NORTH AMERICA | EUROPE | AFRICA | AUSTRALIA | ASIA
WWW.FIRSTCARBONSOLUTIONS.COM
DRAFT
Environmental Impact Report
Baldwin Master Plan / Zacharias Master Plan Project
City of Patterson, Stanislaus County, California
State Clearinghouse No. 2018122052
Prepared for:
City of Patterson
1 Plaza, P.O. Box 667
Patterson, CA 95363
209.895.8020
Contact: Joel Andrews, City Planner
Prepared by:
FirstCarbon Solutions
1350 Treat Boulevard, Suite 380
Walnut Creek, CA 94597
925.357.2562
Contact: Jason Brandman, Project Director
Grant Gruber, Project Manager
Date: December 3, 2020
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
City of Patterson—Baldwin Master Plan / Zacharias Master Plan Project Draft EIR Table of Contents
FirstCarbon Solutions iii
https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/1790/17900003/EIR/3 - Draft EIR/17900003 Sec00-01 TOC.docx Table of Contents
Acronyms and Abbreviations .......................................................................................................... i Executive Summary ...................................................................................................................ES-1 Purpose................................................................................................................................. ES-1 Project Summary .................................................................................................................. ES-1 Significant Unavoidable Adverse Impacts ............................................................................ ES-2 Summary of Project Alternatives.......................................................................................... ES-3 Areas of Controversy ............................................................................................................ ES-4 Public Review of the Draft EIR .............................................................................................. ES-5 Executive Summary Matrix................................................................................................... ES-6 Section 1: Introduction ............................................................................................................... 1-1
1.1 - Overview of the CEQA Process....................................................................................... 1-1
1.2 - Scope of the EIR.............................................................................................................. 1-2
1.3 - Organization of the EIR................................................................................................... 1-5
1.4 - Documents Incorporated by Reference.......................................................................... 1-7
1.5 - Documents Prepared for the Project ............................................................................. 1-7
1.6 - Review of the Draft EIR................................................................................................... 1-7 Section 2: Project Description ..................................................................................................... 2-1
2.1 - Project Location and Setting........................................................................................... 2-1
2.2 - Project Characteristics.................................................................................................... 2-3
2.3 - Project Objectives......................................................................................................... 2-14
2.4 - Intended Uses of This Draft EIR.................................................................................... 2-15 Section 3: Environmental Impact Analysis................................................................................... 3-1 Organization of Issue Areas.................................................................................................... 3-1 Issues Addressed in this EIR ................................................................................................... 3-1 Level of Significance ............................................................................................................... 3-1 Impact Analysis and Mitigation Measure Format ..................................................................3-2
3.1 - Aesthetics, Light, and Glare......................................................................................... 3.1-1
3.2 - Agricultural Resources................................................................................................. 3.2-1
3.3 - Air Quality.................................................................................................................... 3.3-1
3.4 - Biological Resources.................................................................................................... 3.4-1
3.5 - Cultural Resources and Tribal Cultural Resources....................................................... 3.5-1
3.6 - Geology, Soils, and Seismicity...................................................................................... 3.6-1
3.7 - Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Energy ...................................................................... 3.7-1
3.8 - Hazards and Hazardous Materials............................................................................... 3.8-1
3.9 - Hydrology and Water Quality ...................................................................................... 3.9-1
3.10 - Land Use.................................................................................................................. 3.10-1
3.11 - Noise........................................................................................................................ 3.11-1
3.12 - Population and Housing .......................................................................................... 3.12-1
3.13 - Public Services and Recreation................................................................................3.13-1
3.14 - Transportation.........................................................................................................3.14-1
3.15 - Utilities and Service Systems................................................................................... 3.15-1 Section 4: Cumulative Effects...................................................................................................... 4-1
4.1 - Introduction.................................................................................................................... 4-1
4.2 - Cumulative Impact Analysis ........................................................................................... 4-2 City of Patterson—Baldwin Master Plan / Zacharias Master Plan Project Table of Contents Draft EIR
iv FirstCarbon Solutions
https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/1790/17900003/EIR/3 - Draft EIR/17900003 Sec00-01 TOC.docx Section 5: Alternatives to the Proposed Project........................................................................... 5-1
5.1 - Introduction ................................................................................................................... 5-1
5.2 - Project Objectives.......................................................................................................... 5-3
5.3 - Alternative 1—No Project Alternative ........................................................................... 5-3
5.4 - Alternative 2—Zacharias Master Plan Only Alternative ................................................ 5-4
5.5 - Alternative 3—Reduced Density Alternative ................................................................. 5-8
5.6 - Alternative 4—Ivy Avenue Connection Alternative ..................................................... 5-12
5.7 - Environmentally Superior Alternative.......................................................................... 5-15
5.8 - Alternatives Rejected from Further Consideration...................................................... 5-17 Section 6: Other CEQA Considerations......................................................................................... 6-1
6.1 - Significant Unavoidable Impacts.................................................................................... 6-1
6.2 - Growth-Inducing Impacts .............................................................................................. 6-2 Section 7: Effects Found Not To Be Significant ............................................................................. 7-1
7.1 - Introduction ................................................................................................................... 7-1
7.2 - Effects Found not to be Significant ................................................................................ 7-1 Section 8: Persons and Organizations Consulted/List of Preparers............................................... 8-1
8.1 - Lead Agency ................................................................................................................... 8-1
8.2 - List of Preparers............................................................................................................. 8-2 Section 9: References.................................................................................................................. 9-1 List of Appendices
Appendix A: Notice of Preparation / Comments
A.1 - Notice of Preparation
A.2 - Notice of Preparation Responses
A.3 - Comments
Appendix B: Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model
B.1 - Baldwin LESA Model Worksheet
B.2 - Zacharias LESA Model Worksheet
Appendix C: Air Quality/Energy/Greenhouse Gas Emissions Supporting Information Appendix D: Biological Resources Supporting Information D.1 - CNDDB Search
D.2 - CNPS Inventory Results
Appendix E: Cultural Resources Supporting Information
E.1 - City of Patterson Zacharias Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment E.2 - Report of Historic Archival Research and Field Inspection of West Patterson Master Development Plan Holman and Associates (June 2002)
Appendix F: Hydrological Supporting Information
Appendix G: Noise Supporting Information
Appendix H: Traffic Impact Study
Appendix I: Water Supply Analysis
City of Patterson—Baldwin Master Plan / Zacharias Master Plan Project Draft EIR Table of Contents
FirstCarbon Solutions v
https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/1790/17900003/EIR/3 - Draft EIR/17900003 Sec00-01 TOC.docx List of Tables
Table ES-1: Executive Summary Matrix ............................................................................................. ES-7 Table 1-1: NOP Comment Letters........................................................................................................ 1-2 Table 2-1: Surrounding Land Use Summary ........................................................................................ 2-2 Table 2-2: Zacharias Master Plan / Baldwin Master Plan Development Summary .............................2-3 Table 2-3: Zacharias Master Plan Phasing Summary .........................................................................2-13 Table 3.2-1: Stanislaus County Agricultural Economy (2013-2018)..................................................3.2-1 Table 3.2-2: Stanislaus County Crop Summary (2018) .....................................................................3.2-1 Table 3.2-3: Stanislaus County Farmland Summary .........................................................................3.2-2 Table 3.2-4: Soils Summary............................................................................................................... 3.2-3 Table 3.2-5: Baldwin Master Plan Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model Scoring Summary....................................................................................................................... 3.2-7 Table 3.2-6: Zacharias Master Plan Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model Scoring Summary....................................................................................................................... 3.2-8 Table 3.3-1: Description of Air Pollutants......................................................................................... 3.3-4 Table 3.3-2: Air Quality Monitoring Summary.................................................................................. 3.3-9 Table 3.3-3: Air Quality Index and Health Effects from Ozone .......................................................3.3-10 Table 3.3-4: San Joaquin Valley Air Basin Attainment Status ......................................................... 3.3-12 Table 3.3-5: Construction Air Pollutant Emissions Baldwin / Zacharias Master Plan (Maximum Annual) .....................................................................................................3.3-29 Table 3.3-6: Construction Air Pollutant Emissions Baldwin Master Plan (Annual).........................3.3-29 Table 3.3-7: Combined Operational Air Pollutant Emissions at Buildout .......................................3.3-31 Table 3.3-8: Baldwin Master Plan Operational Air Pollutant Emissions at Buildout ......................3.3-33 Table 3.3-9: Maximum Daily Air Pollutant Emissions During Construction....................................3.3-39 Table 3.3-10: Maximum Daily Air Pollutant Emissions During Operation ......................................3.3-40 Table 3.3-11: Screening Levels for Potential Odor Sources............................................................3.3-46 Table 3.4-1: Special-status Plant Species Potentially Occurring within the Master Plan Boundaries.................................................................................................................... 3.4-3 Table 3.4-2: Special-status Wildlife Species Potentially Occurring within the Project .....................3.4-4 Table 3.5-1: Known Cultural Resources within 0.50-mile of the Master Plans.................................3.5-7 Table 3.5-2: Cultural Resources Reports within 0.50-mile of the Master Plans...............................3.5-8 Table 3.6-1: Soils Summary............................................................................................................... 3.6-4 Table 3.7-1: Description of Greenhouse Gases of California Concern..............................................3.7-4 Table 3.7-2: 2005 Unincorporated County Baseline by Sector (excluding Stationary Source Emissions) ......................................................................................................... 3.7-9 City of Patterson—Baldwin Master Plan / Zacharias Master Plan Project Table of Contents Draft EIR
vi FirstCarbon Solutions
https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/1790/17900003/EIR/3 - Draft EIR/17900003 Sec00-01 TOC.docx Table 3.7-3: 2017 Scoping Plan Update Estimated Change in GHG Emissions by Sector............... 3.7-39 Table 3.7-4: Construction Greenhouse Gas Emissions (Annual Average and Total Project).......... 3.7-43 Table 3.7-5: Construction Greenhouse Gas Emissions (Baldwin Master Plan) .............................. 3.7-43 Table 3.7-6: Reductions from Greenhouse Gas Regulations.......................................................... 3.7-45 Table 3.7-7: Project Operational Greenhouse Gases 2040 ............................................................ 3.7-47 Table 3.7-8: Baldwin Master Plan Operational Greenhouse Gases ............................................... 3.7-48 Table 3.7-9: SB 32 2017 Scoping Plan Update Consistency Analysis.............................................. 3.7-54 Table 3.7-10: Energy Consumption Summary................................................................................ 3.7-60 Table 3.8-1: Database Search Summary........................................................................................... 3.8-1 Table 3.9-1: Average Monthly Precipitation, Temperature and Reference ETo ............................... 3.9-1 Table 3.9-2: Impaired Water Bodies and Pollutants......................................................................... 3.9-4 Table 3.10-1: General Plan Consistency Analysis........................................................................... 3.10-6 Table 3.10-2: California Government Code Section 56668 (Cortese-Knox-Hertzberg Local Government Reorganization Act of 2000) Consistency Analysis.............................. 3.10-44 Table 3.11-1: Typical Construction Equipment Maximum Noise Levels, Lmax ................................ 3.11-3 Table 3.11-2: Vibration Levels of Construction Equipment............................................................ 3.11-5 Table 3.11-3: Existing Traffic Noise Levels...................................................................................... 3.11-7 Table 3.11-4: Federal Transit Administration Construction Vibration Impact Criteria................... 3.11-9 Table 3.11-5: Land Use Noise Compatibility Guidelines for New Development (dBA Ldn or CNEL) ........................................................................................................................ 3.11-10 Table 3.11-6: Noise Level Performance Standards For New Projects Affected By Or Including Non-Transportation Sources..................................................................... 3.11-12 Table 3.11-7: Noise Level Performance Standards For New Projects Affected By Or Including Transportation Sources............................................................................. 3.11-12 Table 3.11-8: Project Traffic Noise Level Results.......................................................................... 3.11-16 Table 3.12-1: Existing Population and Housing Characteristics (2019).......................................... 3.12-1 Table 3.12-2: Historical Population Growth ................................................................................... 3.12-1 Table 3.12-3: Employment Summary............................................................................................. 3.12-2 Table 3.13-1: Patterson Fire Department....................................................................................... 3.13-1 Table 3.13-2: West Stanislaus County Fire Protection District Station Summary .......................... 3.13-2 Table 3.13-3: School Summary....................................................................................................... 3.13-3 Table 3.14-1: Signalized Intersection LOS Criteria.......................................................................... 3.14-3 Table 3.14-2: Unsignalized Intersection LOS Criteria ..................................................................... 3.14-4 Table 3.14-3: Existing LOS of Study Intersections .......................................................................... 3.14-5 Table 3.14-4: Existing Roadway Segment LOS................................................................................ 3.14-7 City of Patterson—Baldwin Master Plan / Zacharias Master Plan Project Draft EIR Table of Contents
FirstCarbon Solutions vii
https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/1790/17900003/EIR/3 - Draft EIR/17900003 Sec00-01 TOC.docx Table 3.14-5: Existing Freeway Segment LOS .................................................................................3.14-8 Table 3.14-6: Proposed Project Trip Generation ..........................................................................3.14-17 Table 3.14-7: Existing plus Approved plus Project Intersection LOS.............................................3.14-20 Table 3.14-8: Existing plus Approved plus Project Traffic Condition Roadway Segment LOS.......3.14-23 Table 3.14-9: Existing plus Approved plus Project Freeway Segment LOS ...................................3.14-24 Table 3.14-10: 2040 Cumulative plus Project Intersection LOS....................................................3.14-34 Table 3.14-11: 2040 Cumulative plus Project Traffic Condition Roadway Segment LOS ..............3.14-36 Table 3.14-12: 2040 Cumulative plus Project Freeway Segment LOS ..........................................3.14-37 Table 3.14-13: 2040 Cumulative plus Project Intersection LOS (with new Zacharias Road Interchange at I-5).....................................................................................................3.14-38 Table 3.14-14: 2040 Cumulative plus Project Traffic Condition Roadway Segment LOS (with new Zacharias Road Interchange at I-5) ..........................................................3.14-41 Table 3.14-15: 2040 Cumulative plus Project (with new Zacharias Road Interchange at I5) Freeway Segment LOS........................................................................................... 3.14-42 Table 3.15-1: Fink Road Landfill Summary...................................................................................... 3.15-2 Table 3.15-2: Existing Potable Water Demand ............................................................................... 3.15-5 Table 3.15-3: Existing Non-Potable Water Demand .......................................................................3.15-6 Table 3.15-4: 2018 WMP Potable Water Demand Projection for the Zacharias and Baldwin Area............................................................................................................... 3.15-8 Table 3.15-5: Zacharias and Baldwin Master Plan Area Development by Land Use Category...................................................................................................................... 3.15-8 Table 3.15-6: Zacharias and Baldwin Master Plan Area Potable Water Demand Projection by Land Use.................................................................................................................3.15-9 Table 3.15-7: Zacharias and Baldwin Master Plan Area Non-Potable Water Demand Projection by Land Use ...............................................................................................3.15-9 Table 3.15-8: Water Demand Projection Comparison for the Zacharias Master Plan..................3.15-10 Table 3.15-9: Development Phasing by Land Use Category for the Zacharias Master Plan.........3.15-10 Table 3.15-10: Phased Potable Demand Projections for the Zacharias Master Plan ...................3.15-11 Table 3.15-11: Phased Non-Potable Demand Projections for the Zacharias Master Plan ...........3.15-11 Table 3.15-12: Citywide Projected 2040 Demands.......................................................................3.15-12 Table 3.15-13: City Existing Groundwater Well Capacity..............................................................3.15-12 Table 3.15-14: Planned City Water Supplies with the Master Plans ............................................3.15-15 Table 3.15-15: Available Supply Under Normal and Dry Year Conditions....................................3.15-17 Table 3.15-16: Existing City Demand with Project........................................................................3.15-18 Table 3.15-17: Existing City Demand with Master Plans versus Existing Supply with Master Plans ............................................................................................................. 3.15-18 City of Patterson—Baldwin Master Plan / Zacharias Master Plan Project Table of Contents Draft EIR
viii FirstCarbon Solutions
https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/1790/17900003/EIR/3 - Draft EIR/17900003 Sec00-01 TOC.docx Table 3.15-18: Citywide Projected 2040 Water Demands with and without the Project............ 3.15-19 Table 3.15-19: Phased Citywide Projected 2040 Potable Water Demands with and without the Project .................................................................................................. 3.15-19 Table 3.15-20: Phased Citywide Non-Projected 2040 Potable Water Demands with and without the Project .................................................................................................. 3.15-19 Table 3.15-21: Comparison of Planned City Groundwater Supplies at Buildout (2050).............. 3.15-19 Table 3.15-22: City Water Demand (with Project) versus Supply ................................................ 3.15-20 Table 3.15-23: City Demand (with Project) versus Dry Year Supply............................................. 3.15-21 Table 3.15-24: Wastewater Generation Estimate ........................................................................ 3.15-23 Table 3.15-25: Construction Solid Waste Generation Summary.................................................. 3.15-27 Table 3.15-26: Operational Solid Waste Generation Summary ................................................... 3.15-27 Table 4-1: Cumulative Projects............................................................................................................ 4-1 Table 5-1: Zacharias Master Plan Only Alternative ............................................................................. 5-4 Table 5-2: Zacharias Master Plan Only Alternative Trip Generation ................................................... 5-7 Table 5-3: Reduced Density Alternative.............................................................................................. 5-8 Table 5-4: Reduced Density Alternative Trip Generation.................................................................. 5-11 Table 5-5: Ivy Avenue Connection Alternative.................................................................................. 5-12 Table 5-6: Ivy Avenue Connection Alternative Average Daily Trip Comparison................................ 5-15 Table 5-7: Summary of Alternatives.................................................................................................. 5-16 Table 5-8: Alternative Location Feasibility Analysis .......................................................................... 5-17 List of Exhibits
Exhibit 2-1: Regional Location Map .................................................................................................. 2-17 Exhibit 2-2: Local Vicinity Map, Aerial Base ...................................................................................... 2-19 Exhibit 2-3: Site Photographs............................................................................................................ 2-21 Exhibit 2-4: Development Areas ....................................................................................................... 2-23 Exhibit 2-5: Zacharias Master Plan Land Use Plan ............................................................................ 2-25 Exhibit 2-6: Baldwin Master Plan ...................................................................................................... 2-27 Exhibit 2-7a: Circulation Plan – Zacharias Master Plan..................................................................... 2-29 Exhibit 2-7b: Zacharias Master Plan Street Sections......................................................................... 2-31 Exhibit 2-7c: South County Corridor 6-Lane Rural Expressway Section............................................ 2-33 Exhibit 2-7d: Circulation Plan – Baldwin Master Plan....................................................................... 2-35 Exhibit 2-8: Parks, Pedestrian Pathways, and Future School Sites.................................................... 2-37 Exhibit 2-9a: Zacharias Master Plan Storm Drain, Recharge, and FEMA Solution Facilities ............. 2-39 Exhibit 2-9b: Zacharias Master Plan FEMA Solution Facilities .......................................................... 2-41 Exhibit 2-9c: Zacharias Master Plan Recharge Basin Facilities.......................................................... 2-43 City of Patterson—Baldwin Master Plan / Zacharias Master Plan Project Draft EIR Table of Contents
FirstCarbon Solutions ix
https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/1790/17900003/EIR/3 - Draft EIR/17900003 Sec00-01 TOC.docx Exhibit 2-9d: Storm Drainage Master Plan – Baldwin Master Plan ...................................................2-45 Exhibit 2-10a: Potable Water Master Plan – Zacharias Master Plan .................................................2-47 Exhibit 2-10b: Potable Water Master Plan – Baldwin Master Plan ...................................................2-49 Exhibit 2-11: Non-Potable Master Plan – Zacharias Master Plan......................................................2-51 Exhibit 2-12a: Zacharias Master Plan On-site Sanitary Sewer Master Plan.......................................2-53 Exhibit 2-12b: Off-site Sanitary Sewer System – North.....................................................................2-55 Exhibit 2-12c: Zacharias Master Plan Sanitary Sewer Plan – Temporary Vicki Lynn Lane Connection..................................................................................................................... 2-57 Exhibit 2-12d: Sanitary Sewer Master Plan – Baldwin Master Plan ..................................................2-59 Exhibit 2-13: Phasing Plan ................................................................................................................. 2-61 Exhibit 3.2-1: Important Farmland Map......................................................................................... 3.2-15 Exhibit 3.2-2: Soils Map .................................................................................................................. 3.2-17 Exhibit 3.2-3a: Zone of Influence – Zacharias Master Plan ............................................................3.2-19 Exhibit 3.2-3b: Zone of Influence – Baldwin Master Plan ..............................................................3.2-21 Exhibit 3.2-4: Land Owners Information with Williamson Act .......................................................3.2-23 Exhibit 3.4-1: Local Vicinity............................................................................................................. 3.4-21 Exhibit 3.6-1: Change in Water Consumption Practices.................................................................3.6-15 Exhibit 3.9-1: Del Puerto Creek and Salado Creek Watershed Delineations Near the Project Site.................................................................................................................. 3.9-35 Exhibit 3.9-2: FEMA FIRM Flood Hazard Zones Near the Zacharias Planning Area........................3.9-37 Exhibit 3.9-3: FEMA FIRM Flood Hazard Zones Near the Baldwin Planning Area ..........................3.9-39 Exhibit 3.14-1: Study Intersections...............................................................................................3.14-51 Exhibit 3.14-2: Existing Peak-hour Turning Movement Volumes, Lane Geometry, and Controls..................................................................................................................... 3.14-53 Exhibit 3.14-3: Existing Plus Approved Project Peak-hour Turning Movement Volumes, Lane Geometry, and Controls ................................................................................... 3.14-55 Exhibit 3.14-4: Proposed Circulation Plan ....................................................................................3.14-57 Exhibit 3.14-5: Existing Plus Approved Plus Project Peak-hour Turning Movement Volumes, Lane Geometry, and Controls....................................................................3.14-59 Exhibit 3.14-6: 2040 Cumulative No Project Peak-hour Turning Movement Volumes, Lane Geometry, and Controls............................................................................................3.14-61 Exhibit 3.14-7: 2040 Cumulative Plus Project Peak-hour Turning Movement Volumes, Lane Geometry, and Controls ................................................................................... 3.14-63 Exhibit 3.14-8: 2040 Cumulative Plus Project (With New Zacharias Rd Interchange at I-5) Peak-hour Turning Movement Volumes, Lane Geometry, and Controls ..................3.14-65 Exhibit 5-1: Alternative Location Map............................................................................................... 5-21
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
City of Patterson—Baldwin Master Plan / Zacharias Master Plan Project Draft EIR Acronyms and Abbreviations
FirstCarbon Solutions i
https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/1790/17900003/EIR/3 - Draft EIR/17900003 Sec00-02 Acronyms.docx
ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS
°C degrees Celsius (Centigrade)
°F degrees Fahrenheit
µg/m3 micrograms per cubic meter
AAQS Ambient Air Quality Standards
AB Assembly Bill
ACM asbestos-containing material
ADT average daily traffic
ADT average daily traffic
AF acre-foot
AFY acre-feet per year
AFY acre-feet/year
AIRFA American Indian Religious Freedom Act
AMG Advanced Mobility Group
APCD Air Pollution Control District
APE Area of Potential Effect
APN Assessor’s Parcel Number
AQGGP Air Quality Guidelines for General Plans
AQI Air Quality Index
AQMD Air Quality Management
AQP air quality plan
ARB California Air Resources Board
ARPA Archaeological Resources Protection Act
AST aboveground storage tank
ATCM Airborne Toxic Control Measures
BAU business as usual
BCF billion cubic feet
BCF/year billion cubic feet per year
BMP Best Management Practice
BP Before Present
BPS Best Performance Standard
BVOC biogenic volatile organic compound
C2ES Center for Climate and Energy Solutions
CAA Clean Air Act
CAAQS California Ambient Air Quality Standards
CAL FIRE California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection City of Patterson—Baldwin Master Plan / Zacharias Master Plan Project Acronyms and Abbreviations Draft EIR
ii FirstCarbon Solutions
https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/1790/17900003/EIR/3 - Draft EIR/17900003 Sec00-02 Acronyms.docx Cal OSHA California Occupational Health and Safety Administration Cal/EPA California Environmental Protection Agency
CalEEMod California Emissions Estimator Model
Caltrans California Department of Transportation
CAP Clean Air Plan
CAPCOA California Air Pollution Control Officers Association CBC California Building Standards Code
CCAA California Clean Air Act
CCIC Central California Information Center
CCR California Code of Regulations
CCTS Central California Taxonomic System
CDFW California Department of Fish and Wildlife
CEC California Energy Commission
CEG Certified Engineering Geologist
CEQA California Environmental Quality Act
CERCLA Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act CESA California Endangered Species Act
CFC chlorofluorocarbon
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
CH4 methane
CHL California Historical Landmarks
CHP California Highway Patrol
CIMIS California Irrigation Management Information System CNDDB California Natural Diversity Database
CNEL Community Noise Equivalent Level
CNPS California Native Plant Society
CNPSEI California Native Plant Society’s Electronic Inventory CNRA California Natural Resources Agency
CO carbon monoxide
CO2 carbon dioxide
CO2e carbon dioxide equivalent
CPHI California Points of Historical Interest
CPUC California Public Utilities Code
CRHR California Register of Historical Resources
CRNA California Natural Resources Agency
CUPA Certified Unified Program Agency
CWC California Water Code
dB decibel
City of Patterson—Baldwin Master Plan / Zacharias Master Plan Project Draft EIR Acronyms and Abbreviations
FirstCarbon Solutions iii
https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/1790/17900003/EIR/3 - Draft EIR/17900003 Sec00-02 Acronyms.docx dBA A-weighted decibel
dBA/DD doubling of the distance
DOT United States Department of Transportation
DPM diesel particulate matter
DPR Department of Parks and Recreation
DTSC California Department of Toxic Substances Control
DWR California Department of Water Resources
EIR Environmental Impact Report
EJ environmental justice
EMFAC Emission Factors
EPA United States Environmental Protection Agency
ESA Environmental Site Assessment
ETRIP Employer Trip Reduction Implementation Plan
EVA Emergency Vehicle Access
FAA Federal Aviation Administration
FAR floor area ratio
FCS FirstCarbon Solutions
FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency
FESA Federal Endangered Species Act
FGC Fish and Game Code
FHWA Federal Highway Administration
FIRM Flood Insurance Rate Map
FMMP Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program
FTA Federal Transit Administration
GAMAQI Guide for Assessing and Mitigating Air Quality Impacts GE Geotechnical Engineer
GHG greenhouse gas
gpcd gallons per capita per day
gpm gallons per minute
GRH Guaranteed Ride Home
GSA Groundwater Sustainability Agency
GSP Groundwater Sustainability Plan
GVWR gross vehicle weight rating
GWh gigawatt-hours
GWh/y gigawatt-hours per year
GWP global warming potential
HAP hazardous air pollutant
HCM Highway Capacity Manual
City of Patterson—Baldwin Master Plan / Zacharias Master Plan Project Acronyms and Abbreviations Draft EIR
iv FirstCarbon Solutions
https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/1790/17900003/EIR/3 - Draft EIR/17900003 Sec00-02 Acronyms.docx HFC hydrofluorocarbon
HRA Health Risk Assessment
HRI California Historical Resources Inventory
HSWA Hazardous and Solid Waste Act
HVAC heating, ventilation, and air conditioning
IPCC United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change ISO Independent System Operator
ITE Institute of Transportation Engineers
LAFCo Local Agency Formation Commission LCFS Low Carbon Fuel Standard Ldn day/night average sound level
LEED Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design
Leq equivalent sound level
LESA Land Evaluation and Site Assessment
LEV Low Emission Vehicle
Lmax maximum noise level
LOMR Letter of Map Revision
LOS Level of Service
LSE load-serving entities
LTA Local Transportation Authority
LUST Leaking Underground Storage Tank
MBTA Migratory Bird Treaty Act
mgd million gallons per day
MLD Most Likely Descendant
MM Mitigation Measure
MMT million metric tons
mph miles per hour
MPO Metropolitan Planning Organization
MT metric ton
MWELO Model Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance
MWh megawatt-hour
N2O nitrous oxide
NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards
NAHC Native American Heritage Commission
NCHRP National Cooperative Highway Research Program
NDC nationally determined contribution
NESHAP National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants NF3 nitrogen trifluoride
NHPA National Historic Preservation Act
City of Patterson—Baldwin Master Plan / Zacharias Master Plan Project Draft EIR Acronyms and Abbreviations
FirstCarbon Solutions v
https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/1790/17900003/EIR/3 - Draft EIR/17900003 Sec00-02 Acronyms.docx NO2 nitrogen dioxide
NOC Notice of Completion
NOP Notice of Preparation
NOx nitrogen oxides
NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
NPPA California Native Plant Protection Act
NPTS North Patterson Trunk Sewer
NRCS Natural Resources Conservation Service
NRHP National Register of Historic Places
NSTL North Sperry Trunk Line
NWIC Northwest Information Center
O3 ozone
OAL Office of Administrative Law
OEHHA California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment OHP California Office of Historic Preservation
ONAC Federal Office of Noise Abatement and Control
PCB polychlorinated biphenyl
pCi/L picocuries per liter
PE Professional Engineer
PFC perfluorocarbon
PG&E Pacific Gas and Electric Company
PID Patterson Irrigation District
PM10 particulate matter, including dust, 10 micrometers or less in diameter PM2.5 particulate matter, including dust, 2.5 micrometers or less in diameter PMx particulate matter
ppb parts per billion
ppm parts per million
PPV peak particle velocity
PRC Public Resources Code
PUSD Patterson Unified School District
PVC polyvinyl chloride
RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
RMP Risk Management Plan
rms root mean square
ROG reactive organic gases
RPS renewables portfolio standard RTP Regional Transportation Plan RTPA Regional Transportation Planning Agency
RWQCB Regional Water Quality Control Board
City of Patterson—Baldwin Master Plan / Zacharias Master Plan Project Acronyms and Abbreviations Draft EIR
vi FirstCarbon Solutions
https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/1790/17900003/EIR/3 - Draft EIR/17900003 Sec00-02 Acronyms.docx SCADA Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition
SCS Sustainable Communities Strategy
SF6 sulfur hexafluoride
SGMA Sustainability Groundwater Management Act
SIP State Implementation Plan
SLCP Short-Lived Climate Pollutant
SMAQMD Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District SO2 sulfur dioxide
SOV single occupant vehicle
SR State Route
StanCOG Stanislaus Council of Governments
StaRT Stanislaus Regional Transit
State Water Board California State Water Resources Control Board STIP State Transportation Improvement Plan
SWPPP Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan
TAC toxic air contaminant
TAZ Traffic Analysis Zone
TDM Transportation Demand Management
TDS total dissolved solids
Tg teragram
therms/y therms per year
TIMP Transportation Infrastructure Master Plan
TMDL Total Maximum Daily Load TRU transport refrigeration unit UBC Uniform Building Code
UCMP University of California Museum of Paleontology
UNFCCC United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change USACE United States Army Corps of Engineers
USFWS United States Fish and Wildlife Service
USGS United States Geological Survey
UST underground storage tank
UWMP Urban Water Management Plan
V/C volume to capacity ratio
VERA Voluntary Emission Reduction Agreement
VMT vehicle miles traveled
VOC volatile organic compound
vpd vehicles per day
WDR Waste Discharge Requirement
WMP Water Management Plan
City of Patterson—Baldwin Master Plan / Zacharias Master Plan Project Draft EIR Acronyms and Abbreviations
FirstCarbon Solutions vii
https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/1790/17900003/EIR/3 - Draft EIR/17900003 Sec00-02 Acronyms.docx WSA Water Supply Assessment
WSID West Stanislaus Irrigation District
WWTF Wastewater Treatment Facility
ZEV Zero Emission Vehicle
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
City of Patterson—Baldwin Master Plan / Zacharias Master Plan Project Draft EIR Executive Summary
FirstCarbon Solutions ES-1
https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/1790/17900003/EIR/3 - Draft EIR/wp/17900003 Sec00-03 Exec Summary.docx
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Purpose
This Draft Environmental Impact Report (Draft EIR) is prepared in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) to evaluate the potential environmental impacts associated with the implementation of the Baldwin Master Plan / Zacharias Master Plan Project (State Clearinghouse No. 2018122052). This document is prepared in conformance with CEQA (California Public Resources Code, Section 21000, et seq.) and the CEQA Guidelines (California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Section 15000, et seq.).
The purpose of this Draft EIR is to inform decision makers, representatives of affected and responsible agencies, the public, and other interested parties of the potential environmental effects that may result from implementation of the proposed project. This Draft EIR describes potential impacts relating to a wide variety of environmental issues and methods by which these impacts can be mitigated or avoided.
Project Summary
Project Location
The Zacharias and Baldwin Master Plans encompass 1,227.1 acres outside the Patterson city limits in unincorporated Stanislaus County, California.
The 1,158.4-acre Zacharias Master Plan is bounded by Rogers Road (west), Zacharias Road (north), the California Northern Railroad tracks and Ward Avenue (east), and existing residential and business park uses (south).
The 68.7-acre Baldwin Master is located at the southern terminus of Baldwin Road and is bounded by the Delta-Mendota Canal (west), the City of Patterson Corporation Yard (north), and agricultural uses (east and south).
Project Description
The proposed project consists of two separate Master Plans (Baldwin and Zacharias), that together involve the annexation of 1,297 acres into the City of Patterson and contemplate the development of residential, mixed use, commercial, industrial, school, parks, and open space uses. The combined buildout potential of the Master Plans is 5,086 dwelling units, 7,765,000 square feet of nonresidential uses, two schools, a dual use stormwater basin / recreational facility, and 76 acres of parks / open space.
Section 2, Project Description provides a complete description of the project.
Project Objectives
The objectives of the proposed project are to:
City of Patterson—Baldwin Master Plan / Zacharias Master Plan Project Executive Summary Draft EIR
ES-2 FirstCarbon Solutions
https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/1790/17900003/EIR/3 - Draft EIR/wp/17900003 Sec00-03 Exec Summary.docx
1. Promote positive contribution to the local and regional economy through new capital investment, creation of new employment and housing opportunities, and expansion of the tax base.
2. Develop a mix of new residential uses in proximity to a regional job center.
3. Continue to attract new businesses to the City of Patterson by providing adequate, available land and infrastructure.
4. Facilitate buildout of the City of Patterson General Plan.
5. Maintain a high quality of life in the City of Patterson through the provision of schools, parks, open spaces, and trails in residential areas.
6. Facilitate the development of the South County Corridor by reserving land for the future alignment of this transportation corridor and limiting new connections from the Master Plan area.
7. Promote land use compatibility with the Ranchette area by appropriately citing roadway connections and affording property owners the option of maintaining their existing land use activities or developing low density residential uses.
8. Ensure that the Patterson city limits are expanded in an orderly and logical manner.
9. Avoid the premature conversion of viable agricultural land through the use of buffers and by affording property owners the ability to continue to farm their land until the time is right for development.
10. Work with PID and WSID to protect groundwater resources and their irrigation canals as the Master Plan area transitions from agricultural/rural residential to urban use.
Significant Unavoidable Adverse Impacts
The proposed project would result in the following significant unavoidable impacts:
Important Farmland: Buildout of the proposed Master Plans would convert 1,246 acres of Important Farmland to non-agricultural use. Mitigation is proposed consisting of farmland preservation elsewhere in Stanislaus County; however, preservation would still result in the net loss of farmland. Therefore, the impact is significant and unavoidable.
Consistency With Air Quality Plan: Buildout of the proposed Master Plans would result in ozone precursor and particulate matter emissions that would exceed adopted thresholds and, therefore, would be inconsistent with San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District’s air quality plan. Mitigation is proposed requiring air emissions reduction measures; it would not reduce emissions to acceptable levels. Therefore, the impact is significant and unavoidable.
Cumulative Criteria Pollutant Emissions Impacts: Buildout of the proposed Master Plans would result in ozone precursor and particulate matter emissions that would exceed adopted thresholds and, therefore, have a cumulatively considerable contribution to regional air City of Patterson—Baldwin Master Plan / Zacharias Master Plan Project Draft EIR Executive Summary
FirstCarbon Solutions ES-3
https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/1790/17900003/EIR/3 - Draft EIR/wp/17900003 Sec00-03 Exec Summary.docx pollution. Mitigation is proposed requiring air emissions reduction measures; it would not reduce emissions to acceptable levels. Therefore, the impact is significant and unavoidable.
Greenhouse Gas Emissions Generation: Buildout of the proposed Master Plans would result in greenhouse gas emissions that would exceed adopted thresholds. Mitigation is proposed requiring air emissions reduction measures; it would not reduce emissions to acceptable levels. Therefore, the impact is significant and unavoidable.
Consistency With Greenhouse Gas Emissions Reduction Plan: Buildout of the proposed Master Plans would result in greenhouse gas emissions that would exceed adopted thresholds and, therefore, would be inconsistent with State greenhouse gas reduction strategies.
Mitigation is proposed requiring air emissions reduction measures; it would not reduce emissions to acceptable levels. Therefore, the impact is significant and unavoidable.
Existing Plus Approved Plus Project Traffic Conditions: The proposed Master Plans would contribute new vehicle trips to intersections, roadway segments, and freeway segments that would operate at unacceptable levels under Existing Plus Approved Plus Project Traffic Conditions. Mitigation is proposed consisting of improvements to affected facilities; however, in certain cases, it would not restore operations to acceptable levels or is considered uncertain because the facilities are outside the jurisdictional control or the City of Patterson. Therefore, the impact is significant and unavoidable.
2040 Cumulative Plus Project Traffic Conditions: The proposed Master Plans would contribute new vehicle trips to intersections, roadway segments, and freeway segments that would operate at unacceptable levels under 2040 Cumulative Plus Project Traffic Conditions.
Mitigation is proposed consisting of improvements to affected facilities; however, in certain cases, it would not restore operations to acceptable levels or is considered uncertain because the facilities are outside the jurisdictional control or the City of Patterson. Therefore, the impact is significant and unavoidable.
Summary of Project Alternatives
Below is a summary of the alternatives to the proposed project considered in Section 5, Alternatives to the proposed project.
No Project Alternative
Neither the Baldwin Master Plan nor the Zacharias Master Plan would be implemented and the planning areas would continue their existing agricultural land use activities within unincorporated Stanislaus County.
Zacharias Master Plan Only Alternative
The Zacharias Master Plan would be implemented as contemplated and the Baldwin Master Plan would not be pursued. The buildout potential of this alternative is 4,781 dwelling units, 7,765,000 square feet of nonresidential uses, and two schools. The Zacharias Master Plan Only Alternative is the Environmentally Superior Alternative.
City of Patterson—Baldwin Master Plan / Zacharias Master Plan Project Executive Summary Draft EIR
ES-4 FirstCarbon Solutions
https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/1790/17900003/EIR/3 - Draft EIR/wp/17900003 Sec00-03 Exec Summary.docx Reduced Density Alternative
A 25 percent reduction would be applied to the buildout potential of both the Baldwin Master Plan and the Zacharias Master Plan; however, the boundaries of the plans would remain the same. The buildout potential of this alternative is 3,815 dwelling units, 5,823,000 square feet of non-residential uses., and two school sites.
Ivy Avenue Connection Alternative
Both the Baldwin Master Plan and the Zacharias Master Plan would be pursued as contemplated, but Ivy Avenue would provide a through connection between Ward Avenue and the Patterson Irrigation District (PID) Lateral M Canal.
Areas of Controversy
Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15123(b), a summary section must address areas of controversy known to the lead agency, including issues raised by agencies and the public, and it must also address issues to be resolved, including the choice among alternatives and whether or how to mitigate the significant effects.
A Notice of Preparation (NOP) for the proposed project was issued on December 21, 2018. The NOP describing the original concept for the project and issues to be addressed in the EIR was distributed to the State Clearinghouse, responsible agencies, and other interested parties for a 30-day public review period extending from December 21, 2018 through January 22, 2019. The NOP identified the potential for significant impacts on the environment related to the following topical areas:
Aesthetics, Light, and Glare
Agricultural Resources
Air Quality
Biological Resources
Cultural Resources
Geology, Soils, and Seismicity
Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Hydrology and Water Quality
Land Use
Noise
Population and Housing
Public Services and Recreation
Transportation
Utilities and Service Systems
Disagreement Among Experts
This Draft EIR contains substantial evidence to support all the conclusions presented herein. It is possible that there will be disagreement among various parties regarding these conclusions, although the City of Patterson is not aware of any disputed conclusions at the time of this writing.
Both the CEQA Guidelines and case law clearly provide the standards for treating disagreement among experts. Where evidence and opinions conflict on an issue concerning the environment, and the lead agency knows of these controversies in advance, the EIR must acknowledge the controversies, summarize the conflicting opinions of the experts, and include sufficient information to allow the public and decision makers to make an informed judgment about the environmental consequences of the proposed project.
City of Patterson—Baldwin Master Plan / Zacharias Master Plan Project Draft EIR Executive Summary
FirstCarbon Solutions ES-5
https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/1790/17900003/EIR/3 - Draft EIR/wp/17900003 Sec00-03 Exec Summary.docx Potentially Controversial Issues
Below is a list of potentially controversial issues that may be raised during the public review and hearing process of this Draft EIR:
Agricultural land use compatibility
Delta-Mendota Canal subsidence
Flooding
Groundwater sustainability
Public safety
School enrollment
Traffic
Wastewater treatment
It is also possible that evidence will be presented during the 45-day, statutory Draft EIR public review period that may create disagreement. Decision makers would consider this evidence during the public hearing process.
In rendering a decision on a project where there is disagreement among experts, the decision makers are not obligated to select the most environmentally preferable viewpoint. Decision makers are vested with the ability to choose whatever viewpoint is preferable and need not resolve a dispute among experts. In their proceedings, decision makers must consider comments received concerning the adequacy of the Draft EIR and address any objections raised in these comments.
However, decision makers are not obligated to follow any directives, recommendations, or suggestions presented in comments on the Draft EIR, and can certify the Final EIR without needing to resolve disagreements among experts.
Public Review of the Draft EIR
Upon completion of the Draft EIR, the City of Patterson filed a Notice of Completion (NOC) with the State Office of Planning and Research to begin the public review period (Public Resources Code, Section 21161). Concurrent with the NOC, this Draft EIR has been distributed to responsible and trustee agencies, other affected agencies, surrounding cities, and interested parties, as well as all parties requesting a copy of the Draft EIR in accordance with Public Resources Code 21092(b)(3).
During the public review period, the Draft EIR, including the technical appendices, is available for review at Patterson City Hall and the Patterson Library. The address for each location is provided below:
Patterson City Hall
1 Plaza Circle
Patterson, CA 95363
Hours: 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Monday-Friday
Closed Saturday-Sunday
Patterson Library
46 N. Salado Avenue
Patterson, CA 95363
Hours: 12:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m. Monday-Thursday
11:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Friday
Closed Saturday-Sunday
City of Patterson—Baldwin Master Plan / Zacharias Master Plan Project Executive Summary Draft EIR
ES-6 FirstCarbon Solutions
https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/1790/17900003/EIR/3 - Draft EIR/wp/17900003 Sec00-03 Exec Summary.docx Agencies, organizations, and interested parties have the opportunity to comment on the Draft EIR during the 45-day public review period. Written comments on this Draft EIR should be addressed to:
Mr. Joel Andrews, City Planner
City of Patterson
Community Development Department
1 Plaza Circle
Patterson, CA 95363
Phone: 209.895.8020
Email: [email protected]
Submittal of electronic comments in Microsoft Word or Adobe PDF format is encouraged. Upon completion of the public review period, written responses to all significant environmental issues raised will be prepared and made available for review by the commenting agencies at least 10 days prior to the public hearing before the City of Patterson on the project, at which the certification of the Final EIR will be considered. Comments received and the responses to comments will be included as part of the record for consideration by decision makers for the project.
Executive Summary Matrix
Table ES-1 below summarizes the impacts, mitigation measures, and resulting level of significance after mitigation for the relevant environmental issue areas evaluated for the proposed project. The table is intended to provide an overview; narrative discussions for the issue areas are included in the corresponding section of this EIR. Table ES-1 is included in the EIR as required by CEQA Guidelines Section 15123(b)(1).
Table ES-1: Executive Summary Matrix
Impacts Mitigation Measures Level of Significance After Mitigation Section 3.1—Aesthetics, Light, and GlareSection 3.2—Agricultural Resources Impacts Mitigation Measures Level of Significance After Mitigation Section 3.3—Air Quality
Impacts Mitigation Measures Level of Significance After Mitigation Impacts Mitigation Measures Level of Significance After Mitigation Section 3.4—
Biological Resources
Impacts Mitigation Measures Level of Significance After Mitigation Impacts Mitigation Measures Level of Significance After Mitigation Impacts Mitigation Measures Level of Significance After Mitigation Section 3.5—Cultural Resources and Tribal Cultural Resources Impacts Mitigation Measures Level of Significance After Mitigation Impacts Mitigation Measures Level of Significance After Mitigation Impacts Mitigation Measures Level of Significance After Mitigation Section 3.6—Geology, Soils, and Seismicity
Impacts Mitigation Measures Level of Significance After Mitigation Impacts Mitigation Measures Level of Significance After Mitigation Section 3.7—Greenhouse Gas Emissions and EnergySection 3.8—Hazards and Hazardous Materials Impacts Mitigation Measures Level of Significance After Mitigation Section 3.9—Hydrology and Water Quality
Impacts Mitigation Measures Level of Significance After Mitigation Impacts Mitigation Measures Level of Significance After Mitigation Section 3.10—Land UseSection 3.11—Noise
Impacts Mitigation Measures Level of Significance After Mitigation Section 3.12—Population and Housing
Impacts Mitigation Measures Level of Significance After Mitigation Section 3.13—Public Services and RecreationSection 3.14—Transportation Impacts Mitigation Measures Level of Significance After Mitigation Impacts Mitigation Measures Level of Significance After Mitigation Impacts Mitigation Measures Level of Significance After Mitigation Impacts Mitigation Measures Level of Significance After Mitigation Impacts Mitigation Measures Level of Significance After Mitigation Impacts Mitigation Measures Level of Significance After Mitigation Impacts Mitigation Measures Level of Significance After Mitigation Impacts Mitigation Measures Level of Significance After Mitigation Section 3.15—Utilities and Service Systems
Impacts Mitigation Measures Level of Significance After Mitigation City of Patterson—Baldwin Master Plan / Zacharias Master Plan Project Draft EIR Introduction
FirstCarbon Solutions 1-1
https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/1790/17900003/EIR/3 - Draft EIR/17900003 Sec01-00 Introduction.docx SECTION 1: INTRODUCTION
1.1 - Overview of the CEQA Process
This Draft Environmental Impact Report (Draft EIR) has been prepared in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) to evaluate the potential environmental impacts associated with the implementation of the Baldwin Master Plan / Zacharias Master Plan (State Clearinghouse No. 2018122052). In conformance with CEQA (California Public Resources Code, Section 21000, et seq.) and the CEQA Guidelines (California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Section 15000, et seq.), this Draft EIR is intended to serve as an informational document for the public agency decision makers and the public regarding the Baldwin Master Plan / Zacharias Master Plan (proposed project).
1.1.1 - Overview
The proposed project consists of two separate Master Plans, Baldwin and Zacharias, that together involve the annexation of 1,297 acres into the City of Patterson and contemplate the development of residential, mixed use, commercial, industrial, school, parks, and open space uses. The combined buildout potential of the Master Plans is 5,086 dwelling units; 7,765,000 square feet of nonresidential uses; two schools; a dual use stormwater basin / recreational facility; and 76 acres of parks / open space. Section 2, Project Description provides a complete description of the proposed project.
1.1.2 - Purpose and Authority
This Draft EIR provides a project-level analysis of the environmental effects of the Baldwin Master Plan / Zacharias Master Plan Project. The environmental impacts of the proposed project are analyzed in the EIR to the degree of specificity appropriate, in accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15146. This document addresses the potentially significant adverse environmental impacts that may be associated with the planning, construction, or operation of the project. It also identifies appropriate and feasible mitigation measures and alternatives that may be adopted to significantly reduce or avoid these impacts.
CEQA requires that an EIR contain, at a minimum, certain specific elements. These elements are contained in this Draft EIR and include:
Table of Contents
Introduction
Executive Summary
Project Description
Environmental Setting, Significant Environmental Impacts, and Mitigation Measures Cumulative Impacts
Significant Unavoidable Adverse Impacts
Alternatives to the Proposed Project
Growth-Inducing Impacts
City of Patterson— Baldwin Master Plan / Zacharias Master Plan Project Introduction Draft EIR
1-2 FirstCarbon Solutions
https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/1790/17900003/EIR/3 - Draft EIR/17900003 Sec01-00 Introduction.docx Effects Found Not To Be Significant
Areas of Known Controversy
1.1.3 - Lead Agency Determination
The City of Patterson is designated as the lead agency for the proposed project. CEQA Guidelines Section 15367 defines the lead agency as “. . . the public agency, which has the principal responsibility for carrying out or approving a project.” Other public agencies may use this Draft EIR in the decision-making or permit process and consider the information in this Draft EIR along with other information that may be presented during the CEQA process.
This Draft EIR was prepared by FirstCarbon Solutions, an environmental consultant. Prior to public review, it was extensively reviewed and evaluated by the City of Patterson. This Draft EIR reflects the independent judgment and analysis of the City of Patterson as required by CEQA. Lists of organizations and persons consulted and the report preparation personnel is provided in Section 8 of this Draft EIR.
1.2 - Scope of the EIR
This Draft EIR addresses the potential environmental effects of the proposed project. The City of Patterson issued a Notice of Preparation (NOP) for the proposed project on December 21, 2018, which circulated between December 21, 2018 and January 22, 2019 for the statutory 30-day public review period. The scope of this Draft EIR includes the potential environmental impacts identified in the NOP and issues raised by agencies and the public in response to the NOP. The NOP is contained in Appendix A of this Draft EIR.
Eighteen comment letters were received in response to the NOP. They are listed in Table 1-1 and provided in Appendix A of this Draft EIR.
Table 1-1: NOP Comment Letters
Status Affiliation Author Date
Public
Agency
Governor’s Office
of Planning and
Research, State
Clearinghouse
Scott Morgan, Director December 21,
2018
Native American
Heritage
Commission
Sharaya Souza, Staff Services Analyst December 27,
2018
Central Valley
Regional Water
Quality Control
Board
Jordan Hensley, Environmental Scientist January 15, 2019 Turlock Irrigation
District
Todd Troglin, Supervising Engineering Technician, Civil January 16, 2019 City of Patterson—Baldwin Master Plan / Zacharias Master Plan Project Draft EIR Introduction
FirstCarbon Solutions 1-3
https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/1790/17900003/EIR/3 - Draft EIR/17900003 Sec01-00 Introduction.docx Status Affiliation Author Date
West Stanislaus
Fire Protection
District
William Ross, Attorney, Law Offices of William D. Ross January 16, 2019 Del Puerto Health
Care District
John Anderson, J.B. Anderson Land Use Planning January 17, 2019 California
Department of
Transportation,
District 10
Tom Dumas January 18, 2019
California
Department of
Conservation,
Division of Land
Resource
Protection
Monique Wilber, Conservation Program Support
Supervisor
January 18, 2019
Patterson Irrigation
District
Jeanne Zolezzi, Attorney-at-Law, Herum Crabtree Suntang January 22, 2019 West Stanislaus
Irrigation District
Jeanne Zolezzi, Attorney-at-Law, Herum Crabtree Suntang January 22, 2019 Stanislaus County
Environmental
Review Committee
Patrick Cavanah, Senior Management Consultant January 22, 2019 Stanislaus Local
Agency Formation
Commission
Sara Lytle-Pinhey, Executive Officer January 22, 2019
San Luis & DeltaMendota Water
Authority
Frances Mizuno, Assistant Executive Director January 22, 2019 California Public
Utilities
Commission
Matt Cervantes, Utilities Engineer January 24, 2019
Private
Parties
Private Citizen Barbara Vega January 7, 2019
Private Citizens Henry and Jill Gnesa January 18, 2019
Sarasqueta
Properties
Phil Sarasqueta January 22, 2019
Private Citizen Donald Hess January 22, 2019
Source: City of Patterson, 2019.
1.2.1 - Scoping Meeting
Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15082(c), the City of Patterson held a public scoping meeting on Thursday, January 17, 2019, at Patterson City Hall to receive comments on the scope and content City of Patterson— Baldwin Master Plan / Zacharias Master Plan Project Introduction Draft EIR
1-4 FirstCarbon Solutions
https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/1790/17900003/EIR/3 - Draft EIR/17900003 Sec01-00 Introduction.docx of the Draft EIR. Approximately 25 persons attended the meeting. The sign-in sheet from the scoping meeting is provided in Appendix A.
1.2.2 - Environmental Issues Determined not to be Significant The NOP identified topical areas that were determined not to be significant. An explanation of why each area is determined not to be significant is provided in Section 7, Effects Found not to be Significant. These topical areas are as follows:
Mineral Resources
Wildfire
In addition, certain subjects with various topical areas were determined not to be significant. Other potentially significant issues are analyzed in these topical areas; however, the following issues are not analyzed:
Conflicts with Forest Zoning
Loss of Forestland
Conflicts with Conservation Plans
Septic or Alternative Wastewater Disposal Systems
An explanation of why each issue is determined not to be significant is provided in Section 7, Effects Found not to be Significant.
1.2.3 - Potentially Significant Environmental Issues
The NOP found that the following topical areas may contain potentially significant environmental issues that will require further analysis in the EIR. These sections are as follows:
Aesthetics, Light, and Glare
Agricultural Resources
Air Quality
Biological Resources
Cultural Resources
Geology, Soils, and Seismicity
Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Hydrology and Water Quality
Land Use
Noise
Population and Housing
Public Services and Recreation
Transportation
Utilities and Service Systems
City of Patterson—Baldwin Master Plan / Zacharias Master Plan Project Draft EIR Introduction
FirstCarbon Solutions 1-5
https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/1790/17900003/EIR/3 - Draft EIR/17900003 Sec01-00 Introduction.docx
1.3 - Organization of the EIR
This Draft EIR is organized into the following main sections:
Section ES: Executive Summary. This section includes a summary of the proposed project and alternatives to be addressed in the Draft EIR. A brief description of the areas of controversy and issues to be resolved, and overview of the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, in addition to a table that summarizes the impacts, mitigation measures, and level of significance after mitigation, are also included in this section.
Section 1: Introduction. This section provides an introduction and overview describing the purpose of this Draft EIR, its scope and components, and its review and certification process.
Section 2: Project Description. This section includes a detailed description of the proposed project, including its location, site, and project characteristics. A discussion of the project objectives, intended uses of the Draft EIR, responsible agencies, and approvals that are needed for the proposed project are also provided.
Section 3: Environmental Impact Analysis. This section analyzes the environmental impacts of the proposed project. Impacts are organized into major topic areas. Each topic area includes a description of the environmental setting, methodology, significance criteria, impacts, mitigation measures, and significance after mitigation. The specific environmental topics that are addressed within Section 3 are as follows:
- Section 3.1—Aesthetics, Light, and Glare: Addresses the potential visual impacts of development intensification and the overall increase in illumination produced by the project. - Section 3.2—Agricultural Resources: Addresses the potential for conversion of Important Farmland to non-agricultural use and forest land to non-forest use. - Section 3.3—Air Quality: Addresses the potential air quality impacts associated with project implementation, as well as consistency with the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District Air Quality Management Plan. In addition, the section also evaluates project emissions of greenhouse gases.
- Section 3.4—Biological Resources: Addresses the project’s potential impacts on habitat, vegetation, and wildlife; the potential degradation or elimination of important habitat; and impacts on listed, proposed, and candidate threatened and endangered species. - Section 3.5—Cultural Resources and Tribal Cultural Resources: Addresses potential impacts on historical resources, archaeological resources, paleontological resources, and burial sites.
In addition, the section addresses potential impacts on tribal cultural resources. - Section 3.6—Geology, Soils, and Seismicity: Addresses the potential impacts the project may have on soils and assesses the effects of project development in relation to geologic and seismic conditions.
- Section 3.7—Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Energy: Evaluates project emissions of greenhouse gases.
City of Patterson— Baldwin Master Plan / Zacharias Master Plan Project Introduction Draft EIR
1-6 FirstCarbon Solutions
https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/1790/17900003/EIR/3 - Draft EIR/17900003 Sec01-00 Introduction.docx - Section 3.8—Hazards and Hazardous Materials: Addresses the potential for the presence of hazardous materials or conditions on the project site and in the project area that may have the potential to impact human health.
- Section 3.9—Hydrology and Water Quality: Addresses the potential impacts of the project on local hydrological conditions, including drainage areas, and changes in the flow rates. - Section 3.10—Land Use: Addresses the potential land use impacts associated with division of an established community and consistency with the City of Patterson General Plan, the Patterson Municipal Code, and Local Agency Formation Commission policies. - Section 3.11—Noise: Addresses the potential noise impacts during construction and at project buildout from mobile and stationary sources. The section also addresses the impact of noise generation on neighboring uses.
- Section 3.12—Population and Housing: Addresses the potential of the proposed project to induce direct or indirect population growth.
- Section 3.13—Public Services and Recreation: Addresses the potential impacts upon public services, including fire protection, law enforcement, schools, parks, and recreational facilities.
