RESOLUTION 2022-62
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF PATTERSON CITY COUNCIL,
IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT:
(1) CERTIFYING THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR THE
ZACHARIAS & BALDWIN RANCH SOUTH MASTER PLAN,
(2) ADOPTING FINDINGS FOR SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS, (3) ADOPTING A STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS, AND (4) ADOPTING A MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM WHEREAS, on October 3, 2017, the Patterson City Council (“City Council”) authorized staff to commence the preparation of the Zacharias & Baldwin Ranch South Master Plan (“Master Plan”), an environmental impact report (“EIR”) for the Master Plan in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA"), and other documents required for an application to the Stanislaus Local Agency Formation Commission (“Stanislaus LAFCO”) to annex the Master Plan area into City limits; and
WHEREAS, the Master Plan provides a comprehensive development plan for approximately 1,361 acres located in Stanislaus County, which would be annexed to the City upon completion of proceedings through Stanislaus LAFCO. The buildout potential of the Master Plan is 5,396 residential units, 7,765,000 square feet of industrial and commercial uses, three (3) schools, 73 acres of parks and open space, a recharge basin, and a dual-use stormwater basin; and WHEREAS, the City of Patterson (“City”) is the lead agency for the Master Plan project pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”); and WHEREAS, on December 21, 2019, the City sent a notice of preparation of the EIR to affected public agencies to solicit feedback and determine the scope of the EIR; and WHEREAS, on December 3, 2020, the City released the Draft EIR (SCH#: 2018122052) for review and comment by affected public agencies and members of the public; and WHEREAS, the public review and comment period for the Draft EIR was sixty (60) days, ending on February 4, 2021; and
WHEREAS, on July 27, 2021, the City completed the Final EIR (SCH#: 2018122052), which consists of the City’s responses to all comments received on the Draft EIR and revisions to the Draft EIR, subject to any subsequent minor modifications and clarifications to the Draft EIR which do not change the significance of any environmental conclusions reached in the Draft EIR; and
WHEREAS, on August 12, 2021, the Planning Commission recommended that the City Council adopt the Master Plan and certify the Final EIR, in conjunction with other entitlements required for implementation of the Master Plan; and
WHEREAS, the Master Plan and Final EIR, in conjunction with other related entitlements, are now before the City Council for consideration, certification, and adoption; and WHEREAS, pursuant to California Code of Regulations, title 14 (“CEQA Guidelines”), section 15091, the City has prepared findings regarding the significant adverse environmental impacts that may result from approval and implementation of the Master Plan (“CEQA Findings”); and
WHEREAS, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines sections 15091 and 15093, the City has prepared a Statement of Overriding Considerations for environmental impacts that are expected to remain significant and unavoidable; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines sections 15091 and 15097, the City has prepared a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (“MMRP”) for the Master Plan to avoid or mitigate significant environmental impacts; and
WHEREAS, following notice duly provided as required by law, all interested parties were given an opportunity to comment on the Final EIR, CEQA Findings, Statement of Overriding Considerations, and MMRP prior to the City Council’s action on these documents.
NOW, THEREFORE, upon its review of all documents and exhibits contained herein, and after due deliberation and based on its independent judgment, BE IT RESOLVED by the City of Patterson City Council as follows:
1. Certification of Final EIR. The City Council hereby finds that the Final EIR was prepared in compliance with CEQA. The City Council has reviewed and considered the information contained in the Final EIR prior to approving the Master Plan and affirms that the Final EIR reflects the lead agency’s independent judgment and analysis. The City Council hereby certifies the Final EIR, which is incorporated by reference as Exhibit A.
2. CEQA Findings Regarding Significant Environmental Impacts. The City Council hereby adopts the CEQA Findings for the Master Plan, attached hereto as Exhibit B.
3. Statement of Overriding Considerations. The City Council hereby adopts the Statement of Overriding Considerations, attached hereto as Exhibit C, finding that certain economic, legal, social, and technological considerations outweigh remaining significant environmental impacts.
4. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program. The City Council hereby adopts the MMRP, attached hereto as Exhibit D, describing the mitigation measures for the Master Plan that will avoid or minimize the extent of remaining significant environmental impacts.
5. Location and Custodian of Documents. The record of the Master Plan project approval and EIR shall be kept at Patterson City Hall, 1 Plaza Circle, Patterson, CA, 95363.
