS to comply with the ESA is advised well in advance of any projects tiered from this Plan.
This comment is noted. Compliance with the federal ESA is a regulatory requirement of all projects.
Where there is potential for take, the City requires the appropriate consultation with USFWS.
Response B-20: The commenter indicates that the Plan area resides immediately adjacent to the Stanislaus River and associated riparian habitat along its northern border for over three miles. The commenter also notes that the Tuolumne River and associated riparian habitat is positioned along the southern border of the Plan area for five miles, and it continues westward through the Plan area for #21..
- 1131 -
COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES 2.0
Final Environmental Impact Report – Modesto Urban Area General Plan 2.0-59 another four miles. Additionally, the commenter notes that Dry Creek and associated riparian habitat branches off the Tuolumne River and travels for six miles in a northwest direction through the Plan area.
The commenter indicates that based on aerial imagery, there are other streams located within the Plan area that would be subject to CDFW’s regulatory authority pursuant to Fish and Game Code section 1600 et seq. The DEIR states, “Construction and development activities associated with future plans could result in the disturbance or loss of waters of the United States. This includes perennial and intermittent drainages; unnamed drainages; vernal pools; freshwater marshes; and other types of seasonal and perennial wetland communities.” The DEIR notes that the City of Modesto General Plan, the Tuolumne River Regional Park (TRRP) Program EIR, and the future Dry Creek Comprehensive Planning District Master Plan would be utilized for the protection of riparian, riverine, and wetland habitats of the Plan area. The commenter states that CDFW implementation of all future tiered project activities that substantially change the bed, bank, and channel of any river, stream, or lake are also subject to CDFW’s regulatory authority pursuant Fish and Game Code section 1600 et seq. Fish and Game Code section 1602 requires an entity to notify CDFW prior to commencing any activity that may (a) substantially divert or obstruct the natural flow of any river, stream, or lake; (b) substantially change or use any material from the bed, bank, or channel of any river, stream, or lake (including the removal of riparian vegetation): (c) deposit debris, waste or other materials that could pass into any river, stream, or lake. “Any river, stream, or lake” includes those that are ephemeral or intermittent as well as those that are perennial and may include those that are highly modified such as canals and retention basins. CDFW is required to comply with CEQA in the issuance of a Lake or Streambed Alteration Agreement (LSAA); therefore, if the CEQA document approved for the Plan does not adequately describe the Plan and its impacts to lakes or streams, a subsequent CEQA analysis may be necessary for LSAA issuance.
This comment is noted. Compliance with the lake and stream alteration is a regulatory requirement of all projects. Where there is potential for impacts to these aquatic facilities, the City requires the appropriate authorization from CDFW. No changes to the DEIR are necessary in response to this comment.
Response B-21: The commenter indicates that the California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) is populated by voluntary submissions of species detections. As a result, species may be present in locations not depicted in the CNDDB but where there is suitable habitat and features capable of supporting species.
A lack of an occurrence record, or lack of recent occurrence records, in the CNDDB does not mean that a species is not present. To adequately assess any potential Plan- related impacts to biological resources, surveys conducted by a qualified biologist during the appropriate survey period(s) and using the appropriate protocol survey methodology are warranted to determine whether any special-status species are present.
This comment is noted. The City requires records searches, and field surveys/assessments by qualified biologists prior to development. Any occurrence is reported to the CNDDB by the biologist.
No changes to the DEIR are necessary in response to this comment.
Response B-22: The commenter indicates that CEQA requires that information developed in environmental impact reports and negative declarations be incorporated into a database which may be #21..
- 1132 -
2.0 COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES
2.0-60 Final Environmental Impact Report – Modesto Urban Area General Plan used to make subsequent or supplemental environmental determinations. The commenter requests any special-status species and natural communities detected during Plan surveys to be reported to the CNDDB.
This comment is noted. The City requires records searches, and field surveys/assessments by qualified biologists prior to development. Any occurrence is reported to the CNDDB by the biologist.