- Section 3.14—Transportation: Addresses the impacts on the local and regional roadway system, public transportation, bicycle, and pedestrian access. - Section 3.15—Utilities and Services Systems: Addresses the potential impacts upon service providers, including fire protection, law enforcement, water supply, wastewater, solid waste, and energy providers.
Section 4: Cumulative Effects. This section discusses the cumulative impacts associated with the proposed project, including the impacts of past, present, and probable future projects.
Section 5: Alternatives to the Proposed Project. This section compares the impacts of the proposed project with three land-use project alternatives: the No Project Alternative, the Zacharias Master Plan Only Alternative, the Reduced Density Alternative, and the Ivy Avenue Connection Alternative. An environmentally superior alternative is identified. In addition, alternatives initially considered but rejected from further consideration are discussed.
Section 6: Other CEQA Considerations. This section provides a summary of significant environmental impacts, including unavoidable and growth-inducing impacts. This section discusses the cumulative impacts associated with the proposed project, including the impacts of past, present, and probable future projects. In addition, the proposed project’s energy demand is discussed.
Section 7: Effects Found not to be Significant. This section contains analysis of the topical sections not addressed in Section 3.
Section 8: Persons and Organizations Consulted/List of Preparers. This section also contains a full list of persons and organizations that were consulted during the preparation of this Draft City of Patterson—Baldwin Master Plan / Zacharias Master Plan Project Draft EIR Introduction
FirstCarbon Solutions 1-7
https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/1790/17900003/EIR/3 - Draft EIR/17900003 Sec01-00 Introduction.docx EIR. This section also contains a full list of the authors who assisted in the preparation of the Draft EIR, by name and affiliation.
Section 9: References. This section contains a full list of references that were used in the preparation of this Draft EIR.
Appendices. This section includes all notices and other procedural documents pertinent to the Draft EIR, as well as all technical material prepared to support the analysis.
1.4 - Documents Incorporated by Reference
As permitted by CEQA Guidelines Section 15150, this Draft EIR has referenced several technical studies, analyses, and previously certified environmental documentation. Information from the documents, which have been incorporated by reference, has been briefly summarized in the appropriate section(s). The relationship between the incorporated part of the referenced document and the Draft EIR has also been described. The documents and other sources that have been used in the preparation of this Draft EIR include but are not limited to:
City of Patterson General Plan
Patterson Municipal Code
City of Patterson Urban Water Management Plan
These documents are specifically identified in Section 9, References, of this Draft EIR. In accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15150(b), the General Plan, the Urban Water Management Plan, and the referenced documents and other sources used in the preparation of the Draft EIR are available for review at Patterson City Hall at the address shown in Section 1.6.
1.5 - Documents Prepared for the Project
The following technical studies and analyses were prepared for the proposed project:
Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (Appendix B).
Air Quality / Energy / Greenhouse Analysis (Supporting information only; Appendix C) Biological Resources Analysis (Supporting information only; Appendix D) Cultural Resources Analysis (Supporting information only; Appendix E) Hydrological Analysis (Supporting information only; Appendix F) Noise Analysis (Supporting information only; Appendix G) Traffic Impact Study (Appendix H)
Water Supply Analysis (Appendix I)
1.6 - Review of the Draft EIR
Upon completion of the Draft EIR, the City of Patterson filed a Notice of Completion (NOC) with the State Office of Planning and Research to begin the public review period (Public Resources Code, Section 21161). Concurrent with the NOC, this Draft EIR has been distributed to responsible and trustee agencies, other affected agencies, surrounding cities, and interested parties, as well as all parties requesting a copy of the Draft EIR in accordance with Public Resources Code 21092(b)(3).
City of Patterson— Baldwin Master Plan / Zacharias Master Plan Project Introduction Draft EIR
1-8 FirstCarbon Solutions
https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/1790/17900003/EIR/3 - Draft EIR/17900003 Sec01-00 Introduction.docx During the public review period, the Draft EIR, including the technical appendices, is available for review at Patterson City Hall and the Patterson Library. The address for each location is provided below:
Patterson City Hall
1 Plaza Circle
Patterson, CA 95363
Hours: 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.
Monday-Friday
Closed Saturday-Sunday
Patterson Library
46 North Salado Avenue
Patterson, CA 95363
Hours: 12:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m.
Monday-Thursday
11:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Friday
Closed Saturday-Sunday
Agencies, organizations, and interested parties have the opportunity to comment on the Draft EIR during the 45-day public review period. Written comments on this Draft EIR should be addressed to:
Mr. Joel Andrews, City Planner
City of Patterson
Community Development Department
1 Plaza Circle
Patterson, CA 95363
Phone: 209.895.8020
Email: [email protected]
Submittal of electronic comments in Microsoft Word or Adobe PDF format is encouraged. Upon completion of the public review period, written responses to all significant environmental issues raised will be prepared and made available for review by the commenting agencies at least 10 days prior to the public hearing before the City Council on the proposed project, at which the certification of the Final EIR will be considered. Comments received and the responses to comments will be included as part of the record for consideration by decision makers for the proposed project.
City of Patterson—Baldwin Master Plan / Zacharias Master Plan Project Draft EIR Project Description
FirstCarbon Solutions 2-1
https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/1790/17900003/EIR/3 - Draft EIR/17900003 Sec02-00 Project Description.docx SECTION 2: PROJECT DESCRIPTION
This Environmental Impact Report (EIR) analyzes the potential environmental effects of the Baldwin Master Plan / Zacharias Master Plan Project (proposed project) in Patterson, California. Each Master Plan is independent of each other; however, because both involve similar types of development and in the same geographical area, they are being evaluated in a single EIR.
2.1 - Project Location and Setting
2.1.1 - Location
The Master Plans encompass a total of 1,227.1 acres outside the Patterson city limits in unincorporated Stanislaus County, California; refer to Exhibit 2-1.
The 1,158.4-acre Zacharias Master Plan is bounded by Rogers Road (west), Zacharias Road (north), the California Northern Railroad tracks and Ward Avenue (east), and existing residential and business park uses (south); refer to Exhibit 2-2.
The 68.7-acre Baldwin Master is located at the southern terminus of Baldwin Road and is bounded by the Delta-Mendota Canal (west), the City of Patterson Corporation Yard (north), and agricultural uses (east and south); refer to Exhibit 2-2.
The Master Plans are located on the Patterson, California United States Geological Survey (USGS)
7.5-Minute Quadrangle, Township 5 South, Range 7 East, Sections 23 and 24 (Latitude 37° 29’ 00” North; Longitude 121° 9’ 00” West).
2.1.2 - Existing Conditions
Zacharias Master Plan
West of Baldwin Road
This planning area contains agricultural land (orchards and row crops). A cluster of residential and agricultural buildings is present along Baldwin Avenue. West Stanislaus Irrigation District irrigation canal Lateral Six South, meanders from south-to-north through the western portion of this area; refer to Exhibit 2-3.
East of Baldwin Road
This planning area contains agricultural land (row crops) west of the Patterson Irrigation District (PID) Lateral M canal and the “Ranchette Triangle” residential area on the east side. West Stanislaus Irrigation District (WSID) irrigation canal Lateral Five South runs south-to-north, parallel to Baldwin Road.
An approximately 143.7-acre area, known as the Ranchette Triangle, is located in the eastern portion of the Zacharias Master Plan. The Ranchette Triangle consists of 31 parcels, 24 of which support a residence. Of the 24 parcels with a residence, 15 of them are residential only (most of which are 1 acre or less), while the others support some agricultural acreage as well. The largest parcels (4 acres City of Patterson— Baldwin Master Plan / Zacharias Master Plan Project Project Description Draft EIR
2-2 FirstCarbon Solutions
https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/1790/17900003/EIR/3 - Draft EIR/17900003 Sec02-00 Project Description.docx or more) support most of the agricultural acreage; refer to Exhibit 2-3. Six of the parcels, totaling
47.73 acres, are encumbered by active Williamson Act Contracts; 1 refer to Exhibit 3.2-4 in the
Agricultural Resources section.
Baldwin Master Plan
This planning area consists of orchards, along with a cluster of residential and agricultural buildings at the terminus of Baldwin Road; refer to Exhibit 2-2 and Exhibit 2-3.
2.1.3 - Surrounding Land Uses
Table 2-1 summarizes the surrounding land uses for Zacharias Master Plan and Baldwin Master Plan areas.
Table 2-1: Surrounding Land Use Summary
Area West North East South
Zacharias
Master
Plan
Rogers Road;
Arambel Business
Park (City of
Patterson)
Zacharias Road;
agricultural land
(unincorporated
Stanislaus County)
California Northern
Railroad right-of-way; State
Route 33 (unincorporated
Stanislaus County); Ward
Avenue; single-family
residential uses (City of
Patterson)
Keystone Pacific
Business Park; singlefamily residential
uses (City of
Patterson)
Baldwin
Master
Plan
Dela-Mendota
Canal2; agricultural
land
(unincorporated
Stanislaus County)
Tank Road; City of
Patterson Corporation
Yard; fallow
agricultural land (City
of Patterson)
Baldwin Road; agricultural
land (unincorporated
Stanislaus County)
Agricultural land
(unincorporated
Stanislaus County)
Source: FCS 2019.
2.1.4 - Land Use Designations
County of Stanislaus
The Stanislaus County General Plan designates the Zacharias Master Plan area as “Agriculture” (west of the PID Lateral M canal) and “Urban Transition” (east of the PID Lateral M canal). The Stanislaus County Zoning Ordinances zones this area “General Agriculture (A-2)” (west of the PID Lateral M canal) and “General Agriculture (A-2-10)” (east of the PID Lateral M canal).
The Stanislaus County General Plan designates the Baldwin Master Plan area as “Agriculture.” The Stanislaus County Zoning Ordinances zones this area as “General Agriculture (A-2).” 1 The City of Patterson protested the Williamson Act Contracts that encumbered these parcels when these properties were added to the City’s Sphere of Influence in the 1990s. Refer to Section 3.2, Agricultural Resources for further discussion. 2 The Delta-Mendota Canal is a 117-mile aqueduct that conveys delta water from the Clifton-Court Forebay in Contra Costa County to the Mendota Pool on the San Joaquin River in Fresno County. Refer to Section 3.9, Hydrology and Water Quality for further discussion of the Delta-Mendota Canal.
City of Patterson—Baldwin Master Plan / Zacharias Master Plan Project Draft EIR Project Description
FirstCarbon Solutions 2-3
https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/1790/17900003/EIR/3 - Draft EIR/17900003 Sec02-00 Project Description.docx City of Patterson
The City of Patterson General Plan designates both Master Plan areas as “Low Density Residential,” which is a non-binding designation. This is also a “placeholder” land use designation the City has assigned to unincorporated areas around the Patterson city limits and does not necessarily signify that the City intends for all of this land to be developed as low-density residential.
Sphere of Influence
The approximately 137-acre Ranchette Triangle is within the Patterson Sphere of Influence. All other portions of both Master Plan areas are outside the Patterson Sphere of Influence.
2.2 - Project Characteristics
2.2.1 - Proposed Project
The proposed Master Plans consist of the annexation of the planning areas into the City of Patterson and the development of residential, mixed use, commercial, industrial, school, parks, and open space uses. The buildout potential of the combined Master Plans is 5,086 dwelling units and 7,765,000 square feet of non-residential uses. The Master Plan process is being led by five property ownership groups (Zacharias Ranch, TFP Development, Lakeside Hills, Keystone Ranch, and Baldwin Ranch) that control 1,160 acres. The Master Plan Development Summary is provided in Table 2-2.
Exhibit 2-4 depicts the location of each development area within the Zacharias Master Plan boundaries.
Table 2-2: Zacharias Master Plan / Baldwin Master Plan Development Summary Planning
Area
Development
Area Location Land Use
Gross
Acreage Density
Dwelling
Units
Square
Footage
Zacharias
Master
Plan
Zacharias Ranch East of Rogers
Road; South of
Zacharias Road;
West of Baldwin
Road
Medium
Density
Residential
125.3 5.4–
5.5 700 —
Community
Commercial 22.2 — — 350,000
Light Industrial 317.5 — — 6,910,000
Park 10.0 — — —
Trails 3.7 — — —
Subtotal 478.7 — 700 7,260,000
TFP
Development
West of Baldwin
Road; North of
Keystone Pacific
Business Park
Low Density
Residential 64.8 5.1 378 —
Medium
Density
Residential
30.9 11.0 342
—
Park 12.6 — — —
Trails 3.5 — — —
City of Patterson— Baldwin Master Plan / Zacharias Master Plan Project Project Description Draft EIR
2-4 FirstCarbon Solutions
https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/1790/17900003/EIR/3 - Draft EIR/17900003 Sec02-00 Project Description.docx Planning
Area
Development
Area Location Land Use
Gross
Acreage Density
Dwelling
Units
Square
Footage
Subtotal 119.7 — 720 —
Lakeside Hills East of Baldwin
Road; South of
Zacharias Road;
West of PID Lateral
M
Medium
Density
Residential
294.4 6.8 2,005 —
High Density
Residential 17.9 18.0 322 —
Mixed Use 27.5 10.0 194 505,000
Park 24.3 — — —
Open
Space/Lake 13.4 — — —
Trails 10.2 — — —
Subtotal 387.7 — 2,521 505,000
Keystone Ranch East of Baldwin
Road; North of
Patterson City
Limits
Medium
Density
Residential
75.9 6.1–
7.1 498 —
High Density
Residential 12.6 17.1 216 —
Park 5.9 — — —
Trails 2.9 — — —
Subtotal 97.3 — 714 —
Ivy Rose
Gardens
(Ranchettes)
West of Ward
Avenue; East of PID
Lateral M
Low Density
Residential 143.7 3.0 431 —
Baldwin
Master
Plan
Baldwin Ranch South end of
Baldwin Road
Low Density
Residential 60.9 5.0 305 —
Park 2.0 — — —
Park/Basin 2.0
Buffer/Trails 1.0
Subtotal 65.9 — 305 —
Total Project — Low Density
Residential 216.4 — 809 —
Medium
Density
Residential
536.9 — 3,454 —
High Density
Residential 30.5 — 538 —
Mixed Use 27.5 — — 505,000
General 22.2 — — 350,000
City of Patterson—Baldwin Master Plan / Zacharias Master Plan Project Draft EIR Project Description
FirstCarbon Solutions 2-5
https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/1790/17900003/EIR/3 - Draft EIR/17900003 Sec02-00 Project Description.docx Planning
Area
Development
Area Location Land Use
Gross
Acreage Density
Dwelling
Units
Square
Footage
Commercial
Light Industrial 317.5 — — 6,910,000
Park/Trails 62.7 — — —
Open
Space/Lake 13.4 — — —
Total 1,227.1 — 5,086 7,765,000
Source: GDR Engineering 2019.
Buildout Estimates
At buildout, the Master Plans together would support an estimated 19,988 new residents and 8,670 employees. The Baldwin Master Plan would support a population of 1,199, while the Zacharias Master Plan would support a population of 18,789 and 8,670 employees. For the purposes of this EIR, buildout is assumed to occur over a 20-year period.
Zacharias Master Plan
The Zacharias Master Plan will contain the following elements:
Land Use Plan with development standards and design guidelines. These elements will demonstrate that the project will achieve complete neighborhoods with a mix of uses, a diversity of housing types, a neighborhood center, and an interconnected system of bicycle and pedestrian paths. The development standards will outline allowed land uses in each of the areas along with allowable setbacks, height, and floor area ratios. The Land Use Plan includes community landscaping concepts with attractive gateway features, walls, and signage.
Circulation Plan with a hierarchy of arterial, major, and minor collector streets that provide for ease of travel by auto, bicycles, and pedestrians. The arterial and collector street sections will include Class I or Class II bicycle paths and sidewalks separated from the roadway to encourage alternative modes of travel. The Circulation Plan includes traffic calming measures, including roundabouts.
Community Facilities Plan, including parks, open space, and schools. The Parks and Open Space Plan will provide for neighborhood parks within walking distance from every home. The Plan includes design guidelines for the central open space and lake feature as an active community gathering space.
Infrastructure and Public Facilities Plan with provisions for water, wastewater, and stormwater.
Implementation Plan that includes project phasing and financing, the subdivision and development approval process, and affordable housing.
City of Patterson— Baldwin Master Plan / Zacharias Master Plan Project Project Description Draft EIR
2-6 FirstCarbon Solutions
https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/1790/17900003/EIR/3 - Draft EIR/17900003 Sec02-00 Project Description.docx Land Use Plan
The Zacharias Master Plan consists of four development areas: Zacharias Ranch, TFP Development, Lakeside Hills, and Keystone Ranch. Exhibit 2-5 depicts the Zacharias Master Plan Land Use Plan.
West of Baldwin Road (Zacharias Ranch and TFP Development) The area west of Baldwin Road would support a mix of residential, commercial, and industrial development. Residential uses consisting of 1,420 dwelling units at low and medium densities would be located in the eastern portion of the planning area along Baldwin Road within the Zacharias Ranch area. A 16-acre school site would be located in the center of this planning area. A 22.81-acre community commercial area is proposed at the southwest quadrant of the Zacharias Road/Baldwin Road intersection. Industrial uses would front Rogers Road, across from the Arambel Business Park.
East of Baldwin Road (Lakeside Hills and Keystone Ranch) The area east of Baldwin Road would support primarily residential uses and would be organized around several proposed man-made “lakes.” Residential uses would consist of 3,666 dwelling units at low, medium, and high densities. Mixed use would be designated around the western most-lake.
The lakes would provide drainage, recharge, and recreational opportunities. A 14-acre school site would be located within this planning area (See discussion of schools later in this section).
Ranchette Triangle (Ivy Rose Gardens)
At the time of this writing, the Ranchette Triangle property owners (also referred to as Ivy Rose Gardens) have not presented a development proposal to the City of Patterson. Moreover, six parcels are currently encumbered by active Williamson Act contracts and several property owners have expressed a desire to continue their existing land use activities for the foreseeable future. As such, the Master Plan has designated the Ivy Rose Gardens area as “Low Density Residential.” This designation allows property owners to continue their existing land use activities or develop residential uses at a density of no greater than 3.0 dwelling units per acre. Should property owners seek to develop higher density residential uses or non-residential uses, they would be required to undertake separate environmental review.
Baldwin Master Plan
The Baldwin Master Plan will contain the following elements:
Land Use Plan with development standards and design guidelines. These elements will demonstrate that the project will achieve complete neighborhoods with a mix of uses, a diversity of housing types, a neighborhood center, and an interconnected system of bicycle and pedestrian paths. The development standards will outline allowed land uses in each of the areas along with allowable setbacks, height, and floor area ratios. The Land Use Plan includes community landscaping concepts with attractive gateway features, walls, and signage.
Circulation Plan with a hierarchy of arterial, major, and minor collector streets that provide for ease of travel by auto, bicycles and pedestrians. The arterial and collector street sections will include Class I or Class II bicycle paths and sidewalks separated from the roadway to City of Patterson—Baldwin Master Plan / Zacharias Master Plan Project Draft EIR Project Description
FirstCarbon Solutions 2-7
https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/1790/17900003/EIR/3 - Draft EIR/17900003 Sec02-00 Project Description.docx encourage alternative modes of travel. The Circulation Plan includes traffic calming measures, including roundabouts.
Community Facilities Plan, including parks, open space, and schools. The Parks and Open Space Plan will provide for neighborhood parks within walking distance from every home. The Plan includes design guidelines for the central open space and lake feature as an active community gathering space.
Infrastructure and Public Facilities Plan with provisions for water, wastewater, and stormwater.
Implementation Plan that includes project phasing and financing, the subdivision and development approval process, and affordable housing.
Land Use Plan
The Baldwin Master Plan would support exclusively residential uses. A park would be located in the center of this planning area. A 1-acre landscaped buffer would be provided around the City of Patterson Corporation Yard. Exhibit 2-6 depicts the Baldwin Master Plan Land Use Plan.
Circulation
Zacharias Master Plan
East and west of Baldwin Road, a network of internal roadways would connect to Rogers Road, Zacharias Road, and Baldwin Road. These latter roadways would be improved to arterial roadway standards, as contemplated by the General Plan Circulation Element. Exhibit 2-7a depicts the Zacharias Master Plan circulation plan. Exhibit 2-7b depicts the Zacharias Master Plan street sections.
The circulation plan contemplates Rose Avenue and Ivy Avenue remaining cul-de-sacs with a gated Emergency Vehicle Access allowing restricted access to the Zacharias Master Plan area.
New East-West Connection to Ward Avenue and State Route 33 In lieu of or in addition to the aforementioned Ivy Avenue extension, the Zacharias Master Plan contemplates a separate east-west connection to Ward Avenue and State Route 33 (SR-33). Within the northern portion of the Ranchette Triangle, this roadway would follow the property line between the Torrison and Gupta properties. Between Ward Avenue and SR-33, this roadway would follow an undeveloped portion of a medical office property. Right-of-way acquisition would be required for this roadway. The roadway would be four lanes between SR-33 and the PID canal, where it would transition to two lanes.
The new intersection with SR-33 would be signalized. The existing Ward Avenue/SR-33 intersection would either be closed or converted to restricted access (e.g., right-in, right-out). Ward Avenue would ultimately be extended along the west side of the railroad tracks to provide access to the northern portion of the Ranchette Triangle.
The East-West Connection is shown in Exhibit 2-7a.
City of Patterson— Baldwin Master Plan / Zacharias Master Plan Project Project Description Draft EIR
2-8 FirstCarbon Solutions
https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/1790/17900003/EIR/3 - Draft EIR/17900003 Sec02-00 Project Description.docx South County Corridor
The Stanislaus Council of Governments is studying the development of a South County Corridor between Interstate 5 (I-5) near Patterson and SR-99 in Turlock. A Feasibility Study was released in 2016 that considered alignment options and recommended that three of the alternatives be carried forward for further review. Two of those alternatives contemplate an I-5/South County Corridor interchange northwest of the Master Plan area, with the alignment following Zacharias Road to SR33, where a grade separated interchange would be constructed. Exhibit 2-7c depicts the South County Corridor Feasibility Study’s roadway section for a six-lane expressway, which is the type of facility contemplated between I-5 and SR-33. As shown in the exhibit, the six-lane expressway section would be 135 feet wide. As such, the Zacharias Master Plan would reserve frontage that is within 67.5 feet of the Zacharias Road centerline for the planned South County Corridor.
The Master Plan’s circulation plan accommodates these two alignments of the future South County Corridor and limits the number of connections along Zacharias Road. 3 If the South County Corridor is
not developed along Zacharias Road, this roadway would still be improved to arterial standards. As shown in Exhibit 2-7b, Zacharias Road would have an 85-foot section under this scenario and, thus, the Zacharias Master Plan would need only dedicate frontage that is within 42.5 feet of the Zacharias Road centerline.
Baldwin Master Plan
The circulation plan anticipates Baldwin Road being extended south to a future hypothetical extension of Elfers Road. Additionally, the City of Patterson Corporation Yard access road, would be improved and extended west to provide access to the western portion of this planning area. Exhibit 2-7d depicts the Baldwin Master Plan circulation plan.
School Sites
At the request of Patterson Unified School District (PUSD), the Zacharias Master Plan identifies a 14- acre elementary school site east of Baldwin Road and a 16-acre middle school site west of Baldwin Road. Exhibit 2-8 depicts the conceptual locations of the school sites.
Following adoption of the Zacharias Master Plan entitlements, PUSD will have a defined period of time to exercise its option to acquire and develop the schools. Should PUSD forego acquiring and developing one or both school sites, the land would revert to the property owner for residential development.
PUSD is identified as a Responsible Agency and would have the option of using this EIR as the basis for satisfying its environmental review requirements for the development of the schools.
Future High School
PUSD purchased 40 acres for a future high school at the northwest corner of Zacharias Road/Baldwin Road outside the Zacharias Master Plan boundaries. Although this high school is not within the scope of this EIR, a proposed flood control basin that is contemplated by the Zacharias Master Plan is 3 The other proposed alignment of the South County Corridor would connect to I-5 at Fink Road near Crows Landing, bypassing Patterson. This alignment would not have any implications of the Master Plan’s circulation plan.
City of Patterson—Baldwin Master Plan / Zacharias Master Plan Project Draft EIR Project Description
FirstCarbon Solutions 2-9
https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/1790/17900003/EIR/3 - Draft EIR/17900003 Sec02-00 Project Description.docx adjacent to this site. The future high school would receive flood protection benefits from this basin.
Refer to the discussion of ‘Off-site Flood Control Basin’ that occurs later in this chapter.
Parks
The Master Plan designates 62.7 acres of parks. These facilities would include active and passive parks and would be connected via a path network described below. Parks are shown on Exhibit 2-8.
Paths
An off-street path system is proposed within the Master Plan area. Paths would follow features such as proposed roadways and existing irrigation canals. A 30-foot-wide trail corridor would be provided along the east side of Baldwin Road that would contain the WSID Lateral Five South Canal. Paths would be developed incrementally as the Master Plan area builds out. Exhibit 2-8 depicts the path network.
Infrastructure and Utilities
Storm Drainage
The proposed project would include construction of a storm drainage system consisting of bioswales, inlets, and underground piping that would convey runoff to stormwater basins.
Zacharias Master Plan
The Storm Drain Master Plan for the Zacharias Master Plan is shown on Exhibit 2-9a. The storm drainage control facilities will be implemented within the Zacharias Master Planning Area with the intention of achieving following:
Flood Control for the 10-year, 24-hour storm (detention basins) for individual areas, and corresponding Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition (SCADA) outlet devices and lines.
Flood Control for the 100-year, 24-hour storm (retention basins and wet basin lakes) for the entire Zacharias Master Planning Area.
The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Solution for retaining the 100-year FEMA floodplain (183 acre-feet of runoff based on the 100-year Flood Depths for Del Puerto Creek Hydraulic Model by Balance Hydrologies, Inc.) for the Zacharias Master Planning Area.
Recharge of the stormwater runoff into the lower aquifer groundwater table below to Corcoran Clay Layer, where the City’s potable water wells draw water from.
The storm drainage system will utilize multiple stages of storage involving both detention and retention purposes for the project site. The Zacharias Ranch Planning Area will utilize a mix of detention (designed for 10-year, 24-hour storage) and retention (designed for 100-year, 24-hour storage) basins. Both types of basins will have SCADA gravity outlet systems with corresponding pipelines to meter the flow out of the basins. The retention basins will be designed to drain stormwater through the SCADA system for up to a 10-year, 24 hour storm event, with the basin retaining and percolating the runoff for corresponding drainage areas for any storm event exceeding a 10-year, 24-hour event; up to a 100-year, 24 hour event. The TPF Development and Keystone City of Patterson— Baldwin Master Plan / Zacharias Master Plan Project Project Description Draft EIR
2-10 FirstCarbon Solutions
https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/1790/17900003/EIR/3 - Draft EIR/17900003 Sec02-00 Project Description.docx Ranch Planning Areas will each have a retention basin with corresponding SCADA outlet systems draining to the lakes. The Ivy Rose Gardens Planning Area will have a detention basin with a pump station and force main for metering water out of the basin to the lakes. The pump station will be designed for a minimum 1360 gallons per minute (gpm) flowrate.
The Lakeside Hills Development Area will have a series of wet basin lakes for flood control. These lakes will be designed to hold the entirety of the 100-year, 24-hour storm event for the Lakeside Hills Development Area, as well as the difference between the 100-year and 10-year events for the detention basins within the Zacharias Ranch and Ivy Rose Gardens Planning Areas. This will achieve the ultimate goal of storing the 100-year, 24-hour storm event for the entirety of the Zacharias Master Planning Area between the lakes and retention basins. Consequently, the lakes will store the 10-year, 24-hour storm event for the entire Zacharias Master Planning Area, as both the detention and retention basins will drain to the lakes for any storm event equal to or below the 10-year event.
The lakes will drain to a pump station that will meter out through a force main to the FEMA Basin.
The pump station will have a maximum output of 2000 gpm for draining the lakes. Note that the dry basins (detention basins and retention basins) are designed for a maximum 48-hour drawdown period, whereas the lakes are not required as such.
The FEMA Basin will act as a solution to the FEMA requirement to divert or retain the 100-year flood runoff for the Zacharias Master Planning Area, which is shown in Exhibit 2-9b. The location of the basin is at a chokepoint in Del Puerto Creek 100-year flood hazard area and, thus, would capture flood flows ‘upstream’ of the Zacharias Master Plan area. The basin will be designed with a twostage system for an upper reservoir and lower reservoir area. The lower reservoir will be utilized during smaller storms for a combination of runoff from the floodplain, and for intermediate storage for the stormwater pumped from the lakes. The upper reservoir will be reserved for major storms where floodplain runoff exceeds the lower reservoir. The basin will be designed to percolate the FEMA floodplain runoff within a 48-hour drawdown period. The basin will have an inlet structure attached to the force main coming from the wet basin lakes, and an outlet structure with corresponding pump station. The basin pump will operate at a maximum 2000 gpm flowrate, so as to drain the stormwater coming from the lakes, and a channel will be provided to minimize infiltration occurrence for the water from the lakes.
The outlet force main from the FEMA Basin will flow to the Recharge Basin Facility, to the northwest of the Zacharias Master Planning Area. The Recharge Basin Facility, shown in Exhibit 2-9c, will be located at the existing rock quarry, where a location has been designated by the City of Patterson.
The location noted does not have the Corcoran Clay Layer (an impervious layer separating the potable and non-potable water tables), and instead infiltrates directly into the lower aquifer. The overall Zacharias Master Planning Area will have an annual runoff of 604 acre-feet per year, or 0.539 million gallons per day. The vast majority of this stormwater will be recharged through the Recharge Basin Facility.
The project area facilities provided will be subject to the most up-to-date version of the City of Patterson’s Multi-Agency Post Construction Manual, and the corresponding Phase II Permit requirements for stormwater. The developers for each project area will be responsible for meeting City of Patterson—Baldwin Master Plan / Zacharias Master Plan Project Draft EIR Project Description
FirstCarbon Solutions 2-11
https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/1790/17900003/EIR/3 - Draft EIR/17900003 Sec02-00 Project Description.docx these requirements within their project areas (Zacharias Ranch, TPF Development, Keystone Ranch, Lakeside Hills, and Ivy Rose Gardens Planning Areas) and maintaining such facilities as required.
Del Puerto Canyon Dam and Reservoir
On October 21, 2020, the Del Puerto Water District certified the Final Environmental Impact Report (State Clearinghouse [SCH] No. 2019060254) for a proposed 82,000 acre-foot reservoir in Del Puerto Canyon, west of the City of Patterson. The reservoir would be impounded by a dam on Del Puerto Creek west of I-5. Should the dam and reservoir be constructed as proposed, it would provide flood protection benefits to the Zacharias Master Plan area and eliminate the need for the flood control basin. However, since the Del Puerto Canyon Reservoir has not been approved and fully funded at the time of this writing, the City of Patterson has conservatively assumed that the Zacharias Master Plan area would not receive any flood protection benefits from the dam and reservoir.
Baldwin Master Plan
The Baldwin Master Plan contemplates a storm drainage system consisting of bioswales, inlets, and underground piping that would convey runoff to stormwater basins. The Baldwin Master Plan storm drainage system would connect to the existing municipal system and no off-site improvements would be necessary. Exhibit 2-9d depicts the Baldwin Master Plan storm drainage system.
Water
Potable Water
The City of Patterson would provide potable water service to the Master Plan areas. Additionally, property owners would be required to use non-potable groundwater for irrigation purposes. Exhibit 2-10a depicts the Zacharias Master Plan potable water system and Exhibit 2-10b depicts the Baldwin Master Plan potable water system.
Non-Potable Water
The City of Patterson would provide non-potable water service to the Zacharias Master Plan area.
Exhibit 2-11 depicts the Zacharias Master Plan non-potable water system. The Baldwin Master Plan area is not proposed to be served with non-potable water.
Wastewater
The City of Patterson would provide wastewater collection and treatment service to the Master Plan areas.
Zacharias Master Plan
The City of Patterson provides sanitary sewer service facilities for the City through the use of sanitary sewer main, trunks lines, pump stations, force mains, and the Sewer Treatment Plant. The Zacharias Master Planning Area will provide sanitary sewer collection systems for the planning areas.
The sewer main for the two southwestern warehouses in the Zacharias Ranch Planning Area leading south to the existing sewer main in Keystone Pacific Parkway. This will eventually tie into the existing trunk sewer system running through Sperry and Ward Avenues.
City of Patterson— Baldwin Master Plan / Zacharias Master Plan Project Project Description Draft EIR
2-12 FirstCarbon Solutions
https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/1790/17900003/EIR/3 - Draft EIR/17900003 Sec02-00 Project Description.docx For the TPF Development, Keystone Ranch, and the southern parcels of the Ivy Rose Gardens Planning Areas, a new sewer main will be constructed in Rose Avenue and Ward Avenue to the existing sewer main on Vicki Lynn Lane. The existing 10-inch sewer line on Vicki Lynn Lane will be upgraded to a larger 12-inch line heading southeast towards Salado Creek; up to the existing 8-inch line running parallel to North 4
th Street that currently connects to the M Street Trunk Line. A new line on 4th Street will be constructed to help re-route the sewer past the existing blockage in the sewer system on M Street, with the existing 8-inch line being rebuilt/refurbished as necessary. The connection on Ward Avenue and Vicki Lynn Lane will be a temporary connection until the North Patterson Trunk Sewer (NPTS) Line is constructed and operational to the Zacharias Master Planning Area. Upon the operation of the NPTS Line, a sewer line will be constructed to connect north to the NPTS Line, and the connection to Vicki Lynn Lane will be disconnected.
The Lakeside Hills Planning Area, and remainder of the Ivy Rose Gardens and Zacharias Ranch Planning Areas, will connect to the NPTS Line where appropriate. Their construction will be triggered after construction of the NPTS Line up to their property limits, or whenever appropriate afterwards.
The NPTS Line will be sized and constructed based on the proposed buildout within the City of Patterson Sewer Master Plan.
The project area sanitary sewer facilities are as shown on Exhibit 2-12a. The extension of the NPTS Line, including sizing and facilities, will be as shown on Exhibit 2-12b. The temporary connection to Vicki Lynn Lane and re-routing of the sewer main on 4th Street will be as shown on Exhibit 2-12c.
Baldwin Master Plan
The City of Patterson provides sanitary sewer service facilities for the City through the use of sanitary sewer main, trunks lines, pump stations, force mains, and the Sewer Treatment Plant. The Baldwin Ranch Master Planning Area will provide sanitary sewer collection systems for the planning area.
A sewer main will be constructed in Baldwin Road connecting the Baldwin Ranch Planning Area. This line will flow north; connecting to the existing North Sperry Trunk Line (NSTL) in Sperry Avenue. The NSTL is currently not in operable conditions and is disconnected from the existing working trunk sewer main in Sperry Avenue. Prior to connection to the NSTL, work will be done on rehabbing the existing NSTL and reconnecting it to the existing trunk sewer system. This is consistent with the current City of Patterson Sewer Master Plan.
The layout of the sewer facilities will be as shown on Exhibit 2-12d.
Electricity
Turlock Irrigation District would provide electrical service to the Zacharias Master Plan and Baldwin Master Plan. All new electrical lines and service laterals would be located underground.
Natural Gas
Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E) would provide natural gas service to the Zacharias Master Plan and Baldwin Master Plan. All new gas lines and service laterals would be located underground.
City of Patterson—Baldwin Master Plan / Zacharias Master Plan Project Draft EIR Project Description
FirstCarbon Solutions 2-13
https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/1790/17900003/EIR/3 - Draft EIR/17900003 Sec02-00 Project Description.docx Canals
Zacharias Master Plan
The existing PID and WSID irrigation canals located within the Zacharias Master Plan may be relocated underground as pipelines as the area builds out. The WSID Lateral Five South Canal that parallels Baldwin Road would be converted to an underground pipeline to accommodate the 30-foot landscaped buffer/Class I pathway. Additionally, their alignments may change to accommodate roadway improvements. All modifications to these facilities would occur in cooperation with PID and WSID.
Baldwin Master Plan
No modifications are proposed to the Delta-Mendota Canal as part of the development of the South Area. A setback would be established between the canal and the proposed uses.
Phasing
Zacharias Master Plan
A summary of the Zacharias Master Plan phasing in provided in Table 2-3. The areas closest to existing development would develop first, followed by the outlying areas, and finally the Ivy Rose Gardens. This phasing plan reflects the economic factors associated with the costs of new infrastructure and, therefore, the areas that require the least costly infrastructure would develop first. The phasing plan is conceptual and does not preclude overlapping phases. Exhibit 2-13 depicts the phasing plan.
Table 2-3: Zacharias Master Plan Phasing Summary
Phase Development Area Gross Acreage Dwelling Units Square Footage 1A Keystone Ranch 97.3 714 —
1B TFP Development 199.7 720 —
1C Zacharias Ranch 478.7 — 7,260,000
2A Zacharias Ranch 478.7 700 —
2B Lakeside Hills 387.7 2,521 505,000
3A Ivy Rose Gardens 143
3B Ivy Rose Gardens 143
Source: GDR Engineering 2019.
Baldwin Master Plan
The Baldwin Master Plan would be developed in a single phase.
City of Patterson— Baldwin Master Plan / Zacharias Master Plan Project Project Description Draft EIR
2-14 FirstCarbon Solutions
https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/1790/17900003/EIR/3 - Draft EIR/17900003 Sec02-00 Project Description.docx Discretionary Approvals
Sphere of Influence Adjustment, Annexation, and Detachment The Patterson Sphere of Influence would be adjusted to include the 1,160 acres of the Master Plan area that are currently outside of this boundary. The entire 1,297 Master Plan area would be annexed into the City of Patterson.
Because the Master Plan area would be located within the Patterson city limits (and thus receive City services), the affected parcels would be detached from the PID and the West Stanislaus Fire Protection District. Property owners will have the discretion to enter into Out-of-Boundary Service Agreements with PID and WSID in order to continue to receive irrigation water for continuation of interim agricultural activities.
General Plan Amendment and Prezone
A General Plan Amendment would be processed to designate the Master Plan area with the appropriate land use designations. The Master Plan area would be prezoned in a similar fashion.
2.3 - Project Objectives
The objectives of the proposed project are to:
1. Promote positive contribution to the local and regional economy through new capital investment, creation of new employment and housing opportunities, and expansion of the tax base.
2. Develop a mix of new residential uses in proximity to a regional job center.
3. Continue to attract new businesses to the City of Patterson by providing adequate, available land and infrastructure.
4. Facilitate buildout of the City of Patterson General Plan.
5. Maintain a high quality of life in the City of Patterson through the provision of schools, parks, open spaces, and trails in residential areas.
6. Facilitate the development of the South County Corridor by reserving land for the future alignment of this transportation corridor and limiting new connections from the Master Plan area.
7. Promote land use compatibility with the Ranchette area by appropriately citing roadway connections and affording property owners the option of maintaining their existing land use activities or developing low density residential uses.
8. Ensure that the Patterson city limits are expanded in an orderly and logical manner.
9. Avoid the premature conversion of viable agricultural land through the use of buffers and by affording property owners the ability to continue to farm their land until the time is right for development.
City of Patterson—Baldwin Master Plan / Zacharias Master Plan Project Draft EIR Project Description
FirstCarbon Solutions 2-15
https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/1790/17900003/EIR/3 - Draft EIR/17900003 Sec02-00 Project Description.docx
10. Work with PID and WSID to protect groundwater resources and their irrigation canals as the Master Plan area transitions from agricultural/rural residential to urban use.
2.4 - Intended Uses of This Draft EIR
This Draft EIR is being prepared by the City of Patterson to assess the potential environmental impacts that may arise in connection with actions related to implementation of the proposed project. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15367, the City of Patterson is the lead agency for the proposed project and has discretionary authority over the proposed project and project approvals.
The Draft EIR is intended to address all public infrastructure improvements and all future development that are within the parameters of the proposed project.
2.4.1 - Discretionary and Ministerial Actions
Discretionary approvals and permits are required by the City of Patterson for implementation of the proposed project. The project application would require the following discretionary approvals and actions, including:
Certification of the Environmental Impact Report
Master Plan Adoption
General Plan Amendment
Prezone
Subdivision Maps; Parcel Maps
Use Permit(s)
Design Review
Development Agreement(s)
Additionally, approval of the project would require the following discretionary approvals from Stanislaus County Local Agency Formation Commission:
Adjustment of Sphere of Influence
Annexation/Detachment
Out of Boundary Service Agreement(s)
Subsequent ministerial actions would be required for the implementation of the proposed project including issuance of grading and building permits.
2.4.2 - Responsible and Trustee Agencies
A number of other agencies in addition to the City of Patterson will serve as Responsible and Trustee Agencies, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15381 and Section 15386, respectively. This Draft EIR will provide environmental information to these agencies and other public agencies, which may be required to grant approvals or coordinate with other agencies, as part of project implementation.
These agencies may include, but are not limited to, the following:
United States Army Corps of Engineers
United States Fish and Wildlife Service
City of Patterson— Baldwin Master Plan / Zacharias Master Plan Project Project Description Draft EIR
2-16 FirstCarbon Solutions
https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/1790/17900003/EIR/3 - Draft EIR/17900003 Sec02-00 Project Description.docx San Luis and Delta-Mendota Water Authority
California Department of Fish and Wildlife
Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board
California Department of Transportation
California Public Utilities Commission
San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control Board
County of Stanislaus
Stanislaus Local Agency Formation Commission
Stanislaus Council of Governments
Patterson Unified School District
Patterson Irrigation District
Wets Stanislaus Irrigation District
West Stanislaus Fire Protection District
Actions that are necessary to implement the project that must be taken by other agencies are:
Issuance of Clean Water Act Section 404 Individual and Nationwide Permits and Section 401 Water Quality Certification.
Issuance of Lake and Streambed Alteration Agreements.
Rule 9510 Indirect Source Review
Adjustment of Sphere of Influence
Annexation/Detachment
Approval of Out-of-Boundary Service Agreement(s)
School Site Development Approvals
!
·|}þ165
·|}þ120
·|}þ108
·|}þ132
·|}þ33
%&'(580
%&'(205
·|}þ33
·|}þ
%&'(
San Joaquin
River
Crows Landing
Great Valley
Grasslands
St Pk
Henry Coe
State Park
Manteca
Oakdale
Tracy
Modesto
Ceres
Turlock
Ripon
Patterson
Newman
Gustine
Lathrop
5 2.5 0 5
Miles
!
Text
Project Site
I
Project Site
5 99
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
17900003 • 05/2020 | 2-2_local_aerial.mxd
Exhibit 2-2
Local Vicinity Map
Aerial Base
Source: Google Earth Aerial Imagery.
CITY OF PATTERSON • BALDWIN MASTER PLAN / ZACHARIAS MASTER PLAN PROJECT
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Sperry Ave
Zacharias Rd
33 Lateral M
5 City of Patterson Corporation
Yard and Water Tank
Lateral 5 South
Lateral 6 South
Patterson
High School
Creekside
Middle School
Apricot Valley
Elementary School
Arambel
Business Park
Keystone Pacific
Business Park
West Patterson
Business Park
Pacific P
City of Patterson
County of Stanislaus
County of Stanislaus
City of Patterson
2,000 1,000 0 2,000
Feet
Legend
Planning Areas
Zacharias Master Plan
Baldwin Master Plan
cities
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
City of Patterson—Baldwin Master Plan / Zacharias Master Plan Project Draft EIR Environmental Impact Analysis
FirstCarbon Solutions 3-1
https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/1790/17900003/EIR/3 - Draft EIR/17900003 Sec03-00 Env Impact Analysis.docx SECTION 3: ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ANALYSIS
Organization of Issue Areas
This Draft Environmental Impact Report (Draft EIR) provides analysis of impacts for those environmental topics where it was determined in the Notice of Preparation, or through subsequent analysis that the proposed project would result in “potentially significant impacts.” Sections 3.1 through 3.15 discuss the environmental impacts that may result with approval and implementation of the proposed project.
Issues Addressed in this EIR
The following environmental issues are addressed in Section 3:
Aesthetics, Light, and Glare
Agricultural Resources
Air Quality
Biological Resources
Cultural Resources and Tribal Cultural Resources
Geology, Soils, and Seismicity
Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Hydrology and Water Quality
Land Use
Noise
Population and Housing
Public Services and Recreation
Transportation
Utilities and Service Systems
Level of Significance
Determining the severity of project impacts is fundamental to achieving the objectives of California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). CEQA Guidelines Section 15091 requires that decision makers mitigate, as completely as is feasible, the significant impacts identified in the Final EIR. If the EIR identifies any significant unmitigated impacts, CEQA Guidelines Section 15093 requires decision makers in approving a project to adopt a statement of overriding considerations that explains why the benefits of the project outweigh the adverse environmental consequences identified in the EIR.
The level of significance for each impact examined in this Draft EIR was determined by considering the predicted magnitude of the impact against the applicable threshold. Thresholds were developed using criteria from the CEQA Guidelines and checklist; State, federal, and local regulatory schemes; local/regional plans and ordinances; accepted practice; consultation with recognized experts; and other professional opinions.
City of Patterson—Baldwin Master Plan / Zacharias Master Plan Project Environmental Impact Analysis Draft EIR
3-2 FirstCarbon Solutions
https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/1790/17900003/EIR/3 - Draft EIR/17900003 Sec03-00 Env Impact Analysis.docx Impact Analysis and Mitigation Measure Format
The format adopted in this EIR to present the evaluation of impacts is described and illustrated below.
Summary Heading of Impact
Impact AES-1: An impact summary heading appears immediately preceding the impact description (Summary Heading of Impact in this example). The impact number identifies the section of the report (AES for Aesthetics, Light, and Glare in this example) and the sequential order of the impact (1 in this example) within that section. To the right of the impact number is the impact statement, which identifies the potential impact.
Impact Analysis
A narrative analysis follows the impact statement.
Level of Significance Before Mitigation
This section identifies the level of significance of the impact before any mitigation is proposed.
Mitigation Measures
In some cases, following the impact discussion, reference is made to state and federal regulations and agency policies that would fully or partially mitigate the impact. In addition, policies and programs from applicable local land use plans that partially or fully mitigate the impact may be cited.
Project-specific mitigation measures, beyond those contained in other documents, are set off with a summary heading and described using the format presented below:
MM AES-1 Project-specific mitigation is identified that would reduce the impact to the lowest degree feasible. The mitigation number links the particular mitigation to the impact it is associated with (AES-1 in this example); mitigation measures are numbered sequentially.
Level of Significance After Mitigation
This section identifies the resulting level of significance of the impact following mitigation.
Abbreviations used in the mitigation measure numbering are:
Code Environmental Issue
AES Aesthetics, Light, and Glare
AG Agricultural Resources
AIR Air Quality
BIO Biological Resources
City of Patterson—Baldwin Master Plan / Zacharias Master Plan Project Draft EIR Environmental Impact Analysis
FirstCarbon Solutions 3-3
https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/1790/17900003/EIR/3 - Draft EIR/17900003 Sec03-00 Env Impact Analysis.docx Code Environmental Issue
CUL Cultural Resources and Tribal Cultural Resources
GEO Geology, Soils, and Seismicity
GHG Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Energy
HAZ Hazards and Hazardous Materials
HYD Hydrology and Water Quality
LU Land Use
NOI Noise
POP Population and Housing
PSR Public Services and Recreation
TRANS Transportation
US Utilities and Service Systems
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
City of Patterson—Baldwin Master Plan / Zacharias Master Plan Project Draft EIR Aesthetics, Light, and Glare
FirstCarbon Solutions 3.1-1
https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/1790/17900003/EIR/3 - Draft EIR/17900003 Sec03-01 Aesthetics.docx
3.1 - Aesthetics, Light, and Glare
3.1.1 - Introduction
This section describes the existing aesthetics, light, and glare setting and potential effects from project implementation on visual resources and the site and its surroundings. Descriptions and analysis in this section are based reconnaissance by FirstCarbon Solutions (FCS) and review of the Baldwin Master Plan, Zacharias on-site Master Plan, and the City of Patterson General Plan.
3.1.2 - Environmental Setting
Regional Context
Patterson, population 23,764, is located on the west side of the San Joaquin Valley in Stanislaus County at the foot of the Diablo Range. Patterson has historically been an agricultural community and is known as the “Apricot Capital of the World” due to the approximately 3,850 acres of apricot orchards located in the surrounding area. The city is centered around Plaza Circle, with a radial/spoke network of roads radiating outward. Mission architecture, apricots, and palm trees are aesthetic features visible throughout the city. Interstate 5 (I-5) and the California Aqueduct form the western edge of Patterson.
Patterson has experienced substantial residential and non-residential development in the past two decades as the population has increased by more than 12,000 and employment has increased by 6,000. The City of Patterson General Plan envisions substantial growth between the freeway and the San Joaquin River, with an ultimate buildout population of approximately 60,000 and employment of 32,196.
Visual Character
Zacharias Master Plan
West of Baldwin Road
The Master Plan area contains agricultural land (orchards and row crops). A cluster of residential and agricultural buildings is present along Baldwin Avenue. Lateral Six South, a West Stanislaus Irrigation District (WSID) canal, runs south-to-north near Rogers Road; refer to Exhibit 2-3.
Rogers Road forms the western boundary of the Master Plan area. Zacharias Road forms the northern of the Master Plan area. The Keystone Pacific Business Park forms the southern boundary.
East of Baldwin Road
The Master Plan area contains agricultural land (row crops) west of the Patterson Irrigation District (PID) Lateral M canal and the “Ranchette Triangle” residential area on the east side. WSID Lateral Five South, an irrigation canal, runs south-to-north parallel to Baldwin Road; refer to Exhibit 2-3.
The approximately 143.7-acre Ranchette Triangle consists of 31 parcels, 24 of which support a residence. Of the 24 parcels with a residence, 15 of them are residential only (most of which are 1 acre or less). The largest parcels (4 acres or more) support most of the agricultural acreage.
City of Patterson—Baldwin Master Plan / Zacharias Master Plan Project Aesthetics, Light, and Glare Draft EIR
3.1-2 FirstCarbon Solutions
https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/1790/17900003/EIR/3 - Draft EIR/17900003 Sec03-01 Aesthetics.docx Zacharias Road forms the northern of the Master Plan area. State Route 33 (SR-33) and Ward Avenue form the western boundary of the Master Plan area. The Patterson Garden residential neighborhood forms the southern boundary.
Baldwin Master Plan
The Master Plan area contains agricultural land (orchards). A cluster of residential and agricultural buildings is present at the terminus of Baldwin Road; refer to Exhibit 2-3.
The City of Patterson Corporation Yard and a municipal water storage tank is located adjacent to the northern boundary of the Master Plan area. The Delta-Mendota Canal forms the western boundary of the Master Plan area. Baldwin Road forms the eastern boundary of the Master Plan area.
State Scenic Highways
I-5 is classified as an “officially designated” State Scenic Highway within Stanislaus County.
Light and Glare
Light and glare are anthropogenic sources of brightness that have the ability to diminish the quality of daytime or nighttime views or create hazardous conditions for aviation. Examples include exterior lighting, illuminated signage, reflective building materials, and solar panels.
Baldwin Master Plan
Exterior lighting associated with the cluster of structures are the only sources of light within the Master Plan area.
Zacharias Master Plan
Exterior lighting associated with structures are the primary sources of light within the Master Plan area. These light sources are concentrated within the Ranchette Triangle.
3.1.3 - Regulatory Framework
State
California Scenic Highway Program
The California Scenic Highway Program is intended to preserve and protect scenic highway corridors from change that would diminish the aesthetic value of lands adjacent to highways. A highway may be designated as scenic depending upon how much of the natural landscape can be seen by travelers, the scenic quality of the landscape, and the extent to which development intrudes upon the traveler’s enjoyment of the view. A scenic corridor is the land generally adjacent to and visible from the highway and is identified using a motorist’s line of vision. The corridor protection program seeks to encourage quality development that does not degrade the scenic value of the corridor.
State Scenic Highways are classified as either “eligible” or “officially designated.” The status of a State Scenic Highway changes from eligible to officially designated when the local jurisdiction adopts a scenic corridor protection program, applies to the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) for scenic highway approval, and receives notification from Caltrans that the highway has City of Patterson—Baldwin Master Plan / Zacharias Master Plan Project Draft EIR Aesthetics, Light, and Glare
FirstCarbon Solutions 3.1-3
https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/1790/17900003/EIR/3 - Draft EIR/17900003 Sec03-01 Aesthetics.docx been officially designated as a scenic highway. When a city or county nominates an eligible scenic highway for official designation, it must identify and define the scenic corridor of the highway. The agency must also adopt ordinances to preserve the scenic quality of the corridor or document such regulations that already exist in various portions of local codes. These ordinances make up the scenic corridor protection program. Minimum requirements for scenic corridor protection include:
Regulation of land use and density of development
Detailed land and site planning
Control of outdoor advertising (including a ban on billboards) Careful attention to and control of earthmoving and landscaping Careful attention to design and appearance of structures and equipment Local
City of Patterson
General Plan
The City of Patterson General Plan sets forth the following goals and policies relevant to aesthetics, light, and glare:
Goal LU-1: To provide for orderly, well-planned, and balanced growth consistent with the limits imposed by the city’s infrastructure and environmental constraints.
Policy LU-1.6: Small town character. The City shall seek to preserve Patterson’s traditional small-town qualities and agricultural heritage, while increasing its residential and employment base.
Policy LU-1.7: Preferences for the timing of urban development. In general, the preferred timing of urban development in accordance with the General Plan is as follows:
- a. First Priority—Vacant or underutilized areas within the current City limits; - b. Second Priority—Vacant or underutilized areas within the City’s currently adopted sphere of influence;
- c. Third priority—Vacant or underutilized areas within the General Plan area.
Policy LU-1.12: Status of land prior to urban development. Land within the General Plan Area shall ultimately be developed to urban standards described in Part I – Land Use and Development Standards. Pending connection to City services, such land shall remain in agricultural, open space, or other low intensity uses.
Goal CD-1: To promote the development of a coherent and distinctive physical form and structure that reflects Patterson’s small-town qualities and agricultural heritage.
Policy CD-1.2: Enhance distinctiveness. The City shall endeavor to maintain and enhance the distinctiveness and integrity of neighborhoods and districts in Patterson.
Policy CD-1.7: Maintain a distinct urban edge. The City shall seek to maintain a distinct agricultural definition to the urban edge of the city as a means of emphasizing Patterson’s small-town qualities and agricultural heritage.
City of Patterson—Baldwin Master Plan / Zacharias Master Plan Project Aesthetics, Light, and Glare Draft EIR
3.1-4 FirstCarbon Solutions
https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/1790/17900003/EIR/3 - Draft EIR/17900003 Sec03-01 Aesthetics.docx Policy CD-1.8: Green building practices. The City supports the use of green building practices in the planning, design, construction, management, renovation, operations, and demolition of all private buildings and projects, including:
- Land planning and design techniques that preserve the natural environment and minimize disturbance of the land.
- Site development to reduce erosion, minimize paved surfaces and runoff and protect vegetation, especially trees.
- Water conservation indoors and outdoors.
- Energy efficiency in heating/cooling systems, appliances, lighting and the building envelope. - Selection of materials based on recyclability, durability and the amount of energy used to create the material.
- Waste reduction, reuse and recycling during construction and throughout the life of the project.
- Other new aspects of green design and construction included in LEED™ or other certification programs.
- Control nighttime lighting to lower energy use, reduce glare, and prevent illumination of the night sky.
Goal CD-3: To preserve the existing community character and fabric and promote the development of neighborhoods and districts that emphasize pedestrian convenience.
Policy CD-3.3: Pedestrian amenities for commercial areas. New commercial and office development shall promote pedestrian convenience, especially in the downtown.
Policy CD-3.4: Site design. The City shall encourage site design that increases the convenience, safety and comfort of people using transit, walking or cycling.
Goal CD-4: To maintain and enhance the quality of the Patterson’s landscapes and streetscapes.
Policy CD-4.1: Street trees. The City shall endeavor to protect the urban forest created by mature trees in existing developed areas and in newly developing areas.
Policy CD-4.2: Extending the established pattern of landscaping. The City shall require that all new development incorporate the planting of trees and other vegetation that extend the vegetation pattern of older adjacent neighborhoods into new development.
Policy CD-4.3: Boulevard planting. The City shall extend and reinforce major street tree/boulevard plantings to enhance the visual character of special and important streets within Patterson.
Community Design Guidelines
The Community Design Guidelines are intended to describe, and inform project applicants of, the City’s expectations and preferences for the quality and character of new development. The Planning Commission and City Council consider a project’s consistency with the Community Design Guidelines City of Patterson—Baldwin Master Plan / Zacharias Master Plan Project Draft EIR Aesthetics, Light, and Glare
FirstCarbon Solutions 3.1-5
https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/1790/17900003/EIR/3 - Draft EIR/17900003 Sec03-01 Aesthetics.docx during the Design Review process. Both bodies are afforded discretion in determining the applicability of Community Design Guidelines on a case-by-case basis in recognition that not all design criteria may be workable or appropriate for each project.
Key design criteria include:
Keep Patterson architecturally distinctive, don’t let it become “anywhere USA.” - Maintain a high quality of craftsmanship in development through use of authentic building styles, design elements, and materials.
- Integrate local cultural and historical themes into building and site design where appropriate.
- Pay attention to gateways and key corridors to enhance the overall city image. - Design for surrounding context and scale of urban form and land uses. - Protect the scale and character of older neighborhoods, and cultural context of the city. - Require design excellence for infill and redevelopment sites, especially in the downtown area.