PASSED AND ADOPTED AT A REGULAR MEETING Of THE CITY OF PATTERSON CITY COUNCIL ON THE 16TH DAY OF AUGUST 2022, BY THE FOLLOWING ROLL CALL VOTE:
AYES:
NOES:
EXCUSED:
APPROVED:
Dennis McCord
Mayor of the City of Patterson
ATTEST:
Aracely Alegre
City Clerk of the City of Patterson
I hereby certify that the foregoing is a full, correct, and true copy of a resolution passed by the City Council of the City of Patterson, a Municipal Corporation of the County of Stanislaus, State of California, at a regular meeting held on the 16 th day of August 2022, and I
further certify that said resolution is in full force and effect and has never been rescinded or modified.
DATE:
______________________________
City Clerk of the City of Patterson
EXHIBIT A
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (SCH#: 2018112052)
FOR THE MASTER PLAN
The Final EIR (SCH#: 2018112052) for the Master Plan is incorporated by reference to this City Council Resolution and shall be kept at Patterson City Hall, 1 Plaza Circle, Patterson, CA, 95363.
Public review copies of the Final EIR, which includes the Draft EIR, are also available at the City’s web page for the Master Plan, available at https://www.ci.patterson.ca.us/658/Master-PlanDocuments.
EXHIBIT B
CEQA FINDINGS
I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The Master Plan (or the “Project”) provides a comprehensive development plan for approximately 1,361 acres located in Stanislaus County, which would be annexed to the City upon completion of proceedings through Stanislaus LAFCO. The buildout potential of the Master Plan is 5,396 residential units, 7,765,000 square feet of industrial and commercial uses, three (3) schools, 73 acres of parks and open space, a recharge basin, and a dual-use stormwater basin.
The Zacharias area of the Master Plan is approximately 1,296 acres and is located north of City limits, generally bounded by Rogers Road to the west, Zacharias Road to the north, and Ward Avenue to the east. The buildout potential of the Zacharias Area is 5,091 residential units, 7,765,000 square feet of industrial and commercial uses, two schools, 73 acres of parks and open space, a recharge basin, and a dual-use stormwater basin. The recharge basin and the dual-use stormwater basin would be located north of Zacharias Road outside of the main project site.
The Baldwin Ranch South area of the Master Plan is approximately 65 acres and is located south of City limits, generally bounded by the Delta Mendota Canal to the west, the City’s Corporation Yard to the north, and agricultural land to the east. The buildout potential of the Baldwin Ranch South Area is approximately 305 residential units and five (5) acres of parks and open space.
Buildout of the Master Plan will involve the necessary infrastructure improvements required to support the Master Plan.
The transportation improvements for the Project will involve construction of the roadway system for the Master Plan, widening of surrounding arterials, improvements to affected intersections in the City and Stanislaus County, construction of the new east-west connector for State Route 33, and funding contributions to the planned Zacharias and I-5 interchange.
Stormwater drainage improvements for the Project involve an integrated stormwater system, where stormwater from the Project would be piped from the Master Plan to an off-site dual-use basin, and then piped to a recharge basin to recharge the City’s groundwater resources.
Water system improvements for the Project will involve water mains of different diameters throughout the Master Plan, and also new wells and water tanks, consistent with the City’s water master plan.
Sewer system improvements for the Project will involve sewer mains of different diameters throughout the Master Plan, which will connect into the City’s main trunk line along Walnut Avenue. The Project will also require construction of the new North Patterson Trunk Line, which will follow Eucalyptus Avenue and connect to the City’s Wastewater Treatment Plant.
II. CEQA Findings for Significant Effects
The EIR analyzed the effects of the buildout of the Master Plan (or the “Project”). The EIR found certain environmental impacts that would remain significant and unavoidable, and that other impacts can be reduced to a less than significant level with implementation of mitigation measures.
The City Council hereby makes the following findings for the Project’s potentially significant and unavoidable impacts:
AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES:
Impact AG-1: Buildout of the Master Plan 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 nonagricultural use. The EIR found this impact to be significant and unavoidable. Mitigation Measure AG-1 would minimize the impact to the extent feasible.
Impact AG-3: Buildout of the Master Plan may conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code section 12220, subdivision (g)), timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code section 51104, subdivision (g)). This EIR found that implementation of Mitigation Measure AG3 would make this impact less than significant.
AIR QUALITY:
Impact AIR-1: Buildout of the Master Plan may conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan (such as, resulting in ozone precursor and particulate matter emissions exceeding adopted thresholds). The EIR found this impact to be significant and unavoidable. Implementation of Mitigation Measure AIR-2 would minimize the impact to the extent feasible.