No changes to the DEIR are necessary in response to this comment.
Response B-23: The commenter indicates that the Plan, as proposed, would have an impact on fish and/or wildlife, and assessment of environmental document filing fees is necessary. Fees are payable upon filing of the Notice of Determination by the Lead Agency and serve to help defray the cost of environmental review by CDFW. Payment of the environmental document filing fee is required for the underlying Plan approval to be operative, vested, and final.
This comment is noted. This is an existing regulation. No response is necessary.
Response B-24: The commenter provides a conclusion statement to the comment letter.
This comment is noted. No response to this comment is warranted.
Response B-25: The commenter provides a copy of a letter submitted to the City regarding the Notice of Preparation.
This is noted. Comment and Response B-4 addresses this letter. #21..
- 1133 -
REVISIONS AND ERRATA 3.0
Final Environmental Impact Report – Modesto Urban Area General Plan 3.0-1 This chapter includes minor edits to the EIR. These modifications resulted from responses to comments received during the Draft EIR public review period.
Revisions herein do not result in new significant environmental impacts, do not constitute significant new information, and do not alter the conclusions of the environmental analysis that would warrant recirculation of the Draft EIR pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5.
Changes are provided in revision marks with underline for new text and strike out for deleted text.
3.1 REVISIONS TO THE DRAFT EIR
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Page ES-1 of the DEIR is revised as follows:
AREAS OF CONTROVERSY AND ISSUES TO BE RESOLVED
This Draft EIR addresses environmental impacts associated with the project that are known to the City, raised during the Notice of Preparation (NOP) scoping process, or were raised during preparation of the Draft EIR. This Draft EIR addresses the potentially significant impacts associated with aesthetics, agriculture and forest resources, air quality, biological resources, cultural and tribal cultural resources, geology, greenhouse gas emissions and energy, hazards and hazardous materials, hydrology and water quality, land use planning and population/housing, mineral resources, noise, public services and recreation, transportation, utilities and service systems, and cumulative impacts.
During the NOP process, 3 4 comment letters were received from interested agencies and organizations. The comments are summarized in Chapter 1.0 (Introduction), and are also provided in Appendix A. The following are topics of public concern or potential controversy that have become known to the City staff based on public input, known regional issues, and staff observations:
• Impacts of traffic and congestion on local, regional, and state transportation facilities as a result of the General Plan Update.
• Impacts associated with air quality.
• Impacts to biological resources.
• Impacts associated with public services.
• Effects of noise, vibrations, emissions and safety impacts to sensitive receptors as a result of the General Plan.
• Impacts on regional stormwater, drainage, groundwater, and water quality.
1.0 INTRODUCTION
NO T I C E O F PR E P A R A T I ON
The City of Modesto circulated a Notice of Preparation (NOP) of an EIR for the proposed project on September 27, 2024 to trustee and responsible agencies, the State Clearinghouse, and the public. A scoping meeting was held on October 11, 2024. No public #21..
- 1134 -
3.0 REVISIONS AND ERRATA
3.0-2 Final Environmental Impact Report – Modesto Urban Area General Plan or agency comments on the NOP related to the EIR analysis were presented or submitted during the scoping meeting. However, during the 30-day public review period for the NOP, which ended on October 27, 2024, three four written comment letters were received on the NOP. A summary of the NOP comments is provided later in this chapter. The NOP and all comments received on the NOP are presented in Appendix A.
1.8 COMMENTS RECEIVED ON THE NOTICE OF PREPARATION
The City received three four comment letters on the NOP. Copies of these letters are provided in Appendix A of this Draft EIR and the comments are summarized in the Executive Summary chapter. The City received the following comment letters. • San Joaquin Air Pollution Control District (October 25, 2024) • Salida Fire Protection District (October 28, 2024)
• Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board (October 28, 2024) • California Department of Fish and Wildlife (October 28, 2024)
2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
No changes were made to Chapter 2.0 of the DEIR.
3.1 AESTHETICS AND VISUAL RESOURCES
No changes were made to Chapter 3.1 of the DEIR.
3.2 AGRICULTURAL AND FOREST RESOURCES
No changes were made to Section 3.2 of the Draft EIR.
3.3 AIR QUALITY
No changes were made to Chapter 3.3 of the DEIR.
3.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
This section describes how development associated with the City of Modesto Urban Area General Plan (UAGP) would affect sensitive biological resources, wildlife, and plant habitat.
No comments One comment on this environmental topic wasere received from the California Department of Fish and Wildlife during the NOP comment period.
California
tiger
salamander
Ambystoma
T/T Central Valley, including Sierra Nevada
foothills, up to approximately 1,000
feet, from Yolo County south to Tulare
County. Also in the coastal valleys and
Inhabits grassland,
oak woodland,
ruderal, and
seasonal pool
NoneLow. Considered extirpated
in the vicinity of the General Plan
Area, and extremely limited
suitable habitat is present within
#21..
- 1135 -
REVISIONS AND ERRATA 3.0
Final Environmental Impact Report – Modesto Urban Area General Plan 3.0-3 californiense foothills, from Sonoma County south to
Santa Barbara County; Sonoma and
Santa Barbara populations are listed as
Federal Endangered.
habitats. Seasonal
ponds and vernal
pools are crucial to
breeding.
Adults utilize
mammal burrows as
estivation habitat.
the General Plan Area. CDFW has
indicated that there is some
suitable habitat in some areas
such as storage ponds and canals.
Burrowing
owl
Athene
cunicularia
--/C
and
SSC
Lowlands throughout
California, including the
Central Valley, northeastern
plateau, southeastern deserts,
and coastal areas. Rare along
south coast
Open, dry annual or perennial
grasslands, deserts, and scrublands
characterized by low-growing
vegetation. Subterranean nester,
dependent upon burrowing mammals,
most notably, the California ground
squirrel.
Moderate. May nest
and winter in suitable
grassland and
agricultural habitats
within the General Plan
Area.
Riparian
(San
Joaquin
Valley)
woodrat
Neotoma
fuscipes
riparia
E/SSC Historical distribution along
the San Joaquin, Stanislaus,
and Tuolumne Rivers. Current
distribution limited to Caswell
State Park and the confluence
area of the San Joaquin and
Stanislaus Rivers in San
Joaquin, Stanislaus, and
Merced Counties.
Riparian habitats with
multi-storied riparian
habitat including dense
shrub cover, willow
thickets, and an oak
overstory. Need areas
with mix of brush and
trees, and suitable
nesting sites in trees,
snags, or logs.
NoneLow. Known to occur in riparian
habitat along the Stanislaus River
west of the General Plan Area.
Suitable habitat is also present along
the Tuolumne River. However,
riparian habitat within the General
Plan Area is not typical of occupied
habitat, and there are large spaces of
unsuitable habitat between occupied
habitat and the General Plan Area.
Riparian
brush
rabbit
Sylvilagus
bachmani
riparius
E/E Limited to San Joaquin
County at Caswell State
Park near the confluence
of the Stanislaus and San
Joaquin Rivers and
Paradise Cut area on
Union Pacific right-of-way
lands
Native valley riparian
habitats with large
clumps of dense shrubs,
low-growing vines, and
some tall shrubs and
trees including willows,
wild rose, and blackberry.
NoneLow. Known to occur in riparian
habitat along the Stanislaus River west of
the General Plan Area. Suitable habitat is
also present along the Tuolumne River.
However, riparian habitat within the
General Plan Area is not typical of occupied
habitat, and there are large spaces of
unsuitable habitat between occupied
habitat and the General Plan Area.
SWPH-2: For all lands within the Planned Urbanizing Area, site-specific surveys shall be conducted by a qualified biologist to determine whether any sensitive natural communities or species are present within the proposed development area. The site-specific surveys should include a habitat assessment that evaluates the suitability and potential for presence of special status species, including avian, terrestrial, and aquatic species. These studies shall #21..
- 1136 -
3.0 REVISIONS AND ERRATA
3.0-4 Final Environmental Impact Report – Modesto Urban Area General Plan particularly focus on proposed development within any lands included within a potential biological resource study area as delineated on Figure V-7-1 in the Final Program Environmental Impact Report (Riparian Corridor Diagram). Prior to considering development applications, the City shall coordinate with the USFWS and CDFW regarding listed species and potential for impacts. The City shall employ the measures recommended by the USFWS and/or CDFW to avoid an incidental take.
Conduct surveys at the appropriate season to best determine the likelihood of occurrence and should employ accepted methodologies as determined by CDFW and the USFWS. The results of such surveys should be recorded in the California Natural Diversity Database and onto the City’s existing biological resources map for future planning purposes. (UAGP Policy VII-E.3[a])
SWPH-4: Additional measures to protect sensitive habitats may be implemented. Potential measures to be implemented may include measures listed in Table 3.4-4. (UAGP Policy VII-E.3[c])
is revised as follows:
h. In accordance with the MBTA and CFGC and to avoid disturbance to active bird nests, any tree or shrub removal shall occur during the nonbreeding season for birds (September through January). If construction activities or tree removal must occur during the breeding season (February through August), surveys for active nests shall be conducted by a qualified biologist no more than 30 days prior to the start of construction. A no- disturbance buffer determined by a qualified biologist and dependent upon species and nest location of up to 250 feet shall be delineated around active nests until the breeding season has ended or until a qualified biologist has determined that the birds have fledged and are no longer reliant upon the nest or parental care for survival. For some birds, especially raptor species such as white-tailed kites, no-disturbance buffers up to ½ mile are recommended by CDFW.
Establishment of buffers should be established in consultation with CDFW.
is revised as follows:
j. j. Burrowing owls are known to occur near the General Plan Area in agricultural and grassland habitats and vacant lots within developed habitats. Impacts to burrowing owls and their nest burrows must be avoided to comply with the Federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) and Department of Fish and Game Code Sections 3503, 3503.5, and 3513. Per CDFW’s Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation (CDFG 2012), if any ground- disturbing activities occur in potential burrowing owl habitat during the nesting (February 1 through August 31) or non-nesting season (September 1 through January 31), implementation of avoidance measures is required. A burrowing owl habitat assessment is recommended for areas containing potentially suitable habitat: agricultural, grassland, and vacant parcels if at least 2.5 acres in size or contiguous with undeveloped habitat of at least 2.5 acres in size. Agricultural habitat determined to be suitable includes pastureland, non-irrigated cropland, and ruderal or fallow fields; orchards, vineyards, and other active croplands with vegetation greater than 15 inches in height are not considered suitable habitat. Vacant or ruderal parcels are considered potentially suitable habitat if ground squirrels, debris piles, and/or pipes are present to provide burrows or burrow surrogates for burrowing owl to occupy.
#21..
- 1137 -
REVISIONS AND ERRATA 3.0
Final Environmental Impact Report – Modesto Urban Area General Plan 3.0-5 If burrowing owl habitat is confirmed present within a maximum of 500 feet of the project site, no visual barriers are present between the project site and the burrowing owl habitat, and no owls were observed to occupy the habitat at the time of the assessment, then one preconstruction site survey (take avoidance survey) shall be conducted no more than 14 days prior to the onset of any ground-disturbing activities.
Further, if the preconstruction survey determines that burrowing owls occupy the site and impacts to occupied burrows cannot be avoided, then passive relocation shall be conducted as described below during the non-nesting season or if the burrowing owl(s) are determined to not be actively nestingonly after authorization by CDFW. CDFW does not recommend passive relocation as it can result in unauthorized take. If take cannot be avoided, take authorization through the acquisition of an ITP, pursuant to Fish and Game Code section 2081 subdivision (b) is necessary to comply with CESA. Prior to passive relocation, a burrowing owl exclusion, mitigation, and monitoring plan will be prepared in accordance with the CDFW Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation (CDFG 2012) and submitted to the City and CDFW for approval before any constructive activities can proceed that may impact the species.
The Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation (CDFG 2012) recommends that impacts to occupied burrows during the nesting season be avoided by implementation of a no-disturbance buffer zone of a minimum of 250 feet, unless a qualified biologist verifies through noninvasive methods that either: 1) the burrowing owls have not begun egg laying and incubation; or 2) that juveniles from the occupied nest are foraging independently and are capable of independent survival. Failure to implement this buffer zone could cause adult burrowing owls to abandon nests, cause eggs or young to be directly impacted (crushed), and/or result in reproductive failure.
Burrowing owls may be passively relocated if the burrowing owls have been determined not to be actively nesting and the burrowing owl exclusion, mitigation, and monitoring plan has been approved by the City and CDFW.
is revised as follows:
k.k. The State-threatened Swainson’s hawk is known to nest within the General Plan Area in grassland, riparian, and agricultural habitats. Because of the loss of suitable foraging habitat and existing nesting habitat that may occur during area development, mitigation measures compensating for these potential losses of habitat shall be included. The CDFW considers the removal of known raptor nest trees, even outside of the nesting season, to be a significant impact under CEQA and, in the case of Swainson’s hawk, could also result in “take” under the CESA. This is especially true in species such as Swainson’s hawk, which exhibit high site fidelity to nest trees and nesting area year after year (CDFG 1994).
To avoid such impacts, surveys for nesting Swainson’s hawk shall be conducted for projects within riparian, grassland, and agricultural habitats as mapped by Figures 3.4-2a through 3.4-2d or for projects within 0.25 mile of such habitats (see Figure V-7-2) and containing potential nest trees (trees greater than 20 feet in height). Surveys shall follow the methodology developed by the Swainson’s Hawk Technical Advisory Committee (2000) and survey potential nest trees within 0.25 mile of disturbance activities.
If ground disturbance is initiated during the nesting season (March 15 – July 31), two pre-construction surveys shall be conducted with surveys not recommended between April 20 and June 10 because of difficulty in detecting active Swainson’s hawk nests during the egg incubation period. The first survey may be conducted up to two months prior to initial activities. The second survey shall occur within 14 days of project initiation.
If an active nest is observed, a no-disturbance buffer zone shall be established in coordination with #21..
- 1138 -
3.0 REVISIONS AND ERRATA
3.0-6 Final Environmental Impact Report – Modesto Urban Area General Plan CDFW. No-disturbance buffers for new and intensive disturbances are typically 0.25 mile to 0.5 mile surrounding the nest location until the nest has been determined to no longer be active by a qualified biologist; however, the buffer may be reduced in consultation with CDFW and is dependent upon nest location, existing disturbance barriers, and baseline disturbance levels.
No surveys are required if ground disturbance is initiated outside of the nesting season; however, impacts to known nest trees should be avoided at all times of year. If avoidance of a known nest tree (documented nest site within the previous five years) is not feasible, consultation with the CDFW is warranted prior to taking any action, and a determination of “take” potential under CESA or under Fish and Game Code Sections 3503.5 and 3513 will be made. Project-related “take” (as defined in Section 86 of the Fish and Game Code) of Swainson’s hawk must be completely avoided or a State Incidental Take Permit, pursuant to Section 2081 of the Fish and Game Code, would be warranted.
In addition, the Staff Report Regarding Mitigation for Impacts to Swainson’s Hawks in the Central Valley of California (CDFG 1994) recommends that for projects impacting foraging habitat within one mile of an active nest tree, habitat be protected in perpetuity at a 1:1 ratio for each acre of Swainson’s hawk foraging habitat impacted; for projects greater than one mile but within five miles of an active nest tree,
0.75 acre of habitat should be protected in perpetuity for every acre of foraging habitat impacted (0.75:1); and for projects greater than 5 miles but within ten miles of an active nest tree, 0.5 acre of habitat should be protected in perpetuity for every acre of foraging habitat impacted (0.5:1). Per the Staff Report (CDFG 1994), suitable foraging habitat includes annual grasslands, pasturelands, alfalfa and cereal cropland, fallow fields, and beet, tomato, and other low-growing row or field crops. Vineyards, orchards, and cotton fields are considered unsuitable foraging habitat because of vegetation height and/or density (CDFG 1994). The project sponsor should provide funding of a sufficient long-term endowment for the management of the protected properties.
The j. Where the habitat assessment identifies the potential for northwestern pond turtle, a qualified biologist shall conduct focused surveys for northwestern pond turtle within 10 days prior to project activity, and that focused surveys for nests occur during the egg-laying season of March through August.
Any NPT nests that are discovered shall remain undisturbed with a 50-foot no-disturbance buffer maintained around the nest until the eggs have hatched and neonates are no longer in the nest or project areas. If NPT individuals are discovered at the site during surveys or project activities, they shall be allowed to move out of the area of their own volition. k. Where the habitat assessment identifies the potential for branchiopods, qualified biologist shall conduct protocol level surveys in accordance with the USFWS “Survey Guidelines for the Listed Large Branchiopods” (USFWS 2017) during the survey season prior to construction. These surveys would need to be conducted at the appropriate time of year to determine the existence and extent of branchiopods.
If through surveys it is determined that branchiopods are occupying or have the potential to occupy the project area, coordination with CDFW and USFW is required to determine appropriate avoidance and minimization measures and to obtain the necessary take authorizations. l. Where the habitat assessment identifies the potential for Crotch’s bumble bee, a qualified biologist shall conduct a habitat assessment to determine if the project area and the immediate surrounding vicinity contain habitat suitable to support Crotch’s bumble bee. Potential nesting sites, which include all small mammal burrows, perennial bunch grasses, thatched annual grasses, brush piles, old bird nests, dead trees, and hollow logs would need to be documented as part of the assessment.
If potentially suitable habitat is identified, a qualified biologist shall conduct focused surveys for Crotch’s bumble bee, and their requisite habitat features following the methodology outlined in the Survey Considerations for California Endangered Species Act Candidate Bumble Bee Species (CDFW 2023). #21..
- 1139 -
REVISIONS AND ERRATA 3.0
Final Environmental Impact Report – Modesto Urban Area General Plan 3.0-7 If Crotch’s bumble bee is detected, all small mammal burrows and thatched/bunch grasses shall be avoided by a minimum of 50 feet to avoid take and potentially significant impacts. If ground-disturbing activities will occur during the overwintering period (October through February), consultation with CDFW is warranted to discuss how to implement project activities and avoid take. Any detection of Crotch’s bumble bee prior to or during project implementation warrants consultation with CDFW to discuss how to avoid take.
If take cannot be avoided, take authorization through the acquisition of an ITP, pursuant to Fish and Game Code section 2081 subdivision (b) is necessary to comply with CESA. m.A qualified biologist shall conduct surveys to assess the existence and extent of California tiger salamander breeding and refugia habitat. Habitat assessment surveys should establish whether suitable habitat is present, and whether additional protocol level surveys are necessary to determine presence/absence. If protocol-level surveys for California tiger salamander are deemed necessary based on the habitat assessment, it is anticipated that multi-seasonal surveys will be necessary to meet the protocol.
If through surveys it is determined that California tiger salamander is occupying the project area, consultation with CDFW is warranted to determine if the project can avoid take. If take cannot be avoided, take authorization through the acquisition of an ITP, pursuant to Fish and Game Code section 2081 subdivision (b) is necessary to comply with CESA. As stated above, in the absence of protocol surveys, the applicant can assume presence of California tiger salamander within the project area and obtain an ITP from CDFW.