- Minimize the use of “stock” plans and design in corporate and franchise architecture. - Encourage traditional neighborhood building and street patterns. - Integrate public squares and art that respond to local cultural and historical themes in development.
Design for the pedestrian scale in appropriate areas.
- Encourage pedestrian oriented buildings and site planning. - Incorporate design elements that respond to environmental conditions such as wind, sun, shade, etc. to protect and shelter pedestrians, and that will provide an enjoyable pedestrian experience.
- Encourage an appropriate scale of building height to street width in commercial areas.
Prohibit or minimize parking between buildings and the street.
Respect the natural environment by protecting natural resources and integrating the natural environment into building and site planning, where appropriate. - Maintain views of the foothills west of the city.
- Continue streetscape landscaping.
- Control outdoor lighting to provide necessary security, but not create spillage onto adjacent properties or interfere with views of night skies.
3.1.4 - Methodology
FCS evaluated potential project impacts on aesthetics, light, and glare through site reconnaissance and review of applicable plans and policies. FCS personnel visited the Master Plan areas in December City of Patterson—Baldwin Master Plan / Zacharias Master Plan Project Aesthetics, Light, and Glare Draft EIR
3.1-6 FirstCarbon Solutions
https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/1790/17900003/EIR/3 - Draft EIR/17900003 Sec03-01 Aesthetics.docx 2018 to document the site conditions through photographs and notation. The City of Patterson’s General Plan and Design Guidelines were reviewed to determine applicable policies and design requirements for the proposed project. The assessment of visual and light and glare impacts was largely guided by the standards set forth in the City’s adopted documents, as well as FCS’ experience with these analytical areas.
3.1.5 - Thresholds of Significance
According to Appendix G, Environmental Checklist of the CEQA Guidelines, aesthetics impacts resulting from the implementation of the proposed project would be considered significant if the project would:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic building within a State Scenic Highway?
c) In non-urbanized areas, substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of public views of the site and its surroundings? (Public views are those that are experienced from publicly accessible vantage point). If the project is in an urbanized area, would the project conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality? d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area?
3.1.6 - Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures
This section discusses potential impacts associated with the development of the project and provides mitigation measures where appropriate.
Scenic Vistas
Impact AES-1: Buildout of the Master Plans would not have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista.
Impact Analysis
This impact will assess the potential for the proposed Master Plans to have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista.
The City of Patterson Community Design Guidelines identify the maintenance of views of the Diablo Range foothills west of the City as a desired objective. As such, this impact analysis will address impacts views of the foothills as a result of the development of the Master Plan areas.
Baldwin Master Plan
The Baldwin Master Plan encompasses 68 acres and would represent the southern-most urbanized portion of Patterson at buildout. Due to its small size and its location to the south of the City Corporation Yard and east of the Delta-Mendota Canal, it would only be visible from areas City of Patterson—Baldwin Master Plan / Zacharias Master Plan Project Draft EIR Aesthetics, Light, and Glare
FirstCarbon Solutions 3.1-7
https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/1790/17900003/EIR/3 - Draft EIR/17900003 Sec03-01 Aesthetics.docx immediately adjacent to it. As such, it would not have any ability to affect views of the Diablo Range foothills. Impacts would be less than significant.
Zacharias Master Plan
The Zacharias Master Plan encompasses more than 1,150 acres and would close a gap between the western Patterson city limits (Arambel Business Park) and the middle of Patterson (Ward Avenue).
This area contains agricultural land use activities and provides unobstructed views of the Diablo Range to the west.
The proposed Master Plan contemplates low rise residential, commercial, and school buildings (i.e., less than 35 feet above finished grade), which would have minimal to no impact to views of the Diablo Range. The tallest buildings would be those associated with the proposed light industrial area along Rogers Road. These would be as tall as 45 feet above finished grade. However, the light industrial area would be setback from the nearest residential areas by stormwater basins. Thus, when the building height limit and setbacks are accounted for, these structures would not have impacts on views of the Diablo Range from existing developed parts of Patterson. Impacts would be less than significant.
Level of Significance Before Mitigation
Less than significant impact.
Mitigation Measures
No mitigation is necessary.
Level of Significance After Mitigation
Less than significant impact.
Scenic Highways
Impact AES-2: Buildout of the Master Plans would not substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic building within a state scenic highway.
Impact Analysis
This impact will assess the potential for the proposed Master Plans to have a substantial adverse effect on a State Scenic Highway.
Baldwin Master Plan
The Baldwin Master Plan is not visible from I-5 due to the presence of orchards at a higher elevation on the west side of the Delta-Mendota Canal. The residential uses contemplated by the Master Plan would be low rise residential and would not be visible from the freeway. Lastly, no freeway-oriented signage is proposed by the Master Plan. As such, it would not have any ability to affect views from a state scenic highway. Impacts would be less than significant.
City of Patterson—Baldwin Master Plan / Zacharias Master Plan Project Aesthetics, Light, and Glare Draft EIR
3.1-8 FirstCarbon Solutions
https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/1790/17900003/EIR/3 - Draft EIR/17900003 Sec03-01 Aesthetics.docx Zacharias Master Plan
The Zacharias Master Plan is barely visible from I-5 due its distance from the freeway. The existing buildings in the Arambel Business Park and West Patterson Business Park screen portions of the Master Plan area from view.
Buildout of the Master Plan would close a gap between the western Patterson city limits (Arambel Business Park) and the middle of Patterson (Ward Avenue) and would change the visual appearance from agricultural to urban. However, as viewed from the freeway, it would not represent a substantial change in the quality of the I-5 viewshed of the distance from the freeway and intervening Arambel Business Park development, and as such would constitute a small part of the viewshed. The Master Plan would include landscaping that would further screen and soften the appearance of development within this gap. Lastly, no freeway-oriented signage is proposed by the Master Plan. Impacts would be less than significant.
Level of Significance Before Mitigation
Less than significant impact.
Mitigation Measures
No mitigation is necessary.
Level of Significance After Mitigation
Less than significant impact.
Visual Character
Impact AES-3: Buildout of the Master Plans would not substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of public views of the site and its surroundings.
Impact Analysis
This impact will assess the potential for the proposed Master Plans to substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings.
Baldwin Master Plan
The Baldwin Master Plan encompasses 68 acres and would represent the southern-most urbanized portion of Patterson at buildout.
The Master Plan would guide the development of 305 dwelling units, parks, and infrastructure within this area. The Master Plan sets forth a ‘Modern Mission’ design theme to promote a cohesive and unique visual appearance that reflects Patterson’s heritage.
Buildout of the Master Plan would represent an irreversible change to the visual character of the Master Plan area. However, the Master Plan area is within the City of Patterson General Plan planning areas and is designated for Low Density Residential development. Moreover, the General Plan envisions the City of Patterson growing to more than 60,000 residents and, thus, the proposed Master Plan represents planned growth that is consistent with the blueprint vision for the City.
City of Patterson—Baldwin Master Plan / Zacharias Master Plan Project Draft EIR Aesthetics, Light, and Glare
FirstCarbon Solutions 3.1-9
https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/1790/17900003/EIR/3 - Draft EIR/17900003 Sec03-01 Aesthetics.docx Furthermore, due to its small size and its location to the south of the City Corporation Yard and east of the Delta-Mendota Canal, the Master Plan area would only be visible from areas immediately adjacent to it. As such, it would not have any ability to substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings. Impacts would be less than significant.
Zacharias Master Plan
The Zacharias Master Plan encompasses more than 1,150 acres and would close a gap between the western Patterson city limits (Arambel Business Park) and the middle of Patterson (Ward Avenue).
This area contains agricultural land use activities.
The Master Plan would guide the development of 4,781 dwelling units, 7.7 million square feet of non-residential uses, two schools, a dual use flood control basin / sports facility, parks, and infrastructure within this area. The Master Plan sets forth a ‘Modern Mission’ design theme to promote a cohesive and unique visual appearance that reflects Patterson’s heritage.
Buildout of the Master Plan would represent an irreversible change to the visual character of the Master Plan area. However, the Master Plan area is within the City of Patterson General Plan planning areas and is designated for Low Density Residential development. Moreover, the General Plan envisions the City of Patterson growing to more than 60,000 residents and, thus, the proposed Master Plan represents planned growth that is consistent with the blueprint vision for the City.
Furthermore, the Master Plan contemplates residential uses where the Master Plan area interfaces with existing residential uses. Likewise, the Master Plan contemplates non-residential uses where the Master Plan area interfaces with existing non-residential uses. Stormwater basins would be located between residential and non-residential uses to provide a transitional buffer. Collectively, these measures would promote land use compatibility and would also advance visual compatibility.
As such, it would not have any ability to substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings. Impacts would be less than significant.
Level of Significance Before Mitigation
Less than significant impact.
Mitigation Measures
No mitigation is necessary.
Level of Significance After Mitigation
Less than significant impact.
City of Patterson—Baldwin Master Plan / Zacharias Master Plan Project Aesthetics, Light, and Glare Draft EIR
3.1-10 FirstCarbon Solutions
https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/1790/17900003/EIR/3 - Draft EIR/17900003 Sec03-01 Aesthetics.docx Light and Glare
Impact AES-4: Buildout of the Master Plans would not create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area.
Impact Analysis
This impact will assess the potential for the proposed Master Plans to create a new source of substantial light or glare that would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area.
Baldwin Master Plan
The Baldwin Master Plan encompasses 68 acres and would represent the southern-most urbanized portion of Patterson at buildout. Buildout of the Master Plan would add new sources of exterior light and glare such as street lights and building-mounted lights to the ambient nighttime environment.
Due to its small size and its location to the south of the City Corporation Yard and east of the DeltaMendota Canal, light and glare emitted from this Master Plan area would only be visible from areas immediately adjacent to it. Moreover, design features would shield, recess, or direct exterior lighting downward, which would minimize the potential for adverse nighttime light and glare impacts.
Impacts would be less than significant.
Zacharias Master Plan
The Zacharias Master Plan encompasses more than 1,150 acres and would close a gap between the western Patterson city limits (Arambel Business Park) and the middle of Patterson (Ward Avenue).
Buildout of the Master Plan would add new sources of exterior light and glare such as street lights, building-mounted lights, and illuminated signage to the ambient nighttime environment. To minimize, if not avoid adverse light and glare impacts, the Master Plan contemplates residential uses where the Master Plan area interfaces with existing residential uses. Likewise, the Master Plan contemplates non-residential uses where the Master Plan area interfaces with existing nonresidential uses. Stormwater basins would be located between residential and non-residential uses to provide a transitional buffer. Collectively, these measures would promote land use compatibility and would also advance light and glare compatibility.
Moreover, design features would shield, recess, or direct exterior lighting downward, which would minimize the potential for adverse nighttime light and glare impacts. Impacts would be less than significant.
Level of Significance Before Mitigation
Less than significant impact.
Mitigation Measures
No mitigation is necessary.
Level of Significance After Mitigation
Less than significant impact.
City of Patterson—Baldwin Master Plan / Zacharias Master Plan Project Draft EIR Agricultural Resources
FirstCarbon Solutions 3.2-1
https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/1790/17900003/EIR/3 - Draft EIR/17900003 Sec03-02 Agricultural Resources.docx
3.2 - Agricultural Resources
3.2.1 - Introduction
This section describes the existing agricultural resources and potential effects from project implementation on the site and its surrounding area. Descriptions and analysis in this section are based on information provided by the California Department of Conservation Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program (FMMP) and the United States Department of Agriculture. The Land Evaluation and Site Assessment (LESA) Model is provided in this EIR as Appendix B.
3.2.2 - Environmental Setting
Regional Setting
Agriculture is a primary economic activity in Stanislaus County. The California Department of Conservation FMMP indicated approximately 44 percent of the County’s land area was in cultivated agricultural production in 2018. An overview of local agricultural activities is as follows.
Agricultural Economy
Stanislaus County has consistently maintained its position as the fifth or sixth largest agricultural economy in the State during the past 6 years as measured by production value. Between 2013 and 2018, the production value of Stanislaus County crops ranged from $3.26 billion to $4.40 billion.
Table 3.2-1 summarizes agricultural production in the County between 2013 and 2018.
Table 3.2-1: Stanislaus County Agricultural Economy (2013-2018) Year $ Value (billions) Rank in State
2018 3.57 5
2017 3.65 5
2016 3.26 6
2015 3.88 5
2014 4.40 6
2013 3.66 6
Source: United States Department of Agriculture, 2013—2020.
Table 3.2-2 summarizes the top 10 agricultural commodities produced in Stanislaus County by dollar value in 2018. Almonds is the leading commodity, with a production value of $1,107.
Table 3.2-2: Stanislaus County Crop Summary (2018)
Rank Commodity $ Production Value (millions)
1 Almonds 1,107
2 Milk 636
City of Patterson—Baldwin Master Plan / Zacharias Master Plan Project Agricultural Resources Draft EIR
3.2-2 FirstCarbon Solutions
https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/1790/17900003/EIR/3 - Draft EIR/17900003 Sec03-02 Agricultural Resources.docx Rank Commodity $ Production Value (millions)
3 Chickens 276
4 Cattle and Calves 237
5 Nursery Fruit, Nut Trees, and Vines 170
6 Silage 136
7 Walnuts 103
8 Pollination, Almond 76
9 Turkeys 64
10 Peaches 56
Notes:
Production values rounded to nearest million
Source: Stanislaus County Agricultural Commissioner, 2018.
Farmland Classifications
The California Department of Conservation FMMP classifies farmland based on agricultural productivity characteristics, as follows:
Prime Farmland: Land with the best combination of physical and chemical features able to sustain the long-term production of agricultural crops. These lands have the soil quality, growing season, and moisture supply needed to produce sustained high yields.
Unique Farmland: Land of lesser-quality soils used for the production of the State’s leading agricultural crops. This land is usually irrigated, but it may include non-irrigated orchards or vineyards, as are found in some climatic zones in California.
Farmland of Statewide Importance: Land similar to Prime Farmland, but with minor shortcomings, such as greater slopes or less ability to hold and store moisture.
Farmland of Local Importance: Land of importance in the local agricultural economy, as determined by each county’s Board of Supervisors and a local advisory committee.
Table 3.2-3 summarizes farmland acreage in Stanislaus County between 2008 and 2018. As shown in the table, farmland acreage increased by more than 28,000 acres between 2008 and 2018. During this same period, the County’s population increased by more than 40,000 residents, indicating that urban development has not impaired local agriculture.
Table 3.2-3: Stanislaus County Farmland Summary
Classification
Acres
2008 2010 2012 20141 2016 2018
Prime Farmland 256,166 253,434 251,722 252,700 249,967 250,420 Unique Farmland 81,367 31,475 95,187 105,630 116,210 121,930 City of Patterson—Baldwin Master Plan / Zacharias Master Plan Project Draft EIR Agricultural Resources
FirstCarbon Solutions 3.2-3
https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/1790/17900003/EIR/3 - Draft EIR/17900003 Sec03-02 Agricultural Resources.docx Classification
Acres
2008 2010 2012 20141 2016 2018
Farmland of Statewide Importance 31,448 87,524 31,763 32,182 33,172 33,042 Farmland of Local Importance 31,160 31,366 31,332 28,144 26,029 23,058 Farmland Total 400,141 403,799 410,004 418,656 425,378 428,450 Notes:
1 Conversion of geospatial data to North American 1983 (NAD 83) led to minor changes in total FMMMP acreage beginning in 2014
Source: California Department of Conservation, 2008—2018.
Land Classifications
As shown in Exhibit 3.2-1, the Zacharias Master Plan area is mapped as containing 973.01 acres of Prime Farmland, 60.40 acres of Unique Farmland, and 151.49 acres of Farmland of Statewide Importance, for a total of 1,184.9 acres of Important Farmland. The Baldwin Master Plan is mapped as containing 61.22 acres of Prime Farmland and 0.26 acres of Farmland of Local Importance, for a total of 61.48 acres of Important Farmland.
Soils
Exhibit 3.2-2 provides the soil mapping for the Master Plan areas. Table 3.2-4 summarizes the soils that comprise the project site.
Table 3.2-4: Soils Summary
Area Number—Soil Unit Acres
Percent of
Area
Land Capability
Classification
Storie Index
Rating
Baldwin
Master Plan
125 – Vernalis clay loam, 0 to 2 percent
slopes
16.6 25% I 95
140 – Zacharias clay loam, 0 to 2
percent slopes, rarely flooded
48.7 75% I 95
Zacharias
Master Plan
100 – Capay clay, 0 to 2 percent slopes 261.9 22% IIs 35 102 – Capay clay, loamy substratum, 0
to 2 percent slopes
51.8 4% IIs 35
106 – Capay clay, 0 to 2 percent slopes,
rarely flooded
84.6 7% IIs 35
126 – Vernalis-Zacharias complex clay
loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes
95.3 8% I 81
127 – Vernalis loam, 0 to 2 percent
slopes, rarely flooded
293.4 24% I 85
128 – Water 60.4 6% — —
147 – Zacharias gravelly clay loam, 0 to
2 percent slopes, rarely flooded
186.6 15% IIw 60
City of Patterson—Baldwin Master Plan / Zacharias Master Plan Project Agricultural Resources Draft EIR
3.2-4 FirstCarbon Solutions
https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/1790/17900003/EIR/3 - Draft EIR/17900003 Sec03-02 Agricultural Resources.docx Area Number—Soil Unit Acres
Percent of
Area
Land Capability
Classification
Storie Index
Rating
210 – Cortina gravelly sandy loam, 0 to
5 percent slopes, rarely flooded
151.5 12% IIIs 48
271 – Elsalado loam, 0 to 2 percent
slopes, rarely flooded
27.2 2% I 85
Notes:
Percentages rounded to the nearest integer
Source: United States Department of Agriculture, 2013—2016.
Williamson Act Contracts
As further discussed in the Regulatory Framework, the California Land Conservation Act, also known as the Williamson Act, is a voluntary program that allows agricultural property owners to have their property assessed on the basis of its agricultural production rather than at the current market value.
There are six active Williamson Act contracts on properties within the Ranchette Triangle portion of the Zacharias Master Plan. There are no active Williamson Act contracts within the Baldwin Master Plan.
Surrounding Agricultural Land Uses
Exhibit 3.2-3a and Exhibit 3.2-3b identifies the Zone of Influence around the Zacharias and Baldwin Master Plan areas, respectively. The Zone of Influence encompasses all parcels within 0.25-miles of the Master Plan boundaries and is intended to provide context about the surrounding land uses.
As shown in Exhibit 3.2-3a, the Zacharias Master Plan is surrounded by 886 acres of Prime Farmland, 118 acres of Unique Farmland, and 60 acres of Farmland of Statewide Importance. As shown in Exhibit 3.2-3b, the Baldwin Master Plan area is surrounded by 513 acres of Prime Farmland.
3.2.3 - Regulatory Framework
State
Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program
In 1975, The Soil Conservation Service (since renamed Natural Resources Conservation Service [NRCS]) of the United States Department of Agriculture began farmland mapping efforts across the nation, with the goal of producing agricultural resource maps based on soil quality and land use. As part of this nationwide agricultural land use mapping effort, the NRCS developed a series of definitions known as Land Inventory Monitoring criteria. The Land Inventory Monitoring criteria classify the land’s suitability for agricultural production; suitability includes both the physical and clinical characteristics of soils and the actual land use. In the early 1980s, to continue these farmland mapping efforts in California, the FMMP was created within the Department of Conservation. The FMMP carries on these mapping activities on a continuing basis and with a greater level of detail; this is accomplished by using a modified Land Inventory Monitoring criteria. These criteria utilize the NRCS and Storie Index Rating Systems, but also consider physical conditions such as dependable City of Patterson—Baldwin Master Plan / Zacharias Master Plan Project Draft EIR Agricultural Resources
FirstCarbon Solutions 3.2-5
https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/1790/17900003/EIR/3 - Draft EIR/17900003 Sec03-02 Agricultural Resources.docx water supply for agricultural production, soil temperature range, depth of the groundwater table, flooding potential, rock fragment content, and rooting depth. The FMMP prepares Important Farmland maps for all counties in California, using the modified Land Inventory Monitoring criteria as well as current land use information.
Williamson Act
In 1965, the California Land Conservation Act, also known as the Williamson Act, was adopted. This voluntary program allows property owners to have their property assessed for its agricultural production rather than at the current market value. The property owner is thus relieved of having to pay higher property taxes, as long as the land remains in agricultural production. The purpose of the Act is to encourage property owners to continue to farm their land, and to prevent the premature conversion of farmland to urban uses. Participation requires that the area consist of 100 contiguous acres of agricultural land under one or more ownerships.
Upon approval of an application by the Board of Supervisors of the county where the land is located in, the agricultural preserve is established, and the land within the preserve is restricted to agricultural and compatible uses for at least 10 years. Williamson Act contracts are automatically renewed for an additional 1-year period, unless the property owner applies for non-renewal or early cancellation. The Williamson Act also contains provisions for cancellation of contracts under certain circumstances.
Local
City of Patterson
General Plan
The City of Patterson General Plan sets forth the following goal and policies relevant to agricultural resources:
Goal NR-2: To protect and preserve local agricultural lands and to prevent their premature conversion to urban uses.
Policy NR-2.1: Agricultural land preservation. Undeveloped lands that are State designated as Prime Farmland, Farmland of Statewide Importance, and Unique Farmland shall be preserved, to the greatest extent feasible, for open space or agricultural use.
Policy NR-2.4: Support for County agricultural land preservation. The City shall support strategies adopted by Stanislaus County aimed at maintaining agricultural lands in viable farming units in areas not designated for urban development.
Policy NR-2.5: Regional farmland preservation. The City shall continue to work with the County and other jurisdictions to implement conservation plans that preserve prime farmland.
Policy NR-2.9: Williamson Act. The City shall allow the cancellation of Williamson Act contracts only if the City Council finds that cancellation is consistent with State law.
Policy NR-2.11: Soil conservation. The City shall encourage soil conservation practices as recommended by the Natural Resources Conservation Service.
City of Patterson—Baldwin Master Plan / Zacharias Master Plan Project Agricultural Resources Draft EIR
3.2-6 FirstCarbon Solutions
https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/1790/17900003/EIR/3 - Draft EIR/17900003 Sec03-02 Agricultural Resources.docx County of Stanislaus
General Plan
The Stanislaus County General Plan Agriculture Element sets forth two approaches for avoiding, minimizing, or offsetting impacts on agricultural resources.
Farmland Mitigation Program: This program requires new residential development on lands designated “Agriculture” by the Stanislaus County General Plan in unincorporated Stanislaus County to permanently protect farmland at a 1:1 ratio.
Buffers and Setbacks: New or expanded uses within or adjacent to the A-2 (General Agriculture) zoning district must incorporate a minimum 150-foot-wide buffer setback.
Permitted uses within the setback may include public roadways, utilities, drainage facilities, rivers and adjacent riparian areas, landscaping, parking lots, and similar low-people-intensive uses. Permitted uses may also include non-agricultural uses adjoining or surrounding a project site (including but not limited to legal, non-conforming uses and home sites) that are of a permanent nature and are not likely to be returned to agriculture. Landscaping within a buffer setback area shall be designed to exclude turf areas that could induce activities and add to overall maintenance costs and water usage.
Local Agency Formation Commission
Stanislaus Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCo) oversees jurisdictional boundaries with Stanislaus County. LAFCo’s responsibilities are largely defined by the Cortese-Knox-Hertzberg Reorganization Act of 2000 and include discretionary review and approval authority for annexations, sphere of influence adjustments, and similar actions. Although LAFCo does not directly regulate agricultural land use activities, the Cortese-Knox-Hertzberg Reorganization Act allows the agency to consider the potential presence of such activities as a factor in the decision-making process.
3.2.4 - Methodology
FCS evaluated the proposed project’s impacts on Important Farmland through the use of the Land Evaluation and Site Assessment (LESA) model issued by the California Department of Conservation.
The LESA model provides analytical approach for rating the relative quality of land resources based upon specific measurable features. Factors considered by the LESA model includes soils, site acreage, water availability, and surrounding land uses. The LESA model worksheets are provided in Appendix B.
3.2.5 - Thresholds of Significance
According to CEQA Guidelines Appendix G, to determine whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, the following questions are analyzed and evaluated. Would the project:
a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland) as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use? b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? City of Patterson—Baldwin Master Plan / Zacharias Master Plan Project Draft EIR Agricultural Resources
FirstCarbon Solutions 3.2-7
https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/1790/17900003/EIR/3 - Draft EIR/17900003 Sec03-02 Agricultural Resources.docx c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code section 51104(g))?
d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use? e) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-forest use?
3.2.6 - Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures
This section discusses potential impacts associated with the proposed project and provides mitigation measures where necessary.
Important Farmland
Impact AG-1: The project would convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland) as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use.
Impact Analysis
This impact will evaluate the potential for the proposed project to convert Important Farmland to non-agricultural use.
Baldwin Master Plan
As shown in Exhibit 3.2-1, the Baldwin Master Plan area is mapped as containing 61.22 acres of Prime Farmland and 0.26 acre of Farmland of Local Importance, for a total of 61.48 acres of Important Farmland. To assess the significant of this conversion, FCS prepared a LESA model for the Baldwin Master Plan. The results are summarized in Table 3.2-5.
Table 3.2-5: Baldwin Master Plan Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model Scoring Summary
Category Factor Points Factor Weigh Weighted Points
Land Evaluation Land Capability Class 100 0.25 25.0
Storie Index 84.5 0.25 21.1
Subtotal 0.50 46.1
Site Assessment Project Size 90 0.15 13.5
Water Resources Availability 80 0.15 12.0
Surrounding Agricultural Lands 20 0.15 3.0
Surrounding Protected Resource Lands 20 0.05 1.0
Subtotal 0.50 29.5
City of Patterson—Baldwin Master Plan / Zacharias Master Plan Project Agricultural Resources Draft EIR
3.2-8 FirstCarbon Solutions
https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/1790/17900003/EIR/3 - Draft EIR/17900003 Sec03-02 Agricultural Resources.docx Category Factor Points Factor Weigh Weighted Points
Grand Total 75.6
Notes:
LESA scoring sheet provided in Appendix C.
Source: FCS 2020.
As shown in Table 3.2-5, the Baldwin Master Plan area has a total score of 75.6. The LESA model indicates that scores between 60 to 79 points are considered significant only if the either the Land Evaluation subtotal or the Site Assessment subtotal are less than 20. In this case, the subtotals are greater than 20; therefore, the proposed Baldwin Master Plan would be considered to have a significant impact in terms of converting Important Farmland to non-agricultural use.
The City of Patterson General Plan designates the Master Plan area as “Low Density Residential.” This designation signifies that the City has contemplated the conversion of this agricultural land to urban uses over the planning horizon of the General Plan and, therefore, does not consider the project area as a preferred location for permanent agricultural uses. The EIR for the City of Patterson General Plan found that conversion of prime agricultural, including the project site, to urban uses to be a significant and unavoidable impact. As part of adopting the General Plan, the Patterson City Council adopted findings of fact and a statement of overriding consideration that indicated urban development was of greater benefit to the community than preserving agricultural land within city limits. Although conversion of the project area to urban uses would reflect the land use assumptions contained in the City of Patterson General Plan, farmland is an important resource to the region, and direct conversion of Important Farmland to urban land uses would be considered a significant impact under LESA methodology.
The City of Patterson, the County of Stanislaus, and the California Department of Conservation identify preservation of existing Important Farmland acreage as desired mitigation for the loss of such acreage. Accordingly, Mitigation Measure AG-1 requires the applicant to preserve Important Farmland acreage in Stanislaus County at no less than 1:1 ratio.
Zacharias Master Plan
As shown in Exhibit 3.2-1, the Zacharias Master Plan area is mapped as containing 973.01 acres of Prime Farmland, 60.40 acres of Unique Farmland, and 151.49 acres of Farmland of Statewide Importance, for a total of 1,184.9 acres of Important Farmland. To assess the significant of this conversion, FCS prepared a LESA model for the Zacharias Master Plan. The results for the northern site are summarized in Table 3.2-5 and the results for the southern site are summarized in Table
3.2-6.
Table 3.2-6: Zacharias Master Plan Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model Scoring Summary
Category Factor Points Factor Weigh Weighted Points
Land Evaluation Land Capability Class 79.6 0.25 19.9
City of Patterson—Baldwin Master Plan / Zacharias Master Plan Project Draft EIR Agricultural Resources
FirstCarbon Solutions 3.2-9
https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/1790/17900003/EIR/3 - Draft EIR/17900003 Sec03-02 Agricultural Resources.docx Category Factor Points Factor Weigh Weighted Points
Storie Index 54.1 0.25 13.5
Subtotal 0.50 33.4
Site Assessment Project Size 100 0.15 15.0
Water Resources Availability 80 0.15 12.0
Surrounding Agricultural Lands 30 0.15 4.5
Surrounding Protected Resource Lands 30 0.05 1.5
Subtotal 0.50 33.0
Grand Total 66.4
Notes:
LESA scoring sheet provided in Appendix C.
Source: FCS, 2020.
As shown in Table 3.2-5, the Zacharias Master Plan has a total score of 66.4. The LESA model indicates that scores between 60 to 79 points are considered significant only if the either the Land Evaluation subtotal or the Site Assessment subtotal are less than 20. In this case, both subtotals for the northern and southern project sites are greater than 20; therefore, the proposed Zacharias Master Plan would be considered to have significant impact in terms of converting Important Farmland to non-agricultural use.
The City of Patterson General Plan designates the Master Plan area as “Low Density Residential.” This designation signify that the City has contemplated the conversion of this agricultural land to urban uses over the planning horizon of the General Plan and, therefore, does not view the project area as a preferred location for permanent agricultural uses. The EIR for the City of Patterson General Plan found that conversion of prime agricultural, including the project site, to urban uses to be a significant and unavoidable impact. As part of adopting the General Plan, the Patterson City Council adopted findings of fact and a statement of overriding consideration that indicated urban development was of greater benefit to the community than preserving agricultural land within city limits. Although conversion of the project area to urban uses would reflect the land use assumptions contained in the City of Patterson General Plan, farmland is an important resource to the region, and direct conversion of Important Farmland to urban land uses would be considered a significant impact under LESA methodology.
The City of Patterson, the County of Stanislaus, and the California Department of Conservation identify preservation of existing Important Farmland acreage as desired mitigation for the loss of such acreage. Accordingly, Mitigation Measure AG-1 requires the applicant to preserve Important Farmland acreage in Stanislaus County at no less than 1:1 ratio.
Level of Significance Before Mitigation
Potentially significant impact.
City of Patterson—Baldwin Master Plan / Zacharias Master Plan Project Agricultural Resources Draft EIR
3.2-10 FirstCarbon Solutions
https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/1790/17900003/EIR/3 - Draft EIR/17900003 Sec03-02 Agricultural Resources.docx Mitigation Measures
MM AG-1 Prior to issuance of the grading permit, the project applicant shall preserve Important Farmland acreage, as mapped by the California Department of Conservation Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program (FMMP), within Stanislaus County (but outside of the Patterson Planning Area) at a ratio of no less than 1:1 for each acre of Important Farmland converted to non-agricultural use by the proposed project. Preserved acreage shall be of equal or higher quality to farmland converted to non-agricultural use by the proposed project. The preservation shall be accomplished through one of the following approaches:
The applicant shall enter into a binding agreement with one or more private property owners or third-party organizations acceptable to the City of Patterson (e.g., Stanislaus County farm Bureau or the American Farmland Trust) to permanently preserve farmland. The agreement shall identify an irrevocable instrument that will be recorded against the preserved acreage property. This option shall be pursued if the City of Patterson does not have a farmland preservation program in place at the time permits are sought.
If the City of Patterson establishes a farmland preservation program before the project applies for construction permits for any phase of development, the City may require the applicant to pay fees to the City of Patterson equivalent to cost of preserving Important Farmland. The City shall use the fees to fund an irrevocable instrument (e.g., deed restriction or reservation easements) to permanently preserve farmland.
Level of Significance After Mitigation
Significant unavoidable impact.
Conflict with Agricultural Zoning or Williamson Act Contract Impact AG-2: The project would potentially conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract.
Impact Analysis
This impact will address potential conflicts with agricultural zoning or Williamson Act contracts. Each issue is issued separately.
Baldwin and Zacharias Master Plans
Agricultural Zoning
The Master Plan areas are currently located in unincorporated Stanislaus County. The Stanislaus County Zoning Ordinances zones the Baldwin Master Plan area as “General Agriculture (A-2).” The Stanislaus County Zoning Ordinances zones the Zacharias Master Plan area “General Agriculture (A2)” west of the PID Lateral M canal and “Rural Residential (R-A)” east of the canal.
The City of Patterson General Plan designates the Master Plan areas as “Low Density Residential,” which is a non-binding designation. This is also a “placeholder” land use designation the City has City of Patterson—Baldwin Master Plan / Zacharias Master Plan Project Draft EIR Agricultural Resources
FirstCarbon Solutions 3.2-11
https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/1790/17900003/EIR/3 - Draft EIR/17900003 Sec03-02 Agricultural Resources.docx assigned to unincorporated areas around the Patterson city limits and does not necessarily signify that the City intends for all of this land to be developed as low density residential. The applicants are seeking to annex the Baldwin and Zacharias Master Plan areas into the Patterson city limits. As part of the project, a General Plan Amendment would be processed to designate the Master Plan areas with the appropriate land use designations. The Master Plan areas would be prezoned in a similar fashion. This prezoning is a discretionary approval that is necessary for approval of the project and, therefore, is considered a “self-mitigating” aspect of the proposed project. As such, with the approval of the pre-zoning, no conflicts with the agricultural zoning would occur.
Note that agricultural activities would be permitted to continue on the parcels comprising the project site during the interim period between annexation and construction. Such activities would be considered “legal, conforming land use activities,” since they pre-date annexation and, therefore, would be exempt from compliance with the City zoning requirements.
Williamson Act Contracts
Six parcels within the Ranchette Triangle of the Zacharias Master Plan are currently encumbered by active Williamson Act contracts. The City of Patterson filed a protest with the Stanislaus County Board of Supervisors to exercise its option to not succeed to the rights, duties, and powers of the County under the Williamson Act contract because these properties were within the Sphere of Influence and, thus, contemplated for annexation. Therefore, the Williamson Act contracts will be automatically terminated once the Ranchette Triangle is annexed into the Patterson city limits. This would preclude conflicts with a Williamson Act contracts. Impacts would be less than significant.
Level of Significance Before Mitigation
Less than significant impact.
Mitigation Measures
None.
Level of Significance After Mitigation
Less than significant impact.
Pressures to Convert Farmland
Impact AG-3: The project would potentially conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code section 51104(g)).
Impact Analysis
This impact will evaluate the potential for the proposed project to create pressures on surrounding agricultural lands, which could result in their ultimate conversion to non-agricultural use. In evaluating whether the proposed project would create pressures to convert farmland to nonagricultural use, this impact analysis will focus on whether the proposed project would (1) be in conflict with the long-term vision of the City of Patterson General Plan in the context of preservation City of Patterson—Baldwin Master Plan / Zacharias Master Plan Project Agricultural Resources Draft EIR
3.2-12 FirstCarbon Solutions
https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/1790/17900003/EIR/3 - Draft EIR/17900003 Sec03-02 Agricultural Resources.docx of agricultural resources and (2) whether it would serve as a catalyst for premature conversion of agricultural land to non-agricultural use.
Baldwin and Zacharias Master Plans
As shown in Exhibit 3.2-3a farmland exists to the north and east of the Zacharias Master Plan area.
As shown in Exhibit 3.2-3b, large portions of farmland exist to the west, south, and east of the Baldwin Master Plan area. All of the lands immediately adjacent to the project site are within the Patterson General Plan Planning Area or within the Patterson Sphere of Influence, signifying that they are contemplated to convert to urban use at some point in the future. Thus, to the extent that these areas ultimately convert to urban uses, it would be in accordance with the long-term vision of the General Plan and not solely a consequence of the proposed project.
Furthermore, the General Plan sets forth Policy NR-2.1 and Policy NR-2.2, which call for developing areas contiguous to existing urban development in order to discourage premature conversion of farmland to non-agricultural use. Thus, it would be expected that conversion of farmland areas around the Master Plan areas to non-agricultural use would be discouraged until such time that buildout of the Master Plans is completed.. As such, the proposed Master Plans would not be expected to result in the premature conversion of this acreage to non-agricultural use.
Finally, Stanislaus County’s buffer and setback requirements would apply to the portions of the project site that would abut unincorporated farmland that is not within the Sphere of Influence. In this case, these requirements pertain to the areas north of Zacharias Road and areas west and south of the Baldwin Master Plan area. In the north, Zacharias Road is contemplated to be the future alignment of the South County Corridor and, thus, this road would serve as the buffer. In the south, the Delta-Canal Canal is located between the Baldwin Master Plan area and areas to the west and, thus, would act as a buffer. A landscaped setback would be located between the Master Plan area and the agricultural lands to the south.
The adjoining properties to the south and east of the southern project site are zoned General Agriculture (A-2). As such, Mitigation Measure AG-3 requires that proposed project have a minimum 150-foot landscaping setback. With the implementation of this mitigation measure, impacts would be less than significant.
Level of Significance Before Mitigation
Potentially significant impact.
Mitigation Measures
MM AG-3 Prior to the issuance of the grading permit, the project applicant shall prepare and submit plans to the City of Patterson demonstrating that the 150-foot minimum setbacks have been established between the proposed project and all agricultural lands in unincorporated Stanislaus County zoned General Agriculture (A-2) and outside the Patterson Sphere of Influence. Pursuant to the County’s policy, permitted uses within the setback may include public roadways, utilities, drainage facilities, rivers and adjacent riparian areas, landscaping, parking lots, and similar low-people-intensive uses. Permitted uses may also include non-agricultural uses City of Patterson—Baldwin Master Plan / Zacharias Master Plan Project Draft EIR Agricultural Resources
FirstCarbon Solutions 3.2-13
https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/1790/17900003/EIR/3 - Draft EIR/17900003 Sec03-02 Agricultural Resources.docx adjoining or surrounding a project site (including but not limited to legal, nonconforming uses and home sites) that are of a permanent nature and are not likely to be returned to agriculture. Landscaping within a buffer setback area shall be designed to exclude turf areas that could induce activities and add to overall maintenance costs and water usage.
Level of Significance After Mitigation
Less than significant impact.
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
Sperry Ave
Zacharias Rd
·|}þ33
%&'(5
P
sAC
S
U
D
D
L
P
V
sAC
I
Legend
Zacharias Master Plan
Important Farmland Categories
D - Urban and Built-up Land 18.79 acres
P - Prime Farmland 973.01 acres
S - Farmland of Statewide Importance 151.49 acres
U - Unique Farmland 60.40 acres
sAC - Semi-Agricultural and Rural Commercial Land 9.22 acres Baldwin Master Plan
Important Farmland Categories
L - Farmland of Local Importance 0.26 acres
P - Prime Farmland 61.22 acres
V - Vacant or Disturbed Land 0.41 acres
sAC - Semi-Agricultural and Rural Commercial Land 3.43 acres
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
Sperry Ave
Zacharias Rd
·|}þ33
%&'(5
140
125
128
210
127
102
106
126
271
147
127
100
I
Legend
Zacharias Master Plan
Soil Classification
100 - Capay clay, 0 to 2 percent slopes 261.9 acres
102 - Capay clay, loamy substratum, 0 to 2 percent slopes 51.8 acres 106 - Capay clay, 0 to 2 percent slopes, rarely flooded 84.6 acres 126 - Vernalis-Zacharias complex, 0 to 2 percent slopes, rarely flooded 95.3 acres 127 - Vernalis loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes, rarely flooded 293.4 acres 128 - Water 60.4 acres
147 - Zacharias gravelly clay loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes, rarely flooded 186.6 acres 210 - Cortina gravelly sandy loam, 0 to 5 percent slopes, rarely flooded 151.5 acres 271 - Elsalado loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes, rarely flooded 27.2 acres Baldwin Master Plan
Soil Classification
125 - Vernalis clay loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes 16.6 acres 140 - Zacharias clay loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes 48.7 acres
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
Sperry Ave
Zacharias Rd
·|}þ33
%&'(5
P
P
S
U
P
D
V
L G L
D
D
R
I
Legend
Zacharias Master Plan
Zone of Influence
Important Farmland Categories
D - Urban and Built-up Land 750.4 acres
G - Grazing Land 32.5 acres
L - Farmland of Local Importance 104.2 acres
P - Prime Farmland 888.6 acres
R - Rural Residential Land 6.4 acres
S - Farmland of Statewide Importance 59.7 acres
U - Unique Farmland 118.2 acres
V - Vacant or Disturbed Land 26.5 acres
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
Sperry Ave
%&'(5
G
nv
V
P
V
L
P
D
sAC
I
Legend
Baldwin Master Plan
Zone of Influence
Important Farmland Categories
D - Urban and Built-up Land 39.8 acres
G - Grazing Land 145.3 acres
L - Farmland of Local Importance 132.6 acres
nv - Nonagricultural or Natural Vegetation 126.6 acres
P - Prime Farmland 513.2 acres
sAC - Semi-Agricultural and Rural Commercial Land 6.03 acres V - Vacant or Disturbed Land 116.9 acres
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
City of Patterson—Baldwin Master Plan / Zacharias Master Plan Project Draft EIR Air Quality
FirstCarbon Solutions 3.3-1
https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/1790/17900003/EIR/3 - Draft EIR/17900003 Sec03-03 Air Quality.docx
3.3 - Air Quality
3.3.1 - Introduction
This section describes existing air quality conditions regionally and locally as well as the relevant regulatory framework. This section also evaluates the possible impacts related to air quality that could result from implementation of the proposed project. Information included in this section is based on project-specific air quality modeling results utilizing California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod) version 2016.3.2. Complete modeling output is provided in Appendix C.
3.3.2 - Environmental Setting
Regional Geography and Climate
The proposed Master Plans are located in Stanislaus County, within the San Joaquin Valley Air Basin (Air Basin). Regional and local air quality is impacted by topography, dominant airflows, atmospheric inversions, location, and season. The following section describes these conditions as they pertain to the Air Basin.
San Joaquin Valley Air Basin
The information in this section is primarily from the District’s Guide for Assessing and Mitigating Air Quality Impacts (GAMAQI) and the accompanying Technical Document.
Topography
The topography of a region is important for air quality because mountains can block airflow that would help disperse pollutants and can channel air from upwind areas that transports pollutants to downwind areas. The San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (Valley Air District) covers the entirety of the Air Basin. The Air Basin is generally shaped like a bowl. It is open in the north and is surrounded by mountain ranges on all other sides. The Sierra Nevada mountains are along the eastern boundary (8,000 to 14,000 feet in elevation), the Coast Ranges are along the western boundary (3,000 feet in elevation), and the Tehachapi Mountains are along the southern boundary (6,000 to 8,000 feet in elevation).
Climate
The climate is important for air quality because of differences in the atmosphere’s ability to trap pollutants close to the ground, creating adverse air quality or rapidly dispersing pollutants over a wide area, thus preventing high concentrations from accumulating under different climatic conditions. The Air Basin has an “inland Mediterranean” climate and is characterized by long, hot, dry summers and short, foggy winters. Sunlight can be a catalyst in the formation of some air pollutants (such as ozone); the Air Basin averages over 260 sunny days per year.
Dominant airflows provide the driving mechanism for transport and dispersion of air pollution. The mountains surrounding the Air Basin form natural horizontal barriers to the dispersion of air contaminants. The wind generally flows south-southeast through the Valley, through the Tehachapi Pass and into the Southeast Desert Air Basin portion of Kern County. As the wind moves through the City of Patterson— Baldwin Master Plan / Zacharias Master Plan Project Air Quality Draft EIR
3.3-2 FirstCarbon Solutions
https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/1790/17900003/EIR/3 - Draft EIR/17900003 Sec03-03 Air Quality.docx Air Basin, it mixes with the air pollution generated locally, generally transporting air pollutants from the north to the south in the summer and in a reverse flow in the winter.
3.3.3 - Regulatory Framework
Air pollutants are regulated to protect human health and for secondary effects such as visibility and building soiling. The Clean Air Act of 1970 tasks the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) with setting air quality standards. The State of California also sets air quality standards that are in some cases more stringent than federal standards and address additional pollutants. The following section describes these federal and State standards and the health effects of the regulated pollutants.
Clean Air Act
Congress established much of the basic structure of the Clean Air Act (CAA) in 1970 and made major revisions in 1977 and 1990. Six common air pollutants (also known as criteria pollutants) are addressed in the CAA. These are particulate matter, ground-level ozone, CO, sulfur oxides, nitrogen oxides, and lead. The EPA calls these pollutants criteria air pollutants, because it regulates them by developing human health-based and/or environmentally based criteria (science-based guidelines) for setting permissible levels. The set of limits based on human health are called primary standards.
Another set of limits intended to prevent environmental and property damage are called secondary standards (EPA 2014). The federal standards are called NAAQS. The air quality standards provide benchmarks for determining whether air quality is healthy at specific locations and whether development activities will cause or contribute to a violation of the standards. The criteria pollutants are:
Ozone Particulate matter (PM10 and PM2.5)
Nitrogen dioxide (NO2) Carbon monoxide (CO)
Lead Sulfur dioxide
The federal standards were set to protect public health, including that of sensitive individuals; thus, the EPA is tasked with updating the standards as more medical research is available regarding the health effects of the criteria pollutants. Primary federal standards are the levels of air quality necessary, with an adequate margin of safety, to protect the public health.
The Clean Air Act also requires each state to prepare an air quality control plan referred to as a State Implementation Plan (SIP). The federal Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 added requirements for states with nonattainment areas to revise their SIPs to incorporate additional control measures to reduce air pollution. The SIP is periodically modified to reflect the latest emissions inventories, planning documents, and rules and regulations of the air basins, as reported by their jurisdictional agencies.
California Clean Air Act
The California Legislature enacted the California Clean Air Act (CCAA) in 1988 to address air quality issues of concern not adequately addressed by the federal CAA at the time. California’s air quality problems were and continue to be some of the most severe in the nation and required additional City of Patterson—Baldwin Master Plan / Zacharias Master Plan Project Draft EIR Air Quality
FirstCarbon Solutions 3.3-3
https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/1790/17900003/EIR/3 - Draft EIR/17900003 Sec03-03 Air Quality.docx actions beyond the federal mandates. The California Air Resources Board (ARB) administers the CAAQS for the 10 air pollutants designated in the CCAA. The 10 State air pollutants are the six federal standards listed above as well as visibility-reducing particulates, hydrogen sulfide, sulfates, and vinyl chloride. The EPA authorized California to adopt its own regulations for motor vehicles and other sources that are more stringent than similar federal regulations implementing the CAA. Generally, the planning requirements of the CCAA are more stringent than the federal CAA; therefore, consistency with the CAA will also demonstrate consistency with the CCAA.
Other ARB responsibilities include but are not limited to overseeing local air district compliance with California and federal laws; approving local air quality plans; submitting SIPs to EPA; monitoring air quality; determining and updating area designations and maps; conducting basic research aimed at providing a better understanding between emissions and public well-being, and setting emissions standards for new mobile sources, consumer products, small utility engines, off-road vehicles, and fuels.
Toxic Air Contaminants
A toxic air contaminant (TAC) is defined as an air pollutant that may cause or contribute to an increase in mortality or serious illness, or that may pose a hazard to human health. TACs are usually present in minute quantities in the ambient air; however, their high toxicity or health risk may pose a threat to public health even at low concentrations. There are no ambient air quality standards for TAC emissions. TACs are regulated in terms of health risks to individuals and populations exposed to the pollutants. The 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments significantly expanded the EPA’s authority to regulate Hazardous Air Pollutants (HAP). Section 112 of the CAA lists 187 HAPs to be regulated by source category. Authority to regulate these pollutants was delegated to individual states. The ARB and local air districts regulate TACs and HAPs in California.
Air Pollutant Description and Health Effects
The federal and State ambient air quality standards, relevant effects, properties, and sources of the air pollutants are summarized in Table 3.3-1.
Table 3.3-1: Description of Air Pollutants
Air Pollutant
Averaging
Time
California
Standard
Federal
Standarda
Most Relevant Effects from Pollutant
Exposure Properties Sources
Air Pollutant
Averaging
Time
California
Standard
Federal
Standard
a
Most Relevant Effects from Pollutant
Exposure Properties Sources
Air Pollutant
Averaging
Time
California
Standard
Federal
Standarda
Most Relevant Effects from Pollutant
Exposure Properties Sources
Notes:ppm = parts per million (concentration)µg/m3 = micrograms per cubic meter Annual = Annual Arithmetic Mean 30-day = 30-day average Quarter = Calendar quartera Federal standard refers to the primary national ambient air quality standard, or the levels of air quality necessary, with an adequate margin of safety to protect the public health. All standards listed are primary standards except for 3 Hour SO2, which is a secondary standard. A secondary standard is the level of air quality necessary to protect the public welfare fromany known or anticipated adverse effects of a pollutant.
Air Pollutant
Averaging
Time
California
Standard
Federal
Standarda
Most Relevant Effects from Pollutant
Exposure Properties Sources
b To attain the 1-hour NO2 national standard, the 3-year average of the annual 98th percentile of the 1-hour daily maximum concentrations at each site must not exceed 100 parts per billion (ppb) (0.100 ppm).
c On June 2, 2010, a new 1-hour SO2 standard was established and the existing 24-hour and annual primary standards were revoked. To attain the 1-hour national standard, the 3-year average of the annual 99th percentile of the 1-hour daily maximum concentrations at each site must not exceed 75 ppb. The 1971 SO2 national standards (24-hour and annual) remain ineffect until one year after an area is designated for the 2010 standard, except that in areas designated nonattainment for the 1971 standards, the 1971 standards remain in effect untilimplementation plans to attain or maintain the 2010 standards are approved. d Visibility-reducing particles: In 1989, the ARB converted both the general statewide 10-mile visibility standard and the Lake Tahoe 30-mile visibility standard to instrumental equivalents, which are “extinction of 0.23 per kilometer” and “extinction of 0.07 per kilometer” for the statewide and Lake Tahoe Air Basin standards, respectively. e The ARB has identified lead and vinyl chloride as ‘toxic air contaminants’ with no threshold level of exposure for adverse health effects determined. These actions allow for the implementation of control measures at levels below the ambient concentrations specified for these pollutants. f The EPA Administrator approved a revised 8-hour ozone standard of 0.07 ppb on October 1, 2015. The new standard went into effect 60 days after publication of the Final Rule in the Federal Register. The Final Rule was published in the Federal Register on October 26, 2015 and became effective on December 28, 2015. g The official level of the 1-hour NO2 standard is 100 ppb, equal to 0.100ppm, which is shown here for the purpose of clearer comparison to the other standards.Source of effects, properties, and sources: - Source of effects, properties, and sources: South Coast Air Quality Management District 2007; California Environmental Protection Agency 2002; California Air Resources Board 2009a; United States Environmental Protection Agency 2003, 2009a, 2009b, 2010, 2011, 2012a and 2012b; National Toxicology Program 2011 and 2016. - Source of standards: California Air Resources Board 2013a.
City of Patterson— Baldwin Master Plan / Zacharias Master Plan Project Air Quality Draft EIR
3.3-8 FirstCarbon Solutions
https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/1790/17900003/EIR/3 - Draft EIR/17900003 Sec03-03 Air Quality.docx Several pollutants listed in Table 3.3-1 are not addressed in this analysis. Analysis of lead is not included in this report because no new sources of lead emissions are anticipated with the project.
Visibility-reducing particles are not explicitly addressed in this analysis because particulate matter is addressed as PM10 and PM2.5. No components of the project would result in vinyl chloride or hydrogen sulfide emissions in any substantial quantity.
Toxic Air Contaminants Health Effects
A TAC is defined as an air pollutant that may cause or contribute to an increase in mortality or serious illness, or that may pose a hazard to human health. TACs are usually present in minute quantities in the ambient air; however, their high toxicity or health risk may pose a threat to public health even at low concentrations. The California Almanac of Emissions and Air Quality—2009 Edition presents the relevant concentration and cancer risk data for the 10 TACs that pose the most substantial health risk in California based on available data. The ten TACs are acetaldehyde, benzene,
1.3-butadiene, carbon tetrachloride, hexavalent chromium, para-dichlorobenzene, formaldehyde, methylene chloride, perchloroethylene, and diesel particulate matter (DPM).
Some studies indicate that DPM poses the greatest health risk among the TACs listed above. A 10- year research program demonstrated that DPM from diesel-fueled engines is a human carcinogen and that chronic (long-term) inhalation exposure to DPM poses a chronic health risk. In addition to increasing the risk of lung cancer, exposure to diesel exhaust can have other health effects. Diesel exhaust can irritate the eyes, nose, throat, and lungs, and it can cause coughs, headaches, lightheadedness, and nausea. Diesel exhaust is a major source of fine particulate pollution as well, and studies have linked elevated particle levels in the air to increased hospital admissions, emergency room visits, asthma attacks, and premature deaths among those suffering from respiratory problems.
DPM differs from other TACs in that it is not a single substance, but a complex mixture of hundreds of substances. Although DPM is emitted by diesel-fueled, internal combustion engines, the composition of the emissions varies depending on engine type, operating conditions, fuel composition, lubricating oil, and whether an emission control system is present. Unlike the other TACs, however, no ambient monitoring data are available for DPM because no routine measurement method currently exists. The ARB has made preliminary concentration estimates based on a DPM exposure method. This method uses the ARB emissions inventory’s PM10 database, ambient PM10 monitoring data, and the results from several studies to estimate concentrations of DPM.
Asbestos
Asbestos is the name given to a number of naturally occurring fibrous silicate minerals that have been mined for their useful properties such as thermal insulation, chemical and thermal stability, and high tensile strength. The three most common types of asbestos are chrysotile, amosite, and crocidolite. Chrysotile, also known as white asbestos, is the most common type of asbestos found in buildings. Chrysotile makes up approximately 90 to 95 percent of all asbestos contained in buildings in the United States. Exposure to asbestos is a health threat; exposure to asbestos fibers may result in health issues such as lung cancer, mesothelioma (a rare cancer of the thin membranes lining the lungs, chest, and abdominal cavity), and asbestosis (a non-cancerous lung disease that causes City of Patterson— Baldwin Master Plan / Zacharias Master Plan Project Draft EIR Air Quality
FirstCarbon Solutions 3.3-9
https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/1790/17900003/EIR/3 - Draft EIR/17900003 Sec03-03 Air Quality.docx scarring of the lungs). Exposure to asbestos can occur during demolition or remodeling of buildings that were constructed prior to the 1977 ban on asbestos for use in buildings. Exposure to naturally occurring asbestos can occur during soil-disturbing activities in areas with deposits present. No naturally occurring asbestos is located near the project site. 1 Existing Air Quality Conditions
The local air quality can be evaluated by reviewing relevant air pollution concentrations near the project area. Table 3.3-2 summarizes 2016 through 2018 published monitoring data, which is the most recent three-year period available. The table displays data from the Modesto-14th Street monitoring station (located approximately 12.8 mi northeast) and the Turlock-S Minaret Street monitoring station (located 16.5 mi east). The data shows that during the past few years, the project area has exceeded the standards for ozone (state and national), PM10 (state), and PM2.5 (national).
The data in the table reflects the concentration of the pollutants in the air, measured using air monitoring equipment. This differs from emissions, which are calculations of a pollutant being emitted over a certain period. No recent monitoring data for Stanislaus County or the San Joaquin Valley Air Basin was available for CO or SO2. Generally, no monitoring is conducted for pollutants that are no longer likely to exceed ambient air quality standards.
Table 3.3-2: Air Quality Monitoring Summary
Air Pollutant
Averaging
Time Item 2016 2017 2018
Ozone1 1 Hour Max 1 Hour (ppm) 0.105 0.111 0.103
Days > State Standard (0.09 ppm) 4 3 2
8 Hour Max 8 Hour (ppm) 0.092 0.098 0.091
Days > State Standard (0.07 ppm) 22 23 14
Days > National Standard (0.070 ppm) 11 10 5
Carbon
monoxide
(CO)2
8 Hour Max 8 Hour (ppm) ID ID ID
Days > State Standard (9.0 ppm) ID ID ID
Days > National Standard (9 ppm) ID ID ID
Nitrogen
dioxide (NO2)
2 Annual Annual Average (ppm) 9 9 9
1 Hour Max 1 Hour (ppm) 47 58 67
Days > State Standard (0.18 ppm) 0 0 0
Sulfur dioxide
(SO2)
2 Annual Annual Average (ppm) ID ID ID
24 Hour Max 24 Hour (ppm) ID ID ID
Days > State Standard (0.04 ppm) ID ID ID
Inhalable
coarse particles
(PM10)
1 Annual Annual Average (µg/m3) 27.6 31.4 32.1
24 hour 24 Hour (µg/m3) 81.5 128.9 236.4
Days > State Standard (50 µg/m3) ID 58.2 ID
City of Patterson— Baldwin Master Plan / Zacharias Master Plan Project Air Quality Draft EIR
3.3-10 FirstCarbon Solutions
https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/1790/17900003/EIR/3 - Draft EIR/17900003 Sec03-03 Air Quality.docx Air Pollutant
Averaging
Time Item 2016 2017 2018
Days > National Standard (150 µg/m3) ID 0.0 4.3
Fine particulate
matter (PM2.5)
2 Annual Annual Average (µg/m3) 8.6 12.9 15.2
24 Hour 24 Hour (µg/m3) 53.3 74.5 189.8
Days > National Standard (35 µg/m3) 9.0 25.1 21.5
Notes:
> = exceed ppm = parts per million µg/m3 = micrograms per cubic meter ID = insufficient data ND = no data max = maximum
Bold = exceedance
* = national data used instead of state data (state data unavailable) State Standard = California Ambient Air Quality Standard National Standard = National Ambient Air Quality Standard 1 Modesto-14th Street
2 Turlock-S Minaret Street
Source: ARB 2020
The health impacts of the various air pollutants of concern can be presented in a number of ways. The clearest comparison is to the state and federal ozone standards. Air concentration below standards indicate that health risks are sufficiently low enough to have a minimal impact on public health, as there is no such thing as a zero-risk level. When concentrations exceed the standards, impacts will vary based on the amount by which the standard is exceeded. The EPA developed the Air Quality Index (AQI) as an easy-to-understand measure of health impacts compared with concentrations in the air.