Impact AIR-2: Buildout of the Master Plan 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 (such as, resulting in ozone precursor and particulate matter emissions exceeding adopted thresholds). The EIR found this impact to be significant and unavoidable. Implementation of Mitigation Measures AIR-3a and Air-3b would minimize this impact to the extent feasible.
Impact AIR-3: Buildout of the Master Plan may expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations. The EIR found that implementation of Mitigation Measures AIR-3c and AIR-3d would make this impact less than significant.
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES:
Impact BIO-1: Buildout of the Master Plan 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. The EIR found that implementation of Mitigation Measures BIO-1a, BIO-1b, and BIO-1c would make this impact less than significant.
Impact BIO-5: Buildout of the Master Plan may conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance. The EIR found that implementation of Mitigation Measures BIO-1a and BIO1b would make this impact less than significant.
CULTURAL RESOURCES AND TRIBAL CULTURAL 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. The EIR found that implementation of Mitigation Measure CUL-1 would make this impact less than significant.
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. The EIR found that implementation of Mitigation Measure CUL-2 would make this impact less than significant.
Impact CUL-3: Buildout of the Master Plan may result in disturbance to human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries. The EIR found that implementation of Mitigation Measure CUL-3 would make this impact less than significant.
Impact CUL-5: Buildout of the Master Plan may 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. The EIR found that implementation of Mitigation Measures CUL-1, CUL-2, and CUL-3 would make this impact less than significant.
GEOLOGY, SOILS, AND SEISMICITY:
Impact GEO-1: Buildout of the Master Plan may expose persons within the Master Plan areas to seismic hazards including fault rupture, strong ground shaking, liquefaction, or landsliding. The EIR found that implementation of Mitigation Measure GEO-1 would make this impact less than significant.
Impact GEO-2: Buildout of the Master Plan may result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil. The EIR found that implementation of Mitigation Measure HYD-1 would make this impact less than significant.
Impact GEO-4: Buildout of the Master Plan 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. The EIR found that implementation of Mitigation Measure GEO-1 would make this impact less than significant.
Impact GEO-5: Buildout of the Master Plan may impact undiscovered paleontological resources. The EIR found that implementation of Mitigation Measure GEO-5 would make this impact less than significant.
GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS AND ENERGY
Impact GHG-1: Buildout of the Master Plan would generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment. The EIR found this impact to be significant and unavoidable. Implementation of Mitigation Measure TRANS-2 would minimize this impact to the extent feasible.
Impact GHG-2: Buildout of the Master Plan may conflict with any applicable plan, policy or regulation of an agency adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases. The EIR found this impact to be significant and unavoidable. The EIR found that implementation of Mitigation Measure TRANS-2 would minimize this impact to the extent feasible.
HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
Impact HAZ-3: Buildout of the Master Plan would not be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result would not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment. The EIR found that implementation of Mitigation Measures HAZ-3a and HAZ-3b would ensure that this impact remains less than significant.
HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
Impact HYD-1: Buildout of the Master Plan may violate water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or groundwater quality. The EIR found that implementation of Mitigation Measures HYD-1a and HYD1b would make this impact less than significant.
Impact HYD-3: Buildout of the Master Plan may alter the existing drainage pattern of the site that may create erosion or downstream flooding problems. The EIR found that implementation of Mitigation Measures HYD-3a and HYD-3b would make this impact less than significant.
NOISE
Impact NOI-1: Buildout of the Master Plan may cause a significant environmental impact due to a conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect. The EIR found that implementation of Mitigation Measure NOI-1 would make this impact less than significant.
Impact NOI-2: Buildout of the Master Plan may result in generation of a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies. The EIR found that implementation of Mitigation Measures NOI-2a, NOI-2b, and NOI-2c would make this impact less than significant.
PUBLIC SERVICES AND RECREATION
Impact PSR-1: Buildout of the Master Plan may result in a need for new or expanded fire protection facilities. The EIR found that implementation of Mitigation Measure PSR-1 would make this impact less than significant.
Impact PSR-2: Buildout of the Master Plan may result in a need for new or expanded police protection facilities. The EIR found that implementation of Mitigation Measure PSR-1 would make this impact less than significant.
TRANSPORTATION
Impact TRANS-1: Buildout of the Master Plan would generate traffic under Existing Plus Approved Plus Project Conditions that may conflict with a program plan, ordinance or policy of the circulation system, referring to increased trips that would affect the target levels of service on affected roadways and intersections. The EIR found this impact to be significant and avoidable, as planned improvements may not result in restoring acceptable levels of service, and some facilities are outside the jurisdictional control of the City. Implementation of all Mitigation Measures TRANS-1a through TRANS-1z (inclusive) would minimize these impacts to the extent feasible. The City will collect funds from impact fees for the Project and the Community Facilities District established for the Project, and will use such funds to implement the roadway and intersection improvements under its jurisdiction described in the Master Plan and EIR.