Table 3.3-3 provides a description of the health impacts of ozone at different concentrations.
Table 3.3-3: Air Quality Index and Health Effects from Ozone Air Quality Index/
8-hour Ozone Concentration Health Effects Description
AQI 100—Moderate Sensitive Groups: Children and people with asthma are the groups most at risk.
Concentration 75 ppb Health Effects Statements: Unusually sensitive individuals may experience respiratory symptoms.
Cautionary Statements: Unusually sensitive people should consider limiting prolonged outdoor exertion.
AQI 150—Unhealthy for Sensitive
Groups
Sensitive Groups: Children and people with asthma are the groups most at risk.
Concentration 95 ppb Health Effects Statements: Increasing likelihood of respiratory symptoms and breathing discomfort in active children and adults and people with respiratory disease, such as asthma.
Cautionary Statements: Active children and adults, and people with respiratory disease, such as asthma, should limit prolonged outdoor exertion.
AQI 200—Unhealthy Sensitive Groups: Children and people with asthma are the groups most at risk.
City of Patterson— Baldwin Master Plan / Zacharias Master Plan Project Draft EIR Air Quality
FirstCarbon Solutions 3.3-11
https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/1790/17900003/EIR/3 - Draft EIR/17900003 Sec03-03 Air Quality.docx Air Quality Index/
8-hour Ozone Concentration Health Effects Description
Concentration 115 ppb Health Effects Statements: Greater likelihood of respiratory symptoms and breathing difficulty in active children and adults and people with respiratory disease, such as asthma; possible respiratory effects in general population.
Cautionary Statements: Active children and adults, and people with respiratory disease, such as asthma, should avoid prolonged outdoor exertion; everyone else, especially children, should limit prolonged outdoor exertion.
AQI 210—Very Unhealthy Sensitive Groups: Children and people with asthma are the groups most at risk.
Concentration 139 ppb Health Effects Statements: Increasingly severe symptoms and impaired breathing likely in active children and adults and people with respiratory disease, such as asthma; increasing likelihood of respiratory effects in general population.
Cautionary Statements: Active children and adults, and people with respiratory disease, such as asthma, should avoid all outdoor exertion; everyone else, especially children, should limit outdoor exertion.
Source: Air Now. 2015. AQI Calculator: AQI to Concentration The highest reading for the 8-hour ozone standard for the last three years at the Modesto-14th Street monitoring station was 92 parts per billion (ppb) in 2016 ,98 parts per billion (ppb) in 2017 and 91 parts per billion (ppb) in 2018, which is between the 95 ppb cutoff point for Unhealthy for Sensitive Groups and (AQI 150) and the 115 ppb cutoff for Unhealthy (AQI 200).
Attainment Status
The EPA and the ARB designate air basins where ambient air quality standards are exceeded as “nonattainment” areas. If standards are met, the area is designated as an “attainment” area. If there is inadequate or inconclusive data to make a definitive attainment designation, they are considered “unclassified.” National nonattainment areas are further designated as marginal, moderate, serious, severe, or extreme as a function of deviation from standards.
Each standard has a different definition, or “form” of what constitutes attainment, based on specific air quality statistics. For example, the federal 8-hour CO standard is not to be exceeded more than once per year; therefore, an area is in attainment of the CO standard if no more than one 8-hour ambient air monitoring values exceeds the threshold per year. In contrast, the federal annual PM2.5 standard is met if the 3-year average of the annual average PM2.5 concentration is less than or equal to the standard.
The current attainment designations for the San Joaquin Valley Air Basin are shown in Table 3.3-4.
The Air Basin is designated as nonattainment for ozone, PM10, and PM2.5.
City of Patterson— Baldwin Master Plan / Zacharias Master Plan Project Air Quality Draft EIR
3.3-12 FirstCarbon Solutions
https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/1790/17900003/EIR/3 - Draft EIR/17900003 Sec03-03 Air Quality.docx Table 3.3-4: San Joaquin Valley Air Basin Attainment Status Pollutant State Status National Status
Ozone—One Hour Nonattainment/Severe No Standard
Ozone—Eight Hour Nonattainment Nonattainment/Extreme
Carbon monoxide Attainment/Unclassified Merced, Madera, and Kings Counties are unclassified; others are in Attainment
Nitrogen dioxide Attainment Attainment/Unclassified
Sulfur dioxide Attainment Attainment/Unclassified
PM10 Nonattainment Attainment
PM2.5 Nonattainment Nonattainment
Lead Attainment No Designation/Classification
Source: ARB 2019. Area Designation Maps/State and National.
Air Quality Plans and Regulations
Air pollutants are regulated at the national, state, and air basin or county level; each agency has a different level of regulatory responsibility. The EPA regulates at the national level. The ARB regulates at the state level. The Valley Air District regulates at the air basin level.
The EPA is responsible for national and interstate air pollution issues and policies. The EPA sets national vehicle and stationary source emission standards, oversees approval of all State Implementation Plans (SIP), provides research and guidance for air pollution programs, and sets National Ambient Air Quality Standards, also known as the federal standards described earlier.
A SIP is a document prepared by each state describing existing air quality conditions and measures that will be followed to attain and maintain federal air standards. The SIP for the State of California is administered by the ARB, which has overall responsibility for Statewide air quality maintenance and air pollution prevention. California’s SIP incorporates individual federal attainment plans for regional air districts—an air district prepares their federal attainment plan, which is sent to the ARB to be approved and incorporated into the California SIP. Federal attainment plans include the technical foundation for understanding air quality (e.g., emission inventories and air quality monitoring), control measures and strategies, and enforcement mechanisms.
Areas designated non-attainment must develop air quality plans and regulations to achieve standards by specified dates, depending on the severity of the exceedances. For much of the country, implementation of federal motor vehicle standards and compliance with federal permitting requirements for industrial sources are adequate to attain air quality standards on schedule. For many areas of California, however, additional State and local regulation is required to achieve the standards. Regulations adopted by California are described below.
City of Patterson— Baldwin Master Plan / Zacharias Master Plan Project Draft EIR Air Quality
FirstCarbon Solutions 3.3-13
https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/1790/17900003/EIR/3 - Draft EIR/17900003 Sec03-03 Air Quality.docx Federal
Air pollutants are regulated at the national, state, and air basin or county level; each agency has a different level of regulatory responsibility. The EPA regulates at the national level. The ARB regulates at the state level. The Valley Air District regulates at the air basin level.
The EPA is responsible for national and interstate air pollution issues and policies. The EPA sets national vehicle and stationary source emission standards, oversees approval of all State Implementation Plans, provides research and guidance for air pollution programs, and sets National Ambient Air Quality Standards, also known as the federal standards, described earlier.
The most recent attainment plans for the Valley Air District are the 2007 8-hour Ozone Attainment Plan and the 2012 PM2.5 Plan for the 2006 PM2.5 standard. The Air Basin is designated as an extreme ozone nonattainment area for the EPA’s 2008 8-hour ozone standard of 75 ppb. The EPA Administrator signed the Final Rule revising the 8-hour ozone standard to 70 ppm on October 1, 2015. Adoption of a new standard requires an implementation process that includes making attainment designations and the development of new plans to attain the standard based on each area’s designation. The District’s Governing Board approved the 2016 Plan for the 2008 8-Hour Ozone Standard on June 16, 2016. The comprehensive strategy in this plan will reduce oxides of nitrogen (NOx) emissions by over 60 percent between 2012 and 2031, and will bring the San Joaquin Valley into attainment of EPA’s 2008 8-hour ozone standard as expeditiously as practicable, no later than December 31, 2031.
Areas designated non-attainment must develop air quality plans and regulations to achieve standards by specified dates, depending on the severity of the exceedances. For much of the country, implementation of federal motor vehicle standards and compliance with federal permitting requirements for industrial sources are adequate to attain air quality standards on schedule. For many areas of California, however, additional state and local regulation is required to achieve the standards. Regulations adopted by California are described below.
California
Low-Emission Vehicle Program
The ARB first adopted Low Emission Vehicle (LEV) program standards in 1990. These first LEV standards ran from 1994 through 2003. LEV II regulations, running from 2004 through 2010, represent continuing progress in emission reductions. As the State’s passenger vehicle fleet continues to grow and more sport utility vehicles and pickup trucks are used as passenger cars rather than work vehicles, the more stringent LEV II standards were adopted to provide reductions necessary for California to meet federally mandated clean air goals outlined in the 1994 State Implementation Plan. In 2012, the ARB adopted the LEV III amendments to California’s Low-Emission Vehicle (LEV) regulations. These amendments, also known as the Advanced Clean Car Program include more stringent emission standards for model years 2017 through 2025 for both criteria pollutants and GHGs for new passenger vehicles (ARB 2012a).
City of Patterson— Baldwin Master Plan / Zacharias Master Plan Project Air Quality Draft EIR
3.3-14 FirstCarbon Solutions
https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/1790/17900003/EIR/3 - Draft EIR/17900003 Sec03-03 Air Quality.docx On-Road Heavy-Duty Vehicle Program
The ARB has adopted standards for emissions from various types of new on-road heavy-duty vehicles. Section 1956.8, Title 13, California Code of Regulations contains California’s emission standards for on-road heavy-duty engines and vehicles, and test procedures. The ARB has also adopted programs to reduce emissions from in-use heavy-duty vehicles including the Heavy-Duty Diesel Vehicle Idling Reduction Program, the Heavy-Duty Diesel In-Use Compliance Program, the Public Bus Fleet Rule and Engine Standards, and the School Bus Program and others (ARB 2013b).
ARB Regulation for In-Use Off-Road Diesel Vehicles
On July 26, 2007, the ARB adopted a regulation to reduce DPM and nitrous oxides (NOx) emissions from in-use (existing) off-road heavy-duty diesel vehicles in California. Such vehicles are used in construction, mining, and industrial operations. The regulation limits idling to no more than five consecutive minutes, requires reporting and labeling, and requires disclosure of the regulation upon vehicle sale. The ARB is enforcing that part of the rule with fines up to $10,000 per day for each vehicle in violation. Performance requirements of the rule are based on a fleet’s average NOx emissions, which can be met by replacing older vehicles with newer, cleaner vehicles or by applying exhaust retrofits. The regulation was amended in 2010 to delay the original timeline of the performance requirements, making the first compliance deadline January 1, 2014 for large fleets (over 5,000 horsepower), 2017 for medium fleets (2,501-5,000 horsepower), and 2019 for small fleets (2,500 horsepower or less).
The latest amendments to the Truck and Bus regulation became effective on December 31, 2014.
The amended regulation requires diesel trucks and buses that operate in California to be upgraded to reduce emissions. Newer heavier trucks and buses must meet PM filter requirements beginning January 1, 2012. Lighter and older heavier trucks must be replaced starting January 1, 2015. By January 1, 2023, nearly all trucks and buses will need to have 2010 model year engines or equivalent.
The regulation applies to nearly all privately and federally owned diesel fueled trucks and buses and to privately and publicly owned school buses with a gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) greater than 14,000 pounds. The regulation provides a variety of flexibility options tailored to fleets operating low use vehicles, fleets operating in selected vocations like agricultural and construction, and small fleets of three or fewer trucks (ARB 2015b).
ARB Airborne Toxic Control Measure for Asbestos
In July 2001, the ARB approved an Air Toxic Control Measure for construction, grading, quarrying and surface mining operations to minimize emissions of naturally occurring asbestos. The regulation requires application of best management practices to control fugitive dust in areas known to have naturally occurring asbestos and requires notification to the local air district prior to commencement of ground-disturbing activities. The measure establishes specific testing, notification and engineering controls prior to grading, quarrying, or surface mining in construction zones where naturally occurring asbestos is located on projects of any size. There are additional notification and engineering controls at work sites larger than one acre in size. These projects require the submittal of a “Dust Mitigation Plan” and approval by the air district prior to the start of a project.
City of Patterson— Baldwin Master Plan / Zacharias Master Plan Project Draft EIR Air Quality
FirstCarbon Solutions 3.3-15
https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/1790/17900003/EIR/3 - Draft EIR/17900003 Sec03-03 Air Quality.docx Construction sometimes requires the demolition of existing buildings where construction occurs.
Buildings often include materials containing asbestos, but no demolition is associated with this project. However, asbestos is also found in a natural state, known as naturally occurring asbestos.
Exposure and disturbance of rock and soil that naturally contain asbestos can result in the release of fibers into the air and consequent exposure to the public. Asbestos most commonly occurs in ultramafic rock that has undergone partial or complete alteration to serpentine rock (serpentinite) and often contains chrysotile asbestos. In addition, another form of asbestos, tremolite, can be found associated with ultramafic rock, particularly near faults. Sources of asbestos emissions include unpaved roads or driveways surfaced with ultramafic rock, construction activities in ultramafic rock deposits, or rock quarrying activities where ultramafic rock is present.
The ARB has an Air Toxics Control Measure for construction, grading, quarrying, and surface mining operations, requiring the implementation of mitigation measures to minimize emissions of asbestosladen dust. The measure applies to road construction and maintenance, construction and grading operations, and quarries and surface mines when the activity occurs in an area where naturally occurring asbestos is likely to be found. Areas are subject to the regulation if they are identified on maps published by the Department of Conservation as ultramafic rock units or if the Air Pollution Control Officer or owner/operator has knowledge of the presence of ultramafic rock, serpentine, or naturally occurring asbestos on the site. The measure also applies if ultramafic rock, serpentine, or asbestos is discovered during any operation or activity. Review of the Department of Conservation maps indicates that no ultramafic rock has been found near the city of Tracy.
Diesel Risk Reduction Plan
The ARB’s Diesel Risk Reduction Plan has led to the adoption of new state regulatory standards for all new on-road, off-road, and stationary diesel-fueled engines and vehicles to reduce DPM emissions by about 90 percent overall from year 2000 levels. The projected emission benefits associated with the full implementation of this plan, including federal measures, are reductions in DPM emissions and associated cancer risks of 75 percent by 2010, and 85 percent by 2020 (ARB 2000).
San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District
Ozone Plans
The Air Basin is designated nonattainment of state and federal health-based air quality standards for ozone. To meet Clean Air Act requirements for the one-hour ozone standard, the District adopted an Extreme Ozone Attainment Demonstration Plan in 2004, with an attainment date of 2010. Although the EPA revoked the federal 1-hour ozone standard effective June 15, 2005 and replaced it with an 8-hour standard, the requirement to submit a plan for that standard remained in effect for the San Joaquin Valley.
The planning requirements for the 1-hour plan remain in effect until replaced by a federal 8-hour ozone attainment plan. The EPA approved the 2004 Extreme Ozone Attainment Demonstration Plan, including revisions to the plan, on March 8, 2010, effective April 7, 2010. However, the Air Basin failed to attain the standard in 2010 and was subject to a $29-million Clean Air Act penalty. The penalty is being collected through an additional $12 motor vehicle registration surcharge for each passenger vehicle registered in the Air Basin that will be applied to pollution reduction programs in City of Patterson— Baldwin Master Plan / Zacharias Master Plan Project Air Quality Draft EIR
3.3-16 FirstCarbon Solutions
https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/1790/17900003/EIR/3 - Draft EIR/17900003 Sec03-03 Air Quality.docx the region. The District also instituted a more robust ozone episodic program to reduce emissions on days with the potential to exceed the ozone standards. On July 18, 2016, the EPA published in the Federal Register a final action determining that the San Joaquin Valley has attained the 1-hour ozone national ambient air quality standard. This determination is based on the most recent 3-year period (2012–2014) of sufficient, quality-assured, and certified data (EPA 2016b).
The EPA originally classified the Air Basin as serious nonattainment for the 1997 federal 8-hour ozone standard with an attainment date of 2013. On April 30, 2007, the District’s Governing Board adopted the 2007 Ozone Plan, which contained analysis showing a 2013 attainment target to be infeasible. The 2007 Ozone Plan details the plan for achieving attainment on schedule with an “extreme nonattainment” deadline of 2024. At its adoption of the 2007 Ozone Plan, the District also requested a reclassification to extreme nonattainment. The ARB approved the plan in June 2007, and the EPA approved the request for reclassification to extreme nonattainment on April 15, 2010.
The 2007 Ozone Plan contains measures to reduce ozone and particulate matter precursor emissions to bring the Basin into attainment with the federal 8-hour ozone standard. The 2007 Ozone Plan calls for a 75-percent reduction of NOx and a 25-percent reduction of reactive organic gases (ROG). Figure 1 displays the anticipated NOx reductions attributed in the 2007 Ozone Plan (Source: 2007 Ozone Plan). The plan, with innovative measures and a “dual path” strategy, assures expeditious attainment of the federal 8-hour ozone standard for all Air Basin residents. The District Governing Board adopted the 2007 Ozone Plan on April 30, 2007. The ARB approved the plan on June 14, 2007. The 2007 Ozone Plan requires yet to be determined “Advanced Technology” to achieve additional reductions after 2021, in order to attain the standard at all monitoring stations in the Air Basin by 2024 as allowed for areas designated extreme nonattainment by the CAA.
The Air Basin is designated as an extreme ozone nonattainment area for the EPA’s 2008 8-hour ozone standard of 75 ppb. The plan to address this standard was developed for the region to attain EPA’s 2008 8-hour ozone standard by December 31, 2031.
State ozone standards do not have an attainment deadline but require implementation of all feasible measures to achieve attainment at the earliest date possible. This is achieved through compliance with the federal deadlines and control measure requirements.
City of Patterson— Baldwin Master Plan / Zacharias Master Plan Project Draft EIR Air Quality
FirstCarbon Solutions 3.3-17
https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/1790/17900003/EIR/3 - Draft EIR/17900003 Sec03-03 Air Quality.docx Figure 1: San Joaquin Valley NOx Emissions Forecast
Particulate Matter Plans
The Air Basin was designated nonattainment of state and federal health-based air quality standards for PM10. The Air Basin is also designated nonattainment of state and federal standards for PM2.5.
To meet Clean Air Act requirements for the PM10 standard, the District adopted a PM10 Attainment Demonstration Plan (Amended 2003 PM10 Plan and 2006 PM10 Plan), which has an attainment date of 2010. The District adopted the 2007 PM10 Maintenance Plan in September 2007 to assure the San Joaquin Valley’s continued attainment of the EPA’s PM10 standard. The EPA designated the valley as an attainment/maintenance area for PM10 on September 25, 2008. Although the San Joaquin Valley has exceeded the standard since then, those days were considered exceptional events that are not considered a violation of the standard for attainment purposes.
The 2008 PM2.5 Plan builds upon the comprehensive strategy adopted in the 2007 Ozone Plan to bring the Air Basin into attainment of the 1997 national standards for PM2.5. The EPA has identified NOx and sulfur dioxide as precursors that must be addressed in air quality plans for the 1997 PM2.5 standards. The 2008 PM2.5 Plan is a continuation of the District’s strategy to improve the air quality in the Air Basin. The EPA issued final approval of the 2008 PM2.5 Plan on November 9, 2011, which became effective on January 9, 2012. The EPA approved the emissions inventory, the reasonably available control measures/reasonably available control technology demonstration, reasonable further progress demonstration, attainment demonstration and associated air quality modeling, and the transportation conformity motor vehicle emissions budgets. The EPA also granted California’s request to extend the attainment deadline for the San Joaquin Valley to April 5, 2015 and approved commitments to measures and reductions by the District and the ARB. Finally, it disapproved the State Implementation Plan’s contingency provisions and issued a protective finding for transportation conformity determinations.
In December 2012, the District adopted the 2012 PM2.5 Plan to bring the San Joaquin Valley into attainment of the EPA’s 2006 24-hour PM2.5 standard of 35 µg/m³. The ARB approved the District’s 2012 PM2.5 Plan for the 2006 standard at a public hearing on January 24, 2013 (Valley Air District City of Patterson— Baldwin Master Plan / Zacharias Master Plan Project Air Quality Draft EIR
3.3-18 FirstCarbon Solutions
https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/1790/17900003/EIR/3 - Draft EIR/17900003 Sec03-03 Air Quality.docx 2012). This plan seeks to bring the Valley into attainment with the standard by 2019, with the expectation that most areas will achieve attainment before that time.
The 2015 Plan for the 1997 PM2.5 Standard, approved by the District Governing Board on April 16, 2015, will bring the Valley into attainment of EPA’s 1997 PM2.5 standard as expeditiously as practicable, but no later than December 31, 2020. The plan was required to request reclassification to Serious nonattainment and to extend the attainment date from 2018 to 2020 (Valley Air District 2015b).
San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District Rules and Regulations The Valley Air District rules and regulations that may apply to projects that will occur during buildout of the project include, but are not limited to the following:
Rule 4102—Nuisance. The purpose of this rule is to protect the health and safety of the public, and applies to any source operation that emits or may emit air contaminants or other materials.
Rule 4601—Architectural Coatings. The purpose of this rule is to limit Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC) emissions from architectural coatings. Emissions are reduced by limits on VOC content and providing requirements on coatings storage, cleanup, and labeling.
Rule 4641—Cutback, Slow Cure, and Emulsified Asphalt, Paving and Maintenance Operations. The purpose of this rule is to limit VOC emissions from asphalt paving and maintenance operations. If asphalt paving will be used, then the paving operations will be subject to Rule 4641.
Rule 4901—Wood Burning Fireplaces and Wood Burning Heaters. The purposes of this rule are to limit emissions of carbon monoxide and particulate matter from wood burning fireplaces, wood burning heaters, and outdoor wood burning devices, and to establish a public education program to reduce wood burning emissions. All development that includes woodburning devices are subject to this rule.
Regulation VIII—Fugitive PM10 Prohibitions. Rules 8011-8081 are designed to reduce PM10 emissions (predominantly dust/dirt) generated by human activity, including construction and demolition activities, road construction, bulk materials storage, paved and unpaved roads, carryout and trackout, etc. All development projects that involve soil disturbance are subject to at least one provision of the Regulation VIII series of rules.
Rule 9510—Indirect Source Review. This rule reduces the impact of NOx and PM10 emissions from growth within the Air Basin. The rule places application and emission reduction requirements on development projects meeting applicability criteria in order to reduce emissions through on-site mitigation, off-site District-administered projects, or a combination of the two. This project must comply with Rule 9510 because it would develop more than 50 residential dwelling units.
CEQA
The District has three roles under CEQA:
City of Patterson— Baldwin Master Plan / Zacharias Master Plan Project Draft EIR Air Quality
FirstCarbon Solutions 3.3-19
https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/1790/17900003/EIR/3 - Draft EIR/17900003 Sec03-03 Air Quality.docx
1. Lead Agency: Responsible for preparing environmental analyses for its own projects (adoption of rules, regulations, or plans) or permit projects filed with the District where the District has primary approval authority over the project.
2. Responsible Agency: The discretionary authority of a Responsible Agency is more limited than a Lead Agency; having responsibility for mitigating or avoiding only the environmental effects of those parts of the project which it decides to approve, carry out, or finance. The District defers to the Lead Agency for preparation of environmental documents for land use projects that also have discretionary air quality permits, unless no document is prepared by the Lead Agency and potentially significant impacts related to the permit are possible. The District regularly submits comments on documents prepared by Lead Agencies to ensure that District concerns are addressed.
3. Commenting Agency: The District reviews and comments on air quality analyses prepared by other public agencies (such as the project).
The District also provides guidance and thresholds for CEQA air quality and GHG analyses. The result of this guidance, as well as state regulations to control air pollution, is an overall improvement in the Air Basin. In particular, the District’s 2015 GAMAQI states the following:
1. The District’s Air Quality Attainment Plans include measures to promote air quality elements in county and city general plans as one of the primary indirect source programs. The general plan is the primary long range planning document used by cities and counties to direct development. Since air districts have no authority over land use decisions, it is up to cities and counties to ensure that their general plans help achieve air quality goals. Section 65302.1 of the California Government Code requires cities and counties in the San Joaquin Valley to amend appropriate elements of their general plans to include data, analysis, comprehensive goals, policies, and feasible implementation strategies to improve air quality in their next housing element revisions.
2. The Air Quality Guidelines for General Plans (AQGGP), adopted by the District in 1994 and amended in 2005, is a guidance document containing goals and policy examples that cities and counties may want to incorporate into their General Plans to satisfy Section 65302.1.
When adopted in a general plan and implemented, the suggestions in the AQGGP can reduce vehicle trips and miles traveled and improve air quality. The specific suggestions in the AQGGP are voluntary. The District strongly encourages cities and counties to use their land use and transportation planning authority to help achieve air quality goals by adopting the suggested policies and programs.
Regional
Stanislaus Council of Governments
The Stanislaus Council of Governments (StanCOG) is the Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) for the Stanislaus region as designated by the federal government, the Regional Transportation Planning Agency (RTPA) as designated by the State of California, and the Local Transportation Authority (LTA). StanCOG is responsible for developing and updating a variety of transportation City of Patterson— Baldwin Master Plan / Zacharias Master Plan Project Air Quality Draft EIR
3.3-20 FirstCarbon Solutions
https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/1790/17900003/EIR/3 - Draft EIR/17900003 Sec03-03 Air Quality.docx plans, and for allocating the federal, state and local funds to implement them. While regional transportation planning is its primary role, issues that affect the entire region such as air quality are also part of what StanCOG does. StanCog works closely with the Valley Air District on the motor vehicle emission inventory used in the air quality attainment plans.
The 2018 Regional Transportation Plan and Sustainable Communities Strategy (RTP/SCS). The RTP/SCS includes the following Air Quality Goal:
Goal 6: Health and Safety. Operate and maintain the transportation system to ensure public safety and security; improve the health of residents by improving air quality, and provide more transportation options.
Percent of new households within walking distance (0.5 mile) of a park Percent of a new low-income environmental justice (EJ) households within walking distance (0.5 mile) of a park
EJ households as a percent of total households within 500 feet of a major roadway Meets Federal health-based emission budgets
The following summarizes the benefits RTP/SCS strategy
Fewer acres of new development, less farmland converted, and a higher residential density.
Fewer new local roadway lane miles.
Lower CO2 emissions per household of new development.
Fewer overall vehicle trips and vehicle miles traveled, as well as a higher percentage of households within walking distance of a transit stop.
Decrease in vehicle trip lengths, and a decrease in the proportion of individuals who drive alone.
Higher percentage of total households within walking distance of a park.
Higher proportion of multifamily/townhome development, and more affordable housing for single-family and multifamily options.
Higher proportion of EJ and non-EJ households that are within walking distance of transit services (StanCog 2018).
Local
City of Patterson
General Plan
The City of Patterson General Plan (City of Patterson 2014) sets forth the following goal and policies relevant to air quality and greenhouse gases:
City of Patterson— Baldwin Master Plan / Zacharias Master Plan Project Draft EIR Air Quality
FirstCarbon Solutions 3.3-21
https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/1790/17900003/EIR/3 - Draft EIR/17900003 Sec03-03 Air Quality.docx Goal T-4: To consider air quality and noise impacts along with traffic flow efficiency when making decisions about improvements to existing roadways or the construction of new roadways.
Policy T-4.1: Protection of neighborhoods from traffic impacts. To the extent feasible, the City shall provide for separation of residential and other noise-sensitive land uses from major roadways to reduce noise and air pollution impacts from traffic.
Goal AR-1: To foster effective communication, cooperation, and coordination in developing and operating community and regional air quality programs.
Policy AR-1.1: Source regulation. The City shall review development projects using criteria established by the San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District in order to minimize future increases in vehicle travel and to assist in implementing appropriate indirect source regulations adopted by the Air Pollution Control District.
Policy AR-1.2: APCD cooperation. The City shall work with the San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District to ensure the earliest practicable attainment and subsequent maintenance of federal and state ambient air quality standards.
Policy AR-1.3: CEQA. The City shall use the CEQA process to identify and avoid or mitigate potentially significant air quality impacts of new development. The CEQA process shall be used to ensure early consultation with the San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District concerning air quality issues associated with specific development proposals.
Policy AR-1.4: Air quality mitigation. The City shall ensure all air quality mitigation measures are feasible, implementable, and cost effective.
Policy AR-1.5: Innovative strategies. The City shall encourage innovative mitigation measures to reduce air quality impacts by coordinating with the District, project applicants, and other interested parties.
Policy AR-1.7: Neighboring jurisdictions. The City shall work with neighboring jurisdictions and affected agencies to address cross-jurisdictional and regional transportation and air quality issues.
Policy AR-1.9: Air quality and planning. The City shall consider air quality when planning the land uses and transportation systems to accommodate the expected growth in this community.
Policy AR-1.14: Public education. The City shall work to improve the public’s understanding of the land use, transportation, and air quality link.
Goal AR-2: To reduce the air quality impacts of motor vehicle use.
Policy AR-2.1: Trip reduction programs. The City shall promote the implementation of innovative employer-based trip reduction programs for employees.
Policy AR-2.5: Commute reduction. The City shall promote the expansion of employment opportunities in Patterson to reduce the volume and distance of home-to-work commute trips by motor vehicle.
City of Patterson— Baldwin Master Plan / Zacharias Master Plan Project Air Quality Draft EIR
3.3-22 FirstCarbon Solutions
https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/1790/17900003/EIR/3 - Draft EIR/17900003 Sec03-03 Air Quality.docx Goal AR-3: To Reduce traffic congestion and vehicle trips through more efficient infrastructure and support for trip reduction programs. Reduce the air quality impacts of motor vehicle use.
Policy AR-3.1: Priority to existing roadways. The City shall consider measures to increase the capacity of the existing road network prior to constructing more capacity (additional lanes, new freeways, etc.).
Policy AR-3.2: Promote alternate modes of travel. The City shall work with employers and developers to provide employees and residents with attractive, affordable transportation alternatives.
Policy AR-3.4: Intersection design. Major intersections shall be designed to minimize situations (such as long vehicle delays) which can adversely affect localized air quality.
Goal AR-4: Minimize exposure of the public to toxic air pollutant emissions and noxious odors from industrial, manufacturing, and processing facilities.
Policy AR-4.1: Sensitive receptors. The City shall, to the extent practicable, separate sensitive land uses from significant sources of air pollutants or odor emissions. Sensitive land uses include, but are not limited to, those that support people or other organisms that may have a significantly increased sensitivity or exposure to air pollution by virtue of their age and health (e.g. schools, day care centers, hospitals, nursing homes), status (e.g. sensitive or endangered species), or proximity to the source. The City shall require residential development projects and projects categorized as sensitive receptors to be located an adequate distance from existing and potential sources of toxic emissions such as freeways, major arterials, industrial sites, and hazardous material locations. For purposes of compliance with this policy, the City will be guided by the recommendations provided in the Air Quality and Land Use Handbook: A Community Health Perspective published by the California Air Resources Board.
Policy AR-4.1: Industrial uses. The City shall notify, and coordinate with, the San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District when industrial developments are proposed that may adversely impact air quality. Such coordination may include, but is not limited to, providing assistance to applicants in complying with applicable air quality regulations.
Goal AR-5: Reduce particulate emissions from sources under the jurisdiction of the city.
Policy AR-5.1: Particulates from grading. The City shall work with the District to reduce particulate emissions from construction, grading, excavation, and demolition to the maximum extent feasible.
Policy AR-5.2: Roadways. The City shall require all access roads, driveways, and parking areas serving new commercial and industrial development to be constructed with materials that minimize particulate emissions and are appropriate to the scale and intensity of use.
Policy AR-5.3: City maintained roads. The City shall reduce PM10 emissions from City/County maintained roads to the maximum extent feasible.
Goal AR-6: Reduce emissions related to energy consumption and area sources.
City of Patterson— Baldwin Master Plan / Zacharias Master Plan Project Draft EIR Air Quality
FirstCarbon Solutions 3.3-23
https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/1790/17900003/EIR/3 - Draft EIR/17900003 Sec03-03 Air Quality.docx Policy AR-6.1: Energy efficient design. The City shall work with the local energy providers and developers on voluntary incentive-based programs to encourage the use of energy efficient designs and equipment.
Policy AR-6.2: Energy conservation standards. The City shall cooperate with the local building industry, utilities and the District to promote enhanced energy conservation standards for new construction.
Policy AR-6.3: Vehicle idling reduction. The City shall implement circulation improvements that reduce vehicle idling.
Goal AR-7: To reduce to the emission of greenhouse gases and to promote energy efficiency.
Policy AR-7.1: Climate Action Plan. The City shall comply with the relevant provisions of State law (i.e. AB 32 and SB 375) to minimize the effect of citywide greenhouse gas emissions associated with buildout of the General Plan. This shall be achieved through the implementation of a Climate Action Plan.
Policy AR-7.2: Greenhouse gas reduction goal. The City shall work with the Air Resources Board and the San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District to comply with statewide greenhouse gas reduction goals as established in the Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 (AB 32) for 2020, and subsequent goals.
Policy AR-7.3: Greenhouse gas emissions from new development. The City shall implement measures to reduce the emission of greenhouse gases from new development. Such measures may include, but are not limited to, the following:
- a. Discouraging auto-dependent patterns of development; - b. Promoting compact, mixed-use, pedestrian-friendly, and transit oriented development; - c. Promoting energy-efficient building design and site planning using either Build It Green and LEED™ Silver standards for residential and non-residential buildings, respectively; and - d. Working to improve the ratio of jobs to housing.
Policy AR-7.4: Passive solar heating. To the extent feasible, the City shall require the orientation of buildings to maximize passive solar heating during cool seasons, avoid solar heat gain in warm seasons, enhance natural ventilation and effective use of daylight, and to maximize opportunities for the installation of solar panels.
3.3.4 - Methodology
The methodology follows the GAMAQI, which sets forth recommended thresholds of significance, analysis methodologies, and provides guidance on mitigating significant impacts.
The analysis that follows was prepared using a variety of data sources and air quality models. The Traffic Impact Study for the project, prepared by Advanced Mobility Group was used to obtain trip generation rates and level of service estimates to determine if a CO Hotspot Analysis would be needed. ITE 10th edition average daily trip generation rates were used to model operational motor vehicle emissions.
City of Patterson— Baldwin Master Plan / Zacharias Master Plan Project Air Quality Draft EIR
3.3-24 FirstCarbon Solutions
https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/1790/17900003/EIR/3 - Draft EIR/17900003 Sec03-03 Air Quality.docx The CalEEMod 2016 model (version 3.2) was used to quantify construction-and operational emissions generated by the project. CalEEMod is a California-specific computer model that is owned and maintained by the local air pollution control districts and air quality management districts in the State of California. CalEEMod estimates construction, area source, and operational emissions from potential land uses, using the most recent approved version of relevant ARB emissions models and emission factors and/or District specific emission factors; and estimates emissions reductions.
CalEEMod is recommended for use by the Valley Air District for estimating project emissions.
A 20-year buildout schedule was used for the analysis. Construction was assumed to occur at a steady rate for the residential, commercial, and industrial components. This allowed for the development of average annual construction estimates for these components. The CalEEMod default equipment list was adjusted to retain default hours of equipment use within each year of construction. The project also includes school and park sites that were assumed to be constructed as discrete projects. The emissions from these projects were added to the average rate to determine the maximum annual emissions for comparison to Valley Air District annual thresholds.
The Baldwin Master Plan was analyzed as part of the full Baldwin Zacharias Master Plan project and with a separate analysis of the Baldwin Master Plan. The separate Baldwin analysis was prepared to identify the impacts of only that component for information purposes only. Significance determinations were made based on the impacts of the combined projects.
The vehicle fleet mix is defined as the mix of motor vehicle classes active during the operation of the project. Emission factors are assigned to the expected vehicle mix as a function of vehicle class, speed, and fuel use (gasoline and diesel-powered vehicles). The CalEEMod default vehicle fleet mix overstates the percentage of heavy-duty trucks for most commercial and industrial projects. Actual numbers of truck deliveries vary greatly depending on the actual use of individual project sites.
Therefore, the default fleet mix provides a highly conservative result. Site specific modeling for actual uses would be expected to result in lower emissions. The Valley Air District developed a Residential Fleet Mix with fewer heavy-duty trucks that was used for the residential analysis.
Additional details regarding modeling assumptions is provided in the Air Quality Appendix.
Detailed methodology is described in each of the Impact sections below.
3.3.5 - Thresholds of Significance
The CEQA Guidelines define a significant effect on the environment as “a substantial, or potentially substantial, adverse change in the environment.” To determine if a project would have a significant impact on air quality, the type, level, and impact of emissions generated by the project must be evaluated.
The following air quality significance thresholds are contained in Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines effective December 28, 2018. A significant impact would occur if the project would:
a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? City of Patterson— Baldwin Master Plan / Zacharias Master Plan Project Draft EIR Air Quality
FirstCarbon Solutions 3.3-25
https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/1790/17900003/EIR/3 - Draft EIR/17900003 Sec03-03 Air Quality.docx b) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard? c) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? d) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? While the final determination of whether a project is significant is within the purview of the Lead Agency pursuant to Section 15064(b) of the CEQA Guidelines, the District recommends that its quantitative air pollution thresholds be used to determine the significance of project emissions. If the Lead Agency finds that the project has the potential to exceed these air pollution thresholds, the project should be considered to have significant air quality impacts. The applicable District thresholds and methodologies are contained under each impact statement below.
3.3.6 - Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures
This section discusses potential impacts associated with the development of the proposed project and provides mitigation measures where appropriate.
Consistency with Air Quality Plan
Impact AIR-1: Buildout of the Master Plans may conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan.
Impact Analysis
The GAMAQI indicates that projects that do not exceed Valley Air District regional criteria pollutant emissions quantitative thresholds would not conflict with or obstruct the applicable air quality plan (AQP). Additional criteria regarding consistency with AQP assumptions, and the project’s implementation of control measures were assessed to provide further evidence of the project’s consistency with current AQPs. This document proposes the following criteria for determining project consistency with the current AQPs:
1. Will the project result in an increase in the frequency or severity of existing air quality violations or cause or contribute to new violations, or delay timely attainment of air quality standards or the interim emission reductions specified in the AQPs? This measure is determined by comparison to the regional and localized thresholds identified by the District for Regional and Local Air Pollutants.
2. Will the project conform to the assumptions in the AQPs?
3. Will the project comply with applicable control measures in the AQPs? The use of the criteria listed above is a standard approach for CEQA analysis of projects in the District’s jurisdiction, as well as within other air districts, for the following reasons:
Significant contribution to existing or new exceedances of the air quality standards would be inconsistent with the goal of attaining the air quality standards.
City of Patterson— Baldwin Master Plan / Zacharias Master Plan Project Air Quality Draft EIR
3.3-26 FirstCarbon Solutions
https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/1790/17900003/EIR/3 - Draft EIR/17900003 Sec03-03 Air Quality.docx AQP emissions inventories and attainment modeling are based on growth assumptions for the area within the air district’s jurisdiction.
AQPs rely on a set of air district-initiated control measures as well as implementation of federal and state measures to reduce emissions within their jurisdictions, with the goal of attaining the air quality standards.
AQPs are plans for reaching attainment of air quality standards. The assumptions, inputs, and control measures are analyzed to determine if the Air Basin can reach attainment for the ambient air quality standards. In order to show attainment of the standards, the District analyzes the growth projections in the valley, contributing factors in air pollutant emissions and formations, and existing and adopted emissions controls. The District then formulates a control strategy to reach attainment that includes both State and District regulations and other local programs and measures.
Contribution to Air Quality Violations
A measure of determining if the project is consistent with the air quality plans is if the project would not result in an increase in the frequency or severity of existing air quality violations or cause or contribute to new violations, or delay timely attainment of air quality standards or the interim emission reductions specified in the air quality plans. Because of the region’s nonattainment status for ozone, PM2.5, and PM10, if project-generated emissions of either of the ozone precursor pollutants (ROG and NOx), PM10, or PM2.5 would exceed the District’s significance thresholds, then the project would be considered to conflict with the attainment plans.
As discussed in Impact AIR-2 below, emissions of ROG, NOx, PM10, and PM2.5 associated with the construction and operation of the project would exceed the District’s significance thresholds. As shown in Impact AIR-3, the TVDP would not result in CO hotspots that would violate CO standards.
Therefore, the project would contribute to air quality violations.
Consistency with Assumptions in AQPs
A second test for determining consistency with the AQP’s assumptions is determining consistency with the applicable General Plan to ensure that the project’s population density and land use are consistent with the growth assumptions used in the AQPs for the Air Basin.
As required by California law, city and county General Plans contain a Land Use Element that details the types and quantities of land uses that the city or county estimates will be needed for future growth, and designates locations for land uses to regulate growth. StanCOG uses the growth projections and land use information in adopted general plans, among other sources, to estimate future average daily trips and then vehicle miles traveled (VMT), which are then provided to the District to estimate future mobile source emissions in the AQPs. The population growth and VMT projections were last updated in 2018 for use in preparing the 2018 RTP/SCS. The RTP/SCS forecasts an 80 percent increase in population between 2015 and 2042 (18,398 people) in the City of Patterson, which is the highest for any city in Stanislaus County. The project would accommodate an increase of 19,988 new residents in 20 years which would exceed RTP/SCS growth forecast. AQPs identify the control measures and emission reductions required for reaching attainment of the air standards based on these growth and emission estimates. Federal Transportation Conformity City of Patterson— Baldwin Master Plan / Zacharias Master Plan Project Draft EIR Air Quality
FirstCarbon Solutions 3.3-27
https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/1790/17900003/EIR/3 - Draft EIR/17900003 Sec03-03 Air Quality.docx requirements ensure that the region stays within emission budgets included in the applicable air quality plans. The 2019 Conformity Analysis for the 2019 Federal Transportation Improvement Plan (FTIP) Amendment #9 and 2018 RTP Amendment #1 found that the region passed the required conformity tests. If the project is approved it would be incorporated into the next conformity analysis to ensure that the growth remains consistent with the emission budgets.
The applicable General Plan for the project is the City of Patterson General Plan, which was adopted in 2010, prior to the District’s adoption of the applicable AQPs. The General Plan is amended up to four times per year to allow changes to the planned land use and other plan elements as needed to accommodate development proposals that are not currently consistent with the General Plan. The changes in land use are then incorporated into the modeling assumptions of the regional transportation model on a periodic basis. Therefore, since the project’s population growth and VMT are not currently included in the General Plan, the project is not consistent with the growth assumptions used in the applicable AQPs. However, the designation of additional land for development does not necessarily increase growth in the region since it could just result in a shift in growth from other areas the City or County.
The project site provides a mix of development densities and employment opportunities for future residents that is consistent with the overall goals of the General Plan and the RTP/SCS to improve the jobs housing balance and to provide infrastructure that supports a multimodal transportation system. The General Plan goals and policies listed in Section 3.3.3 – Local will help to mitigate project air quality impacts and achieve consistency with the applicable AQPs.
Control Measures
The AQP contains a number of control measures, which are enforceable requirements through the adoption of rules and regulations. A detailed description of rules and regulations that apply to this project is provided in Section 2.2, Regulatory Setting. The project would comply with all applicable District rules and regulations. Therefore, the project complies with this criterion and would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality attainment plan for this criterion.
Impact Summary
Project emissions would exceed Valley Air District regional criteria pollutant significance thresholds; therefore, the project could result in an increase in the frequency or severity of existing air quality violations or cause or contribute to new violations, or delay timely attainment of air quality standards. Therefore, the project would result in a significant impact based on this criterion. The project proposes growth that would exceed the amounts assumed in the applicable AQP; therefore, the project would result in a significant impact based on this criterion. The project would comply with the applicable AQP control measures; therefore, the project would be less than significant for this criterion.
Mitigation measures to reduce impacts to the applicable AQP are included under Impact Air-2 but they would not reduce the impact to less than significant levels.
City of Patterson— Baldwin Master Plan / Zacharias Master Plan Project Air Quality Draft EIR
3.3-28 FirstCarbon Solutions
https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/1790/17900003/EIR/3 - Draft EIR/17900003 Sec03-03 Air Quality.docx Level of Significance Before Mitigation
Potentially significant impact.
Mitigation Measures
See mitigation measures for Impact AIR-2.
Level of Significance After Mitigation
Significant impact.
Cumulative Criteria Pollutant Emissions Impacts
Impact AIR-2: Buildout of the Master Plans may result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is in nonattainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard.
Impact Analysis
Regional Emissions
Air pollutant emissions have regional effects and localized effects. This analysis assesses the regional effects of the project’s criteria pollutant emissions in comparison to Valley Air District thresholds of significance for short-term construction activities and long-term operation of the project.
The primary pollutants of concern during project construction and operation are ROG, NOx, PM10, and PM2.5. The Valley Air District GAMAQI adopted in 2015 contains thresholds for CO, NOx, ROG, SOx, PM10, and PM2.5.
Ozone is a secondary pollutant that can be formed miles from the source of emissions, through reactions of ROG and NOx emissions in the presence of sunlight. Therefore, ROG and NOx are termed ozone precursors. The Air Basin often exceeds the state and national ozone standards. Therefore, if the project emits a substantial quantity of ozone precursors, the project may contribute to an exceedance of the ozone standard. The Air Basin also exceeds air quality standards for PM10, and PM2.5; therefore, substantial project emissions may contribute to an exceedance for these pollutants.
The District’s annual emission significance thresholds used for the project define the substantial contribution for both operational and construction emissions as follows:
100 tons per year CO
10 tons per year NOx
10 tons per year ROG
27 tons per year SOx
15 tons per year PM10
15 tons per year PM2.5
The project does not contain sources that would produce substantial quantities of SO2 emissions during construction and operation. Modeling conducted for the project show that SO2 emissions are well below the Valley Air District GAMAQI thresholds, as shown in the modeling results contained in Appendix B. No further analysis of SO2 is required.
City of Patterson— Baldwin Master Plan / Zacharias Master Plan Project Draft EIR Air Quality
FirstCarbon Solutions 3.3-29
https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/1790/17900003/EIR/3 - Draft EIR/17900003 Sec03-03 Air Quality.docx Construction Emissions
The analysis is expected to take place over 20 years. Buildout of the residential, commercial, and industrial components were assumed to occur at a steady rate over 20 years. This allowed the determination of the average annual rate of construction. Schools and parks were assumed to be discrete projects that are in addition to the average rate of construction. The highest year of construction for the schools and parks was added to average annual construction emissions to determine the maximum annual construction emissions. The maximum annual construction emissions associated with the project are shown in Table 3.3-5. For assumptions in estimating the emissions, please refer to Appendix C. As shown in Table 3.3-5, the average annual emissions exceed the significance thresholds for NOx after accounting for reductions required by Rule 9510 ISR.
Therefore, project construction emissions would result in a significant impact.
Table 3.3-5: Construction Air Pollutant Emissions Baldwin / Zacharias Master Plan (Maximum Annual)
Project Component
Emissions (tons per year)
ROG NOx CO PM10 PM2.5
Residential 2.24 9.28 8.26 1.25 0.79
Commercial/Industrial 1.85 5.32 4.56 0.76 0.39
Schools 0.38 3.35 3.27 0.67 0.30
Parks 0.21 2.05 1.50 0.56 0.26
Total 4.68 20.00 17.59 3.24 1.73
Total with Rule 9510 ISR Reduction (20% NOx,
45% PM10 exhaust) 4.68 16.00 17.59 3.79 1.73
Significance threshold (tons/year) 10 10 100 15 15
Exceed threshold—significant impact? No Yes No No No
Notes:
PM10 and PM2.5 emissions are from the mitigated output to reflect compliance with Regulation VIII—Fugitive PM10 Prohibitions.
ROG = reactive organic gases NOx = nitrogen oxides PM10 and PM2.5 = particulate matter Totals calculated using unrounded numbers.
Source: CalEEMod Output (Appendix B).
A separate analysis was prepared for the annual construction impacts of only the Baldwin Master Plan area. The analysis uses CalEEMod default assumptions for duration and construction equipment use. The results of the analysis are provided in Table 3.3-6.
Table 3.3-6: Construction Air Pollutant Emissions Baldwin Master Plan (Annual) Year
Emissions (tons per year)
ROG NOx CO PM10 PM2.5
2021 0.45 4.55 3.30 1.12 0.61
City of Patterson— Baldwin Master Plan / Zacharias Master Plan Project Air Quality Draft EIR
3.3-30 FirstCarbon Solutions
https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/1790/17900003/EIR/3 - Draft EIR/17900003 Sec03-03 Air Quality.docx Year
Emissions (tons per year)
ROG NOx CO PM10 PM2.5
2022 0.29 2.52 2.58 0.25 0.14
2023 0.26 2.26 2.52 0.23 0.13
2024 0.25 2.14 2.50 0.23 0.12
2025 0.21 1.85 2.36 0.19 0.10
2026 2.26 0.18 0.31 0.02 0.01
Total 2.26 4.55 3.30 1.12 0.61
Significance threshold (tons/year) 10 10 100 15 15
Exceed threshold—significant impact? No No No No No
Notes:
PM10 and PM2.5 emissions are from the mitigated output to reflect compliance with Regulation VIII—Fugitive PM10 Prohibitions.
ROG = reactive organic gases NOx = nitrogen oxides PM10 and PM2.5 = particulate matter Totals calculated using unrounded numbers.
Source: CalEEMod Output (Appendix B).
Emissions from the Baldwin Master Plan would not exceed Valley Air District annual construction thresholds when assessed as a separate project.
The proposed project would exceed the Valley Air District thresholds for NOX during construction.
Other pollutants are less than significant. Compliance with Valley Air District Rule 9510 would reduce construction NOX by 20 percent which is insufficient to reduce the emissions to less than significant.
Use of construction equipment that is cleaner than required to meet Rule 9510 reduction levels would provide additional reductions. An analysis was prepared using only equipment meeting EPA Tier 4 standards. Emissions would remain significant with Tier 4 equipment. Currently construction contractors may not have access to sufficient quantities of Tier 4 equipment making this measure infeasible. Over the 20-year construction period, older equipment will be replaced with Tier 4 models or retrofitted with control devices meeting the latest standards thereby reducing this problem. In addition, some equipment powered by electricity may be developed that is capable of performing work currently accomplished only with diesel equipment. Since the availability of sufficient quantities of Tier 4 diesel equipment is uncertain, requiring use of such equipment is not currently feasible. The following mitigation measure is proposed to ensure that contractors prepare a construction plan that commits to using owned and rented equipment that is the best available.
Developers often select construction contractors very near the start of construction. Therefore, requirements to use clean construction equipment should be identified in requests for proposals, and bid documents to ensure contractors factor in the cost of providing Tier 4 compliant equipment and require justification for use of fleets that are unable to use Tier 4 equipment. Example justification could include a letter from the contractor with number and type of equipment and the Tier level for company owned equipment and expected availability of Tier 4 rental equipment from rental company used by the contractor. Equipment available on any given day will vary, so flexibility is required to avoid disrupting construction operations. The following mitigation measure is proposed to reduce this impact to the extent feasible.
City of Patterson— Baldwin Master Plan / Zacharias Master Plan Project Draft EIR Air Quality
FirstCarbon Solutions 3.3-31
https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/1790/17900003/EIR/3 - Draft EIR/17900003 Sec03-03 Air Quality.docx MM AIR-3a: Prior to the issuance of grading permits, the applicant shall provide the City of Patterson with a plan demonstrating a good faith effort was made to obtain off-road equipment meeting Tier 4 standards.
No other measures are available to reduce construction equipment emissions to less than significant. Therefore, this impact will be significant and unavoidable after mitigation.
Operational Emissions
Operational emissions occur over the lifetime of the project and are from three main sources: area sources, energy use, and motor vehicles, or mobile sources. Operational emissions are shown in Table 3.3-6. The project was assumed to be built out in 20 years. For modeling purposes, the year 2040 was used to reflect the cumulative impact of the entire project. Separate model runs were prepared for residential land uses, commercial and industrial land use, schools, and parks. The emissions from each model run are combined to provide the maximum project emissions for the Baldwin Master Plan and Zacharias Master Plan. In this case the maximum impact would occur at buildout. A separate model run was prepared for the Baldwin Master Plan for informational purposes. The Valley Air District considers construction and operational emissions separately when making significance determinations.
For assumptions in estimating the emissions, please refer to Appendix B. The emissions output for project operation are summarized in Table 3.3-6. Please note that these results are the “unmitigated” results in CalEEMod. The project will comply with Rule 9510 Indirect Source Review mitigation requirements. ISR requires a 33 percent reduction in NOX and a 50 percent reduction in PM10 from the unmitigated baseline. The amount after compliance with Rule 9510 represents mitigated emissions.
As shown in Table 3.3-7, the emissions exceed the District significance thresholds and, therefore, would result in a significant impact.
Table 3.3-7: Combined Operational Air Pollutant Emissions at Buildout Source
Emissions (tons per year)
ROG NOx CO PM10 PM2.5
Residential 50.14 36.40 259.23 70.25 37.75
Commercial/Industrial 41.38 116.37 78.83 48.87 13.53
Elementary School 0.30 0.45 0.83 0.56 0.15
Middle School 0.70 0.95 1.83 1.17 0.32
Parks 0.18 0.49 1.56 0.35 0.10
Total 92.70 154.66 342.29 121.20 51.85
Total with Reduction from Rule 9510
ISR
92.70 103.10 342.29 60.60 51.85
Significance threshold 10 10 100 15 15
City of Patterson— Baldwin Master Plan / Zacharias Master Plan Project Air Quality Draft EIR
3.3-32 FirstCarbon Solutions
https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/1790/17900003/EIR/3 - Draft EIR/17900003 Sec03-03 Air Quality.docx Source
Emissions (tons per year)
ROG NOx CO PM10 PM2.5
Exceed threshold—significant impact? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Notes:
ROG = reactive organic gases NOx = nitrogen oxides PM10 and PM2.5 = particulate matter Area source emissions include emissions from natural gas, landscape, and painting.
Source: Appendix C.
The project requires mitigation measures to reduce emissions to the extent feasible. As was shown in Table 3.3-7, the project would exceed the thresholds for each pollutant by substantial amounts after application of reductions that will be achieved through compliance with Rule 9510 – Indirect Source Review. No changes to project design or on-site mitigation measures would achieve reductions greater than achieved by Rule 9510. ISR provides credit for on-site measures prior to determining mitigation fees that are used to fund off-site emission reduction projects.
The Valley Air District typically recommends use of what is termed as a Voluntary Emission Reduction Agreement (VERA) to fund additional off-site emission reduction projects when projects exceed Valley Air District thresholds. Although a number of applicants have entered into VERAs with the District, they are becoming increasingly difficult to implement and manage as time passes. The project has a 20-year development timeline. Each year fewer emission reduction projects are available to fund due to several factors. Reductions must be surplus to those required by regulations.
As regulations become increasingly stringent, fewer surplus reductions will be available and the cost per ton of reduction increases. The emission differential between regulated sources and sources equipped with technology that exceeds regulations becomes smaller, thus providing fewer reductions. The District VERAs include a mitigation fee estimate, but do not guarantee a fixed mitigation fee amount. This requires the applicants to assume risk of cost increases that are highly likely to escalate with time. This is akin to requiring someone to commit to purchasing something 10 or 20 years in the future without knowing what it will cost. Finally, the added cost of funding a VERA places the project at a competitive disadvantage with most other projects that comply only with Rule 9510 or that have no air mitigation requirements as is generally the case in other parts of California. Furthermore, VERA’s discourage comprehensive master planning for large areas with superior designs and development patterns and encourage small scale tract by tract development with fewer opportunities for integrated community design.
A separate model run was prepared for the Baldwin Master Plan to estimate the emissions that would be generated by only the Baldwin Master Plan area. The results of the modeling are presented in Table 3.3-8. The Baldwin Master Plan area when analyzed separately would not exceed Valley Air District thresholds for any pollutant.
City of Patterson— Baldwin Master Plan / Zacharias Master Plan Project Draft EIR Air Quality
FirstCarbon Solutions 3.3-33
https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/1790/17900003/EIR/3 - Draft EIR/17900003 Sec03-03 Air Quality.docx Table 3.3-8: Baldwin Master Plan Operational Air Pollutant Emissions at Buildout Source
Emissions (tons per year)
ROG NOx CO PM10 PM2.5
Operational Emission (Unmitigated) 4.17 2.58 19.08 5.18 2.89 Total with Reduction from Rule 9510
ISR
4.17 1.72 19.08 2.59 2.89
Significance threshold 10 10 100 15 15
Exceed threshold—significant impact? No No No No No
Notes:
ROG = reactive organic gases NOx = nitrogen oxides PM10 and PM2.5 = particulate matter Area source emissions include emissions from natural gas, landscape, and painting.
Source: Appendix B.
Project Health Impacts
In the 5th District Court of Appeal case Sierra Club v. County of Fresno (Friant Ranch, L.P.), the Court found the project EIR deficient because it did not identify specific health-related effects resulting from the estimated amount of pollutants generated by the project. The ruling stated that the EIR should give a “sense of the nature and magnitude of the ‘health and safety problems’ caused by a project’s air pollution. The EIR should translate the emission numbers into adverse impacts or to understand why such translation is not possible at this time (and what limited translation is, in fact, possible).”
The standard measure of the severity of impact is the concentration of pollutant in the atmosphere compared to the ambient air quality standard for the pollutant for a specified period of time. The severity of the impact increases with the concentration and the amount of time that people are exposed to the pollutant. The number of days that concentrations exceed standards and the highest concentrations recorded during the last three years are listed in Table 3.3.2. This level should be considered the maximum exposure of people in the region to unhealthful pollutant concentrations.
Emissions throughout the San Joaquin Valley are projected to markedly decline in the coming decade. The Valley Air District 2016 Ozone Plan predicts NOX emissions will decline to 103 tons per day by 2029 or 54 percent from 2019 levels through implementation of control measures included in the plan. This means that ozone health impacts to residents of the San Joaquin Valley will be lower than currently experienced and most areas of the San Joaquin Valley will have attained ozone air quality standards. The plan accounts for growth in population at rates projected by the State of California for the San Joaquin Valley, so only cumulative projects that would exceed regional growth projections would potentially delay attainment and prolong the time and the number of people would experience health impacts. It is unlikely that anyone would experience greater impacts from regional emissions than currently occur. The federal transportation conformity regulation provides a means of ensuring growth in emissions does not exceed emission budgets for each County. Regional Transportation Plans and Regional Transportation Improvement Plans must provide a conformity analysis based on the latest planning assumptions that demonstrates that budgets will be not be City of Patterson— Baldwin Master Plan / Zacharias Master Plan Project Air Quality Draft EIR
3.3-34 FirstCarbon Solutions
https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/1790/17900003/EIR/3 - Draft EIR/17900003 Sec03-03 Air Quality.docx exceeded. If budgets are exceeded, the San Joaquin Valley may be subject to Clean Air Act sanctions until the deficiency is addressed. Although the project is relatively large, it would absorb growth already projected for the region over a 20-year period. People living in the air basin would not experience increased health impacts due to the project. However, without growth, emissions would decline more rapidly thus reducing the current health impacts more rapidly.
Some air quality modelers have attempted to determine an amount of illness or deaths due to differences in emission concentrations using photochemical grid modeling with the CAMx model and the EPA model BenMap for health outcomes, but the level of uncertainty of the results is high. Each step in the modeling process requires estimates with their own level of uncertainty that makes the results statistically questionable. No analysis has been accomplished to date to determine if the margin of error is such that no conclusions should be drawn from the results.
The pollutants of concern in the Friant Ranch ruling were regional criteria pollutants ozone, and PM10. It is important to note that the potential for localized impacts can be addressed through dispersion modeling. The Valley Air District includes screening criteria that if exceeded would require dispersion modeling to determine if project emissions would result in a significant health impact. For this project, the screening criteria would not be exceeded so no significant localized health impacts are expected to occur. Regional pollutants require more complex modeling as described below.
Ozone concentrations are estimated using regional photochemical models because ozone formation is subject to temperature, inversion strength, sunlight, emissions transport over long distances, dispersion, and the regional nature of the precursor emissions. The emissions from individual projects are too small to produce a measurable change in ozone concentrations – it is the cumulative contribution of emissions from existing and new development that is accounted for in the photochemical model. Ozone concentrations vary widely throughout the day and year even with the same amount of daily emissions. The Valley Air District indicated in an Amicus Brief on Friant Ranch that running the photochemical model with just Friant Ranch emissions (109.5 tons/year NOX) is not likely to yield valid information given the relative scale involved. The NOX inventory for the San Joaquin Valley is 224 tons per day in 2019 or 81,760 tons per year. Friant Ranch would result in 0.13 percent increase in NOX emissions. The Baldwin / Zacharias Master Plan would emit 103 tons per year of NOx which is close to the amounts emitted by the Friant Ranch project. Most project emissions are generated by motor vehicle travel distributed on regional roadways miles from the project site, and these emissions are not conducive to project-level modeling.
Particulate emission impacts can be localized and regional. Particulates can be directly emitted and can be formed in the atmosphere with chemical reactions. Small directly emitted particles such as diesel emissions and other combustion emissions can remain in the atmosphere for a long time and can be transported over long distances. Large particles such as fugitive dust tend to be deposited a short distance from where emitted but can also travel long distances during periods of high winds.
Particulates can be washed out of the atmosphere by rain and deposited on surfaces. Secondary particulates formed in the atmosphere such as ammonium nitrate require NOX and ammonia, and they require low inversion levels and certain ranges of temperature and humidity to result in substantial concentrations. These complications make modeling project particulate emissions to determine concentration feasible only for directly emitted particles at receptor locations close to the City of Patterson— Baldwin Master Plan / Zacharias Master Plan Project Draft EIR Air Quality
FirstCarbon Solutions 3.3-35
https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/1790/17900003/EIR/3 - Draft EIR/17900003 Sec03-03 Air Quality.docx project site. Regional particulate concentrations in the San Joaquin Valley are modeled using a gridded inventory (emissions in tons/day are placed a 4-kilometer, three-dimensional grid to spatially allocate the emissions geographically and vertically in the atmosphere) and an atmospheric chemistry component to simulate the chemical reactions. The model uses relative reduction factors to determine the amount of reductions of each PM component will be needed to attain the air quality standards on the days with the conditions most favorable to high particulate concentrations.
A small project would not produce sufficient emissions to determine a project’s individual contribution to the particulate concentration.
Cumulative Health Impacts
The Air Basin is in nonattainment for ozone, PM10 (State only), and PM2.5, which means that the background levels of those pollutants are at times higher than the ambient air quality standards. The air quality standards were set to protect public health, including the health of sensitive individuals (such as children, the elderly, and the infirm). Therefore, when the concentration of those pollutants exceeds the standard, it is likely that some sensitive individuals in the population would experience health effects that were described in Table 3.3-1. However, the health effects are a factor of the dose-response curve. Concentration of the pollutant in the air (dose), the length of time exposed, and the response of the individual are factors involved in the severity and nature of health impacts.
If a significant health impact results from project emissions, it does not mean that 100 percent of the population would experience health effects. Table 3.3-2, and Table 3.3-4 relate the pollutant concentration experienced by residents using air quality data for the nearest air monitoring station to the health impacts ascribed to those concentrations by the EPA Air Quality Index. This provides a more detailed look at the actual impacts currently experienced by area residents.
Since the Basin is nonattainment for ozone, PM10, and PM2.5, it is considered to have an existing significant cumulative health impact without the project. When this occurs, the analysis considers whether the project’s contribution to the existing violation of air quality standards is cumulatively considerable. The Valley Air District regional thresholds for NOX, VOC, PM10, or PM2.5 are applied as cumulative contribution thresholds. Projects that exceed the regional thresholds would have a cumulatively considerable health impact. As shown in Table 3.3-5 and Table 3.3-6 the regional analysis of construction and operational emissions indicates that the project would exceed the District’s significance thresholds; therefore, the project is not consistent with the applicable Air Quality Plan.
Impact Summary
Project emissions would exceed annual construction emissions for NOx after compliance with Rule 9510 – ISR. A mitigation measure has been included for contractors to utilize the lowest emitting construction equipment available. The project would exceed Valley Air District operational emissions thresholds for all criteria pollutants except for SOx. Compliance with Rule 9510 – ISR would reduce emissions of NOx and PM10 to the extent feasible. ROG, CO, and PM10 reductions will be achieved by requiring natural gas hearths for homes that include fireplaces. The General Plan encourages measures to reduce VMT such as Transportation Demand Management (TDM), ridesharing, transit service, and bicycle paths and lanes. Rule 9510 allows credit for projects utilizing these measures.
The emission reductions that can be achieved by these measures are included in the reductions City of Patterson— Baldwin Master Plan / Zacharias Master Plan Project Air Quality Draft EIR
3.3-36 FirstCarbon Solutions
https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/1790/17900003/EIR/3 - Draft EIR/17900003 Sec03-03 Air Quality.docx required by Rule 9510 and mitigation fees are based on the emissions remaining after accounting for the on-site measures. Therefore, the amounts required by Rule 9510 represent the total reductions from all measures.
Level of Significance Before Mitigation
Significant Impact
Mitigation Measures
MM AIR-3a Prior to the issuance of grading permits, the applicant shall provide the City of Patterson with documentation demonstrating a good faith effort was made to obtain off-road equipment meeting Tier 4 standards
MM AIR-3b All hearths and fireplaces shall utilize natural gas. No woodburning hearths are allowed in the Master Plan area.
Level of Significance After Mitigation
Significant and Unavoidable Impact
Sensitive Receptors Exposure to Pollutant Concentrations Impact AIR-3: Buildout of the Master Plans may expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations.
Impact Analysis
Localized emissions from project construction and operation are assessed using concentration-based thresholds that determine if the project would result in a localized exceedance of any ambient air quality standards or would make a cumulatively considerable contribution to an existing exceedance.
Sensitive Receptors
Those who are sensitive to air pollution include children, the elderly, and persons with pre-existing respiratory or cardiovascular illness. The District considers a sensitive receptor a location that houses or attracts children, the elderly, people with illnesses, or others who are especially sensitive to the effects of air pollutants. Examples of sensitive receptors include hospitals, residences, convalescent facilities, and schools. The Zacharias Master Plan area includes existing sensitive receptors in rural residences located in the area west of Highway 33 and Ward Avenue Baldwin and east of the Patterson Irrigation District canal. Sensitive receptors are also located in single family residential development along the southern boundary of the Master Plan. The sensitive receptors nearest to the Baldwin Master Plan area are located in a single-family subdivision northeast of the site.
Proposed residences and schools included as part of the project would be considered sensitive receptors once occupied.
Off-site Sensitive Receptors
Impacts to receptors located outside the project boundaries would occur during project construction. Construction emissions were assumed to commence with the year 2021 and continue for 20 years until project buildout. For large Master Plan projects, construction activities are City of Patterson— Baldwin Master Plan / Zacharias Master Plan Project Draft EIR Air Quality
FirstCarbon Solutions 3.3-37
https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/1790/17900003/EIR/3 - Draft EIR/17900003 Sec03-03 Air Quality.docx assumed to occur incrementally. The individual projects implementing the Master Plans would be of similar size and rates to projects that occur in other parts of the City of Patterson. Modeling of individual projects representing typical development that would occur at any location within the Master Plan was conducted to determine if impacts would exceed Valley Air District localized emission screening criteria. The modeling used default construction schedules and equipment usage for residential, commercial, industrial, and school projects. For criteria pollutants, impacts to receptors are based on emissions during the highest emissions during any construction year. As shown in Table 3.3-7, emissions generated from project construction are less than Valley Air District screening criteria. Therefore, this impact would be less than significant. The Zacharias Master Plan includes areas devoted to light industrial and warehouse uses that have the potential to generate criteria pollutants and TAC emissions from trucks and stationary sources. The industrial and warehouse development areas are located northwest of existing single-family residential development.
On-site Sensitive Receptors
Once construction commences, the first residences and schools completed will become sensitive receptor locations. The same analysis used for off-site receptors would apply to future on-site receptors adjacent to later development. Emissions would not exceed the Valley Air District screening thresholds during construction.
The Zacharias Master Plan area devoted to light industrial and warehouse development is located west of areas that will eventually be developed with residences. The future on-site residences could be exposed to the same industrial and truck emissions identified for off-site receptors. On-site receptors could also be exposed to emissions generated at commercial development areas from delivery trucks or gas stations.
Construction: ROG
ROG is emitted during the application of architectural coatings (painting). The amount emitted is dependent on the amount of ROG (or VOC) in the paint. ROG emissions are typically an indoor air quality health hazard concern rather than an outdoor air quality health hazard concern. Therefore, exposure to ROG during architectural coatings is a less than significant health impact.
There are three types of asphalt that are typically used in paving: asphalt cements, cutback asphalts, and emulsified asphalts. However, Valley Air District Rule 4641 prohibits the use of the following types of asphalt: rapid cure cutback asphalt; medium cure cutback asphalt; slow cure asphalt that contains more than one-half (0.5) percent of organic compounds that evaporate at 500 degrees Fahrenheit (°F) or lower; and emulsified asphalt containing organic compounds, in excess of 3 percent by volume, that evaporate at 500°F or lower. An exception to this is medium cure asphalt when the National Weather Service official forecast of the high temperature for the 24-hour period following application is below 50°F.
The acute (short-term) health effects from worker direct exposure to asphalt fumes include irritation of the eyes, nose, and throat. Other effects include respiratory tract symptoms and pulmonary function changes. The studies were based on occupational exposure of fumes. Residents are not in the immediate vicinity of the fumes; therefore, they would not be subjected to concentrations high City of Patterson— Baldwin Master Plan / Zacharias Master Plan Project Air Quality Draft EIR
3.3-38 FirstCarbon Solutions
https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/1790/17900003/EIR/3 - Draft EIR/17900003 Sec03-03 Air Quality.docx enough to evoke a negative response. In addition, the restrictions that are placed on asphalt in the San Joaquin Valley reduce ROG emissions from asphalt and exposure. The impact to nearby sensitive receptors from ROG during construction would be less than significant.
Localized Pollutant Screening Analysis
Emissions occurring at or near the project have the potential to create a localized impact, also referred to as an air pollutant hotspot. Localized emissions are considered significant if, when combined with background emissions, they would result in exceedance of any health-based air quality standard. The impact from localized pollutants is based on the impact to the nearest sensitive receptor.
The Valley Air District’s GAMAQI includes screening thresholds for identifying projects that need detailed analysis for localized impacts. Projects with on-site emission increases from construction activities or operational activities that exceed the 100 pounds per day screening level of any criteria pollutant after compliance with Rule 9510 and implementation of all enforceable mitigation measures would require preparation of an ambient air quality analysis. The criteria pollutants of concern for localized impact in the Air Basin are PM10, PM2.5, NOX, and CO. There is no localized emission standard for ROG and most types of ROG are not toxic and have no health-based standard; however, ROG was included for informational purposes only.
Construction
The Baldwin Master Plan area includes 305 single family dwelling units on a 65.9-acre site. The Zacharias Master Plan include a 22-acre community commercial site with 350,000 square feet of development, and two school sites (a 900-student middle school on 16 acres and a 500-student elementary school on 14 acres). No specific sites are identified for industrial and warehouse uses. In that case, a commonly built 500,000 square foot warehouse project on a 23-acre site was used to determine maximum daily emissions. With this information CalEEMod model runs were prepared using default modeling assumptions to represent typical projects that will implement the Master Plans. The maximum daily emission rates occur during the grading phase for all pollutants except ROG. The maximum daily emission rate for ROG occurs during application of architectural coatings.
The limiting pollutant for daily construction impacts is NOx. The highest emissions for the individual projects are 46.5 pounds per day compared to the 100 pounds per day screening threshold.
CalEEMod default assumptions increase the number of days required for grading as the size of the project increases. Therefore, the size of the individual project makes little difference in daily emissions since the emissions are spread over more days. If an actual individual project accelerated its construction schedule by using more than the default amount of equipment, the amount used could be more than doubled without exceeding the screening threshold. Therefore, the potential impact on sensitive receptors from project construction emissions is less than significant.
The results of the construction screening analysis are presented in Table 3.3-9.
City of Patterson— Baldwin Master Plan / Zacharias Master Plan Project Draft EIR Air Quality
FirstCarbon Solutions 3.3-39
https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/1790/17900003/EIR/3 - Draft EIR/17900003 Sec03-03 Air Quality.docx Table 3.3-9: Maximum Daily Air Pollutant Emissions During Construction Source
Emissions (pounds per day)
ROG NOx CO PM10 PM2.5
Residential Project 59.78 46.46 31.46 20.26 11.85
Shopping Center Project 118.67 46.45 31.69 8.34 4.57
Industrial Warehouse
Project
161.64 45.45 33.58 8.34 4.57
Middle School Project 44.61 34.56 28.62 8.34 4.57
Maximum Daily
Construction Emissions 161.64 46.46 33.58 20.26 11.58
Screening threshold - 100 100 100 100
Exceed screening
threshold? NA No No No No
Notes:
Emissions are essentially the same for the summer and winter modeling runs.
ROG has no concentration-based standard; therefore, no localized exceedance could occur.
CO = carbon monoxide NOx = nitrogen oxides CO = carbon monoxide PM10 and PM2.5 = particulate matter N/A—Not applicable
Source: Modeling Results (Appendix C).
Operation
An analysis of maximum daily emissions during operation was conducted to determine if emissions would exceed 100 pounds per day for any pollutant of concern. The maximum daily operational emissions for the same four typical projects assessed for the construction analysis. The projects were modeled assuming operations would commence in 2022 except for the school project that would commence operations in 2024. Emissions per unit of activity are highest during the early years of operation because emissions decline over time as new less pollutant vehicles replace older models.
Operational emissions include emissions generated on-site by area sources such as natural gas combustion and landscape maintenance, and off-site by motor vehicles accessing the project. Most motor vehicle emissions would occur distant from the site and would not contribute to a violation of ambient air quality standards; therefore, operational mobile emissions were adjusted to reflect emissions within one half mile of the project sites. Mobile sources are the largest source of emissions for most pollutants. ROG is highest for area sources from use of fireplaces and consumer products. The results of the screening analysis are provided in Table 3.3-10. Detailed results are provided in Appendix C.
City of Patterson— Baldwin Master Plan / Zacharias Master Plan Project Air Quality Draft EIR
3.3-40 FirstCarbon Solutions
https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/1790/17900003/EIR/3 - Draft EIR/17900003 Sec03-03 Air Quality.docx Table 3.3-10: Maximum Daily Air Pollutant Emissions During Operation Source
Emissions (pounds per day)
ROG NOx CO PM10 PM2.5
Residential Project 14.68 6.50 32.77 1.78 0.87
Shopping Center Project 11.44 17.38 17.27 4.30 1.25
Industrial Warehouse
Project
12.17 3.51 3.48 0.56 0.56
Middle School Project 3.27 1.28 2.80 0.68 0.22
Maximum Daily
Construction Emissions 14.68 17.38 17.27 4.30 1.25
Screening threshold - 100 100 100 100
Exceed screening
threshold? NA No No No No
Notes:
Emissions are essentially the same for the summer and winter modeling runs.
ROG has no concentration-based standard; therefore, no localized exceedance could occur.
CO = carbon monoxide NOx = nitrogen oxides CO = carbon monoxide PM10 and PM2.5 = particulate matter N/A—Not applicable
Source: Modeling Results (Appendix C).
The project would not exceed Valley Air District screening thresholds for localized operational criteria pollutant impacts; therefore, the project’s localized criteria pollutant impacts would be less than significant.
Operation: ROG
During operation, ROG would be emitted primarily from motor vehicles. Direct exposure to ROG from project motor vehicles would not result in health effects, because the ROG would be distributed across miles and miles of roadway and in the air. The concentrations would not be great enough to result in direct health effects.
Operation: PM10, PM2.5, CO, NO2
As shown in Table 3.3-11, localized emissions of PM10, PM2.5, CO, and NO2 would not exceed the Valley Air District screening thresholds for any of the project types included in the Master Plans.
Residential development is an insignificant source of these pollutants, except for projects that allow woodburning devices that emit PM10, PM2.5 in wood smoke. The project will include only natural gasfueled fireplaces and inserts that are insignificant sources of PM2.5 and PM10. Therefore, the project would not expose sensitive receptors to substantial criteria air pollutant concentrations during operation.
City of Patterson— Baldwin Master Plan / Zacharias Master Plan Project Draft EIR Air Quality
FirstCarbon Solutions 3.3-41
https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/1790/17900003/EIR/3 - Draft EIR/17900003 Sec03-03 Air Quality.docx Carbon Monoxide Hot Spot Analysis
Localized high levels of CO are associated with traffic congestion and idling or slow-moving vehicles.
The Valley Air District provides screening criteria to determine when to quantify local CO concentrations based on impacts to the Level of Service (LOS) of roadways in the project vicinity.
Construction of the project would result in increases in traffic for the surrounding road network during the duration of construction. Motor vehicles accessing the site when the project becomes operational would result in an increase in daily trips. As discussed in the traffic impact study, the increased traffic volumes under existing plus project conditions and under cumulative with project conditions may cause transportation facilities to degrade below acceptable standard levels prior to adding new road improvements. However, after the incorporation of required roadway improvements, LOS would be improved to LOS D or better. Therefore, CO Hotspot Modeling is not required. In addition, the highest background 8-hour average of carbon monoxide, as shown in Table
3.3-10 , is 1.78 ppm, which is 80 percent lower than the state ambient air quality standard of 9.0 ppm and the entire State has attained CO standards. Therefore, the project would not significantly contribute to an exceedance of state or federal CO standards.
Construction: Toxic Air Contaminants
Master Plan construction would involve the use of diesel-fueled vehicles and equipment that emit DPM, which is considered a TAC. The Valley Air District’s latest threshold of significance for TAC emissions is an increase in cancer risk for the maximally exposed individual of 20 in a million (formerly 10 in a million). The Valley Air District’s 2015 GAMAQI does not currently recommend analysis of TAC emissions from project construction activities, but instead focuses on projects with operational emissions that would expose sensitive receptors over a typical lifetime of 70 years.
Although construction activities would occur over the 20-year buildout period, individual projects will be constructed in an incremental fashion at widely separated locations throughout the large Master Plan area, subject to extensions of infrastructure to serve the new development. Commercial development and schools would not be constructed until sufficient residential development has been constructed to provide customers and students to support the facilities. The residential portions of the project would produce limited amounts of TAC emissions during operation and thus have not been subject to project TAC analysis. The highest emissions from construction activities occur during the grading and site preparation phase that occurs for limited periods of time at each active construction site. As construction activity moves across the site, sensitive receptor locations would change, thus limiting long term exposure for any one receptor location. Limited amounts of diesel equipment are used during ground-up construction of individual houses that occurs during the majority of the construction schedule when some units may be occupied. Construction equipment fleet operators are subject to ARBs In Use Offroad Equipment Fleet Regulation, which requires the use of increasing amounts of lower-emitting equipment that will help to ensure that risk would not exceed Valley Air District thresholds.
Construction phase risks would be considered acute health risks as opposed to cancer risks, which are long-term. The Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment has yet to define acute risk factors for diesel particulates that would allow the calculation of a hazards risk index; thus, evaluation of this impact would be speculative and no further discussion is necessary.
City of Patterson— Baldwin Master Plan / Zacharias Master Plan Project Air Quality Draft EIR
3.3-42 FirstCarbon Solutions
https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/1790/17900003/EIR/3 - Draft EIR/17900003 Sec03-03 Air Quality.docx Operation: Toxic Air Contaminants
The Zacharias Master Plan includes areas designated for light industrial and warehouse development and a commercial shopping center. Uses that attract or generate large volumes of diesel truck trips have the potential to create significant impacts from diesel particulate matter. Some light industrial projects could use processes or stationary source equipment that generate TAC emissions. The level of impact is dependent on the proximity of the emission sources to sensitive receptor location and the quantity of pollutants emitted. Emission concentrations decline by approximately 80 percent at receptor locations 1,000 feet from sources of TAC emissions. The quantity of pollutants can vary widely by use. For example, high volume parcel delivery facilities have much higher truck trip volume than a high cube warehouse or a light manufacturing facility with limited truck trips.
Health risk assessments prepared for other large business park and warehouse projects such as the West Patterson Business Park and the Phelan Gateway project in Lathrop found TAC impacts would not exceed Valley Air District cancer risk thresholds at nearby receptors. Based on these factors, project impacts are likely to be less than significant. Preparing a health risk assessment for the Master Plan area would be premature without knowing the specific location and the type of use. The results of the HRA would be speculative since the range of potential uses for the light industrial designation are broad and the range of potential impact is very wide. Based on previous assessments, only the most intensive uses with large truck volumes that are close to sensitive receptors would have the potential exceed the significance threshold. To ensure that the potential impacts of projects implementing the Master Plan are fully addressed, criteria to identify projects of potential concern are provided that would require health risk prioritization screening or a full health risk assessment under certain conditions described below.
The ARB Air Quality and Land Use Handbook contains recommendations that will “help keep California’s children and other vulnerable populations out of harm’s way with respect to nearby sources of air pollution” (ARB 2005), including recommendations for distances between sensitive receptors and certain land uses. These recommendations are assessed as follows.
Distribution centers. The ARB recommends Avoid siting new sensitive land uses within 1,000 feet of a distribution center (that accommodates more than 100 trucks per day, more than 40 trucks with operating transport refrigeration units (TRUs) per day, or where TRU unit operations exceed 300 hours per week). Take into account the configuration of existing distribution centers and avoid locating residences and other new sensitive land uses near entry and exit points.
Fueling stations. The ARB recommends avoiding new sensitive land uses within 300 feet of a large fueling station (a facility with a throughput of 3.6 million gallons per year or greater). A 50-foot separation is recommended for typical gas dispensing facilities.
Dry cleaning operations. The ARB recommends avoiding siting new sensitive land uses within 300 feet of any dry-cleaning operation that uses perchloroethylene. For operations with two or more machines, the ARB recommends a buffer of 500 feet. For operations with three or more machines, the ARB recommends consultation with the local air district.
City of Patterson— Baldwin Master Plan / Zacharias Master Plan Project Draft EIR Air Quality
FirstCarbon Solutions 3.3-43
https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/1790/17900003/EIR/3 - Draft EIR/17900003 Sec03-03 Air Quality.docx Heavily traveled roads. The ARB recommends avoiding new sensitive land uses within 500 feet of a freeway, urban roads with 100,000 vehicles per day, or rural roads with 50,000 vehicles per day. Epidemiological studies indicate that the distance from the roadway and truck traffic densities were key factors in the correlation of health effects, particularly in children.
Based on the ARB guidance, the following mitigation measure is proposed.
MM AIR-3c: Prior to approval of site plans for warehouse/distribution center projects located within 1,000 feet of a sensitive receptor location (including land designated for residential, school, etc.) and accommodates more than 100 trucks per day, more than 40 trucks with operating transport refrigeration units (TRUs) per day, or where TRU unit operations exceed 300 hours per week, the applicant shall provide a health risk prioritization screening analysis to assess the potential DPM impacts of the project. If the project exceeds screening criteria, the applicant shall provide a Health Risk Assessment prepared by a qualified air quality consultant and the City shall submit the HRA for review by the Valley Air District. In addition, the following measures should be considered for the projects:
Locate loading docks and truck access routes as far from receptor locations as possible.
Place signs at loading docks requiring trucks to limit idling to less than 5 minutes to comply with ARB In-Use Diesel Truck Regulation anti-idling provisions.
Provide electric plug in capability to a suitable portion of loading docks for warehouses that use refrigerated trucks to limit TRU operation.
Encourage the use of electric yard hostlers to move trailers on-site.
MM AIR-3d: Prior to approval of a site plan or CUP for a high-volume gasoline station (3 million gallons per year) within 300 feet of a sensitive receptor location the applicant shall provide a health risk prioritization screening analysis to assess the potential health risk from benzene emissions impacts from the fueling operation. Projects that exceed the risk screening criteria may reduce the fuel throughput or prepare a full HRA to more accurately determine project impacts.
Valley Fever
Valley fever, or coccidioidomycosis, is an infection caused by inhalation of the spores of the fungus, Coccidioides immitis (C. immitis). The spores live in soil and can live for an extended time in harsh environmental conditions. Activities or conditions that increase the amount of fugitive dust contribute to greater exposure, and they include dust storms, grading, and recreational off-road activities.
The San Joaquin Valley is considered an endemic area for Valley fever. By geographic region, hospitalizations for Valley fever in the San Joaquin Valley increased from 230 (6.9 per 100,000 population) in 2000 to 701 (17.7 per 100,000 population) in 2007. Within the region, Kern County reported the highest hospitalization rates, increasing from 121 (18.2 per 100,000 population) in 2000 to 285 (34.9 per 100,000 population) in 2007, and peaking in 2005 at 353 hospitalizations (45.8 per 100,000 population). The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention indicates that 752 of the 8,657 persons (8.7 percent) hospitalized in California between 2000 and 2007 for Valley fever died (CDC 2009).
City of Patterson— Baldwin Master Plan / Zacharias Master Plan Project Air Quality Draft EIR
3.3-44 FirstCarbon Solutions
https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/1790/17900003/EIR/3 - Draft EIR/17900003 Sec03-03 Air Quality.docx California experienced 7,466 new cases of Valley fever in 2017. A total of 122 Valley fever cases were reported in Stanislaus County in 2017 for a rate of 22.1 per 100,000 people (CDPH 2018).
The distribution of C. immitis within endemic areas is not uniform and growth sites are commonly small (a few tens of meters) and widely scattered. Known sites appear to have some ecological factors in common suggesting that certain physical, chemical, and biological conditions are more favorable for C. immitis growth. Avoidance, when possible, of sites favorable for the occurrence of C. immitis is a prudent risk management strategy. Listed below are ecologic factors and sites favorable for the occurrence of C. immitis:
1. Rodent burrows (often a favorable site for C. immitis, perhaps because temperatures are more moderate and humidity higher than on the ground surface)
2. Old (prehistoric) Indian campsites near fire pits
3. Areas with sparse vegetation and alkaline soils
4. Areas with high salinity soils
5. Areas adjacent to arroyos (where residual moisture may be available)
6. Packrat middens
7. Upper 30 centimeters of the soil horizon, especially in virgin undisturbed soils
8. Sandy well aerated soil with relatively high water holding capacities Sites within endemic areas less favorable for the occurrence of C. immitis include:
1. Cultivated fields
2. Heavily vegetated areas (e.g. grassy lawns)
3. Higher elevations (above 7,000 feet)
4. Areas where commercial fertilizers (e.g. ammonium sulfate) have been applied
5. Areas that are continually wet
6. Paved (asphalt or concrete) or oiled areas
7. Soils containing abundant microorganisms
8. Heavily urbanized areas where there is little undisturbed virgin soil (USGS 2000).
The project site is mostly undeveloped agricultural land and rural residential land uses. The project is adjacent to existing agricultural land, and residential and industrial development. Because the majority of the Master Plan area and the immediately surrounding vicinity consists of urbanized development or cultivated fields, the site is an area that would lead to a low probability of having C. immitis growth sites and exposure from disturbed soil.
Construction activities would generate fugitive dust that could contain C. immitis spores. The project will minimize the generation of fugitive dust during construction activities by complying with the District’s Regulation VIII. Therefore, this regulation would reduce valley fever impacts during construction to less than significant.
City of Patterson— Baldwin Master Plan / Zacharias Master Plan Project Draft EIR Air Quality
FirstCarbon Solutions 3.3-45
https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/1790/17900003/EIR/3 - Draft EIR/17900003 Sec03-03 Air Quality.docx During operations, dust emissions are anticipated to be negligible, because most of the project area would be occupied by buildings, pavement, and landscaped areas. This condition would preclude the possibility of the project from generating fugitive dust that may contribute to Valley fever exposure.
Impacts would be less than significant.
Naturally Occurring Asbestos
According to a map of areas where naturally occurring asbestos in California are likely to occur (USGS 2011), there are no such areas in the project area. Therefore, development of the project is not anticipated to expose receptors to naturally occurring asbestos. Impacts would be less than significant.
Level of Significance Before Mitigation
Potentially significant impact.
Mitigation Measures
MM AIR-3c Prior to approval of site plans for warehouse/distribution center projects located within 1,000 feet of a sensitive receptor location (including land designated for residential, school, etc.) and accommodates more than 100 trucks per day, more than 40 trucks with operating transport refrigeration units (TRUs) per day, or where TRU unit operations exceed 300 hours per week, the applicant shall provide a health risk prioritization screening analysis to assess the potential cancer and non-cancer risks from project DPM emissions. If the project exceeds screening criteria, the applicant shall provide a Health Risk Assessment prepared by a qualified air quality consultant and the City shall submit the Health Risk Assessment (HRA) for review by the Valley Air District. In addition, the following measures should be considered for the projects:
Locate loading docks and truck access routes as far from receptor locations as possible.
Place signs at loading docks requiring trucks to limit idling to less than 5 minutes to comply with the ARB In-Use Diesel Truck Regulation anti-idling provisions.
Provide electric plug in capability to a suitable portion of loading docks for warehouses that use refrigerated trucks to limit TRU operation.
Encourage the use of electric yard hostlers to move trailers on-site.
MM AIR-3d Prior to approval of a site plan or conditional use permit for a high-volume gasoline station (3 million gallons per year) within 300 feet of a sensitive receptor location the applicant shall provide a health risk prioritization screening analysis to assess the potential health risk from benzene emissions impacts from the fueling operation.
Projects that exceed the risk screening criteria may reduce the fuel throughput or prepare a full HRA to more accurately determine project impacts.
City of Patterson— Baldwin Master Plan / Zacharias Master Plan Project Air Quality Draft EIR
3.3-46 FirstCarbon Solutions
https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/1790/17900003/EIR/3 - Draft EIR/17900003 Sec03-03 Air Quality.docx Level of Significance After Mitigation
Less than significant impact.
Other Emissions
Impact AIR-4: Buildout of the Master Plans would not result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people? Impact Analysis
Thresholds of Significance
The project includes light industrial and commercial development that could result in odor impacts depending on the ultimate uses of the property. Odor impacts on residential areas and other sensitive receptors, such as hospitals, day-care centers, schools, etc. warrant the closest scrutiny, but consideration should also be given to other land uses where people may congregate, such as recreational facilities, worksites, and commercial areas.
Two situations create a potential for odor impact. The first occurs when a new odor source is located near an existing sensitive receptor. The second occurs when a new sensitive receptor locates near an existing source of odor. According to the CBIA v. BAAQMD ruling, impacts of existing sources of odors on the project are not subject to CEQA review. Therefore, the analysis to determine if the project would locate new sensitive receptors near an existing source of odor is provided for information only.
The District has identified the common land use types that are known to produce odors in the Air Basin. These types are shown in Table 3.3-11.
Table 3.3-11: Screening Levels for Potential Odor Sources Odor Generator Distance
Wastewater Treatment Facilities 2 miles
Sanitary Landfill 1 mile
Transfer Station 1 mile
Composting Facility 1 mile
Petroleum Refinery 2 miles
Asphalt Batch Plant 1 mile
Chemical Manufacturing 1 mile
Fiberglass Manufacturing 1 mile
Painting/Coating Operations (e.g.,
auto body shop)
1 mile
Food Processing Facility 1 mile
Feed Lot/Dairy 1 mile
Rendering Plant 1 mile
Source: Valley Air District 2015.
City of Patterson— Baldwin Master Plan / Zacharias Master Plan Project Draft EIR Air Quality
FirstCarbon Solutions 3.3-47
https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/1790/17900003/EIR/3 - Draft EIR/17900003 Sec03-03 Air Quality.docx According to the Valley Air District GAMAQI, analysis of potential odor impacts should be conducted for the following two situations:
Generators: projects that would potentially generate odorous emissions proposed to locate near existing sensitive receptors or other land uses where people may congregate, and Receivers: residential or other sensitive receptor projects or other projects built for the intent of attracting people locating near existing odor sources.
If the project were to result in a new odor generator in the list in Table 3.3-11 being located closer than the recommended distances to a sensitive receptor, a more detailed analysis including a review of District odor complaint records for similar uses is recommended. The detailed analysis would involve contacting the District’s Compliance Division for information regarding odor complaints for similar uses. For a project locating a new odor source, the project should be identified as having a potentially significant odor impact if it is proposed for a site that is closer to an existing odor source than any location where there have been:
More than one confirmed complaint per year averaged over a three-year period, or Three unconfirmed complaints per year averaged over a three-year period.
The Valley Air District can recommend controls to reduce potential odors for uses that commonly receive odor complaints.
Project Analysis
Land uses that are typically identified as sources of objectionable odors include landfills, transfer stations, sewage treatment plants, wastewater pump stations, composting facilities, feed lots, coffee roasters, asphalt batch plants, and rendering plants. The project’s light industrial area could include uses allowed by the City Zoning Ordinance, some of which could engage in food processing, package waste treatment facilities, coffee roasting, autobody and painting shops, recycling facilities and similar uses. The City reviews development applications to determine if the potential for odor generation exists and would require additional analysis when needed. Therefore, the project would not be considered to have the potential to expose persons to substantial sources of objectionable odors.
During construction, the various diesel-powered vehicles and equipment in use on-site would create localized odors. These odors would be temporary and would not likely be noticeable for extended periods of time beyond the project’s site boundaries. The potential for diesel odor impacts is therefore less than significant.
The residential portions of the project have the potential to place sensitive receptors near existing odor sources and new sources of odors in the light industrial area of the Zacharias Master Plan. As discussed earlier, odor impacts from existing uses are not subject to CEQA review and would not result in a significant impact. The project site is not located within 2 miles of the Patterson wastewater treatment facility. There are no solid waste facilities or other major odor generating sources (as listed in Table 3.3-11) within 1 mile of the project site. Therefore, the existing uses would not expose future sensitive receptor locations to substantial odors.
City of Patterson— Baldwin Master Plan / Zacharias Master Plan Project Air Quality Draft EIR
3.3-48 FirstCarbon Solutions
https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/1790/17900003/EIR/3 - Draft EIR/17900003 Sec03-03 Air Quality.docx Level of Significance Before Mitigation
Less than significant impact.
Mitigation Measures
None required
Level of Significance After Mitigation
Less than significant impact.
City of Patterson—Baldwin Master Plan / Zacharias Master Plan Project Draft EIR Biological Resources
FirstCarbon Solutions 3.4-1
https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/1790/17900003/EIR/3 - Draft EIR/17900003 Sec03-04 Bio Resources.docx
3.4 - Biological Resources
3.4.1 - Introduction
This section describes the existing biological setting and potential effects from project implementation on the Master Plan areas and the surrounding area. This section also identifies mitigation measures to reduce these effects to less than significant levels. Descriptions and analysis in this section are based on a field survey performed by FirstCarbon Solutions (FCS) on January 29, 2019. Supporting biological information is provided in Appendix D.
3.4.2 - Environmental Setting
Regional Setting
The Master Plan areas are located in the upper San Joaquin Valley, located in proximity to the City of Patterson in unincorporated Stanislaus County. The two Master Plan areas totals 1,227 acres of open agricultural land and rural residential uses.
Temperatures in this region range from average lows of 36 degrees Fahrenheit (°F) in December and January to highs of 97°F in July. Annual precipitation averages 11.88 inches, primarily between the months of November and April. The topography of the project area is level at approximately 200 feet above mean sea level, and soils present within the vicinity are heavily compacted.
Existing Conditions
Both Master Plan areas contain agricultural land. Irrigation canals are present within the Zacharias Master Plan area. The eastern portion of the Zacharias Master Plan area contains rural residential land on the east side of the Patterson Irrigation District canal. The Master Plan areas are actively cultivated as agricultural fields for various crops, including both orchards and row crops. Additionally, the Master Plan areas contain residential buildings, paved roads, and agricultural buildings (Exhibit
3.4-1).
Vegetation
The Master Plan areas are highly maintained and are dominated by orchards and row crops (cherries, apricots, peaches, and tomatoes). Non-native grasses and ruderal (weedy) species are found in crop margins and abutting the unpaved access roads. In addition to the orchard and row crops, common ruderal species observed on the site include Russian thistle (Salsola tragus), telegraph weed (Heterotheca grandiflora), sow thistle (Sonchus oleraceus), common horseweed (Conyza canadensis).
Wildlife
The vegetation community and land cover types discussed above provide habitat for numerous local wildlife species. Wildlife activity was low during the field survey and consisted of primarily avian species. The trees in the orchards and at the estate home sites provide suitable nesting habitat for native bird species, including raptors. Species observed during the site visit include red-tailed hawk (Buteo jamaicensis) and American crow (Corvus brachyrhynchos). The fallow fields and disturbed City of Patterson—Baldwin Master Plan / Zacharias Master Plan Project Biological Resources Draft EIR
3.4-2 FirstCarbon Solutions
https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/1790/17900003/EIR/3 - Draft EIR/17900003 Sec03-04 Bio Resources.docx areas can also support habitat for ground nesting species such as burrowing owl (although no active burrows were observed). Rodents and migrant coyote could cross the site but are not expected to frequently utilize the site. A California ground squirrel (Otospermophilus beecheyi) colony was observed during the site visit on the edge of a fallow field.
3.4.3 - Special-status Species
Special-status species are those animal and plant species that, in the judgment of the resource agencies, trustee agencies, and certain non-governmental organizations, are sensitive and warrant special consideration in the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) process. These include the following:
Officially designated “threatened,” “endangered,” or “candidate” species federally listed by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and protected under the Federal Endangered Species Act (FESA).
Officially designated “rare,” “threatened,” “endangered,” or “candidate” species State listed by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) and protected under the California Endangered Species Act (CESA). CDFW also maintains a list of “Fully Protected” species as well as “California Species of Special Concern” that are also generally included as special-status species under CEQA.
Species considered rare, threatened, or endangered under the conditions of Section 15380 of the CEQA Guidelines, such as plant species identified on lists 1A, 1B, and 2 in the California Native Plant Society (CNPS) Inventory of Rare and Endangered Vascular Plants of California.
Other species considered sensitive, such as birds protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA), which includes most native birds. A species may also be designated as special concern at the local level.
Bat species listed as Medium and High Priority with the Western Bat Working Group.
The habitat mapping and field survey were reviewed for potential habitat for the special-status species identified from literature, database searches, and our knowledge of the species of the region. A species is determined to have the potential to occur on the Master Plan areas if its documented geographical range from the literature and database searches includes the vicinity of the Master Plan areas and if suitable habitat for the species was identified within or near the Master Plan areas.
Listed and Special-Status Plants
Table 4-1 summarizes special-status plant species with the potential to occur within the vicinity of the Master Plan areas. No sensitive plant species were observed within the Master Plan boundaries during the reconnaissance-level survey. The planning areas are heavily impacted by the existing agricultural operations and does not contain suitable habitat for big tarplant (Blepharizonia plumose), shining navarretia (Navarretia nigelliformis ssp. Radians), Lemmon’s jewel flower (Caulanthus lemmonii), spiny-sepaled button-celery (Eryngium spinosepalum) or diamond-petaled California poppy (Eschscholzia rhombipetala). The complete California Natural Diversity Data Base City of Patterson—Baldwin Master Plan / Zacharias Master Plan Project Draft EIR Biological Resources
FirstCarbon Solutions 3.4-3
https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/1790/17900003/EIR/3 - Draft EIR/17900003 Sec03-04 Bio Resources.docx (CNDDB) list of sensitive plant species evaluated for their potential to occur within the Master Plan boundaries, recorded within the Patterson quad, is included in Appendix D.
Table 3.4-1: Special-status Plant Species Potentially Occurring within the Master Plan Boundaries
Common Name
Scientific Name
Status
Habitat Description4
Potential to Occur and
Rationale
Included
in Impact
USFWS Analysis 1 CDFW2 CNPS3
big tarplant
Blepharizonia
plumosa
— — 1B.1 Valley and foothill
grassland. Dry hills a
plains in annual
grassland. Clay to clayloam soils; usually on
slopes and often in
burned areas. 60-505
m.
Unlikely to Occur:
Lack of suitable
habitat and
extremely high level
of disturbance at site
preclude presence.
No
diamond-petaled
California poppy
Eschscholzia
rhombipetala
— — 1B.1 Valley and foothill
grassland. Alkaline,
clay slopes and flats.
30-625 m.
Unlikely to Occur:
Lack of suitable
habitat and
extremely high level
of disturbance at site
preclude presence.
No
Lemmon's
jewelflower
Caulanthus lemmonii
— — 1B.2 Pinyon and juniper
woodland, valley and
foothill grassland. 75-
1585 m.
Unlikely to Occur:
Lack of suitable
habitat and
extremely high level
of disturbance at site
preclude presence.
No
shining navarretia
Navarretia
nigelliformis ssp.
radians
— — 1B.2 Cismontane woodland,
valley and foothill
grassland, vernal
pools. Apparently in
grassland, and not
necessarily in vernal
pools. 60-975 m.
Unlikely to Occur:
Lack of suitable
habitat and
extremely high level
of disturbance at site
preclude presence.
No
spiny-sepaled
button-celery
Eryngium
spinosepalum
— — 1B.2 Vernal pools, valley
and foothill grassland.
Some sites on clay soil
of granitic origin;
vernal pools, within
grassland. 15-1270 m.
Unlikely to Occur:
Lack of suitable
habitat and
extremely high level
of disturbance at site
preclude presence.
No
Source: FCS 2019.
Listed and Special-Status Wildlife
The Special-status Wildlife Species Table 4-2 identifies 10 federal and State listed threatened and/or endangered wildlife species, and State Species of Special Concern that have been recorded in the City of Patterson—Baldwin Master Plan / Zacharias Master Plan Project Biological Resources Draft EIR
3.4-4 FirstCarbon Solutions
https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/1790/17900003/EIR/3 - Draft EIR/17900003 Sec03-04 Bio Resources.docx CNDDB (CDFW 2019) within the vicinity of the Master Plan areas. Of these ten, it is anticipated that four protected species have the potential to occur within the planning areas based on suitable foraging or nesting habitat, as well as previously recorded occurrences of these species within the vicinity of the Master Plan areas. The four species that have the potential to occur within the Master Plan areas are the burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia), loggerhead shrike (Lanius ludovicianus), San Joaquin kit fox (Vulpes macrotis mutica), and Swainson’s hawk (Buteo swainsoni).
Table 3.4-2: Special-status Wildlife Species Potentially Occurring within the Project Common Name
Scientific Name
Status
Habitat Description3
Potential to Occur and
Rationale
Included
in Impact
USFWS Analysis 1 CDFW2
Reptiles
San Joaquin
coachwhip
Masticophis
flagellum ruddocki
SSC Open, dry habitats with
little or no tree cover.
Found in valley grassland
and saltbush scrub in the
San Joaquin Valley. Needs
mammal burrows for
refuge and oviposition
sites.
Unlikely to Occur: Lack
of suitable habitat and
high level of disturbance
at site preclude
presence.
No
Birds
burrowing owl
Athene cunicularia
- SSC Found in open, dry annual
or perennial grasslands,
deserts, and scrublands
characterized by lowgrowing vegetation. A
subterranean nester,
dependent upon
burrowing mammals, most
notably the California
ground squirrel.
Moderate Potential to
Occur: Site contains
suitable habitat in some
areas. Extremely high
level of disturbance at
site lowers likelihood of
occurring on-site.
Yes
least Bell's vireo
Vireo bellii pusillus
FE SE Summer resident of
Southern California in low
riparian in vicinity of water
or in dry river bottoms;
below 2000 ft. Nests
placed along margins of
bushes or on twigs
projecting into pathways,
usually willow, Baccharis,
mesquite.
Unlikely to Occur: Lack
of suitable habitat and
extremely high level of
disturbance at site
preclude presence. Lack
of riparian woodland
habitat on-site.
No
City of Patterson—Baldwin Master Plan / Zacharias Master Plan Project Draft EIR Biological Resources
FirstCarbon Solutions 3.4-5
https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/1790/17900003/EIR/3 - Draft EIR/17900003 Sec03-04 Bio Resources.docx Common Name
Scientific Name
Status
Habitat Description3
Potential to Occur and
Rationale
Included
in Impact
USFWS Analysis 1 CDFW2
loggerhead shrike
Lanius ludovicianus
_ SSC Broken woodlands,
savannah, pinyon-juniper,
Joshua tree, and riparian
woodlands, desert oases,
scrub & washes. Prefers
open country for hunting,
with perches for scanning,
and fairly dense shrubs
and brush for nesting.
Low Potential to Occur:
Site contains suitable
foraging habitat. Nesting
habitat is limited. High
level of disturbance at
site makes presence less
likely.
Yes
Swainson's hawk
Buteo swainsoni
MBTA ST Breeds in grasslands with
scattered trees, junipersage flats, riparian areas,
savannahs, and agricultural
or ranch lands with groves
or lines of trees.
Requires adjacent suitable
foraging areas such as
grasslands, or alfalfa or
grain fields supporting
rodent populations.
Moderate Potential to
Occur: Site contains
suitable foraging habitat.
No suitable nesting
habitat is found on-site.
Suitable nesting habitat
can be found nearby.
Yes
tricolored blackbird
Agelaius tricolor
- SSC Forages in
open habitats such as farm
fields, pastures, cattle
pens, large lawns. Highly
colonial species, most
numerous in Central Valley
& vicinity. Largely endemic
to California. Breeds in
large freshwater marshes,
dense stands of
hydrophytic vegetation
(cattails, bulrushes, etc.)
Unlikely to Occur: Lack
of suitable habitat and
extremely high level of
disturbance at site
preclude presence. Lack
of wetland habitat onsite.
No
Mammals
American badger
Taxidea taxus
- SSC Found in drier open stages
of most shrub, forest, and
herbaceous habitats with
friable soils. Requires
sufficient food sources
(rodents), friable soils, and
open, uncultivated ground.
Digs large burrows.
Unlikely to Occur: Lack
of suitable habitat and
extremely high level of
disturbance at site
preclude presence. Lack
of shrub and forest
habitat on-site.
No
San Joaquin kit fox
Vulpes macrotis
mutica
FE - Found in native
grasslands on the edges of
the San Joaquin Valley.
Need loose-textured sandy
soils for burrowing, and
suitable prey base.
Low potential to occur:
Lack of suitable habitat
and extremely high level
of disturbance at site
preclude presence.
Yes
City of Patterson—Baldwin Master Plan / Zacharias Master Plan Project Biological Resources Draft EIR
3.4-6 FirstCarbon Solutions
https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/1790/17900003/EIR/3 - Draft EIR/17900003 Sec03-04 Bio Resources.docx Common Name
Scientific Name
Status
Habitat Description3
Potential to Occur and
Rationale
Included
in Impact
USFWS Analysis 1 CDFW2
Amphibians
foothill yellowlegged frog
Rana boylii
- SSC Foothill yellow-legged
frogs are found in Vernal
pools, meadows and seeps
or near rocky streams in a
variety of habitats. Unlike
most other ranid frogs in
California, this species is
rarely encountered (even
on rainy nights) far from
permanent water.
Unlikely to Occur: no
suitable habitat is
present within the
Project.
No
western spadefoot
Spea hammondii
— SSC Occurs primarily in grassland
habitats, but can be found in
valley-foothill hardwood
woodlands. Vernal pools are
essential for breeding and
egg-laying.
Unlikely to Occur: no
suitable habitat is present
within the project site.
No
Code Designations
1 Federal Status: 2018 USFWS Listing 2 State Status: 2018 CDFW Listing ESU = Evolutionary Significant Unit is a distinctive population.
FE = Listed as endangered under FESA.
FT = Listed as threatened under FESA.
FC = Candidate for listing (threatened or endangered) under FESA.
FD = Delisted in accordance with FESA.
FPD = Federally Proposed to be Delisted.
MBTA = protected by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act
— = Not federally listed
SE = Listed as endangered under CESA.
ST = Listed as threatened under CESA.
SSC = Species of Special Concern as identified by the
CDFW.
FP = Listed as fully protected under the Fish and
Game Code (FGC).
CFG = FGC = protected by FGC 3503.5
CR = Rare in California.
— = Not State listed
3 Habitat description: Habitat description adapted from CNDDB (CDFW 2018a).
Source: FCS 2019.
These species are further discussed below:
Burrowing owl
The burrowing owl is a California State Species of Special Concern. The species was not found during the FCS field survey; however, suitable burrows and potential habitat occur in the Master Plan areas.
The species may utilize the fallow agricultural fields as potential nesting habitat.
Loggerhead shrike
The loggerhead shrike is a California State Species of Special Concern. This species has potential to forage within the planning areas. Nesting habitat is limited to several shrubs and small trees mostly along roads and property boundaries. Furthermore, there is a recorded occurrence of breeding loggerhead shrike approximately 1 mile from the Zacharias Master Plan area, near the Mendota Canal (Exhibit 3.4-1). Loggerhead shrikes are protected under the MBTA and are a California species City of Patterson—Baldwin Master Plan / Zacharias Master Plan Project Draft EIR Biological Resources
FirstCarbon Solutions 3.4-7
https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/1790/17900003/EIR/3 - Draft EIR/17900003 Sec03-04 Bio Resources.docx of special concern. Mitigation Measure BIO-1a requires that a standard pre-construction survey be performed for this species and identifies avoidance measures if this species is found to be nesting.
San Joaquin kit fox
San Joaquin kit fox is a federally endangered species that is found in native grasslands and requires loose-textured sandy soils for burrowing, and suitable prey base. The species was not found during the FCS field survey, and additionally, no indicators of habitat or San Joaquin kit fox were found during the field survey. However, for purposes of a conservative analysis, it is recognized that because of the possibility of the species to travel through the Master Plan areas, there is a low potential for this species to occur on the planning areas.
Swainson’s hawk
Swainson’s hawk is federally protected under the MBTA, and is additionally listed as a State threatened species. The species breeds in grasslands with scattered trees or on ranch lands with groves or lines of trees. It requires adjacent suitable foraging areas, such as grasslands or agricultural fields supporting rodent populations. This species has the potential to occur within Master Plan boundaries due to the suitable foraging habitat present on-site in the form of open fallow agricultural fields and row crops with little to no ground cover and tree coverage present. Nesting habitat is low due to lack of large trees within and surrounding the planning areas. Due to this, there is potential for this species to forage on the Master Plan areas.
Jurisdictional Waters
The Master Plan areas do not contain any wetlands or other areas designated as waters of the U.S., and no further studies or regulatory permitting would be required. Therefore, the project would not have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the CWA. Lastly, because no jurisdictional features or riparian habitats are within Master Plan boundaries, these potential impacts are not addressed in the impact analysis and recommendations section of this document.
3.4.4 - Regulatory Framework
Federal
Federal Endangered Species Act
The USFWS and the National Marine Fisheries Service administer the Federal Endangered Species Act (FESA), which provides a process for listing species as either threatened or endangered, and methods of protecting them. FESA defines “endangered” as any plant or animal species that is in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range. A “threatened” species is a species that is likely to become endangered in the near future. A “proposed” species is one that has been officially proposed by USFWS for addition to the Federal threatened or endangered species list.
FESA Section 9 prohibits the “take” of any fish or wildlife species listed under FESA. The term “take” means to harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect, or to attempt to engage in such conduct. “Harm” includes not only the direct taking of a species itself, but also in the destruction of the species’ habitat resulting in potential injury to the species. Under FESA City of Patterson—Baldwin Master Plan / Zacharias Master Plan Project Biological Resources Draft EIR
3.4-8 FirstCarbon Solutions
https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/1790/17900003/EIR/3 - Draft EIR/17900003 Sec03-04 Bio Resources.docx regulations, the USFWS may authorize take when it is incidental to, but not the purpose of, an otherwise lawful act.
Migratory Bird Treaty Act
The MBTA makes it unlawful to kill, possess or trade or attempt to do the same to any migratory bird listed in Title 50 of the Code of Regulations, Section 10.13, including their nests, eggs, or young, except in accordance with regulations prescribed by the Secretary of the Interior.
Clean Water Act
Section 404 of the Federal Clean Water Act (CWA), which is administered by the United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), regulates the discharge of dredge and fill material into “waters of the United States.” Once Section 404 jurisdiction is established, several different types of permitting procedures cover the discharge of dredge and fill material. The first category of permits is the General Permit (falling into two sub-categories: nationwide and regional permits), which provide standing authority for certain specified activities, and set forth various compliance requirements necessary to obtain coverage without further USACE involvement. The second category of permits is the Individual Permit. Unlike the General Permit process, individual permit applications are subject to public notice and a public interest review, which involve a comprehensive analysis of a number of identified factors to evaluate the probable impacts on the public interest of the proposed activity.
These permit applications also require preparation of an alternatives analysis that evaluates whether there is a “practicable alternative” to the proposed discharge. The USACE has established a series of nationwide permits that authorize certain activities in waters of the United States if a proposed activity can demonstrate compliance with standard conditions. Normally, the USACE requires an individual permit for an activity that would affect an area equal to or in excess of 0.5 acre of waters of the United States. Projects that result in impacts to less than 0.5 acre can normally be conducted pursuant to one of the nationwide permits, if consistent with the standard permit conditions. The USACE also has discretionary authority to require an Environmental Impact Statement for projects that result in impacts to an area between 0.1 and 0.5 acre. Use of any nationwide permit is contingent on the activities having no impacts to endangered species.
Section 401 of the CWA requires that “any applicant for a federal permit for activities that involve a discharge to waters of the State shall provide the federal permitting agency with a certification from the State, in which the discharge is proposed, that states the discharge will comply with the applicable provisions under the federal Clean Water Act.” Therefore, before the USACE will issue a Section 404 permit, applicants must apply for and receive a Section 401 water quality certification from the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB). This certification requirement applies to both General and Individual Permits.
State
California Endangered Species Act
The CDFW administers the California Endangered Species Act (CESA); its basic policy is to conserve, protect, restore, and enhance threatened or endangered species and their habitats. CESA further declares that state agencies will not approve projects as proposed that would jeopardize the continued existence of any endangered or threatened species or result in the destruction or adverse City of Patterson—Baldwin Master Plan / Zacharias Master Plan Project Draft EIR Biological Resources
FirstCarbon Solutions 3.4-9
https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/1790/17900003/EIR/3 - Draft EIR/17900003 Sec03-04 Bio Resources.docx modification of habitat essential to the continued existence of those expenses, if there are reasonable and prudent alternatives available. CESA prohibits the take of listed threatened or endangered species. Unlike FESA, CESA also protects species that are identified as candidates for listing as threatened or endangered. Under CESA, take means to “hurt, pursue, capture or kill,” or attempt any of these acts. This definition of take is narrower than the FESA definition of take, because it does not include harm to or harassment of a species. It also does not prohibit indirect harm to CESA-listed species by way of habitat modification. The State of California considers an endangered species as one whose prospects of survival and reproduction are in immediate jeopardy.
A threatened species is considered one that is present in such small numbers throughout its range that it is likely to become an endangered species in the near future in the absence of special protection or management. A rare species is one that is considered present in such small numbers throughout its range that it may become endangered if its present environment worsens. If a proposed project would result in impacts to a species protected by CESA, an “incidental take” permit would be necessary, which may authorize the take so long as it is incidental to an otherwise lawful activity and would not jeopardize the continued existence of the species, and so long as certain other specified conditions are met.
California Environmental Quality Act
As discussed above, specific federal and State statutes protect threatened and endangered species.
In addition, CEQA Guidelines Section 15380 provides that a species not listed on the federal or state lists of threatened or endangered species may be considered rare or endangered under CEQA review if the species can be shown to meet certain criteria.
In addition, sensitive plant species are afforded protection under CEQA through the CNPS inventory of rare, threatened, and endangered plants of California. CNPS is a California resource conservation organization that has developed an inventory of California’s sensitive plant species. This inventory summarizes information on the distribution, rarity, and endangerment of California’s vascular plants.
The inventory is divided into four lists that are based on the rarity of the species. In addition, the CNPS provides an inventory of plant communities that are considered sensitive by state and federal resource agencies, academic institutions, and various conservation groups. Determination of the level of sensitivity is based on the number and size of remaining occurrences as well as recognized threats. See below for additional information regarding the CNPS inventory.
California Department of Fish and Game Codes
Sections 1600 through 1603
Activities that substantially divert, obstruct or change the natural flow, or substantially modify the bed, channel, or bank of any river, stream, or lake in California are subject to the regulatory authority of the CDFW pursuant to Sections 1600 through 1603 of the Fish and Game Code, requiring preparation of a Streambed Alteration Agreement. Under the Code, a stream is defined as a body of water that flows at least periodically, or intermittently, through a bed or channel having banks and supporting fish or other aquatic life. Included are watercourses with surface or subsurface flows that support or have supported riparian vegetation. Additionally, the CDFW has jurisdiction over altered or artificial waterways as well as dry washes that carry water ephemerally during storm events based on the biological value of these drainages to fish and wildlife.
City of Patterson—Baldwin Master Plan / Zacharias Master Plan Project Biological Resources Draft EIR
3.4-10 FirstCarbon Solutions
https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/1790/17900003/EIR/3 - Draft EIR/17900003 Sec03-04 Bio Resources.docx Sections 3503 and 3511
Particular sections of the Fish and Game Code are applicable to natural resource management. For example, Section 3503 of the Fish and Game Code states it is unlawful to take, possess, or destroy birds, their nests, or eggs of any bird. Disturbance that causes nest abandonment and/or loss of reproductive effort (killing or abandonment of eggs or young) is considered take. All raptors, their active nests, eggs, and young are protected. Additionally, Section 3511 of the Fish and Game Code lists fully protected bird species such as the white-tailed kite and golden eagle that may not be taken or possessed at any time, except in certain limited circumstances.
Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act
The RWQCB regulates actions that would involve “discharging waste, or proposing to discharge waste, within any region that could affect the water of the state” (California Water Code Section 13260(a), pursuant to provisions of the Porter-Cologne Water Quality Act.) Waters of the State are defined as “any surface water or groundwater, including saline waters, within the boundaries of the state.” (California Water Code 13050(e)).
California Native Plant Protection Act
The California Native Plant Protection Act (NPPA) is intended to preserve, protect, and enhance endangered or rare native plants in California. This Act directs the CDFW to establish criteria for determining what native plants are rare or endangered. Under this Act, a species is endangered when its prospects for survival and reproduction are in immediate jeopardy from one or more causes. A species is rare, although not threatened with immediate extinction, if it is in such small numbers throughout its range that it may become endangered if its present environment worsens.
This Act prohibits any person from importing into or taking, possessing or selling within California, except as incident to the possession or sale of the real property on which the plant is growing, any endangered or rare native plant or as otherwise excepted under the Act.
The CNPS maintains a list of plant species native to California that have low numbers, limited distribution, or otherwise are threatened with extinction. This information is published in the Inventory of Rare and Endangered Vascular Plants of California. Potential impacts to population of rare plants receive consideration under CEQA review. The CNPS ranking system applicable to the project are defined below:
List 1A: Plants presumed extinct
List 1B: Plants rare, threatened or endangered in California and elsewhere List 2: Plants rare, threatened or endangered in California, but more numerous elsewhere.
Local
City of Patterson
General Plan
The City of Patterson General Plan sets forth the following goals and policies relevant to biological resources:
City of Patterson—Baldwin Master Plan / Zacharias Master Plan Project Draft EIR Biological Resources
FirstCarbon Solutions 3.4-11
https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/1790/17900003/EIR/3 - Draft EIR/17900003 Sec03-04 Bio Resources.docx Goal NR-1: To protect and preserve the quality of water from local watersheds, groundwater resources, and water bodies including creeks, reservoirs, and the San Joaquin River.
Policy NR-1.1: Open space conservation. The City shall conserve open space areas and drainage canals to protect water resources within the local watershed and the San Joaquin River.
Policy NR-1.2: Stormwater quality. The City shall implement measures to minimize the discharge of pollutants and sediment into Salado Creek, Del Puerto Creek and the San Joaquin River (see Goal PS-3 for more policies on stormwater quality).
Policy NR-1.4: Sedimentation. The City shall continue to support local, regional, and statewide efforts to minimize the discharge of sediment into waterways, including Salado Creek, Del Puerto Creek and the San Joaquin River.
Goal NR-3: To protect natural open space areas, sensitive native vegetation, and wildlife communities and habitat.
Policy NR-3.2: Protection of sensitive species. A project with the potential to adversely impact special status species or their habitat, shall provide evidence of compliance with the relevant provisions of state and federal laws relating to the preservation of rare, threatened, or endangered species and their habitat prior to project approval and/or prior to construction as determined by the requirements set forth in the federal and state Endangered Species Acts, the federal Clean Water Act, the federal Rivers and Harbors Act and the Implementation Measures provided in Appendix NR.
Policy NR-3.3: On-site resource preservation. The City shall encourage new development to preserve on-site natural elements that contribute to the community’s native plant and wildlife species value and to its aesthetic character.
Policy NR-3.4: Agency coordination. The City shall support, and participate in, local and regional efforts of local, state and federal resource agencies (e.g. Stanislaus County, California Department of Fish and Game, Army Corps, United States Fish and Wildlife Service) to protect, restore and maintain viable, contiguous areas of habitat for sensitive plant and animal species (see also Implementation Measures and Appendix NR).
Policy NR-3.5: Project-specific surveys for rare plants. Where future development projects have the potential to impact natural plant communities, the City shall require the project applicant to conduct a rare plant survey prepared by a qualified Biologist in accordance with applicable guidelines of the USFWS, CDFG and CNPS. The survey shall identify and map any existing rare, threatened, or endangered plant species. If any of these species are found, mitigation measures shall be developed within the project-level CEQA document and implemented with performance monitoring to avoid significant impacts. The project applicant shall be required to consult with the CDFG and USFWS regarding appropriate mitigation for potential impacts to each sensitive plant species found to occur at the project site. Mitigation may include (but is not limited to) the acquisition and permanent protection of habitat for the subject species of concern, in addition to the implementation of project-specific mitigation measures designed to reduce potential impacts to individual animals. These measures shall be based on the biological requirements of each species found to occur at a particular site, as City of Patterson—Baldwin Master Plan / Zacharias Master Plan Project Biological Resources Draft EIR
3.4-12 FirstCarbon Solutions
https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/1790/17900003/EIR/3 - Draft EIR/17900003 Sec03-04 Bio Resources.docx well as a complete description of the proposed project and its potential impacts to the subject species (see also Implementation Measures and Appendix NR).
Policy NR-3.6: Wildlife surveys for individual projects. Where future development projects have the potential to adversely impact sensitive wildlife resources, the City shall require the project applicant to conduct a biological field survey to assess habitat suitability and wildlife utilization of the project site. All biological field surveys shall be prepared consistent with the requirements of relevant state and federal resources agencies, and each project applicant shall consult with applicable state and federal agencies regarding the results of these surveys and appropriate mitigation measures. Additionally, species-specific surveys shall be conducted in accordance with current guidelines for each rare, threatened, and endangered animal species potentially occurring at the site. If any sensitive wildlife species are found to occur on or utilize the existing habitat as a proposed project site, the project applicant shall be required to consult with CDFG and USFWS regarding appropriate mitigation prior to any City action on a development entitlement request. Mitigation may include (but is not limited to) the acquisition and permanent protection of habitat for the subject species of concern, in addition to the implementation of project-specific mitigation measures designed to reduce the potential impacts for individual animals. These measures shall be based on the biological requirements of each species found to occur at a particular site, as well as a complete description of the proposed projects and its potential impacts to the subject species (see also Implementation Measures and Appendix NR).
Policy NR-3.9: Monitoring. Monitoring of mitigation and restoration activities shall be consistent with requirements for each species or habitat as prescribed by the relevant regulatory jurisdictional agencies. For listed or candidate species, species of special concern, or sensitive habitats for which no mitigation or avoidance measures have been published, the City shall require evidence of coordination with the responsible agencies prior to acceptance of mitigation, avoidance measures, or monitoring requirements.
Policy NR-3.10: Open space conservation. The City shall continue to preserve, protect, and provide access to designated open space areas that may be established along the San Joaquin River, Del Puerto Creek, and undevelopable floodplains.
3.4.5 - Methodology
FCS staff conducted a field reconnaissance on January 29, 2019 to document conditions on the Master Plan areas. In addition, the following sources of data and information were reviewed to determine the potential for special-status plant or wildlife species to occur within the planning areas; relevant supporting information is included in Appendix D:
CNPS CNDDB records for the Patterson, California 7.5-minute topographic quadrangle CNPS Electronic Inventory (CNPSEI) of Rare and Endangered Vascular Plants of California records for the Patterson, California 7.5-minute topographic quadrangle City of Patterson—Baldwin Master Plan / Zacharias Master Plan Project Draft EIR Biological Resources
FirstCarbon Solutions 3.4-13
https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/1790/17900003/EIR/3 - Draft EIR/17900003 Sec03-04 Bio Resources.docx
3.4.6 - Thresholds of Significance
According to Appendix G, Environmental Checklist, of the CEQA Guidelines, biological resources impacts resulting from the implementation of the proposed project would be considered significant if the project would:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special-status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, and regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? c) Have a substantial adverse effect on state or federally protected wetlands (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means?
d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of wildlife nursery sites?
e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance?
f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan?
3.4.7 - Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures
This section discusses potential impacts associated with the development of the project and provides mitigation measures where appropriate.
Special-Status Species
Impact BIO-1: Buildout of the Master Plans may have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special-status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or the United States Fish and Wildlife Service.
Impact Analysis
This impact will address the proposed project’s potential to have a substantial adverse effect on special-status species.
Baldwin and Zacharias Master Plans
As previously discussed, no special-status plant species have the potential to occur within the Master Plan areas. Several special-status wildlife species have the potential to occur, discussed as follows.
City of Patterson—Baldwin Master Plan / Zacharias Master Plan Project Biological Resources Draft EIR
3.4-14 FirstCarbon Solutions
https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/1790/17900003/EIR/3 - Draft EIR/17900003 Sec03-04 Bio Resources.docx Burrowing Owl
The Master Plan areas provide suitable habitat (burrows for nesting, and adequate prey base) for burrowing owls, though the likelihood an owl would occur on-site is unlikely. Burrowing owls are protected under the MBTA and are a California species of special concern. No burrowing owls were observed during the reconnaissance survey. As such, Mitigation Measure (MM) BIO-1a requires that a standard pre-construction survey be performed for this species and identifies avoidance measures if this species is found to be present.
Migratory Birds
A number of migratory birds could breed on-site; therefore, preconstruction surveys within 30 days of construction activities must be conducted by a qualified Biologist during the breeding season (February through August). These surveys can occur concurrently with burrowing owl and loggerhead shrike surveys. MM BIO-1a requires that a standard pre-construction survey be performed for nesting birds and identifies avoidance measures if such birds are found to be present.
San Joaquin Kit Fox
The San Joaquin kit fox occurs in grassland, prairies, and other arid plant communities throughout the Central and Salinas valleys of California. There are four recorded observations of the species within approximately 8 miles of the Master Plan areas: one individual observed in 1973, one individual observed in 1989, one individual found dead on the west side of Interstate 5 (I-5) in 1990, and one individual found dead on the west side of the I-5 in 2004. No direct observations of kit fox or its sign (e.g., scat, prints, or appropriately sized burrows) were observed during the site visit. Since the Master Plan areas lie on the east side of I-5, it is presumed kit fox would be absent from the site, as I-5 appears to act as a barrier to movement, evidenced by a complete lack of observations of kit fox on the east side of the highway within 10 miles of the Master Plan areas, and the two observations of dead fox on the west side of the highway. Furthermore, the California Aqueduct and the Delta Mendota Canal lie between I-5 and the site, creating a further impediment to eastward movement. The probability that San Joaquin kit fox would occur is extremely low. Nonetheless, MM BIO-1c requires that a standard pre-construction survey be performed for this species and identifies avoidance measures if this species is found to be present.
Swainson’s Hawk
In the Central Valley of California, the Swainson’s hawk breeds mainly in mature trees associated with riparian corridors and forages over multiple habitat types. This species preys on a variety of species including insects, reptiles, and small mammals. This species is often seen foraging over alfalfa fields. There are six CNDDB occurrence records that occurred between 1988 and 2001 within 10 miles of the Master Plan areas, all located to the east of the site along the San Joaquin River. This species could occasionally forage over the Master Plan areas, although it is more likely it forages in close proximity to the nest sites associated with the San Joaquin River. No Swainson’s hawks were observed during the reconnaissance survey. Protocol surveys are recommended for Swainson’s hawk prior to construction to ensure its nesting is absent from the vicinity of the Master Plan areas.
Recommended survey methods follow the Swainson’s hawk Central Valley protocol. This includes performing nesting surveys within a 0.5-mile radius of the Master Plan areas for at least two periods prior to commencement of construction. MM BIO-1b requires that a standard pre-construction City of Patterson—Baldwin Master Plan / Zacharias Master Plan Project Draft EIR Biological Resources
FirstCarbon Solutions 3.4-15
https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/1790/17900003/EIR/3 - Draft EIR/17900003 Sec03-04 Bio Resources.docx survey be performed for this species and identifies avoidance measures if this species is found to be present.
The Master Plan areas contain orchards, row crops, and fallow fields. The Mitigation Guidelines for Swainson’s Hawk indicates that the following agricultural land uses can provide foraging habitat suitable for the Swainson’s hawk: “alfalfa; fallow fields; beet, tomato, and other low-growing row or field crops; dry-land and irrigated pasture; rice land (when not flooded); and cereal grain crops (including corn after harvest).” As such, only the portions of the Master Plan areas containing row crops or fallow fields would be considered to have the potential to provide foraging habitat; the orchards would not.
There are several recorded occurrences of the Swainson’s hawk within 10 miles of the Master Plan areas. The Mitigation Guidelines for Swainson’s Hawk establishes that projects within 10 miles of an active nest tree but greater than 5 miles from the nest tree shall provide 0.50 acre of habitat mitigation land for each acre of foraging habitat impacted. Accordingly, these requirements are reflected in MM BIO-1b.
Conclusion
No sensitive species were observed on the site during the reconnaissance survey, and there are no known or recorded observations of any sensitive species associated with the Master Plan areas. The mitigation measures below are presented to confirm whether special-status species have remained absent from the planning areas, and that no animal would be harmed in the unlikely event a specialstatus species is found on-site prior to construction. With the implementation of MM BIO-1a through MM BIO-1b, impacts would be reduced to a level of less than significant.
Level of Significance Before Mitigation
Potentially significant impact
Mitigation Measures
MM BIO-1a No more than 14 days prior to the initiation of ground-disturbing activities within the nesting season (February 1 to August 31), a qualified Biologist shall perform a pre-construction survey for burrowing owl, loggerhead shrike, or nesting migratory birds active within the Master Plan areas and within a 200-foot buffer of the project site to determine the presence or absence of these species. If these species are determined to be present, the applicant shall follow the guidelines outlined by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW):
If burrowing owls are found on-site during the nesting season (February 1 to August 31), they shall be avoided by a 250-foot work-free buffer until it has been determined by a qualified Biologist that the young have fledged and are independent of their parents. The 250-foot week-free buffer will be clearly defined (e.g., with orange construction fencing), and a biological monitor will visit the site randomly throughout the breeding season to ensure the area remains work-free and the owls are not negatively affected by construction activities.
City of Patterson—Baldwin Master Plan / Zacharias Master Plan Project Biological Resources Draft EIR
3.4-16 FirstCarbon Solutions
https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/1790/17900003/EIR/3 - Draft EIR/17900003 Sec03-04 Bio Resources.docx If loggerhead shrike or any other migratory birds are found nesting on-site, a 50- foot work-free buffer area will be established and monitored by a qualified Biologist until young have fledged and are independent of their parents. Again, nests and work-free buffers would be monitored.
If burrowing owls occur on the project area during the wintering season (September 1 to January 31), and construction is slated to begin during this time and active burrows cannot be avoided, an eviction of owls can be conducted to ensure owls move off the site prior to commencement of construction. The eviction process includes the installation of one-way doors that remain in all burrows of suitable size for at least 3 days, monitored by a qualified Biologist, and then hand-excavating burrows to ensure no owl remains in the burrow. Once the site is clear of owls, the burrows can be backfilled, after which ground-disturbing construction activity can commence.
In the unlikely event burrowing owls are found on-site, mitigation lands must be purchased to offset the loss of their habitat. The standard mitigation lands required to loss of habitat is 6.5 acres for every pair of owls found on-site.
MM BIO-1b No more than 14 days prior to ground-disturbing activities during the breeding season (February 1 to August 31), a qualified Biologist shall perform preconstruction surveys for the Swainson’s hawk in accordance with the Recommended Timing and Methodology for Swainson’s Hawk Nesting Surveys in California’s Central Valley. In accordance with the guidelines, surveys shall occur within a 0.5-mile radius of the site, and shall involve a minimum of two survey periods. In the event that one or more Swainson’s hawks are observed to be nesting, a work-free buffer area shall be established and monitored by a qualified Biologist. The Biologist shall have the discretion to determine the appropriate buffer, which may involve consultation with the CDFW, as appropriate. The Biologist shall determine when the nest has been vacated, at which point, the work-free buffer area can be removed.
MM BIO-1c The project applicant shall adhere to the following requirements to avoid or minimize adverse impacts on the San Joaquin kit fox:
No more than 14 days prior to the first ground-disturbing activity, a qualified Biologist shall thoroughly walk the Master Plan areas, as well as a 200-foot buffer around the perimeter of the Master Plan areas, to locate potential San Joaquin kit fox dens. If no dens are located, no further surveys efforts are required. If dens are located during this survey effort, the status of the dens shall be assessed and the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) shall be consulted.
All vehicles operating within the construction area shall observe a maximum 20- mph speed limit.
All ground-disturbing construction activities shall occur during daylight hours.
City of Patterson—Baldwin Master Plan / Zacharias Master Plan Project Draft EIR Biological Resources
FirstCarbon Solutions 3.4-17
https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/1790/17900003/EIR/3 - Draft EIR/17900003 Sec03-04 Bio Resources.docx All excavated, steep-walled holes or trenches more than 2 feet deep shall be covered at the close of each work day or shall have escape ramps constructed of earth fill or wooden planks installed. Before such holes or trenches are filled, they shall be thoroughly inspected for trapped animals. If an animal is found within these structures, the animal shall be allowed to leave on its own without harm or harassment.
All construction piles, culverts, or similar structures with a diameter of 4 inches or greater that are stored at the construction site shall be thoroughly inspected for animals prior to burial, capping, or moving. If a kit fox is found within any of these structures, the structure shall remain untouched until the kit fox has vacated the structure; if necessary, the USFWS and CDFW shall be consulted.
All food-related trash shall be disposed of in closed containers and removed from the construction site at a minimum of once per week.
Prior to the first ground-disturbing activity, a qualified Biologist shall conduct an employee education program for construction personnel. The education program shall include a physical description of the kit fox, methods of impact avoidance, and points of contact should an impact occur or potentially occur. A fact sheet covering all of this information shall be provided to each employee.
The applicant shall establish a point of contact for construction personnel in the event that a kit fox is accidentally injured or killed.
Prior to ground-disturbing activities, the City shall retain a qualified Biologist to conduct periodic inspections of the Master Plan areas during construction to ensure compliance with the above measures.
The CDFW shall be notified immediately and the Sacramento Fish and Wildlife office shall be notified within 3 days if a kit fox is injured or killed.
Level of Significance After Mitigation
Less than significant impact
Sensitive Natural Communities or Riparian Habitat
Impact BIO-2: Buildout of the Master Plans would not have adverse impacts on sensitive natural communities or riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, and regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) or the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS).
Impact Analysis
This impact assesses the potential for adverse impacts on riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, and regulations or by the CDFW or the USFWS.
Baldwin and Zacharias Master Plans
The Master Plan areas contain several irrigation canals. These canals are manmade features and do not possess attributes that would meet the definition of riparian habitat.
City of Patterson—Baldwin Master Plan / Zacharias Master Plan Project Biological Resources Draft EIR
3.4-18 FirstCarbon Solutions
https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/1790/17900003/EIR/3 - Draft EIR/17900003 Sec03-04 Bio Resources.docx The nearest waterway is Salado Creek which runs parallel to the southeast corner of the Zacharias Master Plan area, approximately 2,000 feet to the east. Del Puerto Creek lies approximately 0.62 mile northwest of the Zacharias Master Plan area. Salado and Del Puerto Creeks are tributaries of the San Joaquin River which lies approximately 3 miles east of the Master Plan areas. Construction and operational activities would remain limited to the Master Plan areas and would not extend to these more distant waterways. Because of the distance to these resources, potential impacts to riparian habitat or other sensitive natural communities would be less than significant.
Level of Significance Before Mitigation
Less than significant impact.
Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures are necessary.
Level of Significance After Mitigation
Less than significant impact.
Wetlands and Jurisdictional Features
Impact BIO-3: Buildout of the Master Plans would not have a substantial adverse effect on state or federally protected wetlands or jurisdictional features as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including but not limited to marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means.
Impact Analysis
This impact assesses the potential for adverse impacts on federally protected wetlands and jurisdictional features as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. Jurisdictional features include rivers, creeks, marshes, vernal pools, and seasonal wetlands.
Baldwin and Zacharias Master Plans
The Master Plan areas contain several irrigation canals. These canals are manmade features and do not possess attributes that would qualify as jurisdictional.
The planning areas do not contain any natural waterways that possess attributes that would qualify as jurisdictional features or protected wetlands. Impacts would be less than significant.
Level of Significance Before Mitigation
Less than significant impact.
Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures are necessary.
Level of Significance After Mitigation
Less than significant impact.
City of Patterson—Baldwin Master Plan / Zacharias Master Plan Project Draft EIR Biological Resources
FirstCarbon Solutions 3.4-19
https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/1790/17900003/EIR/3 - Draft EIR/17900003 Sec03-04 Bio Resources.docx Fish and Wildlife Movement Corridors
Impact BIO-4: Buildout of the Master Plans would not interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of wildlife nursery sites.
Impact Analysis
This impact assesses the potential for adverse impacts on wildlife movement or the use of wildlife nursery sites.
Baldwin and Zacharias Master Plans
The Master Plan areas contain several irrigation canals. These canals do not support fish passage due to obstructions within the channels such as sluice gates and weirs.
The Master Plan areas contain cultivated agriculture and associated residential and agricultural structures. These land use activities do not possess attributes that facilitate regional wildlife movement (e.g., linkages). Thus, the development of the proposed project would not conflict with wildlife movement.
Impacts would be less than significant.
Level of Significance Before Mitigation
Less than significant impact.
Mitigation Measures
No specific mitigation measures are necessary.
Level of Significance After Mitigation
Less than significant impact.
Local Policies or Ordinances
Impact BIO-5: Buildout of the Master Plans would not conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance.
Impact Analysis
This impact assesses the potential for conflicts with local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources.
Baldwin and Zacharias Master Plans
The City of Patterson does not have a tree preservation ordinance, which precludes the possibility of conflicts with such an ordinance.
City of Patterson General Plan Policy NR-3.2 outlines the protection of sensitive species that may be affected by the project. MM BIO-1a through MM BIO-1e, outlined above, would be implemented to City of Patterson—Baldwin Master Plan / Zacharias Master Plan Project Biological Resources Draft EIR
3.4-20 FirstCarbon Solutions
https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/1790/17900003/EIR/3 - Draft EIR/17900003 Sec03-04 Bio Resources.docx confirm that special-status species remain absent from the site, and that no animal would be harmed in the unlikely event an errant animal is found on-site prior to construction.
Level of Significance Before Mitigation
Potentially significant impact.
Mitigation Measures
Implement MM BIO-1a and MM BIO-1b.
Level of Significance After Mitigation
Less than significant impact.
Local, Regional, or State Habitat Conservation Plan
Impact BIO-6: Buildout of the Master Plans would not conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan.
Impact Analysis
This impact assesses the potential for conflicts with local, regional, or State habitat conservation plan protecting biological resources.
Baldwin and Zacharias Master Plans
The Master Plan areas are not located within the boundaries of any local, regional, or State habitat conservation plan. The nearest habitat conservation plan in proximity to the planning areas is the San Joaquin County Multi-Species Habitat Conservation and Open Space Plan that lies approximately
13.5 miles to the north. This condition precludes the possibility of conflicts with such a plan. No impact would occur.
Level of Significance Before Mitigation
No impact.
Mitigation Measures
No mitigation is necessary.
Level of Significance After Mitigation
No impact.
Sperry Ave
Zacharias Rd
·|}þ33
Lateral M
%&'(5
City of Patterson Corporation
Yard and Water Tank
Lateral 5 South
Lateral 6 South
Patterson
High School
Creekside
Middle School
Apricot Valley
Elementary School
Del Puerto Creek
I
Legend
Planning Areas
Zacharias Master Plan
Baldwin Master Plan
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
City of Patterson—Baldwin Master Plan / Zacharias Master Plan Project Draft EIR Cultural Resources and Tribal Cultural Resources FirstCarbon Solutions 3.5-1
https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/1790/17900003/EIR/3 - Draft EIR/17900003 Sec03-05 Cultural-Tribal Resources.docx
3.5 - Cultural Resources and Tribal Cultural Resources
3.5.1 - Introduction
This section describes existing cultural and tribal cultural resources in the region and project area as well as the relevant regulatory framework. This section also evaluates the possible impacts related to cultural and tribal resources that could result from implementation of the proposed project.
Supporting information is provided in Appendix E.
3.5.2 - Environmental Setting
Cultural Resources Components
The term “cultural resources” encompasses historic, archaeological, and paleontological resources, and burial sites. Below is a brief summary of each component:
Historic Resources: Historic resources are associated with the recent past. In California, historic resources are typically associated with the Spanish, Mexican, and American periods in the State’s history and are generally less than 200 years old.
Archaeological Resources: Archaeology is the study of artifacts and material culture with the aim of understanding human activities and cultures in the past. Archaeological resources may be associated with prehistoric indigenous cultures as well as historic periods.
Burial Sites and Cemeteries: Burial sites and cemeteries are formal or informal locations where human remains have been interred.
Overall Cultural Setting
Following is a brief overview of the prehistory, ethnography, and historic background, providing a context in which to understand the background and relevance of sites found in the general project area. This section is not intended to be a comprehensive review of the current resources available; rather, it serves as a general overview. Further details can be found in ethnographic studies, mission records, and major published sources.
Prehistoric and Ethnographic Background
Early archaeological investigations in Central California were conducted at sites located in the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta region. The first published account documents investigations in the Lodi and Stockton area. The initial archaeological reports typically contained descriptive narratives with more systematic approaches sponsored by Sacramento Junior College in the 1930s. At the same time, University of California at Berkeley excavated several sites in the lower Sacramento Valley and Delta region, which resulted in recognizing archaeological site patterns based on a variation of intersite assemblages. Research during the 1930s identified temporal periods in central California prehistory and provided an initial chronological sequence. In 1939, researcher Jeremiah Lillard of Sacramento Junior College noted that each cultural period led directly to the next and that influences spread from the Delta region to other regions in Central California. In the late 1940s and early 1950s, researcher Richard Beardsley of the University of California Berkeley documented City of Patterson—Baldwin Master Plan / Zacharias Master Plan Project Cultural Resources and Tribal Cultural Resources Draft EIR
3.5-2 FirstCarbon Solutions
https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/1790/17900003/EIR/3 - Draft EIR/17900003 Sec03-05 Cultural-Tribal Resources.docx similarities in artifacts among sites in the San Francisco Bay region and the Delta and refined his findings into a cultural model that ultimately became known as the Central California Taxonomic System (CCTS). This system proposed a uniform, linear sequence of cultural succession.
To address some of the flaws in the CCTS system, it was revised to incorporate a system of spatial and cultural integrative units that were separated into cultural, temporal, and spatial units assigned to six chronological periods: Paleo- Indian (12000 to 8000 years Before Present [BP]); Lower, Middle, and Upper Archaic (8000 to 1500 BP), and Emergent (Upper and Lower, 1500 to 250 BP). The suggested temporal ranges are similar to earlier horizons, which are broad cultural units that can be arranged in a temporal sequence. In addition, Fredrickson defined several patterns—a general way of life shared within a specific geographical region. These patterns include:
Windmiller Pattern or Early Horizon (4500 to 3500 BP)
Berkeley Pattern or Middle Horizon (3500 to 1500 BP)
Augustine Pattern or Late Horizon (1500 to 250 BP)
Brief descriptions of these temporal ranges and their unique characteristics follow.
Windmiller Pattern or Early Horizon (4500 to 3500 BP)
Characterized by the Windmiller Pattern, the Early Horizon was centered in the Cosumnes district of the Delta and emphasized hunting rather than gathering, as evidenced by the abundance of projectile points in relation to plant processing tools. Additionally, atlatl, dart, and spear technologies typically included stemmed projectile points of slate and chert but minimal obsidian.
The large variety of projectile point types and faunal remains suggests exploitation of numerous types of terrestrial and aquatic species. Burials occurred in cemeteries and intra-village graves. These burials typically were ventrally extended, although some dorsal extensions are known with a westerly orientation and a high number of grave goods. Trade networks focused on acquisition of ornamental and ceremonial objects in finished form rather than on raw material. The presence of artifacts made of exotic materials such as quartz, obsidian, and shell indicate an extensive trade network that may represent the arrival of Utian populations into central California. Also indicative of this period are rectangular Haliotis and Olivella shell beads, and charmstones that usually were perforated.
Berkeley Pattern or Middle Horizon (3500 to 1500 BP)
The Middle Horizon is characterized by the Berkeley Pattern, which displays considerable changes from the Early Horizon. This period exhibited a strong milling technology represented by minimally shaped cobble mortars and pestles, although metates and manos were still used. Dart and atlatl technologies during this period were characterized by non-stemmed projectile points made primarily of obsidian. Fredrickson suggests that the Berkeley Pattern marked the eastward expansion of Miwok groups from the San Francisco Bay Area. Compared with the Early Horizon, there is a higher proportion of grinding implements at this time, implying an emphasis on plant resources rather than on hunting. Typical burials occurred within the village with flexed positions, variable cardinal orientation, and some cremations. The practice of spreading ground ochre over the burial was common at this time. Grave goods during this period are generally sparse and typically include only City of Patterson—Baldwin Master Plan / Zacharias Master Plan Project Draft EIR Cultural Resources and Tribal Cultural Resources FirstCarbon Solutions 3.5-3
https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/1790/17900003/EIR/3 - Draft EIR/17900003 Sec03-05 Cultural-Tribal Resources.docx utilitarian items and a few ornamental objects. However, objects such as charmstones, quartz crystals, and bone whistles occasionally were present, which suggest the religious or ceremonial significance of the individual. During this period, larger populations are suggested by the number and depth of sites compared with the Windmiller Pattern. According to Fredrickson, the Berkeley Pattern reflects gradual expansion or assimilation of different populations rather than sudden population replacement and a gradual shift in economic emphasis.
Augustine Pattern or Late Horizon (1500 to 250 BP)
The Late Horizon is characterized by the Augustine Pattern, which represents a shift in the general subsistence pattern. Changes include the introduction of bow and arrow technology; and most importantly, acorns became the predominant food resource. Trade systems expanded to include raw resources as well as finished products. There are more baked clay artifacts and extensive use of Haliotis ornaments of many elaborate shapes and forms. Burial patterns retained the use of flexed burials with variable orientation, but there was a reduction in the use of ochre and widespread evidence of cremation. Judging from the number and types of grave goods associated with the two types of burials, cremation seems to have been reserved for individuals of higher status, whereas other individuals were buried in flexed positions. Johnson suggests that the Augustine Pattern represents expansion of the Wintuan population from the north, which resulted in combining new traits with those established during the Berkeley Pattern.
Central California research has expanded from an emphasis on defining chronological and cultural units to a more comprehensive look at settlement and subsistence systems. This shift is illustrated by the early use of burials to identify mortuary assemblages and more recent research using osteological data to determine the health of prehistoric populations. Although debate continues over a single model or sequence for California, the general framework consisting of three temporal/cultural units is generally accepted, although the identification of regional and local variation is a major goal of current archaeological research.
Native American Background
Northern Valley Yokuts
At the time of European contact, most of the San Joaquin Valley and the foothills of the western slope of the Sierra Nevada were occupied by the Yokuts, who are generally recognized as having three major subgroups: the Northern Valley, the Foothill, and the Southern Valley. Each of these ethnolinguistic groups was made up of autonomous, culturally and linguistically related tribes or tribelets. Native American territories have fluid boundaries; however, the project area appears to be within the Northern Valley Yokuts territory.
Stanislaus County was habituated by the Northern Valley Yokuts, near their terrestrial boundary with the Southern Valley Yokuts. The Northern Valley Yokuts occupied an environment rich with abundant water resources from the nearby sloughs, lake basins, and river systems. Swamps and tule marshes surrounded the waterways and teemed with wildlife including aquatic mammals, fish, and abundant waterfowl. Adjacent grasslands provided food for herds of elk, antelope, and deer. Important vegetal resources included cattail roots, grasses, nuts, seeds, tule, and bulbs. The resource-rich environment allowed for permanent village sites, which typically were occupied throughout the year.
City of Patterson—Baldwin Master Plan / Zacharias Master Plan Project Cultural Resources and Tribal Cultural Resources Draft EIR
3.5-4 FirstCarbon Solutions
https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/1790/17900003/EIR/3 - Draft EIR/17900003 Sec03-05 Cultural-Tribal Resources.docx The Northern Valley Yokuts material culture included structures, watercraft, basketry, weapons, and tools fashioned primarily from local resources. The ubiquitous tule was the primary component utilized for house construction and other fiber crafts, such as basketry, mats, and cradles.
Sweathouses were common; villages often had more than one, and they were typically earthcovered. Villages typically consisted of approximately 300 people with a headman guiding each tribe.
The chief’s duties included decisions that affected the well-being of the entire tribelet: sanctioning trade, entertaining guests, and arbitrating intra-tribal disputes. Marriage typically was informal, and patrilocality was the accepted practice following marriage. Thus, if a family had numerous sons, a circle of extended family members would inhabit the area immediately adjacent to the patriarch’s home.
Trade was conducted with neighboring groups, transporting goods on tule watercraft along the San Joaquin River and its tributaries. Overland trails that headed west to the Salinan and Costanoan tribes of the Central California coast were also utilized. Trade items included domesticated dogs, which used in trade with the Miwok in exchange for baskets, bows, and arrows. In addition, the Costanoans supplied the Yokuts with mussels and abalone shells.
The population of the Yokuts declined precipitously after European contact. Spanish explorers and missionaries brought disease that decimated the Yokuts population. European contact also eroded cultural traditions and caused displacement of the natives from their lands. With the influx of American settlers and ranchers, relationships with native groups further degraded as natives began stealing livestock and horses out of desperation. The incorporation of California as a State in 1846, and the ensuing California Gold Rush of 1849 also hastened the decline of the Native peoples. By the time the United States government set aside land in the Fresno and Tule River Reserves, the Yokuts and other native peoples had nearly disappeared.
Few descendants of the Northern Valley Yokut survive today. There were about 18,000 Yokuts total in 1770. This number is reduced to 600 by the 1910 census. In the 1930 census more than 1100 are mentioned. There are no specific detailed records after 1930.
There is no indication that the Northern Valley Yokuts lived in or around the immediate Patterson area. The closest approximate location was in the Merced area, to the southeast. The records are sketchy at best and only available as notations in records from the Spanish-Mexican period. Most of the settlements, some hamlets of two or three houses, while others numbered 200-250+ occupied the tops of small. These mounds were close to a major waterway and afforded protection from seasonal flooding.
Historic Background
The Spanish Period (1769–1821)
In 1772, Captain Pedro Fages, a Spanish soldier, entered the San Joaquin Valley area searching for military deserters. His diary was one among many that documented the environmental landscape and the cultural setting of the San Joaquin Valley. Captain Fages entered the area from the south, and as he emerged from the lower portion of Tejon Pass, he saw the beautiful lakes, rivers, and plains and named the most prominent lake Buena Vista (beautiful view). In 1776, Padre Francisco City of Patterson—Baldwin Master Plan / Zacharias Master Plan Project Draft EIR Cultural Resources and Tribal Cultural Resources FirstCarbon Solutions 3.5-5
https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/1790/17900003/EIR/3 - Draft EIR/17900003 Sec03-05 Cultural-Tribal Resources.docx Garces, traveled through the San Joaquin Valley in hopes of discovering a more direct route to Monterey.
Contact with the Spanish commenced early in the 19th Century and normally consisted of sporadic visits by small exploration parties. However, between 1805 and the 1820s, Franciscan priests from the coastal missions began recruiting converts from further inland, and a large portion of the Yokuts population was taken to various missions in San Jose, Santa Clara, Soledad, San Juan Bautista, and San Antonio. Many neophytes deserted and returned to their homes, but were sought and brought back by Spanish soldiers.
The most drastic and permanent change to the local southern Valley Yokuts way of life was the establishment of the Spanish Mission system. By the early 1800s, the mission fathers began a process of cultural change that brought the majority of the local Native Americans into the missions.
At the expense of traditional skills, the Native Americans were taught the pastoral and horticultural skills of the Hispanic tradition. Spanish missionaries traveled into the San Joaquin Valley to recapture escaped neophytes and recruit inland Native Americans for the coastal missions. In 1834, the Mission system was officially secularized, and the majority of the mission Native American population dispersed to local ranches, villages, or nearby pueblos. Following the collapse of the mission system, many of the local Native Americans returned to the San Joaquin Valley, bringing with them language and agricultural practices learned from the Spanish. During the second half of the 19th century, the size of all Yokuts populations dwindled dramatically due to the spread of European settlements and the diseases the Europeans brought with them.
The Mexican Period (1821–1848)
With the declaration of Mexican independence in 1821, Spanish control of Alta California ended, although little change actually occurred. Political change did not take place until mission secularization in 1834, when Native Americans were released from missionary control and the mission lands were granted to private individuals. This changed land ownership patterns in the Fresno valley, where the raising of cattle for tallow and hides was the major economic pursuit. Shoup and Milliken (1999) state that mission secularization removed the social protection and support on which Native Americans had come to rely. It exposed them to further exploitation by outside interests, often forcing them into a marginal existence as laborers for large ranchos. Following mission secularization, the Mexican population grew as the Native American population continued to decline. Euro-American settlers began to arrive in California during this period and often married into Mexican families, becoming Mexican citizens, which made them eligible to receive land grants.
In 1846, on the eve of the U.S.-Mexican War (1846 to 1848), the estimated population of California was 8,000 non-natives and 10,000 Native Americans. However, these estimates have been debated.
Cook (1976) suggests the Native American population was 100,000 in 1850; the U.S. Census of 1880 reports the Native American population as 20,385.
American Expansion
In 1826, Jedediah Smith was among the first trappers to explore the San Joaquin Valley. He was awed by the Valley’s abundant wildlife, and by 1827, Euro-American fur trappers, who were attracted by the numerous beaver and other game, settled in the region. The fur trappers stayed in the local area City of Patterson—Baldwin Master Plan / Zacharias Master Plan Project Cultural Resources and Tribal Cultural Resources Draft EIR
3.5-6 FirstCarbon Solutions
https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/1790/17900003/EIR/3 - Draft EIR/17900003 Sec03-05 Cultural-Tribal Resources.docx until the discovery of gold in 1848, when they, like scores of others, traveled into the Sierra Nevada foothills to strike it rich. The discovery of gold brought an extraordinary number of people to California, and commerce in the San Joaquin Valley grew as miners on their way to the gold fields stopped for food and supplies. The influx of people also brought permanent settlers who were drawn to the area by the new business opportunities supplying the miners but who also settled in the area because of the good grazing and farmland.
In 1848, as a result of the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, California became a United States territory.
Also, in 1848, John Marshall found gold at Sutter’s Mill, which marked the start of the Gold Rush. The influx of miners and entrepreneurs increased the population of California, not including Native Californians, from 14,000 to 224,000 in just four years. This, in turn, stimulated commercial growth in the San Joaquin Valley as eager entrepreneurs set up business to support the miners and mining operations. When the Gold Rush was over, many of the miners settled in the San Joaquin Valley and established farms, ranches, and lumber mills.
Local History
The history of Patterson begins with the measuring of the Rancho Del Puerto and the subsequent grant of the land to Mariano and Pedro Hernandez on January 30, 1844, by Manuel Micheltoreno, then Governor of California. This Mexican Land Grant was for acreage stretching east of the present day Highway 33 to the San Joaquin River. The northern boundary was Del Puerto Creek and the southern boundary was just south of present day Marshall Road.
Samuel G. Reed and Ruben S. Wade made claim to the land on January 7, 1855. A patent encompassing the land grant was signed by President Abraham Lincoln. Reed and Wade received title to 13,340 acres on August 15, 1864. Reed and Wade then sold the grant to J.O. Eldredge on June 18, 1866 for $5,000. Mr. Eldredge held title for only 2 months before selling it to John D. Patterson on August 14, 1866 for $5,400. John D. Patterson purchased additional land, and upon his death on March 7, 1902, a total of 18,462 acres were willed to Thomas W. Patterson and William W. Patterson, his estate executors, and other heirs. The land was sold to the Patterson Ranch Company on May 16, 1908 for the sum of $540,000 cash gold coin.
Thomas W. Patterson subdivided the land into ranches of various sizes and plotted the design of the town of Patterson. Determined to make Patterson different from most, he modeled his town after the Cities of Washington D.C. and Paris, France, using a series of circles and radiating streets. Major streets were planted with palm, eucalyptus and sycamore trees. The Patterson Colony map was filed with the Stanislaus County Recorder’s office on December 13, 1909. Sales of the ranch properties and city lots commenced. Patterson was the third city in Stanislaus County to incorporate on December 22, 1919.
With a current population of 20,875, Patterson is a rural, small town surrounded by agricultural land.
With agriculture as its primary economic base, orchards of apricots, almonds and walnuts, as well as row crops of dry beans, tomatoes, broccoli, spinach, peas and melons play an important role in Patterson’s history. Patterson is the apricot capital of the world.
City of Patterson—Baldwin Master Plan / Zacharias Master Plan Project Draft EIR Cultural Resources and Tribal Cultural Resources FirstCarbon Solutions 3.5-7
https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/1790/17900003/EIR/3 - Draft EIR/17900003 Sec03-05 Cultural-Tribal Resources.docx
3.5.3 - Records Search and Pedestrian Survey Results
Central California Information Center
On June 25, 2018, personnel at the Central California Information Center (CCIC) conducted a records search for the Zacharias and Baldwin Master Plan areas. The search area included both master plan areas and a 0.50-mile radius around each area. The current inventories of the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP), the California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR), the California Historical Landmarks (CHL) list, the California Points of Historical Interest (CPHI) list, and the California Historical Resources Inventory (HRI) for Sonoma County were also reviewed to determine the existence of previously documented local historical resources.
Results from the records search indicate that there have been eight cultural resources recorded within a 0.50-mile radius of the Baldwin and Zacharias Master Plan boundaries, none of which are located within the master plan boundaries; refer to Table 3.5-1.
Table 3.5-1: Known Cultural Resources within 0.50-mile of the Master Plans Site Number Historic/Prehistoric Resource Description
50-000001 Historic Other—Southern Pacific Railroad San Joaquin Valley Mainline; Stockton & Visalia Railroad; Stockton & Tulare Railroad; Southern Pacific Railroad West Side Line;
Southern Pacific Railroad, Tracy Branch; San Joaquin
Valley Railroad; Southern Pacific Railroad Line
50-001903 Historic California Aqueduct
50-001904 Historic Delta Mendota Canal
50-001924 Historic Patterson Irrigation District North Lateral No. 4 50-001965 Historic Del Puerto Forest Fire Station
50-002094 Historic ARRA-50-1H
50-002179 Historic Patterson Lift Irrigation System; Segment 3-South; Lateral J; Segment 4-South
50-002208 Historic Patterson Irrigation District Lateral M Source: Central California Information Center 2019.
Results from the records search indicate that there have been 36 cultural resources studies conducted within a 0.50-mile radius of the Baldwin and Zacharias Master Plan boundaries, seven of which included a small portion of the Zacharias Master Plan boundaries, however the majority of that area has never been the subject of a cultural resources assessment in its entirety. One cultural resources study addressed the Baldwin Master Plan area in its entirety, indicating it has been previously surveyed for cultural resources; refer to Table 3.5-2.
City of Patterson—Baldwin Master Plan / Zacharias Master Plan Project Cultural Resources and Tribal Cultural Resources Draft EIR
3.5-8 FirstCarbon Solutions
https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/1790/17900003/EIR/3 - Draft EIR/17900003 Sec03-05 Cultural-Tribal Resources.docx Table 3.5-2: Cultural Resources Reports within 0.50-mile of the Master Plans Report Number Author/Date Additional Details
ST-00621 Moratto, M. et al. 1990 Cultural Resources Assessment Report PGT-PG&E Pipeline Expansion Project in Idaho, Washington, Oregon and California; Phase 1: Survey Inventory, and
Preliminary Evaluation of Cultural Resources [CCIC has
only a partial copy of report].
ST-00896 Napton, L.K. 1984 Cultural Resource Investigation of the Proposed Patterson Apartments, Stanislaus County, California.
ST-00927 Pope, J.L 1978 Cultural Resources Assessment for the City of Patterson Facility Improvements Stanislaus County, California.
ST-01846 Canaday, T., Ostrogorsky,
M., and Hess, M. 1992
Archaeological Survey Right-of-Way Corridor and Extra
Work Spaces Construction Spread 5B, California; PGTPG&E Pipeline Expansion Project, California.
ST-01973 Peak & Associates, Inc. Cultural Resource Assessment of the Proposed Creekside Development, Located Near Patterson, Stanislaus
County, California.
ST-02753 Moratto, M., Pettigrew, R.,
Price, B., Ross, L., and
Schalk, R. 1994
Archaeological Investigations PGT-PG&E Pipeline
Expansion Project, Idaho, Oregon, and California,
Volumes 1-V (1994-1995). [Only Vol. I and IV are
unbound and available at CCIC; Vol. I = Project Overview, Research Design and Archaeological Inventory; Vol. IV = Synthesis of Findings].
ST-02789 Napton, L.K. 1996 Cultural Resources Investigations of a Proposed TwoMile Pipeline Along Sperry Avenue, Between Rogers Road and Ward Avenue in Patterson, Stanislaus County,
California.
ST-03622 Wachtel, David. 1999 CDF Project Review Report for Archaeological and Historical Resources; Project: Del Puerto Apparatus
Room.
ST-03630 Nave, T. 1999 Cultural Resources Survey for the Turlock Irrigation District Westside Transmission Line Project, Stanislaus and Merced Counties, California.
ST-04175 Flint, Sandra. 2000 Addendum Phase 1 Archaeological Survey for the Turlock Irrigation District Westside 115-kV Transmission Line
Project.
ST-04262 David-King, Shelly. 2001 Department of Transportation Negative Archaeological Survey Report, 10-STA-33, Ivy road at State Highway 33, Stanislaus Count.
ST-05498 Leach-Palm, L., Mikkelsen,
P., Hatch, J., and Larson, B.
2004
Cultural Resources Inventory of Caltrans District 10 Rural Conventional Highways; Volume I: Summary of Methods
and Findings.
ST-05501 Rosenthal, J.S., and Meyer, J.
2004
Cultural Resources Inventory of Caltrans District 10 Rural Conventional Highways; Volume III: Geoarchaeological
Study.
City of Patterson—Baldwin Master Plan / Zacharias Master Plan Project Draft EIR Cultural Resources and Tribal Cultural Resources FirstCarbon Solutions 3.5-9
https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/1790/17900003/EIR/3 - Draft EIR/17900003 Sec03-05 Cultural-Tribal Resources.docx Report Number Author/Date Additional Details
ST-05502 Leach-Palm, L., King, J.,
Hatch, J., and Larson, B.
2004
Cultural Resources Inventory of Caltrans District 10 Rural Conventional Highways; Volume II G: Stanislaus County.
ST-06133 Sikes, N., Holmes, E., and
Cervantes, J. 2006
Cultural Resources Inventory for the Westley-Marshall
Substation and Transmission Line Project, Stanislaus
County, California.
ST-06134 Davis-King, S., and Mavin, J.
2006
Historic Properties Survey Report for the M Street/State 33 Intersection Improvements Project, City of Patterson, Stanislaus County, California.
ST-06384 Sikes, N.E., and Arrington,
C.J. 2006
Cultural Resources Inventory of Alternative substations and Transmission Lines of the Westley-Marshall Project, Stanislaus County, California.
ST-06409 Davis-King, S. 007 California Department of Transportation Historic Property Report for the Proposed Class I and II
Bicycle/Pedestrian Path, City of Patterson, Stanislaus
County, CA (Includes Archaeological Survey Report,
Davis-King 2007 and Hist Res Prop Rep).
ST-06443 Whartford, J.C. 2007 A Historical Resources Survey Report for the Del Puerto Reconstruction Project, Del Puerto Forest Fire Station, Patterson, Stanislaus County, California.
ST-07387 Wohlgemuth, E., and
Costello, J. 2010
Patterson General Plan Update: Archaeological
Resources Sensitivity.
ST-07595 ICF International. 2010 Final: Cultural Resources Inventory Report for the Drought Relief Program, ARRA Groundwater Wells
Project, San Joaquin, Stanislaus, Merced, and Fresno
Counties, California ARRA #10-SCAO-021.
ST-07779 Bailey, J., Ph.D. 2009 California’s Central Valley Project: Historic Engineering Features to 1956: A Multiple Property Documentation
Form, April 2009 (National Register of Historic Places
Nomination).
ST-07779A Bailey, J., Ph.D. 2009 Reclamation, Managing Water in the West: California’s Central Valley Project: Historic Engineering Features to 1956.
ST-07779B Palmer, L. 2018 Central Valley Project (CVP), National Register of Historic Places Determinations of Eligibility, Multiple Counties, California. Bureau of Reclamation, Mid-Pacific Region
Division of Environmental Affairs, Cultural Resources
Branch, Sacramento.
ST-07849 Truman, E. 2010 Field Office Report of Cultural Resources Ground Survey Findings, Negative Findings, 799104105P7, Micro
Sprinklers.
ST-08055 Pierce, W. 2013 Department of Water Resources Archaeological Survey Report Salado Creek Channel Maintenance Project,
Stanislaus County, California.
City of Patterson—Baldwin Master Plan / Zacharias Master Plan Project Cultural Resources and Tribal Cultural Resources Draft EIR
3.5-10 FirstCarbon Solutions
https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/1790/17900003/EIR/3 - Draft EIR/17900003 Sec03-05 Cultural-Tribal Resources.docx Report Number Author/Date Additional Details
ST-08056 Pierce, W. 2013 Department of Water Resources Archaeological Survey Report, Del Puerto Creek Sediment Removal Project,
Stanislaus County, California.
ST-08057 Pierce, W. 2014 Office Memo to L. Hamamoto, DWR from W. Pierce, Supplement to the Archaeological Survey Report for the
Salado Creek Channel Maintenance Project, Stanislaus
County, California.
ST-08058 Pierce, W. 2014 Office Memo to S. Fredericks, DWR, from W. Pierce, Supplement to the Archaeological Survey Report for the
Del Puerto Creek Sediment Removal Project, Stanislaus
County, California.
ST-08250 Supernowicz, D. 2014 Submission Packet, FCC Form 620, for Proposed New Tower Project Baldwin Road, Patterson, Stanislaus
County, California Floragold/Ensite # 21839 (281353) EBI Project Number: 61148115.
ST-08250A Davis, J.L. 2015 Addendum to FCC Form 620 Ensite #21839 (281353)/Floragold, Baldwin Road, Patterson, Stanislaus County, California 95363, EBI Project #61140081417; CA
SHPO FCC_2014_1218_033.
ST-08252 Wills, C. and Cohen, D. 2011 Phase 1 Cultural Resources Assessment - West Patterson Business Park Expansion Project, City of Patterson,
Stanislaus County, California.
ST-08257 Saunders, J. 2015 San Luis and Delta-Mendota Water Authority (SLDMWA) 2015 Delta-Mendota Canal (DMC) Expanded Temporary
Reverse Flow Project, Stanislaus County, California (15- SCAO-184).
ST-08341 Basin Research Associates.
2014
Historic Property Survey Report North Valley Regional
Recycled Water Program (NVRRWP) Vicinity of
Patterson, Stanislaus County.
ST-08638 Jordan, N. 2015 Letter Report: South County Corridor Feasibility Study— Cultural Resources Constraints Analysis.
ST-08794 Leigh, Anastasia T., Regional
Environmental Officer. 2015
Letter Report Re: National Historic Preservation Act
(NHPA) Section 106 Consultation for the City of
Patterson Sewer Main under the Delta-Mendota Canal
(DMC), Stanislaus County, California (15-SCAO-099).
Source: Central California Information Center, 2019.
Native American Heritage Commission Records Search
On June 14, 2018, FirstCarbon Solutions (FCS) sent a letter to the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) in an effort to determine whether any sacred sites are listed on its Sacred Lands File for the Baldwin and Zacharias Master Plan areas. The response from the NAHC was received on June 26, 2018, and noted that a search of the Sacred Lands File was negative for cultural resources on or near the master plan areas. A list of five Native American tribal members who may have additional knowledge of the project area was included with the results. These tribal members were City of Patterson—Baldwin Master Plan / Zacharias Master Plan Project Draft EIR Cultural Resources and Tribal Cultural Resources FirstCarbon Solutions 3.5-11
https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/1790/17900003/EIR/3 - Draft EIR/17900003 Sec03-05 Cultural-Tribal Resources.docx sent letters on April 22, 2019, asking for any additional information they might have concerning the project area. As of the date of this report, no responses have been received.
Pedestrian Surveys
The CCIC records search revealed that the Baldwin Master Plan area was previously surveyed by Holman and Associates as part of the West Patterson Master Development Plan in June of 2002.
Surface reconnaissance was conducted within designated parcels, using transects averaging 100 feet (30 meters) apart. The surface was carefully examined for evidence of prehistoric occupation or use (dark soils, fire effected rock, lithics, ground stone, bones etc., or historic period resources (trash scatters or dumps, foundations, features such as roads, walls, extant structures, etc.). All parcels were accessible to the surveyors although surface visibility varied according to vegetation and tilling.
Plowed fields afforded 100 percent visibility, orchards varied from 50 to 90 percent depending on vegetation cover below the trees, unharvested grain crops varied from as low as 0-5 percent to 40 percent, while harvested grain fields generally afforded 20-40 percent visibility. Row crops where present afforded 50 to nearly 100 percent visibility. The Baldwin Master Plan area was surveyed in its entirety with negative results for historic or prehistoric resources. It is noted, however, that two residential buildings are present in the northeast corner of the Baldwin Master Plan boundaries located at the southern terminus of Baldwin Road. Review of historic aerials indicate the presence of buildings/structures on-site as early as 1971, and are therefore over 45 years in age. These structures have not been evaluated as potential historic resources.
The CCIC records search results revealed that the Zacharias Master Plan area had largely not been previously surveyed for cultural resources. From March 18, 2019, to March 22, 2019, FCS Senior Archaeologists, Dana DePietro, PhD, RPA, and Eric Prins, MA, conducted a series of pedestrian surveys for unrecorded cultural resources within the Zacharias Master Plan area. Surveys were conducted by parcel, and began in Assessor’s Parcel Number (APN) 021-023-019 located in the northeast corner of the planning area. Both surveyors employed a combination of diagonal, vertical, and horizontal transects across each parcel to ensure complete coverage at a resolution of 15-meter intervals. After completing a parcel, the survey team moved south, surveying each successive parcel until reaching the planning area’s southern boundary. At that point, the team would move one parcel to the east, and continue to survey a column of parcels from south to north. In this way, the survey team was able to cover the planning area in its entirety, over the course of 5 days, and in the following order: Survey orientation and preparatory overview was conducted on March 18, 2019.
APNs 021-023-19, -020, -025, -026, -027, -024, -021, -018, -017, -022, and -023 were surveyed on March 19, 2019. APNs 021-023-016, -013, -028, -029, -014, -011, -012, -009, and -015 were surveyed on March 20, 2019. APNs 021-023-033, -001, -032, -030, -031, and -002 were surveyed on March 21, 2019. Additional spot-checking and targeted survey work was carried out across the site on March 22, 2019.
The planning area consists almost entirely of agricultural land and orchards in various stages of cultivation. As a result, soil visibility varied from parcel to parcel, but was either high (80-100 percent) in areas of recent cultivation, or low (0-10 percent) in parcels left fallow. Soil composition remained remarkably consistent across the planning area from parcel to parcel, and consisted entirely of Holocene Alluvium, as recorded on the geologic maps of Dibblee and Minch (2007) and City of Patterson—Baldwin Master Plan / Zacharias Master Plan Project Cultural Resources and Tribal Cultural Resources Draft EIR
3.5-12 FirstCarbon Solutions
https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/1790/17900003/EIR/3 - Draft EIR/17900003 Sec03-05 Cultural-Tribal Resources.docx Sowers et al. (1993). Soils were light tan/brown in color (Muncell 10YR 5/3.5), sandy to silty in consistency, and interspersed with small (3-5 centimeter) quartz, schist, basalt, serpentine and Franciscan chert stones. None of the chert stones exhibited any signs of knapping or utilization; however, many stones appeared water-worn, attesting to their alluvial deposition over the course of the Holocene.
Over the course of the surveys, it was noted that large portions of APNs 021-023-026,-027,-011,-012, -028,-029,-032, and -033 were completely obscured by ground cover. In these areas, the survey team intermittently inspected soils in accessible sections using a hand trowel; however, a complete visual assessment was not possible. Survey conditions were documented using digital photographs and field notes. During the survey, Dr. DePietro and Mr. Prins examined all areas of the exposed ground surface for prehistoric artifacts (e.g., fire-affected rock, milling tools, flaked stone tools, tool-making debris, ceramics), soil discoloration and depressions that might indicate the presence of a cultural midden, faunal and human osteological remains, and features indicative of the former presence of structures or buildings (e.g., postholes, standing exterior walls, foundations) or historic debris (e.g., glass, metal, ceramics). Particular attention was paid to eastern halves of APNs 021-023-017,-022,- 023, and -027, which run north to south in the middle of the project area, as concentrations of water worn rock were greater in the area attesting to ancient alluvial deposition and potential water resources that may have been utilized in antiquity.
The only structures of potential historic significance within the planning area are the barn, water tower, and large residence located immediately south of the intersection of Baldwin Road and Zacharias Road in the southeast corner of APN 021-023-016. These buildings appear to be over 100 years in age, are in good condition, and according to the property owners, are associated with the locally significant Zacharias family for whom the adjacent road is named. Several individual residences are also located in the Ranchette Triangle portion of the Zacharias Master Plan. Initial review of historic aerials indicates that several of these structures and properties may be over 45 years in age. None have been previously evaluated, nor were they evaluated for historic significance as part of the current study.
All areas of the project site were closely inspected for culturally modified soils or other indicators of potential historic or prehistoric resources. Aside from the Zacharias Master Plan and residences over 45 years in age, none were observed within the planning area.
3.5.4 - Regulatory Framework
Federal
National Historic Preservation Act
The National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (NHPA), as amended, established the NRHP, which contains an inventory of the nation’s significant prehistoric and historic properties. Under 36 Code of Federal Regulations 60, a property is recommended for possible inclusion on the NRHP if it is at least 50 years old, has integrity, and meets one of the following criteria:
It is associated with significant events in history, or broad patterns of events.
City of Patterson—Baldwin Master Plan / Zacharias Master Plan Project Draft EIR Cultural Resources and Tribal Cultural Resources FirstCarbon Solutions 3.5-13
https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/1790/17900003/EIR/3 - Draft EIR/17900003 Sec03-05 Cultural-Tribal Resources.docx It is associated with significant people in the past.
It embodies the distinctive characteristics of an architectural type, period, or method of construction; or it is the work of a master or possesses high artistic value; or it represents a significant and distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction.
It has yielded, or may yield, information important in history or prehistory.
Certain types of properties are usually excluded from consideration for listing in the NRHP, but they can be considered if they meet special requirements in addition to meeting the criteria listed above.
Such properties include religious sites, relocated properties, graves and cemeteries, reconstructed properties, commemorative properties, and properties that have achieved significance within the past 50 years.
Certain types of properties are usually excluded from consideration for listing in the NRHP, but they can be considered if they meet special requirements in addition to meeting the criteria listed above.
Such properties include religious sites, relocated properties, graves and cemeteries, reconstructed properties, commemorative properties, and properties that have achieved significance within the past 50 years.
Archaeological Resources Protection Act
The Archaeological Resources Protection Act (ARPA) amended the Antiquities Act of 1906 (16 United States Code [USC] § 431–433) and set a broad policy that archaeological resources are important to the nation and should be protected, and required special permits before the excavation or removal of archaeological resources from public or Indian lands. The purpose of ARPA was to secure, for the present and future benefit of the American people, the protection of archaeological resources and sites that are on public lands and Indian lands, and to foster increased cooperation and exchange of information between governmental authorities, the professional archaeological community, and private individuals having collections of archaeological resources and data that were obtained before October 31, 1979.
American Indian Religious Freedom Act
The American Indian Religious Freedom Act (AIRFA) established federal policy to protect and preserve the inherent rights of freedom for Native groups to believe, express, and exercise their traditional religions. These rights include but are not limited to access to sites, use and possession of sacred objects, and freedom to worship through ceremonials and traditional rites.
State
CEQA Definition of Historical Resources
CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5(a), in Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations, defines a “historical resource” as:
(1) A resource listed in, or determined to be eligible by the State Historical Resources Commission, for listing in the CRHR.
City of Patterson—Baldwin Master Plan / Zacharias Master Plan Project Cultural Resources and Tribal Cultural Resources Draft EIR
3.5-14 FirstCarbon Solutions
https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/1790/17900003/EIR/3 - Draft EIR/17900003 Sec03-05 Cultural-Tribal Resources.docx (2) A resource included in a local register of historical resources, as defined in Section 5020.1(k) of the Public Resources Code or identified as significant in an historical resource survey meeting the requirements of Section 5024.1(g) of the Public Resources Code, shall be presumed to be historically or culturally significant. Public agencies must treat any such resource as significant unless the preponderance of evidence demonstrates that it is not historically or culturally significant.
(3) Any object, building, structure, site, area, place, record, or manuscript which a lead agency determines to be historically significant or significant in the architectural, engineering, scientific, economic, agricultural, educational, social, political, military, or cultural annals of California may be considered to be an historical resource, provided the lead agency’s determination is supported by substantial evidence in light of the whole record. Generally, a resource shall be considered by the lead agency to be “historically significant” if the resource meets the criteria for listing on the CRHR.
(4) The fact that a resource is not listed in, or determined to be eligible for listing in the CRHR, not included in a local register of historical resources (pursuant to Section 5020.1(k) of the Public Resources Code), or identified in an historical resources survey (meeting the criteria in Section 5024.1(g) of the Public Resources Code) does not preclude a lead agency from determining that the resource may be an historical resource as defined in Public Resources Code Sections 5020.1(j) or 5024.1.
Therefore, under the CEQA Guidelines, even if a resource is not included on any local, State, or federal register, or identified in a qualifying historical resources survey, a lead agency may still determine that any resource is a historical resource for the purposes of CEQA if there is substantial evidence supporting such a determination. A lead agency must consider a resource to be historically significant if it finds that the resource meets the criteria for listing in the CRHR.
Archaeological and historical sites are protected pursuant to a wide variety of State policies and regulations, as enumerated in the Public Resources Code. Cultural resources are recognized as nonrenewable resources and receive additional protection under the Public Resources Code and CEQA.
California Register of Historical Resources Criteria
As defined by Section 15064.5(a)(3)(A-D) of the CEQA Guidelines, a resource shall be considered historically significant if the resource meets the criteria for listing on the CRHR. The CRHR and many local preservation ordinances have employed the criteria for eligibility to the NRHP as a model (see criteria described above under the description of the NHPA), since NHPA provides the highest standard for evaluating the significance of historic resources. A resource that meets NRHP criteria is clearly significant. In addition, a resource that does not meet NRHP standards may still be considered historically significant at a local or State level.
Effects on Archaeological Resources
The CEQA Guidelines state that a resource need not be listed on any register to be found historically significant. The CEQA guidelines direct lead agencies to evaluate archaeological sites to determine if City of Patterson—Baldwin Master Plan / Zacharias Master Plan Project Draft EIR Cultural Resources and Tribal Cultural Resources FirstCarbon Solutions 3.5-15
https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/1790/17900003/EIR/3 - Draft EIR/17900003 Sec03-05 Cultural-Tribal Resources.docx they meet the criteria for listing in the CRHR. If an archaeological site is a historical resource, in that it is listed or eligible for listing in the CRHR, potential adverse impacts to it must be considered. If an archaeological site is considered not to be an historical resource but meets the definition of a “unique archeological resource” as defined in Public Resources Code Section 21083.2, then it would be treated in accordance with the provisions of that section.
Effects on Human Remains
Native American human remains and associated burial items may be significant to descendant communities and/or may be scientifically important for their informational value. They may be significant to descendant communities for patrimonial, cultural, lineage, and religious reasons.
Human remains may also be important to the scientific community, such as prehistorians, epidemiologists, and physical anthropologists. The specific stake of some descendant groups in ancestral burials is a matter of law for some groups, such as Native Americans (CEQA Guidelines § 15064.5(d); Public Resources Code [PRC] § 5097.98). CEQA and other California regulations regarding Native American human remains provide the following procedural requirements to assist in avoiding potential adverse effects on human remains within the contexts of their value to both descendant communities and the scientific community:
When an initial study identifies the existence or probable likelihood that a project would affect Native American human remains, the lead agency is to contact and work with the appropriate Native American representatives identified through the NAHC to develop an agreement for the treatment and disposal of the human remains and any associated burial items (CEQA Guidelines § 15064.5(d); PRC § 5097.98).
If human remains are accidentally discovered, the County Coroner must be contacted. If the County Coroner determines that the human remains are Native American, the Coroner must contact the NAHC within 24 hours. The NAHC must identify the Most Likely Descendant (MLD) to provide for the opportunity to make recommendations for the treatment and disposal of the human remains and associated burial items.
If the MLD fails to make recommendations within 24 hours of notification or the project applicant rejects the recommendations of the MLD, the Native American human remains and associated burial items must be reburied in a location not subject to future disturbance within the project site (PRC § 5097.98).
If potentially affected human remains or a burial site may have scientific significance, whether or not it has significance to Native Americans or other descendent communities, then under CEQA, the appropriate mitigation of effect may require the recovery of the scientific information of the remains/burial through identification, evaluation, data recovery, analysis, and interpretation (CEQA Guidelines § 15064.5(c)(2)).
California Assembly Bill 52—Effects on Tribal Cultural Resources Assembly Bill 52 (AB 52) amended the CEQA statute to identify an additional category of resource to be considered under CEQA, called “tribal cultural resources.” It added Public Resources Code Section 21074, which defines “tribal cultural resources” as follows:
City of Patterson—Baldwin Master Plan / Zacharias Master Plan Project Cultural Resources and Tribal Cultural Resources Draft EIR
3.5-16 FirstCarbon Solutions
https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/1790/17900003/EIR/3 - Draft EIR/17900003 Sec03-05 Cultural-Tribal Resources.docx (a) “Tribal cultural resources” are either of the following:
(1) Sites, features, places, cultural landscapes, sacred places, and objects with cultural value to a California Native American tribe that are either of the following:
A) Included or determined to be eligible for inclusion in the CRHR.
B) Included in a local register of historical resources as defined in subdivision (k) of Section 5020.1.
(2) A resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Section 5024.1. In applying the criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Section 5024.1 for the purposes of this paragraph, the lead agency shall consider the significance of the resource to a California Native American tribe.
Local
City of Patterson
The City of Patterson General Plan sets forth several goals and policies relevant to cultural resources:
Goal PR-5: To protect Patterson’s Native American heritage.
Policy PR-5.1: Review of development. The City shall refer development proposals that may adversely affect archaeological sites to the California Archaeological Inventory, Central California Information Center, at California State University, Stanislaus, for review and comment.
Policy PR-5.2: Native American consultation requirements. The City shall continue to comply with the requirements Government Code Sections 65352.3 and 65352.4 which require the City to consult with Native American tribes with respect to the possible preservation of, or the mitigation of impacts to, specified Native American places, features, and objects.
Policy PR-5.3: Mandatory avoidance of impacts. The City shall not knowingly approve any public or private project that may adversely affect an archaeological site without first consulting with applicable State and local agencies and organizations, conducting a site evaluation as may be indicated, and mitigating any adverse impacts according to the recommendations of a qualified archaeologist. City implementation of this policy shall be guided by Appendix K of the State CEQA Guidelines.
Policy PR-5.4: Protection of Native American cultural sites. The City shall ensure the protection of archaeological sites that may be culturally significant to Native Americans, even if they have lost their scientific or archaeological integrity through previous disturbance; sites that may have religious value, even though no artifacts are present; and sites that contain artifacts which may have intrinsic value, even though their archaeological context has been disturbed.
Goal PR-6: To protect the area’s archaeological resources.
Policy PR-6.1: Protection of archaeological resources. The City shall provide for the protection of both known and potential archaeological resources. To avoid significant damage to important archaeological sites, all available measures, including purchase of the property in fee or easement, shall be explored at the time of a development proposal. Where such City of Patterson—Baldwin Master Plan / Zacharias Master Plan Project Draft EIR Cultural Resources and Tribal Cultural Resources FirstCarbon Solutions 3.5-17
https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/1790/17900003/EIR/3 - Draft EIR/17900003 Sec03-05 Cultural-Tribal Resources.docx measures are not feasible and development would adversely affect identified archaeological or paleontological resources, mitigation shall be required in accordance with the relevant provisions of federal and State laws.
Policy PR-6.2: Archaeologically sensitive areas. Development within an archaeologically sensitive area shall require a preliminary site survey by a qualified archaeologist knowledgeable in Native American cultures, prior to a determination of the potential environmental impacts of the project.
Policy PR-6.3: Archaeological resources present. Where a preliminary site survey finds substantial archaeological resources, before permitting construction, the City shall require a mitigation plan to protect the resources. Possible mitigation measures include:
- Requiring the presence of a qualified professional during initial grading or trenching; project redesign;
- Covering with a layer of fill; excavation, removal and curation in an appropriate facility under the direction of a qualified professional.
Policy PR-6.4: Qualified archaeologist present. Where substantial archaeological resources are discovered during construction or grading activities, all such activities in the immediate area of the find shall cease until a qualified archaeologist knowledgeable in Native American cultures can determine the significance of the resource and recommend alternative mitigation measures.
Policy PR-6.5: Archaeological site records. The City shall establish and maintain archaeological site records about known sites. Specific archaeological site information shall be kept confidential to protect the resources. The City shall maintain, for public use, generalized maps showing known areas of archaeological sensitivity.
3.5.5 - Thresholds of Significance
According to Appendix G, Environmental Checklist, of the CEQA Guidelines, cultural resources impacts resulting from the implementation of the proposed project would be considered significant if the project would:
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as pursuant to Section 15064.5?
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to Section 15064.5?
c) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? d) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code Section 21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and that is listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code Section 5020.1(k)? City of Patterson—Baldwin Master Plan / Zacharias Master Plan Project Cultural Resources and Tribal Cultural Resources Draft EIR
3.5-18 FirstCarbon Solutions
https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/1790/17900003/EIR/3 - Draft EIR/17900003 Sec03-05 Cultural-Tribal Resources.docx e) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code Section 21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and that is a resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1?
3.5.6 - Methodology
This evaluation focuses on whether buildout of the Master Plans would impact historic, archaeological, human remains, or tribal cultural resources.
The project may have an impact on a historical resource if construction of the project would impair a resource’s eligibility for inclusion in the CRHR. Analysis is based on information collected from record searches at the Northwest Information Center (NWIC), additional archival research, pedestrian surveys, and information from historic architectural assessment of existing properties more than 45 years in age located within the project boundaries. If an identified impact would leave a resource no longer able to convey its significance, meaning that the resource would no longer be eligible for listing in the CRHR, then the project’s impact would be considered a significant adverse change.
According to Public Resources Code Section 15126.4(b)(1) (CEQA Guidelines), if a project adheres to the Sphere of Influence standards, the project’s impact “shall generally be considered mitigated below a level of significance and thus is not significant.” The project may have an impact on an archaeological resource or human remains if construction of the project would physically damage or destroy archaeological data or human remains (including those interred outside of formal cemeteries. Analysis is based on information collected from record searches at the NWIC, the additional archival research, and pedestrian surveys.
Both direct and indirect effects of project implementation were considered for this analysis. Direct impacts are typically associated with construction and/or ground-disturbing activities, and have the potential to immediately alter, diminish, or destroy all or part of the character and quality of archaeological resources and/or historic architecture. Indirect impacts are typically associated with post-project implementation conditions that have the potential to alter or diminish the historical setting of a cultural resource (generally historic architecture) by introducing visual intrusions on existing historical structures that are considered undesirable.
Specific Thresholds of Significance
For purposes of this analysis, the following thresholds are used to evaluate the significance of cultural and tribal cultural resources materials impacts resulting from implementation of the proposed project.
City of Patterson—Baldwin Master Plan / Zacharias Master Plan Project Draft EIR Cultural Resources and Tribal Cultural Resources FirstCarbon Solutions 3.5-19
https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/1790/17900003/EIR/3 - Draft EIR/17900003 Sec03-05 Cultural-Tribal Resources.docx Impair a historic resource’s eligibility ability to convey its significance (i.e., affect a resources’ inclusion in the NRHP or CRHR) or not adhere to the Secretary of Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation.
Physically damage or destroy archaeological data or human remains.
Physically damage, destroy, or otherwise adversely impact a site, feature, place, or cultural landscape with cultural value to a California Native American tribe and that is a resource determined by the City of Patterson, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1.
3.5.7 - Impacts Evaluation
Historic Resources
Impact CUL-1: Buildout of the Master Plan may result in a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as pursuant to Section 15064.5.
Impact Analysis
This impact assesses the potential for adverse impacts to historic resources.
Baldwin and Zacharias Master Plans
A records search conducted on June 25, 2018, by personnel at the CCIC, failed to identify any historic buildings or structures within the Baldwin or Zacherias Master Plan Areas. A pedestrian survey of the Baldwin Master Plan area was conducted by Holman and Associates in June 2002; however, the survey made no mention of two residential buildings present in the northeast corner of the Baldwin Master Plan Area located at the southern terminus of Baldwin Road. Review of historic aerials indicate the presence of buildings/structures on-site as early as 1971, and are therefore over 45 years in age.
Similarly, a survey of the Zacharias Master Plan Area conducted by FCS in March 2019 identified several structures of potential historic significance within the planning area. A barn, water tower, and large residence located immediately south of the intersection of Baldwin Road and Zacharias Road in the southeast corner of APN 021-023-016. These buildings appear to be over 100 years in age, are in good condition, and according to the property owners, are associated with the locally significant Zacharias family for whom the adjacent road is named.
Several individual residences are also located in the Ranchette Triangle portion of the Zacharias Master Plan. Initial review of historic aerials indicates that several of these structures and properties may be over 45 years in age. None of these buildings have been previously evaluated, nor were they evaluated for historic significance as part of the current study. The alteration or demolition of an eligible historic resource would constitute a significant impact under CEQA.
Accordingly, Mitigation Measure (MM) CUL-1 requires a qualified Architectural Historian to evaluate all properties over 45 years in age within the two Master plan areas in order to determine if they are eligible for listing on the California Register of Historical Resources. If found to be eligible, the City of Patterson—Baldwin Master Plan / Zacharias Master Plan Project Cultural Resources and Tribal Cultural Resources Draft EIR
3.5-20 FirstCarbon Solutions
https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/1790/17900003/EIR/3 - Draft EIR/17900003 Sec03-05 Cultural-Tribal Resources.docx Architectural Historian will provide direction and appropriate mitigation including but not limited to, documentation, relocation of the structure, adaptive reuse, or preservation in place. With the implementation of mitigation, impacts would be reduced to a level of less than significant.
Level of Significance Before Mitigation
Potentially significant impact.
Mitigation Measures
MM CUL-1 Prior to the commencement of any construction or demolition activities that would affect any building or structure over 45 years in age, an architectural historian who meets the qualification standards of the Secretary of the Interior shall be retained to evaluate the property and determine if it is eligible for listing on the California Register of Historical Resources. The Architectural Historian will engage in expanded archival research and oral interviews to better document the age, periods of use, owners and residents who were associated with each potential resource. The Architectural Historian shall inspect the structure(s) to determine if any qualify as significant under CEQA Guidelines on the basis of their association with significant events or persons, state of preservation, unique design qualities, or as examples of historically important structures at the national, State and local level. If the structure is determined to not have historical significance, the Architectural Historian shall document his/her findings in a report and no further action is required. If the structure is determined to have historical significance, the Architectural Historian shall document his/her findings in the form of a Historic Resource Assessment report that shall be prepared for each structure along with all appropriate Department of Parks and Recreation (DPR) building and structure recordation forms.
The Historic Resource Assessment shall be submitted to the City of Patterson, State Historic Preservation Office, and the Central California Information Center as required. In the event any of the structures are found to be significant, the Architectural Historian will be retained to design a Historic Property Treatment Plan that adheres to the Secretary of the Interior’s guidelines for the treatment of historic properties, and provides mitigation to reduce potential impacts to historic resources to a less that significant level. Such mitigation may include, but is not limited to:
Preservation in place of significant structures or rehabilitation for re-use appropriate for the proposed development.
Relocation of significant structures to locations outside of the disturbance area or renovation for re-use.
Complete photo documentation and architectural recording for archival purposes, salvage of elements of the structures for re-use elsewhere or for display at local historical venues prior to demolition.
Level of Significance After Mitigation
Less than significant Impact.
City of Patterson—Baldwin Master Plan / Zacharias Master Plan Project Draft EIR Cultural Resources and Tribal Cultural Resources FirstCarbon Solutions 3.5-21
https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/1790/17900003/EIR/3 - Draft EIR/17900003 Sec03-05 Cultural-Tribal Resources.docx Archaeological Resources
Impact CUL-2: Buildout of the Master Plan may result in a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to Section 15064.5.
Impact Analysis
This impact assesses the potential for adverse impacts to archaeological resources.
Baldwin and Zacharias Master Plans
A records search conducted on June 25, 2018, by personnel at the CCIC, a pedestrian survey of the Baldwin Master Plan area conducted by Holman and Associates in June 2002, and a pedestrian survey of the Zacherias Master Plan Area conducted by FCS in June of 2019, failed to identify any recorded or previously unrecorded archaeological resources within the Baldwin and Zacherias Master Plan boundaries.
Nonetheless, subsurface earthwork activities have the potential to encounter undiscovered historic or prehistoric archaeological resources. Such resources could consist of, but are not limited to stone, bone, wood, or shell artifacts or features, including hearths, dumpsites, and structural elements. This represents a potentially significant impact related to archeological resources. Accordingly, MM CUL-2 requires standard inadvertent discovery procedures to be implemented in the event resources are encountered. With the implementation of mitigation, impacts would be reduced to a level of less than significant.
Level of Significance Before Mitigation
Potentially significant impact.
Mitigation Measures
MM CUL-2 In the event a potentially significant cultural resource is encountered during subsurface earthwork activities, all construction activities within a 100-foot radius of the find shall cease and workers should avoid altering the materials until a qualified Archaeologist who meets the Secretary of Interior’s Professional Qualification Standards for archaeology has evaluated the situation. The applicant shall include a standard inadvertent discovery clause in every construction contract to inform contractors of this requirement. Any previously undiscovered resources found during construction activities shall be recorded on appropriate Department of Parks and Recreation (DPR) forms and evaluated for significance in terms of CEQA criteria by a qualified Archaeologist. Potentially significant cultural resources consist of but are not limited to stone, bone, glass, ceramics, wood, or shell artifacts, or features including hearths, structural remains, or historic dumpsites. If the resource is determined to be significant under CEQA, the qualified Archaeologist shall prepare and implement a research design and archaeological data recovery plan that will capture those categories of data for which the site is significant in accordance with Section 15064.5 of the CEQA Guidelines. The Archaeologist shall also perform appropriate technical analyses, prepare a comprehensive report complete with methods, results, and recommendations, and provide for the permanent curation or City of Patterson—Baldwin Master Plan / Zacharias Master Plan Project Cultural Resources and Tribal Cultural Resources Draft EIR
3.5-22 FirstCarbon Solutions
https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/1790/17900003/EIR/3 - Draft EIR/17900003 Sec03-05 Cultural-Tribal Resources.docx repatriation of the recovered resources in cooperation with the designated Most Likely Descendant (MLD) as needed. The report shall be submitted to the City of Patterson, the Central California Information Center (CCIC), and the California Office of Historic Preservation (OHP), as required.
Level of Significance After Mitigation
Less than significant impact.
Human Remains / Burial Sites
Impact CUL-3: Buildout of the Master Plan may result in disturbance to human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries.
Impact Analysis
This impact assesses the potential for adverse impacts to human remains.
Baldwin and Zacharias Master Plans
No cemeteries or human remains have been recorded within either master plan area, however, subsurface construction activities associated with the projects, such as trenching and grading, could potentially damage or destroy previously undiscovered human remains. This would represent a potentially significant impact.
In the event of the accidental discovery or recognition of any human remains, CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5, Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5, and Public Resources Code Sections 5097.94 and Section 5097.98 must be followed. In the unlikely event that human remains are discovered, implementation of MM CUL-3 would reduce the construction impact related to previously undiscovered human remains to less than significant with mitigation.
Level of Significance Before Mitigation
Potentially significant impact.
Mitigation Measures
MM CUL-3 In the event of the accidental discovery or recognition of any human remains, CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5, Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5, and Public Resources Code Sections 5097.94 and Section 5097.98 shall be followed. If during the course of project construction, there is accidental discovery or recognition of any human remains, the following steps shall be taken:
1. There shall be no further excavation or disturbance within 100 feet of the remains until the Stanislaus County Coroner is contacted to determine if the remains are Native American and if an investigation of the cause of death is required. If the Coroner determines the remains to be Native American, the Coroner shall contact the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) within 24 hours, and the NAHC shall identify the person or persons it believes to be the Most Likely Descendant (MLD) of the deceased Native American. The MLD may City of Patterson—Baldwin Master Plan / Zacharias Master Plan Project Draft EIR Cultural Resources and Tribal Cultural Resources FirstCarbon Solutions 3.5-23
https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/1790/17900003/EIR/3 - Draft EIR/17900003 Sec03-05 Cultural-Tribal Resources.docx make recommendations to the landowner or the person responsible for the excavation work within 48 hours, for means of treating or disposing of, with appropriate dignity, the human remains and any associated grave goods as provided in Public Resource Code Section 5097.98.
2. Where the following conditions occur, the landowner or his or her authorized representative shall rebury the Native American human remains and associated grave goods with appropriate dignity either in accordance with the recommendations of the most likely descendant or on the project site in a location not subject to further subsurface disturbance:
The NAHC is unable to identify a most likely descendent or the most likely descendent failed to make a recommendation within 48 hours after being notified by the commission.
The descendant identified fails to make a recommendation.
The landowner or his authorized representative rejects the recommendation of the descendant, and mediation by the NAHC fails to provide measures acceptable to the landowner.
Additionally, California Public Resources Code Section 15064.5 requires the following relative to Native American Remains:
When an initial study identifies the existence of, or the probable likelihood of, Native American Remains within a project, a lead agency shall work with the appropriate Native Americans as identified by the Native American Heritage Commission as provided in Public Resources Code Section 5097.98. The applicant may develop a plan for treating or disposing of, with appropriate dignity, the human remains and any items associated with Native American Burials with the appropriate Native Americans as identified by the Native American Heritage Commission.
Level of Significance After Mitigation
Less than significant impact.
Listed or Eligible Tribal Cultural Resources
Impact CUL-4: Buildout of the Master Plans would not result in a substantial adverse change in the significance of a Tribal Cultural Resource.
Impact Analysis
This impact assesses the potential for adverse impacts to tribal cultural resources.
Baldwin and Zacharias Master Plans
No listed or potentially eligible tribal cultural resources have been identified within the either master plan area. Specifically, a review of the CRHR, the NAHC Sacred Lands File, a records search conducted at the CCIC, and pedestrian surveys of both master plan areas failed to identify any listed tribal City of Patterson—Baldwin Master Plan / Zacharias Master Plan Project Cultural Resources and Tribal Cultural Resources Draft EIR
3.5-24 FirstCarbon Solutions
https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/1790/17900003/EIR/3 - Draft EIR/17900003 Sec03-05 Cultural-Tribal Resources.docx cultural resources that could be adversely affected by construction of the proposed project. As such, there are no known eligible or potentially eligible tribal cultural resources that could be adversely affected by the proposed project. Therefore, no construction impacts related to previously listed or eligible tribal cultural resources would occur.
Level of Significance Before Mitigation
Less than significant impact.
Mitigation Measures
No mitigation is required.
Level of Significance After Mitigation
Less than significant impact.
Lead Agency Determined Tribal Cultural Resources
Impact CUL-5: Buildout of the Master Plans would not cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code Section 21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and that is a resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1.
Construction
On June 14, 2018, FCS sent a letter to the NAHC in an effort to determine whether any sacred sites are listed on its Sacred Lands File for the Zacharias and Baldwin Master Plan areas. The response from the NAHC was received on June 26, 2018, and noted that a search of the Sacred Lands File was negative for cultural resources on or near the master plan areas. A list of five Native American tribal members who may have additional knowledge of the project area was included with the results.
These tribal members were sent letters on April 22, 2019, asking for any additional information they might have concerning the project area. As of the date of this report, no responses have been received. Additionally, the City of Patterson provided formal notification to applicable Native American Governments pursuant to California AB 52 and Senate Bill 18 (SB 18). No additional comments or requests for consultation have been received to date.
The City of Patterson, in its capacity as lead agency, has also not identified or determined any tribal cultural resources to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1. However, there is always a possibility that previously undiscovered tribal cultural resources may be encountered during project-related ground disturbance. Implementation of MM CUL-1, MMCUL-2, and MM CUL-3 that construction be stopped upon encountering archaeological or human remains. Therefore, construction impacts related to lead agency determined tribal cultural resources would less than significant with mitigation.
City of Patterson—Baldwin Master Plan / Zacharias Master Plan Project Draft EIR Cultural Resources and Tribal Cultural Resources FirstCarbon Solutions 3.5-25
https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/1790/17900003/EIR/3 - Draft EIR/17900003 Sec03-05 Cultural-Tribal Resources.docx Level of Significance Before Mitigation
Potentially significant impact.
Mitigation Measures
Implementation of MM CUL-1, MM CUL-2, and MM CUL-3
Level of Significance After Mitigation
Less than significant Impact.
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
City of Patterson—Baldwin Master Plan Project / Zacharias Master Plan Project Draft EIR Geology, Soils, and Seismicity
FirstCarbon Solutions 3.6-1
https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/1790/17900003/EIR/3 - Draft EIR/17900003 Sec03-06 Geology.docx
3.6 - Geology, Soils, and Seismicity
3.6.1 - Introduction
This section describes the existing geology, soils, and seismicity setting and potential effects from project implementation on the site and its surrounding area. Descriptions and analysis in this section are based on a Preliminary Report for Geotechnical Services prepared by Kleinfelder, the City of Patterson General Plan Environmental Impact Report (EIR), the West Patterson Projects Final EIR, and information provided by the Natural Resources Conservation Service’s Web Soil Survey.
3.6.2 - Environmental Setting
Regional Geology
The City of Patterson is located in the Great Valley Geomorphic Province of California, commonly referred to as the San Joaquin Valley. The San Joaquin Valley consists of alluvial fans extending from the Sierra Nevada Range to the east, the Coastal Range to the west, and the Tehachapi Mountains to the south. Weathering of these mountain ranges combined with surface water flows and flooding have resulted in the accumulation of alluvial (river), lacustrine (lake), and marine (ocean) deposits throughout the San Joaquin Valley. Patterson is located on the western side of the San Joaquin Valley at the base of the Diablo Range foothills. As indicated by the City of Patterson General Plan Update EIR, landforms range from ancient pre-Quaternary and early Pleistocene hills and alluvial fans along the western boundary, to Middle and Late Holocene alluvial fans and terraces further east, to latest Holocene terraces along the San Joaquin River and Del Puerto Creek. Soils are largely alluvial in origin, particularly east of Interstate 5 (I-5). Most alluvial soils are derived from the Coast Range alluvial fans with the exception of areas near the San Joaquin River.
Seismicity
The term seismicity describes the effects of seismic waves that are radiated from an earthquake as it ruptures. While most of the energy released during an earthquake results in the permanent displacement of the ground, as much as 10 percent of the energy may dissipate immediately in the form of seismic waves.
Faulting
Faults form in rocks when stresses overcome the internal strength of the rock, resulting in a fracture.
Large faults develop in response to large, regional stresses operating over a long time, such as those stresses caused by the relative displacement between tectonic plates. According to the elastic rebound theory, these stresses cause strain to build up in the earth’s crust until enough strain has built up to exceed the strength along a fault and cause a brittle failure. The slip between the two stuck plates or coherent blocks generates an earthquake. Following an earthquake, strain will build once again until the occurrence of another earthquake. The magnitude of slip is related to the maximum allowable strain that can be built up along a particular fault segment. The greatest buildup in strain that is due to the largest relative motion between tectonic plates or fault blocks over the longest period of time will generally produce the largest earthquakes. The distribution of these earthquakes is a study of much interest for both hazard prediction and the study of active City of Patterson—Baldwin Master Plan Project / Zacharias Master Plan Project Geology, Soils, and Seismicity Draft EIR
3.6-2 FirstCarbon Solutions
https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/1790/17900003/EIR/3 - Draft EIR/17900003 Sec03-06 Geology.docx deformation of the Earth’s crust. Deformation is a complex process, and strain caused by tectonic forces is not only accommodated through faulting but also by folding, uplift, and subsidence, which can be gradual or in direct response to earthquakes.
Faults are mapped to determine earthquake hazards, since they occur where earthquakes tend to recur. A historic plane of weakness is more likely to fail under stress and strain than a previously unbroken block of crust. Faults are, therefore, a prime indicator of past seismic activity, and faults with recent activity are presumed to be the best candidates for future earthquakes. However, since slip is not always accommodated by faults that intersect the surface along traces, and since the orientation of stresses and strain in the crust can shift, predicting the location of future earthquakes is complicated. Earthquakes sometimes occur in areas with previously undetected faults or along faults previously thought inactive.
According to the City of Patterson General Plan EIR, the San Andreas, Hayward, San Joaquin, Calaveras, Green Valley-Concord, Midland, Patterson Pass, and Tesla-Ortigliata faults are active faults close to Patterson. However, none of them are located within the city limits or General Plan planning area.
Seismic Hazards
Seismicity describes the effects of seismic waves that are radiated from an earthquake as it ruptures.
While most of the energy released during an earthquake results in the permanent displacement of the ground, as much as 10 percent of the energy may dissipate immediately in the form of seismic waves. To understand the implications of seismic events, a discussion of faulting and seismic hazards is provided as follows.
Seismic hazards pose a substantial danger to property and human safety and are present because of the risk of naturally occurring geologic events and processes impacting human development.
Therefore, the hazard is influenced as much by the conditions of human development as by the frequency and distribution of major geologic events. Seismic hazards present in California include ground rupture along faults, strong seismic shaking, liquefaction, ground failure, landsliding, and slope failure.
Fault Rupture
Fault rupture is a seismic hazard that affects structures sited above an active fault. The hazard from fault rupture is the movement of the ground surface along a fault during an earthquake. Typically, this movement takes place during the short time of an earthquake, but it also can occur slowly over many years in a process known as creep. Most structures and underground utilities cannot accommodate the surface displacements of several inches to several feet commonly associated with fault rupture or creep.
Areas at risk for fault rupture are typically identified as Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zones. There are no Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zones within or adjacent to the City of Patterson.
City of Patterson—Baldwin Master Plan Project / Zacharias Master Plan Project Draft EIR Geology, Soils, and Seismicity
FirstCarbon Solutions 3.6-3
https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/1790/17900003/EIR/3 - Draft EIR/17900003 Sec03-06 Geology.docx Ground Shaking
The severity of ground shaking depends on several variables such as earthquake magnitude, epicenter distance, local geology, thickness, seismic wave-propagation properties of unconsolidated materials, groundwater conditions, and topographic setting. Ground shaking hazards are most pronounced in areas near faults or with unconsolidated alluvium.
Based on observations of damage from recent earthquakes in California (e.g., San Fernando 1971, Whittier-Narrows 1987, Landers 1992, Northridge 1994), ground shaking is responsible for 70 to 100 percent of all earthquake damage. The most common type of damage from ground shaking is structural damage to buildings, which can range from cosmetic stucco cracks to total collapse. The overall level of structural damage from a nearby large earthquake would likely be moderate to heavy, depending on the characteristics of the earthquake, the type of ground, and the condition of the building. Besides damage to buildings, strong ground shaking can cause severe damage from falling objects or broken utility lines. Fire and explosions are also hazards associated with strong ground shaking.
Ground Failure
Ground failure includes liquefaction and the liquefaction-induced phenomena of lateral spreading, and lurching.
Liquefaction is a process by which sediments below the water table temporarily lose strength during an earthquake and behave as a viscous liquid rather than a solid. Liquefaction is restricted to certain geologic and hydrologic environments, primarily recently deposited sand and silt in areas with high groundwater levels. The process of liquefaction involves seismic waves passing through saturated granular layers, distorting the granular structure, and causing the particles to collapse. This causes the granular layer to behave temporarily as a viscous liquid, resulting in liquefaction.
Liquefaction can cause the soil beneath a structure to lose strength, which may result in the loss of foundation-bearing capacity. This loss of strength commonly causes the structure to settle or tip.
Loss of bearing strength can also cause light buildings with basements, buried tanks, and foundation piles to rise buoyantly through the liquefied soil.
Lateral spreading is lateral ground movement, with some vertical component, caused by liquefaction. In effect, the soil rides on top of the liquefied layer. Lateral spreading can occur on relatively flat sites with slopes less than 2 percent, under certain circumstances, and can cause ground cracking and settlement.
Lurching is the movement of the ground surface toward an open face when the soil liquefies. An open face could be a graded slope, stream bank, canal face, gully, or other similar feature.
The City of Patterson General Plan EIR indicates that Patterson is theoretically subject to liquefaction resulting from earthquakes on several faults. The expected degree of earthquake-caused shaking, however, is relatively low, and it is unlikely that significant liquefaction would occur.
City of Patterson—Baldwin Master Plan Project / Zacharias Master Plan Project Geology, Soils, and Seismicity Draft EIR
3.6-4 FirstCarbon Solutions
https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/1790/17900003/EIR/3 - Draft EIR/17900003 Sec03-06 Geology.docx Landslides and Slope Failure
Landslides and other forms of slope failure form in response to the long-term geologic cycle of uplift, mass wasting, and disturbance of slopes. Mass wasting refers to a variety of erosional processes from gradual downhill soil creep to mudslides, debris flows, landslides and rock fall—processes that are commonly triggered by intense precipitation, which varies according to climactic shifts. Often, various forms of mass wasting are grouped together as landslides, which are generally used to describe the downhill movement of rock and soil.
Geologists classify landslides into several different types that reflect differences in the type of material and type of movement. The four most common types of landslides are translational, rotational, earth flow, and rock fall. Debris flows are another common type of landslide similar to earth flows, except that the soil and rock particles are coarser. Mudslide is a term that appears in non-technical literature to describe a variety of shallow, rapidly moving earth flows.
The City of Patterson and its surrounding areas are generally level, precluding the occurrence of landslides.
Soils
The United States Department of Agriculture Soil Conservation Service indicates that six soil types underline the project site. The soil properties are summarized in Table 3.6-1. A soil map is provided in Exhibit 3.2-2 in Section 3.2, Agricultural Resources.
Table 3.6-1: Soils Summary
Soil Name Properties Hydrologic Group
Natural
Drainage
Class
Capay Clay 0 to 1 percent
slopes
Group C – Sandy clay loam. They have low infiltration rates when thoroughly wetted and consist chiefly of soils with a layer that impedes downward movement of water and soils with
moderately fine to fine structure.
Moderately
well
drained
0 to 1 percent
slopes, loamy
substratum
Group D – Clay loam, silty clay loam, sandy clay, silty clay or clay.
This group has the highest runoff potential. They have very low infiltration rates when thoroughly wetted and consist chiefly of clay soils with a high swelling potential, soils with a permanent high water table, soils with a claypan or clay layer at or near the surface and shallow soils over nearly impervious material.
Moderately
well
drained
0 to 1 percent
slopes, rarely
flooded
Group C – Sandy clay loam. They have low infiltration rates when thoroughly wetted and consist chiefly of soils with a layer that impedes downward movement of water and soils with
moderately fine to fine structure.
Moderately
well
drained
Vernalis
loam
0 to 2 percent
slopes
Group B – Silt loam or loam. It has a moderate infiltration rate when thoroughly wetted and consists chiefly or moderately deep to deep, moderately well to well drained soils with moderately fine to moderately coarse textures.
Well
drained
City of Patterson—Baldwin Master Plan Project / Zacharias Master Plan Project Draft EIR Geology, Soils, and Seismicity
FirstCarbon Solutions 3.6-5
https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/1790/17900003/EIR/3 - Draft EIR/17900003 Sec03-06 Geology.docx Soil Name Properties Hydrologic Group
Natural
Drainage
Class
0 to 2 percent
slopes, rarely
flooded
Group B – Silt loam or loam. It has a moderate infiltration rate when thoroughly wetted and consists chiefly or moderately deep to deep, moderately well to well drained soils with moderately fine to moderately coarse textures.
Well
drained
VernalisZacharias
complex
0 to 2 percent
slopes, rarely
flooded
Group C – Sandy clay loam. They have low infiltration rates when thoroughly wetted and consist chiefly of soils with a layer that impedes downward movement of water and soils with
moderately fine to fine structure.
Well
drained
Zacharias
clay loam
0 to 2 percent
slopes, rarely
flooded
Group C – Sandy clay loam. They have low infiltration rates when thoroughly wetted and consist chiefly of soils with a layer that impedes downward movement of water and soils with
moderately fine to fine structure.
Well
drained
Zacharias
gravelly
clay loam
0 to 2 percent
slopes, rarely
flooded
Group C – Sandy clay loam. They have low infiltration rates when thoroughly wetted and consist chiefly of soils with a layer that impedes downward movement of water and soils with
moderately fine to fine structure.
Well
drained
Cortina
gravelly
sandy loam
0 to 5 percent
slopes, rarely
flooded
Group A – Sand, loamy sand or sandy loam types of soils. It has low runoff potential and high infiltration rates even when thoroughly wetted. They consist chiefly of deep, well to excessively drained sands or gravels and have a high rate of water transmission.
Somewhat
excessively
drained
Elsalado
loam
0 to 2 percent
slopes, rarely
flooded
Group B – Silt loam or loam. It has a moderate infiltration rate when thoroughly wetted and consists chiefly or moderately deep to deep, moderately well to well drained soils with moderately fine to moderately coarse textures.
Well
drained
Source: Natural Resources Conservation Service 2019.
Subsurface Investigation
Kleinfelder prepared Preliminary Report for Geotechnical Services for the Keystone Ranch portion of the Zacharias Master Plan in 2007. The report found that near surface soils consist of moderate to highly plastic sandy and silty clay that extended to depths of 1.5 to 9.5 feet below ground surface.
The soils beneath the surface clay consist of interbedded and discontinuous layers of sandy and clayey silt; silty, clayey, and relatively clean sand; and silty and sandy clay to the depths explored.
Groundwater was not encountered in any borings.
Subsidence
The Delta-Mendota Canal has experienced subsidence as a result of groundwater pumping in the San Joaquin Valley. The San Luis & Delta-Mendota Water Authority provided information for subsidence surveys conducted between 2014 and 2018 indicating that 6 inches of subsidence was recorded in the Patterson area along the canal alignment. Subsidence has the potential to reduce the conveyance capacity of the Delta-Mendota Canal.
City of Patterson—Baldwin Master Plan Project / Zacharias Master Plan Project Geology, Soils, and Seismicity Draft EIR
3.6-6 FirstCarbon Solutions
https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/1790/17900003/EIR/3 - Draft EIR/17900003 Sec03-06 Geology.docx
3.6.3 - Regulatory Framework
State Regulations
Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act
The Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act (Public Resources Code [PRC] § 2621– 2630) was passed in 1972 to provide a statewide mechanism for reducing the hazard of surface fault rupture to structures used for human occupancy. The main purpose of the Act is to prevent the siting of buildings used for human occupancy across the traces of active faults. It should be noted that the Act addresses the potential hazard of surface fault rupture and is not directed toward other earthquake hazards, such as seismically-induced ground shaking or landslides.
The law requires the State Geologist to identify regulatory zones (known as Earthquake Fault Zones or Alquist-Priolo Zones) around the surface traces of active faults, and to depict these zones on topographic base maps, typically at a scale of 1 inch to 2,000 feet. Earthquake Fault Zones vary in width, although they are often 0.75-mile wide. Once published, the maps are distributed to the affected cities, counties, and State agencies for their use in planning and controlling new or renewed construction. With the exception of single-family wood-frame and steel-frame dwellings that are not part of a larger development (i.e. four units or more), local agencies are required to regulate development within the mapped zones. In general, construction within 50 feet of an active fault zone is prohibited.
Seismic Hazards Mapping Act
The Seismic Hazards Mapping Act (PRC § 2690–2699.6), which was passed in 1990, addresses earthquake hazards other than surface fault rupture. These hazards include strong ground shaking, earthquake-induced landslides, liquefaction, or other ground failures. Much like the Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act discussed above, these seismic hazard zones are mapped by the State Geologist to assist local government in the land use planning process. The Act states, “it is necessary to identify and map seismic hazard zones in order for cities and counties to adequately prepare the safety element of their general plans and to encourage land use management policies and regulations to reduce and mitigate those hazards to protect public health and safety.” The Act also states, “cities and counties shall require, prior to the approval of a project located in a seismic hazard zone, a geotechnical report defining and delineating any seismic hazard.” California Building Code
The State of California provides minimum standards for building design through the California Building Standards Code (California Code of Regulations, Title 24). Where no other building codes apply, Chapter 29 regulates excavation, foundations, and retaining walls. The California Building Standards Code (CBC) applies to building design and construction in the state and is based on the federal Uniform Building Code (UBC) used widely throughout the country (generally adopted on a state-by-state or district-by-district basis). The CBC has been modified for California conditions with more detailed and/or more stringent regulations.
The State earthquake protection law (California Health and Safety Code § 19100 et seq.) requires that structures be designed to resist stresses produced by lateral forces caused by wind and City of Patterson—Baldwin Master Plan Project / Zacharias Master Plan Project Draft EIR Geology, Soils, and Seismicity
FirstCarbon Solutions 3.6-7
https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/1790/17900003/EIR/3 - Draft EIR/17900003 Sec03-06 Geology.docx earthquakes. Specific minimum seismic safety and structural design requirements are set forth in Chapter 16 of the CBC. The CBC identifies seismic factors that must be considered in structural design. Chapter 18 of the CBC regulates the excavation of foundations and retaining walls, and Appendix Chapter A33 regulates grading activities, including drainage and erosion control and construction on unstable soils, such as expansive soils and areas subject to liquefaction.
Local
City of Patterson
General Plan
The City of Patterson General Plan sets forth the following goal and policies relevant to geology, soils, and seismicity:
Goal HS-1: To prevent loss of life, injury, and property damage due to geologic and seismic hazards.
Policy HS-1.1: Geotechnical reports. The City shall require the preparation of geotechnical reports and impose appropriate mitigation measures to ensure, within the limits of technical and economic feasibility, that new structures are able to withstand the effects of seismic activity, including liquefaction, slope instability, expansive soils or other geologic hazards.
Policy HS-1.2: Seismic resistant utilities. Underground utilities, particularly water and natural gas mains, shall be designed to withstand seismic forces in accordance with state requirements.
3.6.4 - Methodology
FCS evaluated potential impacts on geology, soils, and seismicity through review of a Preliminary Report for Geotechnical Services prepared by Kleinfelder, the City of Patterson General Plan EIR, seismic hazard mapping, and the Natural Resources Conservation Service’s Web Soil Survey.
3.6.5 - Thresholds of Significance
According to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Appendix G Environmental Checklist, to determine whether impacts to geology and soils are significant environmental effects, the following questions are analyzed and evaluated. Would the project:
a) Directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury or death involving:
i. Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42.
ii. Strong seismic ground shaking?
iii. Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? iv. Landslides?
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? City of Patterson—Baldwin Master Plan Project / Zacharias Master Plan Project Geology, Soils, and Seismicity Draft EIR
3.6-8 FirstCarbon Solutions
https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/1790/17900003/EIR/3 - Draft EIR/17900003 Sec03-06 Geology.docx c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse?
d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial direct or indirect risks to life or property? e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater?
f) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature?
3.6.6 - Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures
This section discusses potential impacts associated with the proposed project and provides mitigation measures where necessary.
Earthquakes
Impact GEO-1: The project may expose persons within the Master Plan areas to seismic hazards including fault rupture, strong ground shaking, liquefaction, or landsliding.
Impact Analysis
This impact evaluates potential exposure of the proposed project site to seismic hazards, including fault rupture, strong ground shaking, ground failure and liquefaction, and landslides.
Baldwin and Zacharias Master Plans
Fault Rupture
There are no Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zones within or near Patterson. This condition precludes the possibility of exposure to fault rupture. No impacts would occur.
Ground Shaking
The California Geological Survey maintains a web-based computer model that estimates probabilistic seismic ground motions for any location within California. The computer model estimates the ‘Design Basis Earthquake’ ground motion, which is defined as the peak ground acceleration with a 10 percent chance of exceedance in 50 years (475-year return period). For alluvium soil type, on which the project site is located, the estimated peak ground acceleration is approximately 0.45g.
Development contemplated by the Master Plans area may be exposed to strong ground shaking during an earthquake in the general region. New development would implement all applicable requirements of the most recent CBC, which provides criteria for the seismic design of buildings.
Seismic design criteria account for peak ground acceleration, soil profile, and other site conditions, and they establish corresponding design standards intended primarily to protect public safety and secondly to minimize property damage. Mitigation Measure (MM) GEO-1 is proposed that would require the project applicant to submit site plans to City of Patterson for review and approval that City of Patterson—Baldwin Master Plan Project / Zacharias Master Plan Project Draft EIR Geology, Soils, and Seismicity
FirstCarbon Solutions 3.6-9
https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/1790/17900003/EIR/3 - Draft EIR/17900003 Sec03-06 Geology.docx demonstrate that proposed project’s plans incorporate all applicable seismic design criteria of the latest edition of the CBC. Accordingly, potential ground shaking impacts would be reduced to a level of less than significant.
Ground Failure and Liquefaction
Liquefaction occurs when saturated soil loses shear strength and deforms as a result of increased pore water pressure induced by strong ground shaking during an earthquake. As the excess pore pressure dissipates, volume changes are produced within the liquefied soil layer that can manifest at the ground surface as settlement of structures, floating of buried structures, and failure of retaining walls. Soil types most susceptible to liquefaction are saturated, loose, sandy soils. Clay soils are not typically susceptible to liquefaction. As shown in Table 3.6-1, the soils within the project site consist of clay, loam, clay loam, and gravely clay loam. Because of the presence of clay within these soils, ground failure or liquefaction is unlikely to occur during a seismic event. Impacts would be less than significant.
Landsliding
The Zacharias Master Plan area contains mostly flat relief. There are no steep slopes susceptible to landsliding near the Master Plan area. Impacts would be less than significant level.
The Baldwin Master Plan area contains mostly flat relief. The Delta-Mendota Canal abuts the west and south side of the Master Plan area. The canal sits on an engineered embankment and, therefore, unlikely to experience landslides. Impacts would be less than significant level.
Level of Significance Before Mitigation
Potentially significant impact.
Mitigation Measures
MM GEO-1 Prior to the issuance of building permits, the project applicant shall submit a designlevel geotechnical study and building plans to the City of Patterson for review and approval. The design-level geotechnical study shall be prepared by a qualified Engineer and shall identify grading and building practices necessary to ensure stable building conditions, including the abatement of expansive soil conditions on the project site. The project applicant shall implement the recommendations of the approved geotechnical study into project plans. The project’s building plans shall demonstrate that they incorporate all applicable recommendations of the geotechnical study and comply with all applicable requirements of the latest adopted version of the California Building Standards Code (CBC). A licensed Professional Engineer (PE) shall prepare the plans, including those that pertain to soil engineering, structural foundations, pipeline excavation, and installation. The approved plans shall be incorporated into the proposed project. All on-site soil engineering activities shall be conducted under the supervision of a licensed Geotechnical Engineer (GE) or Certified Engineering Geologist (CEG).
City of Patterson—Baldwin Master Plan Project / Zacharias Master Plan Project Geology, Soils, and Seismicity Draft EIR
3.6-10 FirstCarbon Solutions
https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/1790/17900003/EIR/3 - Draft EIR/17900003 Sec03-06 Geology.docx Level of Significance After Mitigation
Less than significant impact.
Soil Erosion or Topsoil Loss
Impact GEO-2: The project may result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil.
Impact Analysis
This impact addresses the potential for erosion.
Baldwin and Zacharias Master Plans
Construction activities associated with the proposed project would involve grading, excavation, and trenching activities that could expose barren soils to sources of wind or water, resulting in the potential for erosion and sedimentation on and off the project site. National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) stormwater permitting programs regulate stormwater quality from construction sites, which includes erosion and sedimentation. Under the NPDES permitting program, the preparation and implementation of a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) are required for construction activities that would disturb an area of 1 acre or more. The SWPPP must identify potential sources of erosion or sedimentation that may be reasonably expected to affect the quality of stormwater discharge as well as identify and implement Best Management Practices (BMPs) that ensure the reduction of these pollutants during stormwater discharges. Typical BMPs intended to control erosion include sand bags, detentions basins, silt fencing, storm drain inlet protection, street sweeping, and monitoring of water bodies.
These requirements have been incorporated into the proposed project under MM HYD-1. The implementation of a SWPPP and its associated BMPs would reduce potential erosion impacts to a level of less than significant.
Level of Significance Before Mitigation
Potentially significant impact.
Mitigation Measures
Implement Mitigation Measure HYD-1.
Level of Significance After Mitigation
Less than significant impact.
Unstable Geologic Units or Soils
Impact GEO-3: The project may be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse.
Impact Analysis
This impact addresses the potential for exposure to unstable geologic units or soils.
City of Patterson—Baldwin Master Plan Project / Zacharias Master Plan Project Draft EIR Geology, Soils, and Seismicity
FirstCarbon Solutions 3.6-11
https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/1790/17900003/EIR/3 - Draft EIR/17900003 Sec03-06 Geology.docx Baldwin and Zacharias Master Plans
The Zacharias Master Plan area contains near surface soils consisting of moderate to highly plastic sandy and silty clay that extended to depths of 1.5 to 9.5 feet below ground surface. The soils beneath the surface clay consist of interbedded and discontinuous layers of sandy and clayey silt; silty, clayey, and relatively clean sand; and silty and sandy clay to the depths explored. Groundwater was not encountered in any borings. Overall, these soils are suitable to support urban development.
As part of the proposed project, the project site would be graded, and the soils underlying the building pads would be engineered in accordance the recommendations of a design-level geotechnical study and the requirements of the CBC. This requirement is established by MM GEO-1.
This process would involve removal of any encountered unsuitable soils, the placement of engineered fill, and compaction in order to ensure that the proposed structures are adequately supported. These practices would ensure that the proposed project is located on stable soils and geologic units and would not be susceptible to settlement or ground failure. Therefore, the implementation of MM GEO-1 would reduce impacts to a level of less than significant.
Subsidence
The San Luis & Delta-Mendota Water Authority provided comments to the City of Patterson during the scoping process expressing concern about subsidence along the Delta-Mendota Canal. The agency has stated that groundwater pumping in the Patterson area is directly responsible for the subsidence along the canal.
The proposed project would be supplied with potable water by the City of Patterson, which pumps groundwater from the lower aquifer and non-potable water from the upper aquifer. The City pumps from a well field near the San Joaquin River, approximately 2 miles from the Delta-Mendota Canal; refer to Exhibit 3.6-1. (To be clear, the City does not pump water near the Delta-Mendota Canal and, thus, the subsidence along the facility is attributable to pumping practices by others).
Exhibit 3.6-1 depicts the change in water consumption practices that will occur at buildout of the Master Plan. The agricultural users within the Master Plan boundaries receive surface water from the San Joaquin River, as well as conveyance from the Patterson Irrigation District, and the West Stanislaus Irrigation District. Some of the agricultural users supplement with groundwater pumping.
When development occurs, existing surface deliveries and groundwater pumping would cease, and urban users would be served with potable water provided by the City of Patterson.
The City of Patterson has studied both aquifers during the past 20 years and has identified safe yields
1 of 8,900 acre-feet per year (lower) and 3,500 acre-feet (upper). At General Plan buildout, the City is forecast to pump 6,986 acre-feet from the lower aquifer and 3,220 acre-feet from the upper aquifer. The Master Plan areas are included in the General Plan buildout numbers. Thus, while buildout of the Master Plans would increase municipal groundwater pumping, it would be within the safe yield. Refer to Section 3.15, Utilities and Service Systems, for a detailed discussion of water. 1 “Safe yield” represents the rate of replacement.
City of Patterson—Baldwin Master Plan Project / Zacharias Master Plan Project Geology, Soils, and Seismicity Draft EIR
3.6-12 FirstCarbon Solutions
https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/1790/17900003/EIR/3 - Draft EIR/17900003 Sec03-06 Geology.docx In sum, buildout of the Master Plans would eliminate surface water consumption and groundwater pumpage within its boundaries. While additional pumping would occur near the San Joaquin River, this would be within the safe yield of the aquifer and far enough away from the Delta-Mendota Canal that it would not aggravate the existing subsidence conditions. Moreover, given that surface water use would cease within the Master Plan area, the project does increase exposure to the potential reduction in conveyance capacity for the Delta-Mendota Canal from subsidence.
For these reasons, the proposed Master Plan would not substantially exacerbate existing subsidence associated with the Delta-Mendota Canal. Impacts would be less than significant.
Level of Significance Before Mitigation
Less than significant impact.
Mitigation Measures
No mitigation is necessary.
Level of Significance After Mitigation
Less than significant impact.
Expansive Soils
Impact GEO-4: The project may be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial direct or indirect risks to life or property.
Impact Analysis
This impact addresses the potential for exposure to expansive soils.
Baldwin and Zacharias Master Plans
The United States Department of Agriculture Natural Resource Conservation Service indicates that the project site contains Capay clay, which exhibits a high shrink-swell potential, a characteristic of expansive soils. Other on-site soils containing clay may also exhibit high shrink-swell potential.
Accordingly, the development of the proposed project may expose persons and structures to hazards associated with expansive soils. Implementation of MM GEO-1 would require the project applicant to submit a design-level geotechnical study to the City of Patterson identifying measures to abate expansive soil conditions. Implementation of MM GEO-1 would reduce potential impacts related to expansive soils to less than significant.
Level of Significance Before Mitigation
Potentially significant impact.
Mitigation Measures
Implement MM GEO-1.
City of Patterson—Baldwin Master Plan Project / Zacharias Master Plan Project Draft EIR Geology, Soils, and Seismicity
FirstCarbon Solutions 3.6-13
https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/1790/17900003/EIR/3 - Draft EIR/17900003 Sec03-06 Geology.docx Level of Significance After Mitigation
Less than significant impact.
Paleontological Resources
Impact GEO-5: The project may impact undiscovered paleontological resources.
Impact Analysis
This impact addresses the potential for encountering paleontological resources.
Baldwin and Zacharias Master Plans
Although no paleontological resources were observed during the field survey, Pleistocene alluvium is ranked as highly sensitive for significant paleontological resources. Although a paleontological survey is not warranted, there is the possibility of project excavations that occur 10 feet or more below ground surface may impact significant paleontological resources. As such, MM GEO-5 requires the implementation of examination and recovery procedures in the event fossils and other paleontological resources are encountered during construction. With the implementation of this mitigation measure, impacts would be reduced to a level of less than significant.
Paleontological records searches were conducted for each parcel at the University of California Museum of Paleontology (UCMP); refer to Appendix D. The results of the records search indicate that the entire project site is located solely on Holocene alluvium (Qf). The surrounding half-mile search area (dashed black line) also includes Los Banos alluvium (Qlb) extending from the west.
Holocene deposits are too young to contain fossils, while Pleistocene alluvium has a high paleontological sensitivity.
It is unlikely that earth-disturbing project activities within the Zacharias or Baldwin master plan boundaries would impact significant paleontological resources because the entire site area is mapped as Holocene and older deposits probably lie at a depth well below the deepest projectrelated excavations. Therefore, a preconstruction paleontological survey of the terrain or paleontological monitoring of construction activities is not recommended or required. Although highly unlikely, should any vertebrate fossils (i.e., bones, teeth) be unearthed, the implementation of MM GEO-5 would ensure that the construction crew would divert operations from the find until a paleontologist examines it and, if deemed significant, salvages it in a timely manner for deposition in an accredited repository such as the UCMP.
Level of Significance Before Mitigation
Potentially significant impact.
Mitigation Measures
MM GEO-5 In the event a fossil or fossil formations are discovered during any subsurface construction activities associated with buildout of the Master Plans, all excavations within 100 feet of the find shall be temporarily halted until the find is examined by a qualified paleontologist, in accordance with Society of Vertebrate Paleontology standards. The paleontologist shall notify the City of Patterson, who shall coordinate City of Patterson—Baldwin Master Plan Project / Zacharias Master Plan Project Geology, Soils, and Seismicity Draft EIR
3.6-14 FirstCarbon Solutions
https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/1790/17900003/EIR/3 - Draft EIR/17900003 Sec03-06 Geology.docx with the paleontologist concerning any necessary investigation of the find. If the find is determined to be significant under CEQA, the City, based on the recommended mitigation measures of the qualified paleontologist, shall require the applicant to implement those measures, which may include avoidance, preservation in place, or other appropriate measures, as outlined in Public Resources Code Section 21083.2.
Level of Significance After Mitigation
Less than significant impact.
Zacharias Rd
·|}þ33
Lateral M
%&'(5
Lateral 5
South
Lateral 6
South
San Joaquin
River
San Joaquin River
flows north to Delta
Irrigation canals deliver
San Joaquin River water
to agricultural users
Certain agricultural users
pump groundwater as a
supplement to surface water
City of Patterson
pumps groundwater
from a well field near
the San Joaquin River
When development occurs,
surface water deliveries would cease.
Urban users would be served with
potable water provided by City
I
Legend
Planning Areas
Zacharias Master Plan
Baldwin Master Plan
Delta-Mendota Canal
Delta water conveyed
south to San Joaquin River
in Fresno County
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
City of Patterson—Baldwin Master Plan / Zacharias Master Plan Project Draft EIR Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Energy
FirstCarbon Solutions 3.7-1
https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/1790/17900003/EIR/3 - Draft EIR/17900003 Sec03-07 Greenhouse Gas.docx
3.7 - Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Energy
3.7.1 - Introduction
This section describes the existing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and energy setting as well as the relevant regulatory framework. This section also evaluates the potential impacts related to GHG emissions and energy that could result from implementation of the project. Information in this section is based, in part, on GHG emissions and energy modeling outputs included in Appendix C.
3.7.2 - Environmental Setting
Greenhouse Effect, Global Warming, and Climate Change
Most of the energy that affects the Earth’s climate comes from the sun. Some solar radiation is absorbed by the Earth’s surface, and a smaller portion of this radiation is reflected by the atmosphere back toward space. As the Earth absorbs high-frequency solar radiation, its surface gains heat and then re-radiates lower frequency infrared radiation back into the atmosphere.1 Most solar radiation passes through gases in the atmosphere classified as GHGs; however, infrared radiation is selectively absorbed by GHGs. GHGs in the atmosphere play a critical role in maintaining the balance between the Earth’s absorbed and radiated energy, the Earth’s radiation budget,2 by trapping some of the infrared radiation emitted from the Earth’s surface that otherwise would have escaped to space (Figure 3.7-1). Radiative forcing is the difference between the incoming energy and outgoing energy.
3 Specifically, GHGs affect the radiative forcing of the atmosphere,4 which in turn affects the Earth’s average surface temperature. This phenomenon, the greenhouse effect, keeps the Earth’s atmosphere near the surface warmer than it would be otherwise and allows successful habitation by humans and other forms of life.
Combustion of fossil fuels and deforestation release carbon into the atmosphere that historically has been stored underground in sediments or in surface vegetation, thus exchanging carbon from the geosphere and biosphere to the atmosphere in the carbon cycle. With the accelerated increase in fossil fuel combustion and deforestation since the Industrial Revolution of the 19th century, concentrations of GHGs in the atmosphere have increased exponentially. Such emissions of GHGs in excess of natural ambient concentrations contribute to the enhancement of the natural greenhouse effect. This enhanced greenhouse effect has contributed to global warming, an increased rate of warming of the Earth’s average surface temperature.5Specifically, increases in GHGs lead to increased absorption of infrared radiation by the Earth’s atmosphere and warm the lower atmosphere further, thereby increasing temperatures and evaporation rates near the surface. 1 Frequencies at which bodies emit radiation are proportional to temperature. The Earth has a much lower temperature than the sun and emits radiation at a lower frequency (longer wavelength) than the high-frequency (short-wavelength) solar radiation emitted by the sun.
2 This includes all gains of incoming energy and all losses of outgoing energy; the planet is always striving to be in equilibrium. 3 Positive forcing tends to warm the surface while negative forcing tends to cool it. 4 This is the change in net irradiance at the tropopause after allowing stratospheric temperatures to readjust to radiative equilibrium, but with surface and tropospheric temperatures and state held fixed at the unperturbed values. 5 This condition results when the Earth has to work harder to maintain its radiation budget, because when more GHGs are present in the atmosphere, the Earth must force emissions of additional infrared radiation out into the atmosphere.
City of Patterson—Baldwin Master Plan / Zacharias Master Plan Project Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Energy Draft EIR
3.7-2 FirstCarbon Solutions
https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/1790/17900003/EIR/3 - Draft EIR/17900003 Sec03-07 Greenhouse Gas.docx Variations in natural phenomena such as volcanoes and solar activity produced most of the global temperature increase that occurred during preindustrial times; more recently, however, increasing atmospheric GHG concentrations resulting from human activity have been responsible for most of the observed global temperature increase.6
Figure 3.7-1: The Greenhouse Effect
Source: UNEP/GRID-Arendal, 2005
Global warming affects global atmospheric circulation and temperatures; oceanic circulation and temperatures; wind and weather patterns; average sea level; ocean acidification; chemical reaction rates; precipitation rates, timing, and form; snowmelt timing and runoff flow; water supply; wildfire risks; and other phenomena, in a manner commonly referred to as climate change. Climate change is a change in the average weather of the Earth that is measured by alterations in wind patterns, storms, precipitation, and temperature. These changes are assessed using historical records of temperature changes occurring in the past, such as during previous ice ages. Many of the concerns regarding climate change use this data to extrapolate a level of statistical significance specifically focusing on temperature records from the last 150 years (the Industrial Age) that differ from previous climate changes in rate and magnitude.
6 These basic conclusions have been endorsed by more than 45 scientific societies and academies of science, including all of the national academies of science of the major industrialized countries. Since 2007, no scientific body of national or international standing has maintained a dissenting opinion.
City of Patterson—Baldwin Master Plan / Zacharias Master Plan Project Draft EIR Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Energy
FirstCarbon Solutions 3.7-3
https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/1790/17900003/EIR/3 - Draft EIR/17900003 Sec03-07 Greenhouse Gas.docx Temperature Predictions by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change The United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) was established by the World Meteorological Organization and United Nations Environment Programme to assess scientific, technical, and socioeconomic information relevant to the understanding of climate change, its potential impacts, and options for adaptation and mitigation. The IPCC constructed several emission trajectories of GHGs needed to stabilize global temperatures and climate change impacts. In its Fourth Assessment Report, the IPCC predicted that the global mean temperature change from 1990 to 2100, given six scenarios, could range from 1.1 degrees Celsius (°C) to 6.4°C. Regardless of analytical methodology, global average temperatures and sea levels are expected to rise under all scenarios. The report also concluded that “[w]arming of the climate system is unequivocal,” and that “[m]ost of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations.” Warming of the climate system is now considered to be unequivocal, with the global surface temperature increasing approximately 1.33 degrees Fahrenheit (°F) over the last 100 years. The IPCC predicts increases in global average temperature of between 2° and 11°F over the next 100 years, depending on the scenario.
Greenhouse Gases and Global Emission Sources
Gases that trap heat in the atmosphere are referred to as GHGs. The effect is analogous to the way a greenhouse retains heat. Prominent GHGs that naturally occur in the Earth’s atmosphere are water vapor, carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), oxides of nitrogen (NOX), and ozone. Anthropogenic (human-caused) GHG emissions include releases of these GHGs plus release of human-made gases with high global warming potential (GWP) (ozone-depleting substances such as chlorofluorocarbons [CFCs] and aerosols, hydrofluorocarbons [HFCs], perfluorocarbons [PFCs], and sulfur hexafluoride (SF6). The GHGs listed by the IPCC (CO2, methane, nitrous oxide, HFCs, PFCs, and sulfur hexafluoride) are discussed below, in order of abundance in the atmosphere. Water vapor, despite being the most abundant GHG, is not discussed below because natural concentrations and fluctuations far outweigh anthropogenic influences, making it impossible to predict. Ozone is not included because it does not directly affect radiative forcing. Ozone-depleting substances, which include chlorofluorocarbons, halons, carbon tetrachloride, methyl chloroform, and hydrochlorofluorocarbons, are not included because they have been primarily replaced by HFCs and PFCs.
The global warming potential is the potential of a gas or aerosol to trap heat in the atmosphere. The global warming potential of a gas is essentially a measurement of the radiative forcing of a GHG compared with the reference gas, CO2.
Individual GHG compounds have varying potential for contributing to global warming. For example, methane is 25 times as potent as CO2, while sulfur hexafluoride is 22,200 times more potent than CO2 on a molecule-per-molecule basis. To simplify reporting and analysis, methods have been set forth to describe emissions of GHGs in terms of a single gas. The most commonly accepted method for comparing GHG emissions is the GWP methodology defined in the IPCC reference documents. The IPCC defines the GWP of various GHG emissions on a normalized scale that recasts all GHG emissions in terms of carbon dioxide equivalents (CO2e), which compares the gas in question to that of the same mass of CO2 (by definition, CO2 has a GWP of 1). The global warming potential of a GHG is a measure of City of Patterson—Baldwin Master Plan / Zacharias Master Plan Project Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Energy Draft EIR
3.7-4 FirstCarbon Solutions
https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/1790/17900003/EIR/3 - Draft EIR/17900003 Sec03-07 Greenhouse Gas.docx how much a given mass of a GHG is estimated to contribute to global warming. Thus, to describe how much global warming a given type and amount of GHG may cause, the CO2e is used. A CO2e is the mass emissions of an individual GHG multiplied by its global warming potential. As such, a high GWP represents high absorption of infrared radiation and a long atmospheric lifetime compared to CO2. One must also select a time horizon to convert GHG emissions to equivalent CO2 emissions to account for chemical reactivity and lifetime differences among various GHG species. The standard time horizon for climate change analysis is 100 years. Generally, GHG emissions are quantified in terms of metric tons (MT) of CO2e (MT CO2e) emitted per year.
According to the IPCC, the atmospheric residence time of a gas is equal to the total atmospheric abundance of the gas divided by its rate of removal. The atmospheric residence time of a gas is, in effect, a half-life measurement of the length of time a gas is expected to persist in the atmosphere when accounting for removal mechanisms such as chemical transformation and deposition.
Table 3.7-1 lists the GWP of each GHG and its lifetime. Units commonly used to describe the concentration of GHGs in the atmosphere are parts per million (ppm), parts per billion (ppb), and parts per trillion (ppt), referring to the number of molecules of the GHG in a sampling of 1 million, 1 billion, or 1 trillion molecules of air. Collectively, HFCs, PFCs, and sulfur hexafluoride are referred to as high-GWP gases. CO2 is by far the largest component of worldwide CO2e emissions, followed by methane, nitrous oxide, and high-GWP gases, in order of decreasing contribution to CO2e.
The primary human processes that release GHGs include the burning of fossil fuels for transportation, heating, and electricity generation; agricultural practices that release methane, such as livestock grazing and crop residue decomposition; and industrial processes that release smaller amounts of high-GWP gases. Deforestation and land cover conversion have also been identified as contributing to global warming by reducing the Earth’s capacity to remove CO2 from the air and altering the Earth’s albedo or surface reflectance, thus allowing more solar radiation to be absorbed.
Specifically, CO2 emissions associated with fossil fuel combustion are the primary contributors to human-induced climate change. CO2, methane, and nitrous oxide emissions associated with human activities are the next largest contributors to climate change.
GHGs of California concern are defined by California Assembly Bill (AB) 32 (see the Regulatory Environment subsection below for a description) and include CO2, CH4, NOX, HFCs, PFCs, and SF6. A seventh GHG, nitrogen trifluoride (NF3), was also added under the California Health and Safety Code section 38505(g)(7) as a GHG of concern. These GHGs are described in terms of their physical description and properties, global warming potential, atmospheric residence lifetime, sources, and atmospheric concentration in 2005 in Table 3.7-1. References for documents used to obtain this information are listed in Appendix C.
Table 3.7-1: Description of Greenhouse Gases of California Concern Greenhouse Gas
Physical Description and
Properties
Global Warming
Potential (100 years)
Atmospheric Residence
Lifetime (years) Sources
Carbon dioxide
(CO2)
Odorless, colorless,
natural gas.
1 50-200 burning coal, oil,
natural gas, and
wood;
decomposition of
dead organic matter;
respiration of
City of Patterson—Baldwin Master Plan / Zacharias Master Plan Project Draft EIR Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Energy
FirstCarbon Solutions 3.7-5
https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/1790/17900003/EIR/3 - Draft EIR/17900003 Sec03-07 Greenhouse Gas.docx Greenhouse Gas
Physical Description and
Properties
Global Warming
Potential (100 years)
Atmospheric Residence
Lifetime (years) Sources
bacteria, plants,
animals, and fungus;
oceanic evaporation;
volcanic outgassing;
cement production;
land use changes
Methane
(CH4)
Flammable gas and is the
main component of
natural gas.
25 12 geological deposits
(natural gas fields)
extraction; landfills;
fermentation of
manure; and decay
of organic matter
Nitrous oxide
(N2O)
Nitrous oxide (laughing
gas) is a colorless GHG.
298 114 microbial processes
in soil and water;
fuel combustion;
industrial processes
Chloro-fluorocarbons
(CFCs)
Nontoxic, nonflammable,
insoluble, and chemically
unreactive in the
troposphere (level of air
at the Earth’s surface);
formed synthetically by
replacing all hydrogen
atoms in methane or
ethane with chlorine
and/or fluorine atoms.
3,800-8,100 45-640 refrigerants aerosol
propellants; cleaning
solvents.
Hydro-fluorocarbons
(HFCs)
Synthetic human-made
chemicals used as a
substitute for CFCs and
contain carbon, chlorine,
and at least one
hydrogen atom.
140 to 11,700 1-50,000 automobile air
conditioners;
refrigerants
Perfluoro-carbons
(PFCs)
Stable molecular
structures and only break
down by ultraviolet rays
about 60 kilometers
above Earth’s surface.
6,500 to 9,200 10,000-50,000 primary aluminum
production;
semiconductor
manufacturing
Sulfur
hexafluoride
(SF6)
Human-made, inorganic,
odorless, colorless, and
nontoxic, nonflammable
gas.
22,800 3,200 electrical power
transmission
equipment
insulation;
magnesium industry,
semiconductor
manufacturing; a
tracer gas
Nitrogen
trifluoride
(NF3)
Inorganic, is used as a
replacement for PFCs,
and is a powerful
oxidizing agent.
17,200 740 electronics
manufacture for
semiconductors and
liquid crystal
displays.
City of Patterson—Baldwin Master Plan / Zacharias Master Plan Project Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Energy Draft EIR
3.7-6 FirstCarbon Solutions
https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/1790/17900003/EIR/3 - Draft EIR/17900003 Sec03-07 Greenhouse Gas.docx Greenhouse Gas
Physical Description and
Properties
Global Warming
Potential (100 years)
Atmospheric Residence
Lifetime (years) Sources
Sources:
IPCC 2007a and IPCC 2007b.
The State has begun the process of addressing pollutants referred to as short-lived climate pollutants. Senate Bill (SB) 605, approved by the Governor on September 14, 2014, required the California Air Resources Board (ARB) to complete a comprehensive strategy to reduce emissions of short-lived climate pollutants by January 1, 2016. The ARB released the Proposed Short-Lived Climate Pollutant Reduction Strategy in April 2016. The ARB has completed an emission inventory of these pollutants, identified research needs, identified existing and potential new control measures that offer co-benefits, and coordinated with other State agencies and districts to develop measures.
The short-lived climate pollutants include three main components: black carbon, fluorinated gases, and methane. Fluorinated gases and methane are described in Table 3.7-1 and are already included in the California GHG inventory. Black carbon has not been included in past GHG inventories; however, the ARB will include it in its comprehensive strategy.
Black carbon is a component of fine particulate matter. Black carbon is formed by incomplete combustion of fossil fuels, biofuels, and biomass. Sources of black carbon within a jurisdiction may include exhaust from diesel trucks, vehicles, and equipment, as well as smoke from biogenic combustion. Biogenic combustion sources of black carbon include the burning of biofuels used for transportation, the burning of biomass for electricity generation and heating, prescribed burning of agricultural residue, and natural and unnatural wildfires. Black carbon is not a gas but an aerosol— particles or liquid droplets suspended in air. Black carbon only remains in the atmosphere for days to weeks, whereas other GHGs can remain in the atmosphere for years. Black carbon can be deposited on snow, where it absorbs sunlight, reduces sunlight reflectivity, and hastens snowmelt. Direct effects include absorbing incoming and outgoing radiation; indirectly, black carbon can also affect cloud reflectivity, precipitation, and surface dimming (cooling).
Global warming potentials for black carbon were not defined by the IPCC in its Fourth Assessment Report. The ARB has identified a global warming potential of 3,200 using a 20-year time horizon and 900 using a 100-year time horizon from the IPCC Fifth Assessment. Sources of black carbon are already regulated by ARB, and air district criteria pollutant and toxic regulations that control fine particulate emissions from diesel engines and other combustion sources (ARB 2015c). Additional controls on the sources of black carbon specifically for their GHG impacts beyond those required for toxic and fine particulates are not likely to be needed.
Ozone is another short-lived climate pollutant that will be part of the strategy. Ozone affects evaporation rates, cloud formation, and precipitation levels. Ozone is not directly emitted, so its precursor emissions, volatile organic compounds (VOC) and oxides of nitrogen (NOX) on a regional scale and CH4 on a hemispheric scale will be subject of the strategy.
City of Patterson—Baldwin Master Plan / Zacharias Master Plan Project Draft EIR Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Energy
FirstCarbon Solutions 3.7-7
https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/1790/17900003/EIR/3 - Draft EIR/17900003 Sec03-07 Greenhouse Gas.docx Water vapor is also considered a GHG. Water vapor is an important component of our climate system and is not regulated. Increasing water vapor leads to warmer temperatures, which causes more water vapor to be absorbed into the air. Warming and water absorption increase in a spiraling cycle. Water vapor feedback can also amplify the warming effect of other GHGs, such that the warming brought about by increased carbon dioxide allows more water vapor to enter the atmosphere.
Global Climate Change Issue
Climate change is a global problem because GHGs are global pollutants, unlike criteria air pollutants and hazardous air pollutants (also called toxic air contaminants), which are pollutants of regional and local concern. Pollutants with localized air quality effects have relatively short atmospheric lifetimes, approximately 1 day; by contrast, GHGs have long atmospheric lifetimes, several years to several thousand years. GHGs persist in the atmosphere for a long enough time to be dispersed around the globe.
Although the exact lifetime of any particular GHG molecule depends on multiple variables and cannot be pinpointed, more CO2 is currently emitted into the atmosphere than is sequestered. CO2 sinks, or reservoirs, include vegetation and the ocean, which absorb CO2 through photosynthesis and dissolution, respectively. These are two of the most common processes of CO2 sequestration. Of the total annual human-caused CO2 emissions, approximately 54 percent is sequestered through ocean uptake, Northern Hemisphere forest regrowth, and other terrestrial sinks within a year, whereas the remaining 46 percent of human-caused CO2 emissions is stored in the atmosphere (Seinfeld 2006).
Similarly, effects of GHGs are borne globally, as opposed to the localized air quality effects of criteria air pollutants and hazardous air pollutants. The quantity of GHGs that it takes to ultimately result in climate change is not precisely known and cannot be quantified, and no single project would be expected to measurably contribute to a noticeable incremental change in the global average temperature, or to global or local climates or microclimate.
Emissions of GHGs have the potential to adversely affect the environment because such emissions contribute, on a cumulative basis, to global climate change. A cumulative discussion and analysis of project impacts on global climate change is presented in this EIR because, although it is unlikely that a single project will contribute significantly to climate change, cumulative emissions from many projects affect global GHG concentrations and the climate system.
Global climate change has the potential to result in sea level rise (resulting in flooding of low-lying areas), to affect rainfall and snowfall (leading to changes in water supply), to affect temperatures and habitats (affecting biological resources and public health), and to result in many other adverse environmental consequences.
Although the international, national, state, and regional communities are beginning to address GHGs and the potential effects of climate change, worldwide GHG emissions will likely continue to rise over the next decades.
City of Patterson—Baldwin Master Plan / Zacharias Master Plan Project Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Energy Draft EIR
3.7-8 FirstCarbon Solutions
https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/1790/17900003/EIR/3 - Draft EIR/17900003 Sec03-07 Greenhouse Gas.docx Climate and Topography
Climate is the accumulation of daily and seasonal weather events over a long period of time, whereas weather is defined as the condition of the atmosphere at any particular time and place. For a detailed discussion of existing regional and project site climate and topography, see Section 3.3, Air Quality.
Existing GHG Emissions
U.S. GHG Inventory
Total U.S. GHG emissions were approximately 1 percent higher in 2014 than in 2013 (United States Environmental Protection Agency [EPA] 2016). Figure 3.7-2 presents 2014 U.S. GHG emissions by economic sector. Total U.S. GHG emissions increased by 7.4 percent from 1990 to 2014 (from 6,233.2 million metric tons [MMT] CO2e in 1990 to 6,870.5 MMT CO2e in 2014). Since 1990, U.S. emissions have increased at an average annual rate of 0.3 percent. In 2014, cool winter conditions led to an increase in CO2e emissions associated with fuels used for heating in the residential and commercial sectors. Transportation emissions also increased because of a small increase in vehicle miles traveled. There was also an increase in industrial production across multiple sectors, resulting in slight increases in industrial-sector emissions.
Figure 3.7-2: 2014 U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions by Gas Source: EPA 2016
Note: Emissions shown do not include carbon sinks such as change in land uses and forestry.
California GHG Inventory
As the second largest emitter of GHG emissions in the U.S. and the 12th to 16th largest GHG emissions emitter in the world, California contributes a large quantity (429.24 MMT CO2e in 2016) of GHG City of Patterson—Baldwin Master Plan / Zacharias Master Plan Project Draft EIR Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Energy
FirstCarbon Solutions 3.7-9
https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/1790/17900003/EIR/3 - Draft EIR/17900003 Sec03-07 Greenhouse Gas.docx emissions to the atmosphere (California Climate Change Center [CCCC] 2006). Emissions of CO2 are byproducts of fossil-fuel combustion and are attributable in large part to human activities associated with transportation, industry/ manufacturing, electricity and natural gas consumption, and agriculture. In California, the transportation sector is the largest emitter at 41 percent of GHG emissions, followed by industry/ manufacturing at 23 percent of GHG emissions; refer to Figure
3.7-3.
Figure 3.7-3: 2016 California Greenhouse Gas Emissions by Sector Source: ARB 2018.
Stanislaus County
A community-wide baseline (2005) GHG emissions inventory was conducted for Stanislaus County as part. Table 3.7-2 provides the estimated 2005 baseline by sector for Stanislaus County. The project is located outside the Patterson city limits in unincorporated Stanislaus County and will require annexation into the City of Patterson. Table 3.7-2 includes emissions from the unincorporated areas in the county.
Table 3.7-2: 2005 Unincorporated County Baseline by Sector (excluding Stationary Source Emissions)
Sector MT CO2e/year Percentage of Total
Agriculture—Livestock Emissions 1,113,647 18%
Agriculture—Other Emissions 340,767 6%
Building Energy—Natural Gas 973,386 16%
City of Patterson—Baldwin Master Plan / Zacharias Master Plan Project Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Energy Draft EIR
3.7-10 FirstCarbon Solutions
https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/1790/17900003/EIR/3 - Draft EIR/17900003 Sec03-07 Greenhouse Gas.docx Sector MT CO2e/year Percentage of Total
Off-Road Transportation 134,546 2%
On-Road Transportation 1,636,983 27%
High GWP/Refrigerants 364,473 6%
Building Energy—Electricity 1,380,477 23%
Waste Generation 49,667 0.8%
Wastewater Treatment 17,899 0.3%
Water 32,267 0.5%
Total 6,044,113 100%
Source: StanCog 2013.
City of Patterson
Plan Area
There are a number of rural residential homes located within the Ranchette Triangle portion of the Zacharias Master Plan. Because these are low intensity sources of greenhouse gas emissions, the baseline emissions for Master Plan analysis were assumed to be zero as a conservative assumption.
Climate Change Trends and Effects
CO2 accounts for more than 75 percent of all anthropogenic GHG emissions, the atmospheric residence time of CO2 is decades to centuries, and global atmospheric concentrations of CO2 continue to increase at a faster rate than ever previously recorded. Thus, the warming impacts of CO2 will persist for hundreds of years after mitigation is implemented to reduce GHG concentrations.
California
Substantially higher temperatures, more extreme wildfires, and rising sea levels are just some of the direct effects experienced in California. As reported by the California Natural Resources Agency (CNRA) in 2009, despite annual variations in weather patterns, California has seen a trend of increased average temperatures, more extreme hot days, fewer cold nights, longer growing seasons, less winter snow, and earlier snowmelt and rainwater runoff. Statewide average temperatures increased by about 1.7°F from 1895 to 2011, and a larger proportion of total precipitation is falling as rain instead of snow. Sea level rose by as much as seven inches along the California coast over the last century, leading to increased erosion and adding pressure to the State’s infrastructure, water supplies, and natural resources.
These observed trends in California’s climate are projected to continue in the future. Research indicates that California will experience overall hotter and drier conditions with a continued reduction in winter snow (with concurrent increases in winter rains), as well as increased average temperatures and accelerating sea level rise. The frequency, intensity, and duration of extreme weather events such as heat waves, wildfires, droughts, and floods will also change. In addition, City of Patterson—Baldwin Master Plan / Zacharias Master Plan Project Draft EIR Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Energy
FirstCarbon Solutions 3.7-11
https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/1790/17900003/EIR/3 - Draft EIR/17900003 Sec03-07 Greenhouse Gas.docx increased air pollution and spread of insects potentially carrying infectious diseases will also occur as the climate-associated temperature and associated species clines shift in latitude.
The following is a summary of climate change factors and predicted trends specific to California.
In California, climate change may result in consequences such as the following.
A reduction in the quality and supply of water from the Sierra snowpack. If heat-trapping emissions continue unabated, more precipitation will fall as rain instead of snow, and the snow that does fall will melt earlier, reducing the Sierra Nevada spring snowpack by as much as 70 to 90 percent. This can lead to challenges in securing adequate water supplies. It can also lead to a potential reduction in hydropower.
Increased risk of large wildfires. If rain increases as temperatures rise, wildfires in the grasslands and chaparral ecosystems of Southern California are estimated to increase by approximately 30 percent toward the end of the 21st Century because more winter rain will stimulate the growth of more plant “fuel” available to burn in the fall. In contrast, a hotter, drier climate could promote up to 90 percent more Northern California fires by the end of the century by drying out and increasing the flammability of forest vegetation.
Reductions in the quality and quantity of certain agricultural products. The crops and products likely to be adversely affected include wine grapes, fruit, nuts, and milk.
Exacerbation of air quality problems. If temperatures rise to the medium warming range, there could be 75 to 85 percent more days with weather conducive to ozone formation in Los Angeles and the San Joaquin Valley, relative to today’s conditions. This is more than twice the increase expected if rising temperatures remain in the lower warming range. This increase in air quality problems could result in an increase in asthma and other health-related problems.
A rise in sea levels resulting in the displacement of coastal businesses and residences. During the past century, sea levels along California’s coast have risen about seven inches. If emissions continue unabated and temperatures rise into the higher anticipated warming range, sea level is expected to rise an additional 22 to 35 inches by the end of the century. Elevations of this magnitude would inundate coastal areas with salt water, accelerate coastal erosion, threaten vital levees and inland water systems, and disrupt wetlands and natural habitats.
An increase temperature and extreme weather events. Climate change is expected to lead to increases in the frequency, intensity, and duration of extreme heat events and heat waves in California. More heat waves can exacerbate chronic disease or heat-related illness.
A decrease in the health and productivity of California’s forests. Climate change can cause an increase in wildfires, an enhanced insect population, and establishment of non-native species.
Precipitation/Rainfall/Flooding Events
Studies of the effect of climate change on the long-term average precipitation for California show some disagreement (CCCC 2009). Considerable variability exists across individual models, and examining the average changes can mask more extreme scenarios that project much wetter or drier conditions. California is expected to maintain a Mediterranean climate through the next century, City of Patterson—Baldwin Master Plan / Zacharias Master Plan Project Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Energy Draft EIR
3.7-12 FirstCarbon Solutions
https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/1790/17900003/EIR/3 - Draft EIR/17900003 Sec03-07 Greenhouse Gas.docx with dry summers and wet winters that vary between seasons, years, and decades. Wetter winters and drier springs are also expected, but overall annual precipitation is not projected to change substantially. By mid-century, more precipitation is projected to occur in winter in the form of less frequent but larger events. The majority of global climate models predict drying trends across the State by 2100 (CNRA 2009). California is expected to see increases in the magnitude of extreme events, including increased precipitation delivered from atmospheric river events, which would bring high levels of rainfall during short time periods and increase the chance of flash floods.
Reduced Sierra Nevada Snowpack and Water Supply Shortages If heat-trapping emissions continue unabated, more precipitation will fall as rain instead of snow, and the snow that does fall will melt earlier, reducing the Sierra Nevada spring snowpack by as much as 70 to 90 percent. This can lead to challenges in securing adequate surface water supplies.
Vectors/Disease Events
Climate change will likely increase the vectors of insects and, in turn, may increase the risk of some infectious diseases, particularly those diseases that appear in warm areas and are spread by mosquitoes and other insects, such as malaria, dengue fever, yellow fever, and encephalitis.
Air Quality/Pollution Events
Respiratory disorders will be exacerbated by warming-induced increases in the frequency of smog (ground-level ozone) events and particulate air pollution. Although there could be health effects resulting from changes in the climate and the consequences that can occur, inhalation of GHGs at levels currently in the atmosphere would not result in adverse health effects, with the exception of ozone and aerosols (particulate matter). The potential health effects of ozone and particulate matter are discussed in criteria pollutant analyses. At very high indoor concentrations (not at levels existing outside), carbon dioxide, methane, SF6, and some chlorofluorocarbons can cause suffocation as the gases can displace oxygen.
City of Patterson
Temperature and Heat
Figure 3.7-4 displays a chart of measured historical (i.e., observed) and projected annual average temperatures in the City of Patterson area. As shown in the figure, temperatures are expected to rise as part of both the low and high GHG emissions scenarios.7The results indicate that temperatures are predicted to increase by 3.7°F under the low emission scenario and 6.2°F under the high emissions scenario.
7 The low and high GHG emissions scenarios are based on IPCC’s Special Report on Emissions Scenarios B1 and A1, respectively. The higher global GHG emissions scenario (A1) assumes a global trend of rapid economic growth. The lower GHG emissions scenario (B1) assumes the same global population as in the A1 storyline but with rapid changes in economic structures toward a service and information economy, with reductions in material intensity, and the introduction of clean and resource-efficient technologies.
Overall, the B1 scenario places more focus on global environmental sustainability rather than rapid economic growth.
City of Patterson—Baldwin Master Plan / Zacharias Master Plan Project Draft EIR Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Energy
FirstCarbon Solutions 3.7-13
https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/1790/17900003/EIR/3 - Draft EIR/17900003 Sec03-07 Greenhouse Gas.docx Figure 3.7-4: Observed and Projected Temperatures in Patterson Source: CalAdapt 2019
Project Site
Both Master Plan areas are surrounded by agricultural, residential, or business park uses, or infrastructure (i.e., the Delta-Mendota Canal). Neither Master Plan adjoins areas susceptible to wildfire. Furthermore, the lands west of I-5 that are susceptible to wildfire are at least 0.5-mile to the west, with the highway, the California Aqueduct, and the Delta-Mendota Canal in between. Thus, the likelihood of a wildfire jumping over all three linear features is very low.
Electricity Generation, Distribution, and Use
State of California
The State of California generates approximately 206,336 gigawatt-hours (GWh) of electricity.
Approximately 43.4 percent of the energy generation is sourced from natural gas, 29.7 percent from renewable sources (i.e., solar, wind, and geothermal), 17.9 percent from large hydroelectric sources, and the remaining 9 percent is sourced from coal, nuclear, oil, and other non-renewable sources.
In 2016, California ranked third in the nation in conventional hydroelectric generation, second in net electricity generation from all other renewable energy resources combined, and first as a producer of electricity from solar, geothermal, and biomass resources. California leads the nation in solar thermal electricity capacity and generation. In 2016, California generated 71 percent of the nation’s solar thermal-sourced utility-scale electricity.
Electricity and natural gas are distributed through the various electric load-serving entities (LSEs) in California. These entities include investor-owned utilities (IOUs), publicly owned LSEs, rural electric cooperatives, community choice aggregators, and electric service providers.
Stanislaus County
Modesto Irrigation District, Turlock Irrigation District and Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E) are the utility providers for the county.
City of Patterson—Baldwin Master Plan / Zacharias Master Plan Project Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Energy Draft EIR
3.7-14 FirstCarbon Solutions
https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/1790/17900003/EIR/3 - Draft EIR/17900003 Sec03-07 Greenhouse Gas.docx Project Site
Turlock Irrigation District would provide electrical service to the Zacharias Master Plan and Baldwin Master Plan. All new electrical lines and service laterals would be located underground.
Natural Gas Generation, Distribution, and Use
State of California
Natural gas is used for everything from generating electricity to cooking and space heating to an alternative transportation fuel. In 2012, total natural gas demand in California for industrial, residential, commercial, and electric power generation was 2,313 billion cubic feet (BCF) per year (BCF/year), up from 2,196 BCF/year in 2010. Demand in all sectors except electric power generation remained relatively flat for the last decade due in large part to energy efficiency measures, but demand for power generation rose about 30 percent between 2011 and 2012.
Natural gas-fired generation has become the dominant source of electricity in California, as it fuels about 43 percent of electricity consumption followed by hydroelectric power. Because natural gas is a dispatchable resource that provides load when the availability of hydroelectric power generation and/or other sources decrease, use varies greatly from year to year. The availability of hydroelectric resources, the emergence of renewable resources for electricity generation, and overall consumer demand are the variables that shape natural gas use in electric generation. Due to above average precipitation in 2011, natural gas used for electricity generation was 617 BCF, compared to lower precipitation years in 2010 and 2012 when gas use for electric generation was 736 BCF and 855 BCF, respectively.
Master Plan
PG&E would provide natural gas service to the Zacharias Master Plan and Baldwin Master Plan. All new gas lines and service laterals would be located underground.
Fuel Use
State of California
The main category of fuel use in California is transportation fuel, specifically gasoline and diesel.
Gasoline is the most used transportation fuel in California, with 97 percent of all gasoline sold in California being consumed by light-duty cars, pickup trucks, and sport utility vehicles. In 2015, 15.1 billion gallons of gasoline were sold, which represents the largest transportation fuel used in California (California Energy Commission [CEC] 2016). Diesel is the second largest transportation fuel used in California. According to the state Board of Equalization, in 2015 4.2 billion gallons of diesel, including off-road diesel, was sold. Nearly all heavy duty-trucks, delivery vehicles, buses, trains, ships, boats and barges, farm, construction and heavy-duty military vehicles and equipment have diesel engines.
Project Site
For the purpose of this analysis, no existing trips are assumed to be generated at the project site.
City of Patterson—Baldwin Master Plan / Zacharias Master Plan Project Draft EIR Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Energy
FirstCarbon Solutions 3.7-15
https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/1790/17900003/EIR/3 - Draft EIR/17900003 Sec03-07 Greenhouse Gas.docx
3.7.3 - Regulatory Framework
International
United Nations Climate Change Framework Convention
On March 21, 1994, the United States joined a number of countries around the world in signing the United Nations Climate Change Framework Convention. Under the Convention, governments agreed to gather and share information on GHG emissions, national policies, and best practices; launch national strategies for addressing GHG emissions and adapting to expected impacts, including the provision of financial and technological support to developing countries; and cooperate in preparing for adaptation to the impacts of climate change.
Western Climate Initiative (Western North America Cap-and-Trade Program) Cap-and-trade refers to a policy tool where emissions are limited to a certain amount and can be traded, or provides flexibility on how the emitter can comply. Each emitter caps carbon dioxide emissions from power plants, auctions carbon dioxide emission allowances, and invests the proceeds in strategic energy programs that further reduce emissions, save consumers money, create jobs, and build a clean energy economy. The Western Climate Initiative partner jurisdictions have developed a comprehensive initiative to reduce North America GHG emissions to 15 percent below 2005 levels by 2020. The partners are California, British Columbia, Manitoba, Ontario, and Quebec. Currently only California and Quebec are participating in the cap-and-trade program (Center for Climate and Energy Solutions [C2ES] 2015a)
Kyoto Protocol
The Kyoto Protocol is an international agreement linked to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. The major feature of the Kyoto Protocol is that it sets binding targets for 37 industrialized countries and the European community for reducing GHG emissions at average of five percent against 1990 levels over the 5-year period from 2008–2012. The Convention (as discussed above) encouraged industrialized countries to stabilize emissions; however, the Protocol commits them to do so. Developed countries have contributed more emissions over the last 150 years; therefore, the Protocol places a heavier burden on developed nations under the principle of “common but differentiated responsibilities.”
In 2001, President George W. Bush indicated that he would not submit the treaty to the U.S. Senate for ratification, which effectively ended American involvement in the Kyoto Protocol. In December 2009, international leaders met in Copenhagen to address the future of international climate change commitments post-Kyoto. No binding agreement was reached in Copenhagen; however, the Committee identified the long-term goal of limiting the maximum global average temperature increase to no more than 2°C above pre-industrial levels, subject to a review in 2015. The Climate Change Committee held additional meetings in Durban, South Africa in November 2011; Doha, Qatar in November 2012; and Warsaw, Poland in November 2013. The meetings are gradually gaining consensus among participants on individual climate change issues.
On September 23, 2014, more than 100 heads of state and government, and leaders from the private sector and civil society met at the Climate Summit in New York hosted by the United Nations.
City of Patterson—Baldwin Master Plan / Zacharias Master Plan Project Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Energy Draft EIR
3.7-16 FirstCarbon Solutions
https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/1790/17900003/EIR/3 - Draft EIR/17900003 Sec03-07 Greenhouse Gas.docx At the Summit, heads of government, business and civil society announced actions in areas that would have the greatest impact on reducing emissions, including climate finance, energy, transport, industry, agriculture, cities, forests, and building resilience.
Paris Climate Change Agreement
Parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) reached a landmark agreement on December 12 in Paris, charting a fundamentally new course in the two-decade-old global climate effort. Culminating a 4-year negotiating round, the new treaty ends the strict differentiation between developed and developing countries that characterized earlier efforts, replacing it with a common framework that commits all countries to put forward their best efforts and to strengthen them in the years ahead. This includes, for the first time, requirements that all parties report regularly on their emissions and implementation efforts, and undergo international review.
The agreement and a companion decision by parties were the key outcomes of the conference, known as the 21st session of the UNFCCC Conference of the Parties, or “COP 21.” Together, the Paris Agreement and the accompanying COP decision:
Reaffirm the goal of limiting global temperature increase well below 2°C, while urging efforts to limit the increase to 1.5 degrees;
Establish binding commitments by all parties to make “nationally determined contributions” (NDCs), and to pursue domestic measures aimed at achieving them; Commit all countries to report regularly on their emissions and “progress made in implementing and achieving” their NDCs, and to undergo international review; Commit all countries to submit new NDCs every 5 years, with the clear expectation that they will “represent a progression” beyond previous ones;
Reaffirm the binding obligations of developed countries under the UNFCCC to support the efforts of developing countries, while for the first time encouraging voluntary contributions by developing countries too;
Extend the current goal of mobilizing $100 billion a year in support by 2020 through 2025, with a new, higher goal to be set for the period after 2025; Extend a mechanism to address “loss and damage” resulting from climate change, which explicitly will not “involve or provide a basis for any liability or compensation;” Require parties engaging in international emissions trading to avoid “double counting;” and Call for a new mechanism, similar to the Clean Development Mechanism under the Kyoto Protocol, enabling emission reductions in one country to be counted toward another country’s NDC (C2ES 2015b).
On June 1, 2017, President Donald J. Trump announced the decision for the United States to withdraw from the Paris Climate Accord. California remains committed to combating climate change through programs aimed to reduce GHGs.
City of Patterson—Baldwin Master Plan / Zacharias Master Plan Project Draft EIR Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Energy
FirstCarbon Solutions 3.7-17
https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/1790/17900003/EIR/3 - Draft EIR/17900003 Sec03-07 Greenhouse Gas.docx Federal
Massachusetts et al. v. EPA (U.S. Supreme Court GHG Endangerment Ruling) Massachusetts et al. v. EPA (Supreme Court Case 05-1120) was argued before the U.S. Supreme Court on November 29, 2006, in which it was petitioned that the EPA regulate four GHGs, including CO2, under Section 202(a)(1) of the Clean Air Act (CAA). A decision was made on April 2, 2007, in which the Supreme Court found that GHGs are air pollutants covered by the CAA. The Court held that the Administrator must determine whether emissions of GHGs from new motor vehicles cause or contribute to air pollution, which may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare, or whether the science is too uncertain to make a reasoned decision. On December 7, 2009, the EPA Administrator signed two distinct findings regarding GHGs under Section 202(a) of the CAA:
Endangerment Finding: The Administrator finds that the current and projected concentrations of the six key well-mixed greenhouse gases—CO2, CH4, N2O, HFCs, PFCs, and SF6—in the atmosphere threaten the public health and welfare of current and future generations; and Cause or Contribute Finding: The Administrator finds that the combined emissions of these well-mixed greenhouse gases from new motor vehicles and new motor vehicle engines contribute to the greenhouse gas pollution, which threatens public health and welfare.
These findings do not impose requirements on industry or other entities. However, this was a prerequisite for implementing GHG emissions standards for vehicles, as discussed under “Clean Vehicles” below. After a lengthy legal challenge, the U.S. Supreme Court declined to review an Appeals Court ruling upholding that upheld the EPA Administrator findings.
U.S. Consolidated Appropriations Act (Mandatory GHG Reporting) The Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2008, passed in December 2007, requires the establishment of mandatory GHG reporting requirements. On September 22, 2009, the EPA issued the Final Mandatory Reporting of Greenhouse Gases Rule, which became effective January 1, 2010. The rule requires reporting of GHG emissions from large sources and suppliers in the United States, and is intended to collect accurate and timely emissions data to inform future policy decisions. Under the rule, suppliers of fossil fuels or industrial GHGs, manufacturers of vehicles and engines, and facilities that emit 25,000 metric tons or more per year of GHG emissions are required to submit annual reports to the EPA. The first annual reports for the largest emitting facilities, covering calendar year 2010, were submitted to the EPA in 2011.
U.S. Clean Air Act Permitting Programs (New GHG Source Review) The EPA issued a final rule on May 13, 2010, that establishes thresholds for GHGs that define when permits under the New Source Review Prevention of Significant Deterioration and Title V Operating Permit programs are required for new and existing industrial facilities. This final rule “tailors” the requirements of these Clean Air Act permitting programs to limit which facilities will be required to obtain Prevention of Significant Deterioration and Title V permits. In the preamble to the revisions to the federal code of regulations, the EPA states:
This rulemaking is necessary because without it the Prevention of Significant Deterioration and Title V requirements would apply, as of January 2, 2011, at the City of Patterson—Baldwin Master Plan / Zacharias Master Plan Project Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Energy Draft EIR
3.7-18 FirstCarbon Solutions
https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/1790/17900003/EIR/3 - Draft EIR/17900003 Sec03-07 Greenhouse Gas.docx 100 or 250 tons per year levels provided under the Clean Air Act, greatly increasing the number of required permits, imposing undue costs on small sources, overwhelming the resources of permitting authorities, and severely impairing the functioning of the programs. EPA is relieving these resource burdens by phasing in the applicability of these programs to greenhouse gas sources, starting with the largest greenhouse gas emitters. This rule establishes two initial steps of the phasein. The rule also commits the agency to take certain actions on future steps addressing smaller sources, but excludes certain smaller sources from Prevention of Significant Deterioration and Title V permitting for greenhouse gas emissions until at least April 30, 2016.
The EPA estimates that facilities responsible for nearly 70 percent of the national GHG emissions from stationary sources will be subject to permitting requirements under this rule. This includes the nation’s largest GHG emitters—power plants, refineries, and cement production facilities.
Energy Independence and Security Act
The Energy Policy Act of 2005 created the Renewable Fuel Standard program. The Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 expanded this program by:
Expanding the Renewable Fuel Standard program to include diesel in addition to gasoline; Increasing the volume of renewable fuel required to be blended into transportation fuel from 9 billion gallons in 2008 to 36 billion gallons by 2022; Establishing new categories of renewable fuel, and setting separate volume requirements for each one; and
Requiring the EPA to apply life-cycle GHG performance threshold standards to ensure that each category of renewable fuel emits fewer GHGs than the petroleum fuel it replaces.
This expanded Renewable Fuel Standard program lays the foundation for achieving substantial reductions of GHG emissions from the use of renewable fuels, reducing the use of imported petroleum, and encouraging the development and expansion of the nation’s renewable-fuels sector.
Signed on December 19, 2007, by President George W. Bush, the Energy Independence, and Security Act of 2007 (EISA) aims to:
move the United States toward greater energy independence and security; increase the production of clean renewable fuels;
protect consumers;
increase the efficiency of products, buildings, and vehicles; promote research on and deploy greenhouse gas capture and storage options; improve the energy performance of the Federal Government; and increase U.S. energy security, develop renewable fuel production, and improve vehicle fuel economy.
City of Patterson—Baldwin Master Plan / Zacharias Master Plan Project Draft EIR Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Energy
FirstCarbon Solutions 3.7-19
https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/1790/17900003/EIR/3 - Draft EIR/17900003 Sec03-07 Greenhouse Gas.docx EISA reinforces the energy reduction goals for federal agencies put forth in Executive Order 13423, as well as introduces more aggressive requirements. The three key provisions enacted are the Corporate Average Fuel Economy Standards, the Renewable Fuel Standard, and the appliance/lighting efficiency standards.
EPA is committed to developing, implementing, and revising both regulations and voluntary programs under the following subtitles in EISA, among others:
Increased Corporate Average Fuel Economy Standards
Federal Vehicle Fleets
Renewable Fuel Standard
Biofuels Infrastructure
Carbon Capture and Sequestration (EPA)
EPA and National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Light-Duty Vehicle Greenhouse Gas Emission Standards and Corporate Average Fuel Economy Standards Final Rule Congress first passed the Corporate Average Fuel Economy law in 1975 to increase the fuel economy of cars and light duty trucks. The law has become more stringent over time. On May 19, 2009, the President put in motion a new national policy to increase fuel economy for all new cars and trucks sold in the United States. On April 1, 2010, EPA and the Department of Transportation’s National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) announced a joint final rule establishing a national program that would reduce GHG emissions and improve fuel economy for new cars and trucks sold in the United States.
The first phase of the national program would apply to passenger cars, light-duty trucks, and medium-duty passenger vehicles, covering model years 2012 through 2016. They require these vehicles to meet an estimated combined average emissions level of 250 grams of CO2 per mile, equivalent to 35.5 miles per gallon if the automobile industry were to meet this CO2 level solely through fuel economy improvements. Together, these standards would cut CO2 emissions by an estimated 960 million metric tons and 1.8 billion barrels of oil over the lifetime of the vehicles sold under the program (model years 2012-2016).
EPA and the NHTSA issued final rules on a second-phase joint rulemaking, establishing national standards for light-duty vehicles for model years 2017 through 2025 in August 2012 (EPA 2012). The new standards for model years 2017 through 2025 apply to passenger cars, light-duty trucks, and medium duty passenger vehicles. The final standards are projected to result in an average industry fleet wide level of 163 grams/mile of CO2 in model year 2025, which is equivalent to 54.5 miles per gallon (mpg) if achieved exclusively through fuel economy improvements.
EPA and NHTSA issued final rules for the first national standards to reduce GHG emissions and improve fuel efficiency of heavy-duty trucks and buses on September 15, 2011, which became effective November 14, 2011. For combination tractors, the agencies are proposing engine and vehicle standards that began in the 2014 model year and achieve up to a 20-percent reduction in CO2 emissions and fuel consumption by the 2018 model year. For heavy-duty pickup trucks and vans, the agencies are proposing separate gasoline and diesel truck standards, which phase in starting in City of Patterson—Baldwin Master Plan / Zacharias Master Plan Project Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Energy Draft EIR
3.7-20 FirstCarbon Solutions
https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/1790/17900003/EIR/3 - Draft EIR/17900003 Sec03-07 Greenhouse Gas.docx the 2014 model year and achieve up to a 10-percent reduction for gasoline vehicles, and a 15- percent reduction for diesel vehicles by 2018 model year (12 and 17 percent respectively if accounting for air conditioning leakage). Lastly, for vocational vehicles, the engine and vehicle standards would achieve up to a 10-percent reduction in fuel consumption and CO2 emissions from the 2014 to 2018 model years.
The State of California has received a waiver from EPA to have separate, stricter corporate average fuel economy standards.
State
California AB 1493: Pavley Regulations and Fuel Efficiency Standards California AB 1493, enacted on July 22, 2002, required ARB to develop and adopt regulations that reduce GHGs emitted by passenger vehicles and light duty trucks. Implementation of the regulation was delayed by lawsuits filed by automakers and by the EPA’s denial of an implementation waiver.
The EPA subsequently granted the requested waiver in 2009, which was upheld by the by the U.S.
District Court for the District of Columbia in 2011.
The standards are to be phased in during the 2009 through 2016 model years. When fully phased in, the near-term (2009–2012) standards will result in an approximately 22-percent reduction compared with the 2002 fleet, and the mid-term (2013–2016) standards will result in about a 30-percent reduction. Several technologies stand out as providing significant reductions in emissions at favorable costs. These include discrete variable valve lift or camless valve actuation to optimize valve operation rather than relying on fixed valve timing and lift as has historically been done; turbocharging to boost power and allow for engine downsizing; improved multi-speed transmissions; and improved air conditioning systems that operate optimally, leak less, and/or use an alternative refrigerant.
The second phase of the implementation for the Pavley Bill was incorporated into Amendments to the Low-Emission Vehicle (LEV) Program referred to as LEV III or the Advanced Clean Cars program.
The Advanced Clean Car program combines the control of smog-causing pollutants and GHG emissions into a single coordinated package of requirements for model years 2017 through 2025.
The regulation will reduce GHGs from new cars by 34 percent from 2016 levels by 2025. The new rules will reduce pollutants from gasoline and diesel-powered cars, and deliver increasing numbers of zero-emission technologies, such as full battery electric cars, newly emerging plug-in hybrid electric vehicles and hydrogen fuel cell cars. The regulations will also ensure adequate fueling infrastructure is available for the increasing numbers of hydrogen fuel cell vehicles planned for deployment in California.
California SB 1078: Renewable Electricity Standards
On September 12, 2002, Governor Gray Davis signed SB 1078, requiring California to generate 20 percent of its electricity from renewable energy by 2017. SB 107 changed the due date to 2010 instead of 2017. On November 17, 2008, Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger signed Executive Order S14-08, which established a Renewable Portfolio Standard target for California requiring that all retail sellers of electricity serve 33 percent of their load with renewable energy by 2020. Governor City of Patterson—Baldwin Master Plan / Zacharias Master Plan Project Draft EIR Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Energy
FirstCarbon Solutions 3.7-21
https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/1790/17900003/EIR/3 - Draft EIR/17900003 Sec03-07 Greenhouse Gas.docx Schwarzenegger also directed the ARB (Executive Order S-21-09) to adopt a regulation by July 31, 2010, requiring the State’s load serving entities to meet a 33 percent renewable energy target by 2020. The ARB Board approved the Renewable Electricity Standard on September 23, 2010 by Resolution 10-23.
SB 100—California Renewables Portfolio Standard Program The Governor signed SB 100 on September 10, 2018. The legislation revised the Renewable Portfolio Standard goals to achieve the 50 percent renewable resources target by December 31, 2026, and to achieve a 60 percent target by December 31, 2030. The bill would require that retail sellers and local publicly owned electric utilities procure a minimum quantity of electricity products from eligible renewable energy resources so that the total kilowatt hours of those products sold to their retail end-use customers achieve 44 percent of retail sales by December 31, 2024, 52 percent by December 31, 2027, and 60 percent by December 31, 2030.