Impact TRANS-2: Buildout of the Master Plan would generate traffic under 2040 Cumulative Plus Project Conditions that may conflict with a program plan, ordinance or policy of the circulation system. The EIR found this impact to be significant and avoidable. Implementation of Mitigation Measures TRANS-2a and TRANS-2b would reduce this impact to the extent feasible.
Impact TRANS-3: Buildout of the Master Plan may conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3, subdivision (b), referring to additional vehicle miles traveled due to buildout of the Master Plan. The EIR found that implementation of Mitigation Measures TRANS-2a and TRANS-2b would make this impact less than significant.
Impact TRANS-4: Buildout of the Master Plan may substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature or incompatible uses. The EIR found that implementation of Mitigation Measure TRANS-1m would make this impact less than significant.
UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
Impact USS-4: Buildout of the Master Plan may generate solid waste in excess of State or local standards, or in excess of the capacity of local infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals. The EIR found that implementation of Mitigation Measure USS-4 would make this impact less than significant.
III. FINDINGS FOR PROJECT ALTERNATIVES
The EIR analyzed four (4) alternatives to the proposed Master Plan:
1. The No Project Alternative, which would mean the planning areas would continue their existing agricultural land use activities within Stanislaus County.
2. The Zacharias Master Plan Only Alternative, which would not involve development of the Baldwin Ranch South area.
3. The Reduced Density Alternative, which would involve a 25% density reduction to the buildout potential of the proposed Master Plan.
4. The Ivy Avenue Connection Alternative, where Ivy Avenue would provide a second through connection between Ward Avenue and the Patterson Irrigation District Lateral M Canal, in addition to the planned east-west connector.
The City Council hereby finds that identified environmentally superior alternatives (i.e., the No Project Alternative and Zacharias Master Plan Only Alternative) would not advance the Project objectives to the same extent as the proposed Master Plan, and further that the benefits of the proposed Project outweigh the environmental benefits of the identified alternatives, as further described in Section 5 of the Draft EIR.
EXHIBIT C
STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS
The City Council hereby finds that the specific economic, legal, social, technological, and other benefits of the Master Plan, including provision of new employment opportunities, business investment, and housing production, outweigh the significant and unavoidable environmental effects and the alternatives identified in the Final EIR, for the following reasons:
1. The Project will be a place for residents of the City to live near their jobs, and enjoy diverse housing types and spaces to recreate.
2. The Project will lead to positive contributions to the local and regional economy through new capital investment, creation of new employment and housing opportunities, and expansion of the tax base.
3. The Project will develop a mix of new residential uses in proximity to a regional job center, which is identified as the West Patterson Business Park and West Patterson Business Park Expansion.
4. The Project will assist the City in meeting the goals of its Housing Element and its Regional Housing Needs Allocation.
5. The Project will continue to attract new businesses to the City of Patterson by providing adequate, available land and infrastructure.
6. The Project will facilitate buildout of the City’s General Plan.
7. The Project will maintain and enhance a high quality of life in the City of Patterson through the provision of new schools, parks, open spaces, and trails in residential areas.
8. The Project will 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 Project area. Project applicants will also be required to construct Zacharias Road to arterial standards. The South County Corridor is a pivotal transportation project for the region. The lack of an efficient and direct travel route between SR 99, SR 33, and I-5 in the southern part of Stanislaus County has become a pressing concern for the region. This is also a concern for the City, given the amount of regional and interregional traffic generating congestion within the City limits and surrounding areas. Improvements to local and regional congestion, noise, and safety issues is a concern to the City and the region, which depends on an efficient and safe transportation system to deliver manufactured and agricultural goods both regionally and inter-regionally.
9. The Project will promote land use compatibility with the Ivy Rose area by appropriately siting roadway connections and affording property owners the option of maintaining their existing land use activities or developing low density residential uses. The Project will avoid the premature conversion of viable agricultural land by using buffers and affording property owners the ability to continue to farm their land until conditions are right for development.
10. The Project will ensure that the City limits are expanded in an orderly and logical manner.
11. The Project will provide groundwater recharge facilities to protect groundwater resources consistent with City and State groundwater recharge policies.
EXHIBIT D
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM