City of Patterson Page 1 Updated 10/12/2023 1:27 PM
Agenda
City of Patterson
City Council Regular Meeting
October 17, 2023
7:00 PM
Council Chambers
1 Plaza
Patterson, CA 95363
PUBLIC MEETING GUIDELINES
City of Patterson City Council meetings are conducted in person at City Hall Council Chambers.
As a courtesy, and technology permitting, members of the public may continue to participate virtually. However, the City cannot guarantee that the public’s access to teleconferencing technology will be uninterrupted, and technical difficulties may occur from time to time.
PLEASE NOTE: PUBLIC PARTICIPATION VIA ZOOM WILL BE TEMPORARILY LIMITED. COMMENTS VIA ZOOM ARE TEMPORARILY BEING SUSPENDED.
PUBLIC COMMENTS DURING THE MEETING MUST BE MADE IN PERSON.
MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC MAY STILL VIEW THE MEETING VIA ZOOM.
MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC MAY PARTICIPATE IN THE MEETING IN PERSON OR VIA TELECONFERENCE BY CALLING 1-669-900-9128, MEETING ID: 693 538 4239, PASSWORD: 20995363. JOIN FROM A PC, MAC, IPAD, IPHONE, OR ANDROID DEVICE BY USING THIS URL:
https://us02web.zoom.us/j/6935384239?pwd=ZmZwMFdYajRsTjlKTnNTamZCWXFXdz09
THE MEETING WILL BE TELEVISED OR AVAILABLE FOR PUBLIC VIEWING ON COMCAST CABLE CHANNEL 7 ON THE FOLLOWING DAYS: WEDNESDAY AT 3:00 P.M., FRIDAY AT 8:00 P.M. AND SATURDAY AT 12:00 P.M. OR WATCH ON INTERNET VIMEO LINK: https://vimeo.com/channels/patterson/
In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, please contact the City Clerk at (209) 895-8012. Notification 48 hours prior to the meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to this meeting. [28 CFR 35.102-35.104 ADA Title II] The City Council agenda and supporting public documents are available for viewing in City Hall, Administration Department, 1 Plaza, 2nd Floor, Patterson, California, during normal business hours. The City Council agenda and City of Patterson Page 2 Updated 10/12/2023 1:27 PM
supporting public documents are also available online on the City web site www.ci.patterson.ca.us listed under Popular Links “City Council Agendas” or please call or email the City Clerk at (209) 895-8012 or [email protected] If you wish to be notified of future City Council Meetings, please visit our web site www.ci.patterson.ca.us go to Popular Links “City Council Agendas” and Subscribe to “RSS” ═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
1. Call to Order
2. Pledge of Allegiance
3. Statements of Conflict
4. Items from the Public
Any member of the audience desiring to address the Council regarding a matter on the agenda, please raise your hand or step to the podium at the time the item is announced by the Mayor. The public wishing to address the Council on items that do not appear on the agenda may do so; however, Council will take no action other than referring the item to staff for study and analysis and may place the item on a future agenda (Resolution 92-25) In order that all interested parties have an opportunity to speak, any person addressing the Council will be limited to a maximum of five (5) minutes unless the Mayor grants a longer period of time (Resolution 92-25)
Please State Your Name and City for the Record.
5. Consent Calendar
All items are approved by a single action. Any item may be removed from the Consent Calendar for separate discussion upon request from a member of the Public, Staff and/or Councilmember.
5.1. Motion to Waive Readings - All Readings of Ordinances and Resolutions, Except by Title are hereby waived.
5.2. Approve Resolution No. 2023-49, Authorizing Submittal of Individual Grant Applications for all Grant Programs for which the City of Patterson is Eligible and Authorizing the Required Budget Adjustment by the Finance Department in Fund 600 for FY 23/24 if awarded.
5.3. Accept all bids for the Salado Creek Trail Phase I Project, award construction to Sinclair General Engineering Construction, Inc., authorize staff to execute the contract, and Authorize the Finance Department to make the necessary budget adjustments for Fiscal Years 2023-24.
6. Presentation
6.1. City Manager - Strategic Plan Update City Council Work Session (Moss Landing Senior Manager, Annie Rose Favreau)
City of Patterson Page 3 Updated 10/12/2023 1:27 PM
7. Public Hearing
7.1. Planning Department - (Motion to Continue the Public Hearing to November 7, 2023 Regular Council Meeting) Approve Resolution No. 2023-50, approving the Regional Transportation Impact Fee Report and adopting updated development impact fees related to transportation, effective October 17, 2023. Per Ordinance No. 608 (M.C. Section 3.64) related to the approval of transportation development impact fees, motion to approve Resolution No. 2023-50 approving the Regional Transportation Impact Fee Report and adopting updated development impact fees related to transportation, effective October 17, 2023.
Staff Report: Community Development Director Stice
Mayor: Open/Close Public Hearing
Council: Motion to Continue the Public Hearing to November 7, 2023 Regular Council Meeting
7.2. Planning Department - Approve the Initial Study / EIR Addendum to the 2010 General Plan EIR for the Transportation Infrastructure Master Plan (TIMP) and adopt the Transportation Infrastructure Master Plan.
Staff Report: Community Development Director Stice
Mayor: Open/Close Public Hearing
Council: Motion to Approve the Initial Study / EIR Addendum to the 2010 General Plan EIR for the Transportation Infrastructure Master Plan (TIMP) and adopt the Transportation Infrastructure Master Plan.
8. City Staff Reports
8.1. City Attorney - Adopt Resolution No. 2023-51 providing direction to staff regarding the use of Zoom during City Council meetings, limiting Zoom participation to City of Patterson staff and consultants attending a City Council meeting remotely, but prohibiting public comment via Zoom unless a City Council member is participating in the meeting via Zoom.
Staff Report: City Attorney Goldstein
Council: Motion to Adopt Resolution No. 2023-51 providing direction to staff regarding the use of Zoom during City Council meetings, limiting Zoom participation to City of Patterson staff and consultants attending a City Council meeting remotely, but prohibiting public comment via Zoom unless a City Council member is participating in the meeting via Zoom.
City of Patterson Page 4 Updated 10/12/2023 1:27 PM
9. City Council Reports
A. Councilmember Alves
. Stanislaus Homeless Alliance (Councilmember Roque alternate) . Stanislaus County Hazardous Waste Advisory Committee (Councilmember Farinha alternate)
B. Councilmember Romero
. Westside Health Care Task Force (Councilmember Alves alternate) C. Councilmember Farinha
. San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (Councilmember Romero alternate)
D. Mayor Pro Tem Roque
. (EDAC) Stanislaus County Economic Development Action Committee (Mayor Clauzel alternate)
. Workforce Development Board (Mayor Clauzel alternate) E. Mayor Clauzel
. Stanislaus County Mayor's Meeting
. StanCOG (Mayor Pro Tem Roque alternate)
. League of California Cities (Councilmember Farinha 1st alternate, Councilmember Alves 2nd alternate)
10. Other Matters
11. Adjournment
DECLARATION OF POSTING
I, Aracely Alegre, City Clerk of the City of Patterson, California do hereby declare that the foregoing notice was posted on the Bulletin Board at City Hall, 1 Plaza, Patterson, California on October 12, 2023.
The Agenda is also posted for public view on the Bulletin Boards of the Hammon Senior Center, 1033 W. Las Palmas, Patterson, the Patterson Branch Library, 46 N. Salado Avenue, Patterson, and the City of Patterson City Web Site www.ci.patterson.ca.us Aracely Alegre, City Clerk
City of Patterson Direct No. (209) 895-8012 Email [email protected] City Council Agenda Report
TO: Mayor Clauzel and Members of the City Council
FROM: Ken Irwin, City Manager
BY: Mike Willett, Public Works Director
MEETING DATE: October 17, 2023
ITEM NO: 5.2
SUBJECT: Approve Resolution No. 2023-49, Authorizing Submittal of Individual Grant Applications for all Grant Programs for which the City of Patterson is Eligible and Authorizing the Required Budget Adjustment by the Finance Department in Fund 600 for FY 23/24 if awarded.
RECOMMENDATION
Motion to Approve Resolution No. 2023-49, Authorizing Submittal of Individual Grant Applications for all Grant Programs for which the City of Patterson is Eligible and Authorizing the Required Budget Adjustment by the Finance Department in Fund 600 for FY 23/24 if awarded.
BACKGROUND
Public Resources Code sections 48000 et seq. authorize the Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle) to administer various grant programs (grants) in furtherance of the State of California’s (state) efforts to reduce, recycle and reuse solid waste generated in the state thereby preserving landfill capacity and protecting public health and safety and the environment.
In furtherance of this authority CalRecycle is required to establish procedures governing the application, awarding, and management of the grants.
ANALYSIS
With the availability of individual funding opportunities from the State’s Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle), staff continues to utilize these grants to help in its Solid Waste, Recycling, and Environmental Programs.
5.2 Packet Pg. 5
CalRecycle grant application procedures require, among other things, an applicant’s governing body to declare by resolution certain authorizations related to the administration of CalRecycle grants.
FISCAL IMPACT
There is no direct fiscal impact to the city and their grants have no match requirements. All grant funds received are revenues that are utilized for eligible costs incurred for City programs.
Since the grant funds were not included in the FY 23/24 budget, the Finance Department will need to complete a budget adjustment in the amount of the grant funds received, if awarded.
5.2 Packet Pg. 6
1 RESOLUTION NO. 2023-49
2 3 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PATTERSON 4 AUTHORIZING SUBMITTAL OF INDIVIDUAL GRANT APPLICATIONS FOR ALL 5 GRANT PROGRAMS FOR WHICH THE CITY OF PATTERSON IS ELIGIBLE 6 7 WHEREAS, Public Resources Code sections 48000 et seq. authorize the Department of 8 Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle) to administer various grant programs (grants) in 9 furtherance of the State of California’s (state) efforts to reduce, recycle and reuse solid waste 10 generated in the state thereby preserving landfill capacity and protecting public health and safety 11 and the environment; and
12 13 WHEREAS, in furtherance of this authority CalRecycle is required to establish procedures 14 governing the application, awarding, and management of the grants; and 15 16 WHEREAS, CalRecycle grant application procedures require, among other things, an 17 applicant’s governing body to declare by resolution certain authorizations related to the 18 administration of CalRecycle grants.
19 20 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Patterson 21 authorizes the submittal of applications to CalRecycle for all grants for which the City of Patterson 22 is eligible; and
23 24 BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Manager, or their designee, is hereby 25 authorized and empowered to execute in the name of the City of Patterson all grant documents, 26 including but not limited to, applications, agreements, amendments and requests for payment, 27 necessary to secure grant funds and implement the approved grant project; and 28 29 BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that these authorizations are effective for five years from 30 the date of adoption.
31 32 The foregoing resolution was introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Patterson, held on the 17
th
33 day of October 2023 by , who moved its adoption,
34 which motion was duly seconded by and the resolution adopted by the following roll 35 call vote:
36 37
38 AYES:
39 NOES:
40 EXCUSED:
41 42
43 44 APPROVED:
45 46
47 ____
48 Michael Clauzel
49 Mayor of the City of Patterson
5.2.a
Packet Pg. 7
Attachment: Resoultion No. 2023-49 Individual_CalRecycle_Grant_Authorization (Approve Resolution No. 2023-49 Authorizing Submittal of 1 2 ATTEST:
3 4
5 6 _______________________________
7 Aracely Alegre
8 City Clerk of the City of Patterson
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
29 30
31 32
33 34
35 36
37 38
39 40
41 42 I hereby certify that the foregoing is a full, correct and true copy of a resolution passed by the City 43 Council of the City of Patterson, a Municipal Corporation of the County of Stanislaus, State of California, at a regular meeting held on the 17
th
44 day of October 2023, and I further certify that said 45 resolution is in full force and effect and has never been rescinded or modified. 46 47
48 DATED:
49 50
51 52 ______________________________________
53 54 City Clerk of the City of Patterson
55 56
57 5.2.a
Packet Pg. 8
Attachment: Resoultion No. 2023-49 Individual_CalRecycle_Grant_Authorization (Approve Resolution No. 2023-49 Authorizing Submittal of City Council Agenda Report
TO: Mayor Clauzel and Members of the City Council
FROM: Ken Irwin, City Manager
BY: Fernando Ulloa, City Engineer
MEETING DATE: October 17, 2023
ITEM NO: 5.3
SUBJECT: Accept all bids for the Salado Creek Trail Phase I Project, award construction to Sinclair General Engineering Construction, Inc., authorize staff to execute the contract, and Authorize the Finance Department to make the necessary budget adjustments for Fiscal Years 2023-24.
RECOMMENDATION
Motion to Accept all bids for the Salado Creek Trail Phase I Project, award construction to Sinclair General Engineering Construction, Inc., authorize staff to execute the contract, and Authorize the Finance Department to make the necessary budget adjustments for Fiscal Years 2023-24.
BACKGROUND
The City was originally awarded $1,808,145.00 from the State of California Natural Resources Agency (CNRA) for the construction of a new bike path along Salado Creek. The higher than expected construction costs caused significant delays, resulting in a phased project and multiple construction bids. The City was able to secure additional funding through CNRA for a grand total of $2,050,262.00. The additional $242,117 will be applied to the construction phase.
In general, the work for Phase I consists of constructing approximately 1,300 linear feet of new asphalt concrete bike and pedestrian trail along American Eagle Avenue from Calvinson Parkway to Sperry Avenue. An existing concrete culvert will be modified to create an undercrossing for the new trail under Sperry Avenue. Masonry and concrete retaining walls will be constructed along both sides of the approaches to the undercrossing. 273 trees will be planted along the path and a new irrigation system will be installed. Approximately 5 trail lights will be installed along the trail, along with 5 roof-mounted lights in the undercrossing and 4 wall mounted lights along the northern approach to the undercrossing. The new lights will be
5.3 Packet Pg. 9
connected to an existing electrical service. A new storm drain pump station will be constructed at the low point near the undercrossing. Existing water and storm drain pipes will be adjusted to fit the proposed improvements.
ANALYSIS
The design for Patterson’s Salado Creek Trail Project was completed in the fall of 2021 and was subsequently advertised for construction. This project was advertised for construction on the CIP List, the City’s website, and the Patterson Irrigator. Unfortunately, the City had to readvertise this project several times. The bids that were received were significantly higher than the anticipated Engineer’s Estimates. In an effort to save this project and comply with the State of California Natural Resources Agency (CNRA) requirements, the project was redesigned and separated into two phases. Therefore, the project was readvertised for a third, and final, time in June of 2023 and bids were opened on the 14th of June.
FISCAL IMPACT
Bids:
Sinclair General Engineering Construction, Inc $2,445,625.84 $2,445,625.84 Sinclair General Engineering Construction, Inc $244,562.58 10% Contingency
$100,000.00 Construction Inspections
$49,245.00 Tree purchase and planting
$2,839,433.42 Total Project Cost
Contingency will only be utilized if needed.
Current funding for this project is as follows:
$1,796,772 Urban Greening Grant (Grant Funding for Construction) (Acct #: 100-000-5299)
$156,074 LTF Non-Motorized Funds
(LTF FY Ending balance per 20/21 claim, LTF claim 22/23) (Acct#: 328-000-5231)
$297,142 CMAQ Trade Funds
(Acct#: 326-000-2200)
$589,445.42 Gas Tax - unallocated
(Acct#: 325-000-3000)
$2,839,433.42 Total Project Budget
5.3 Packet Pg. 10
City Council Agenda Report
TO: Mayor Clauzel and Members of the City Council
FROM: Ken Irwin, City Manager
BY: Ken Irwin, City Manager
MEETING DATE: October 17, 2023
ITEM NO: 6.1
SUBJECT: Strategic Plan Update City Council Work Session
RECOMMENDATION
Participate in a Strategic Planning Work Session and provide direction as needed.
BACKGROUND
A strategic plan is a comprehensive roadmap that outlines an organization’s long-term goals, objectives, and actions required to achieve them. It is a forward-looking document that guides decision-making and resource allocation, ensuring all efforts align with the organization’s mission and vision. In fiscal year 2017, the Patterson City Council approved the 2017 - 2021 Patterson Strategic Plan; setting a course of action to effectively administer services and projects through established goals, objectives, and strategies.
The 2017-2021 Strategic Plan was completed by Moss Adams LLP and has served the city well but required an update to stay current with the City Council’s goals and priorities. Moss Adams LLP was retained to update the plan due to its familiarity with the city and the quality plan produced previously.
ANALYSIS
The Strategic Plan Update commenced in July 2023, and several key milestones have been achieved, including:
· Conducting interviews with the City Council, City Management, and Stakeholders. · Facilitating a management work session with City Management staff to assess Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, and Threats (SWOT), as well as refining the City’s mission,
6.1 Packet Pg. 11
vision, and values.
· Administering a citywide survey to gather feedback on potential revisions for the mission, vision, values, and goals.
Having accomplished these essential tasks, Moss Adams has organized a City Council Work Session. During this session, the input gathered thus far will be reviewed, enabling the Council to offer feedback and provide direction for the ongoing progress of the process.
FISCAL IMPACT
There is no fiscal impact as a result of this report. All costs associated with the Strategic Plan Update have been included in the approved fiscal year 2023-24 budget.
6.1 Packet Pg. 12
WELCOME
City of Patterson Strategic Planning Work Session
October 2023
6.1.a
Packet Pg. 13
Attachment: Patterson_Strategic_Planning_Work_Session_B_10.17.23 (Strategic Plan Update City Agenda
City of Patterson
01 MISSION, VISION, VALUES
02 SWOT ANALYSIS
03 GOALS REVIEW
04 NEXT STEPS
6.1.a
Packet Pg. 14
Attachment: Patterson_Strategic_Planning_Work_Session_B_10.17.23 (Strategic Plan Update City Strategic Planning Overview
City of Patterson
6.1.a
Packet Pg. 15
Attachment: Patterson_Strategic_Planning_Work_Session_B_10.17.23 (Strategic Plan Update City Orientation
Meeting
Virtual meeting with
Council and management
Council Input
Council Interviews
Management
Input
Management
Interviews
Stakeholder Input
Optional: Online
Survey of key
stakeholder groups
Analysis
Review of data and
documents
Management
Work Session
SWOT Review,
Mission, Vision,
Values
Draft Mission,
Vision, Values,
and Goals
Staff Input
All-Staff Survey for
feedback on mission,
vision, values, goals
Council Work
Session
SWOT Review,
Mission, Vision,
Values, Goals
Management
Input
Goals and
Objectives survey
Draft Full
Strategic Plan
Management
Input
Individual Review of
the Draft Plan
Council Input
Individual Review of
the Draft Plan
Stakeholder/
Community Input
Online Survey and/or
Community Open
House
Update Draft
Strategic Plan
Council Review
and Adoption of
Strategic Plan
Milestones JULY-AUG AUG-SEPT SEPT-OCT OCT-DEC
Moss Adams
Community
Council
Management
City of Patterson
6.1.a
Packet Pg. 16
Attachment: Patterson_Strategic_Planning_Work_Session_B_10.17.23 (Strategic Plan Update City City Council
Role in
Strategic
Planning
Setting Direction: The City Council plays a crucial
role in strategic planning by setting the vision and
direction for the city, identifying priorities, and
establishing goals and objectives that guide
decision-making.
Adopting the Plan: Through collaboration with city
staff, community stakeholders, and subject matter
experts, the City Council develops and approves the
strategic plan.
Monitoring Progress: City Council regularly
monitors progress towards achieving strategic goals,
evaluates the effectiveness of implemented
strategies, and works with city staff to make adjusts
as necessary to ensure continued success.
City of Patterson
6.1.a
Packet Pg. 17
Attachment: Patterson_Strategic_Planning_Work_Session_B_10.17.23 (Strategic Plan Update City Mission, Vision, and Values
City of Patterson
6.1.a
Packet Pg. 18
Attachment: Patterson_Strategic_Planning_Work_Session_B_10.17.23 (Strategic Plan Update City Mission, Vision, and Values
Mission, vision, and value statements are the foundation on which the strategic plan is built.
They provide the context for decision making, compromises, and developing solutions. Example: Does the proposed program, service, or activity …
• Support our long-term vision for our community?
• Help us to achieve our mission?
• Align with our values as an organization?
City of Patterson
6.1.a
Packet Pg. 19
Attachment: Patterson_Strategic_Planning_Work_Session_B_10.17.23 (Strategic Plan Update City Values
Values are the inherent principles of an
organization. They are: • Established by leadership. • The basis for standards of behavior among staff and leadership. These are
ideals that will not be compromised as
you work toward your vision.
• Reflective of the expectations of the
community.
City of Patterson
6.1.a
Packet Pg. 20
Attachment: Patterson_Strategic_Planning_Work_Session_B_10.17.23 (Strategic Plan Update City Values from 2017 Strategic Plan
• Professionalism: We operate honestly and communicate openly with each other and the community.
• Customer Service: We provide proactive, responsive, friendly service.
• Collaboration: We recognize, value, and leverage each other’s strengths, while actively seeking community input.
• Accountability: We fulfill commitments and strive to keep our partners informed.
• Leadership: We set an example for each other and the
community.
City of Patterson
6.1.a
Packet Pg. 21
Attachment: Patterson_Strategic_Planning_Work_Session_B_10.17.23 (Strategic Plan Update City NEW Proposed Values
• Accountable: We are honest, professional, and reliable. We take responsibility for our actions and communicate openly with each other and the community. • Collaborative: Our team is our strength. We are intentional in our communications and understand that working together empowers our alignment and leveraging each other’s perspectives.
• Community Centered: We are dedicated to engaging with our community, seeking their input on key decisions, and fostering strong partnerships with our stakeholders to provide meaningful services.
• Future Focused: Our commitment to the future drives us to constantly explore innovative solutions that guarantee the city's financial and environmental sustainability, while meeting the present and future needs of our community.
City of Patterson
6.1.a
Packet Pg. 22
Attachment: Patterson_Strategic_Planning_Work_Session_B_10.17.23 (Strategic Plan Update City Vision
Vision reflects the ideal state of the
community in the future. Your vision is: • The answer to the question “What are we working toward?”
• Long term, at least 10 years • Unlikely to change over time City of Patterson
6.1.a
Packet Pg. 23
Attachment: Patterson_Strategic_Planning_Work_Session_B_10.17.23 (Strategic Plan Update City Vision from 2017 Strategic Plan
Our vision is that …
Patterson is a friendly, safe, welcoming city. We encourage a neighborly, small-town spirit while supporting the sustainable growth of our community. We’re striving to create a city with:
• A diverse job base and affordable housing;
• A revitalized historic downtown; and
• An engaged, integrated community.
City of Patterson
6.1.a
Packet Pg. 24
Attachment: Patterson_Strategic_Planning_Work_Session_B_10.17.23 (Strategic Plan Update City NEW Proposed Vision
Our vision is that …
Patterson is a vibrant community that embraces its small-town spirit while fostering sustainable growth, diversity, connectivity, and safety.
City of Patterson
6.1.a
Packet Pg. 25
Attachment: Patterson_Strategic_Planning_Work_Session_B_10.17.23 (Strategic Plan Update City Mission
Mission reflects how you intend to reach
your ideal state in the future. Your
mission is: • The answer to the question “How will we
move toward our vision?” It’s the
simplest way to explain the services you
provide to the public.
• Medium- to long-term
• Possible to change over time
City of Patterson
6.1.a
Packet Pg. 26
Attachment: Patterson_Strategic_Planning_Work_Session_B_10.17.23 (Strategic Plan Update City Mission from 2017 Strategic Plan
The City of Patterson proudly promotes a healthy, safe, and vibrant community. We are dedicated to delivering excellent services and engaging meaningful public participation.
City of Patterson
6.1.a
Packet Pg. 27
Attachment: Patterson_Strategic_Planning_Work_Session_B_10.17.23 (Strategic Plan Update City NEW Proposed Mission
Our mission is to …
Provide excellent City services that help our residents thrive. We strive to encourage economic opportunities, ensure public safety, provide attractive amenities, and foster an inclusive community.
OR
Deliver excellent community services that promote community connection and inclusivity, prioritize public safety and engagement, encourage meaningful participation, and provide a diverse range of amenities that contribute to a thriving downtown. We are committed to supporting sustainable city growth while meeting the evolving needs of our community.
City of Patterson
6.1.a
Packet Pg. 28
Attachment: Patterson_Strategic_Planning_Work_Session_B_10.17.23 (Strategic Plan Update City SWOT Analysis
City of Patterson
6.1.a
Packet Pg. 29
Attachment: Patterson_Strategic_Planning_Work_Session_B_10.17.23 (Strategic Plan Update City SWOT Analysis
Strengths and Weaknesses
Internal factors, positive or negative, that can
affect the organization’s ability to achieve its
goals. For example: people, systems,
processes, culture, infrastructure, or assets.
Opportunities and Threats
External factors, positive or negative, that
can affect the organization’s ability to achieve
its goals. For example: industry trends,
community support, politics, or technology.
City of Patterson
6.1.a
Packet Pg. 30
Attachment: Patterson_Strategic_Planning_Work_Session_B_10.17.23 (Strategic Plan Update City • Council interviews • Management interviews • Review of documents/plans • Research SWOT Inputs
City of Patterson
6.1.a
Packet Pg. 31
Attachment: Patterson_Strategic_Planning_Work_Session_B_10.17.23 (Strategic Plan Update City Top Rated Themes
City of Patterson
Strengths
• High Quality Employees
• Increased Compensation
• Increased Rate Studies
• Infrastructure Maintenance
• Strong Community Engagement
• Public Safety
Weaknesses
• Aging Infrastructure
• Employee Recruiting Challenges
• Affordable Housing
• Complicated Relationships with Some Key
Partners
Opportunities
• City Location/Proximity to I-5
• Capital Improvement Program
• Downtown Revitalization
• Tax Measure
Threats
• Federal/State Regulations and Costs
• Water Supply
• Sales Tax Revenue
• Employment Competition
S.W.O.T.
6.1.a
Packet Pg. 32
Attachment: Patterson_Strategic_Planning_Work_Session_B_10.17.23 (Strategic Plan Update City Population
Growth
Patterson, situated in California's
Stanislaus County, is home to a
population of 23,864 as of 2023.
The city is experiencing gradual
growth, with an annual increase of
1.2%.
Year Population Growth Growth Rate
2023 23,864 31 0.13%
2022 23,833 25 0.10%
2021 23,808 24 0.10%
2020 23,784 1,177 4.95%
2019 22,607 123 0.54%
2018 22,484 334 1.48%
2017 22,150 391 1.76%
2016 21,759 359 1.65%
2015 21,400 247 1.15%
2014 21,153 167 0.79%
2013 20,986 134 0.64%
Based on census data, average growth of
1.2% over the last decade.
City of Patterson
6.1.a
Packet Pg. 33
Attachment: Patterson_Strategic_Planning_Work_Session_B_10.17.23 (Strategic Plan Update City Public Safety: Other Statistics (1/2)
City of Patterson
California National Average
(per 1,000 residents)
Patterson
(per 1,000 residents)
Category
Violent Crime 2.06 4.4 4.0
Property Crime 13.9 23.47 19
Homeless Percent
Population
Population Homeless Population
Stanislaus County 551,275 2,091 Less than 1%
Patterson 23,864 67 Less than 1%
PATTERSON CRIME DATA
HOMELESSNESS DATA
6.1.a
Packet Pg. 34
Attachment: Patterson_Strategic_Planning_Work_Session_B_10.17.23 (Strategic Plan Update City Public Safety 2/2
City of Patterson
Top 10 call types include:
Rank Count Type 1 99 Traffic Stop 2 72 Follow-Up Investigation 3 70 CA Code Violation 4 43 Security Check 5 33 415 Fight-Family 6 32 Information 7 31 Suspicious Person(s) 8 29 Illegally Parked Vehicle 9 21 Fight-Verbal 10 20 Be on the lookout
6.1.a
Packet Pg. 35
Attachment: Patterson_Strategic_Planning_Work_Session_B_10.17.23 (Strategic Plan Update City Goal Areas
City of Patterson
6.1.a
Packet Pg. 36
Attachment: Patterson_Strategic_Planning_Work_Session_B_10.17.23 (Strategic Plan Update City Goals from 2017 Strategic Plan
Community & Economic Development: Engage residents and businesses to build the City’s capacity to support and attract businesses, create jobs, and grow sustainably.
Community Livability & Quality of Life: Create a great place to live through community connections, access to recreation, and safe neighborhoods.
Infrastructure & the Built Environment: Support growth through investing in infrastructure that meets our community’s needs.
Efficient & Effective Government: Deliver high-quality programs and services sustainably and transparently.
City of Patterson
6.1.a
Packet Pg. 37
Attachment: Patterson_Strategic_Planning_Work_Session_B_10.17.23 (Strategic Plan Update City City Priorities: Top Staff Rankings
City of Patterson
Amenities1
Economy2
Public Safety3
Collaboration & Communication4
Community Growth5
Community Engagement6
Financial Stability7
Infrastructure8
Employee Recruitment & Retention9
Downtown Revitalization 10
Emergency Preparedness 11
Traffic Infrastructure 12
Improving or Expanding City Services 13
Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion 14
Housing & Homelessness 15
Water Infrastructure 16
Recreation 17
Partnerships 18
Environmental Impact 19
Technology 20
6.1.a
Packet Pg. 38
Attachment: Patterson_Strategic_Planning_Work_Session_B_10.17.23 (Strategic Plan Update City Potential Strategic Priorities
City of Patterson
Amenities To enhance and expand the range of commercial and recreational amenities available to residents and visitors.
Promote a diverse and resilient economy that encourages sustainable growth, draws new businesses and Economy industries, and offers quality employment opportunities for the residents of Patterson.
Ensure the safety and security of residents and visitors, by implementing effective and innovative public safety measures, including increased street patrols, community engagement initiatives, and emergency preparedness planning.
Public Safety & Emergency
Preparedness
To develop and maintain a comprehensive and sustainable infrastructure plan that supports the growth and development of the City of Patterson, while ensuring the efficient use of resources.
Infrastructure & Community
Growth
Uphold a strong financial foundation by implementing responsible fiscal policies, prioritizing investments in regulations, maximizing revenue streams, and ensuring transparency and accountability in all facets of the City's financial management
Financial Stability
Focus on and advance employee recruitment and retention by maintaining suitable staffing levels, fostering engagement among City employees, utilizing creative recruitment strategies, and ensuring competitiveness in the local job market
Employee Recruitment &
Retention
Transform the downtown area into a vibrant, economically thriving, and culturally rich hub that attracts residents, Downtown Revitalization visitors, and businesses, while preserving its historic charm and promoting sustainable development.
Strengthen alliances with the City's partners, including the school district and local businesses, with the goal of Partnerships promoting collaboration and expanding the services offered to the community.
6.1.a
Packet Pg. 39
Attachment: Patterson_Strategic_Planning_Work_Session_B_10.17.23 (Strategic Plan Update City City of Patterson
6.1.a
Packet Pg. 40
Attachment: Patterson_Strategic_Planning_Work_Session_B_10.17.23 (Strategic Plan Update City Next Steps
City of Patterson
Moss Adams to revise goal selection and develop
initial list of objectives and actions for review/input from Council and Management
01 02 Draft plan review with Council and Management
03 Community input on draft plan
6.1.a
Packet Pg. 41
Attachment: Patterson_Strategic_Planning_Work_Session_B_10.17.23 (Strategic Plan Update City
THANK YOU
City of Patterson
6.1.a
Packet Pg. 42
Attachment: Patterson_Strategic_Planning_Work_Session_B_10.17.23 (Strategic Plan Update City The material appearing in this presentation is for informational purposes only and should not be construed as advice of any kind, including, without limitation, legal, accounting, or investment advice. This information is not intended to create, and receipt does not constitute, a legal relationship, including, but not limited to, an accountant-client relationship. Although this information may have been prepared by professionals, it should not be used as a substitute for professional services. If legal, accounting, investment, or other professional advice is required, the services of a professional should be sought.
Assurance, tax, and consulting offered through Moss Adams LLP. Investment advisory offered through Moss Adams Wealth Advisors LLC. ©2023 Moss Adams LLP
City of Patterson
6.1.a
Packet Pg. 43
Attachment: Patterson_Strategic_Planning_Work_Session_B_10.17.23 (Strategic Plan Update City City Council Agenda Report
TO: Mayor Clauzel and Members of the City Council
FROM: Ken Irwin, City Manager
BY: Bryan Stice, Community Development Director
MEETING DATE: October 17, 2023
ITEM NO: 7.1
SUBJECT: (Motion to Continue the Public Hearing to November 7, 2023 Regular Council Meeting) Approve Resolution No. 2023-50, approving the Regional Transportation Impact Fee Report and adopting updated development impact fees related to transportation, effective October 17, 2023. Per Ordinance No. 608 (M.C. Section 3.64) related to the approval of transportation development impact fees, motion to approve Resolution No. 2023-50 approving the Regional Transportation Impact Fee Report and adopting updated development impact fees related to transportation, effective October 17, 2023.
RECOMMENDATION
(Motion to Continue the Public Hearing to November 7, 2023 Regular Council Meeting) Motion to Approve Resolution No. 2023-50, approving the Regional Transportation Impact Fee Report and adopting updated development impact fees related to transportation, effective October 17, 2023. Per Ordinance No. 608 (M.C. Section 3.64) related to the approval of transportation development impact fees, motion to approve Resolution No. 2023-50 approving the Regional Transportation Impact Fee Report and adopting updated development impact fees related to transportation, effective October 17, 2023.
BACKGROUND
The City of Patterson has adopted development impact fees in accordance with relevant provisions of Government Code §66000 et seq, to address the need for municipal facilities attributed to new development. Under State law, an impact fee must be reasonably related to the cost of the service provided by the local agency. These fees are only charged to and collected from new development within the city limits at the time of building permit issuance.
7.1 Packet Pg. 44
ANALYSIS
The City’s traffic engineer, Advanced Mobility Group have completed work on a Regional Transportation Impact Fee (TIF). The TIF considers roadway improvements identified in the 2010 General Plan and the Transportation Infrastructure Master Plan that are necessary to accommodate future expansion of the city. The TIF estimated funds necessary to accommodate and mitigate the impacts of future development. It should be noted that the TIF’s focus is on major intersections and roadways that serve a more regional need. Intersections and roadways that primarily serve local needs would be paid for directly by a developer or through other financial measures. As a development impact fee, the TIF would only pay for the fair share impact of future development. Existing deficiencies would be required to be paid for through other methods.
Proposed Maximum Allowable Transportation Impact Fee
Residential Units Total TIF per Unit
Single Family $7,532
Medium Density $4,261
High Density $3,633
Non-Residential Total TIF per 1,000 square feet
Retail $10,421
Non-Residential Mixed Use $8,460
Office $7,861
Limited Industrial $5,502
General Industrial/Warehouse $3,581
FISCAL IMPACT
Costs associated with the impact fee study were budgeted in Transportation funds. The revenues generated by the updated fees shall be placed in impact fee funds. All impact fees are collected at the time a building permit is issued; therefore, the fiscal impact is unknown until development takes place. The approved fees would increase annually, effective January 1st of every year, by the San Francisco Bay Area’s CCI (Construction Cost Index).
7.1 Packet Pg. 45
RESOLUTION 2023-50
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF PATTERSON APPROVING THE REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION
IMPACT FEE REPORT AND ADOPTING TRANSPORTATION DEVELOPMENT
IMPACT FEES
WHEREAS, Government Code Section 66000 et seq., known as the Mitigation Fee Act (AB 1600), authorizes local agencies to collect fees to mitigate the impacts of new development for infrastructure improvements; and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Patterson has adopted ordinance No. 608 and resolutions establishing and revising Development Impact Fees required to be paid at the time a building permit is issued for new development, based on the San Francisco Bay Area’s Construction Cost Index (CCI); and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Patterson desires to encourage the construction of new development in the City of Patterson and to promote economic development; and WHEREAS, the City of Patterson Regional Transportation Impact Fee study was prepared pursuant to applicable state laws, the 2010 General Plan and General Plan EIR, and relevant master plans; and
WHEREAS, the impact fee program is not considered a project and is therefore exempt from review under CEQA Guidelines section 15378(b)(4).
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Patterson as follows:
1. The City Council of the City of Patterson hereby approves updated transportation impact fees effective after the adoption of this resolution, per State Law, Effective October 18, 2023, as described on exhibit A attached hereto and annual CCI annual increases based on the San Francisco Bay Area CCI, effective every January 1st.
2. That the City Manager, or his/her designee, is hereby authorized to execute all documents necessary to implement and secure payment.
The foregoing resolution was introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Patterson, held on the 17th day of October 2023 by , who moved its adoption, which motion was duly seconded by and the resolution adopted by the following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
EXCUSED:
7.1.a
Packet Pg. 46
Attachment: Resolution No 2023-50_Transportation Impact Fees (Approve Resolution No. 2023-50 Approving the Regional Transportation APPROVED:
____
Michael Clauzel
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 17th day of October 2023, and I further certify that said resolution is in full force and effect and has never been rescinded or modified.
DATED:
______________________________________
City Clerk of the City of Patterson
7.1.a
Packet Pg. 47
Attachment: Resolution No 2023-50_Transportation Impact Fees (Approve Resolution No. 2023-50 Approving the Regional Transportation City of Patterson
Regional Traffic
Impact Fee (TIF)
October 6, 2023
for the City of Patterson, CA
7.1.b
Packet Pg. 48
Attachment: R_100623__Patterson_TIF_Final (Approve Resolution No. 2023-50 Approving the Regional Transportation Impact Fee Report) City of Patterson Regional
Traffic Impact Fee (TIF)
Final Report
Prepared for:
City of Patterson
Prepared by:
Advanced Mobility Group
October 6, 2023
7.1.b
Packet Pg. 49
Attachment: R_100623__Patterson_TIF_Final (Approve Resolution No. 2023-50 Approving the Regional Transportation Impact Fee Report) City of Patterson Regional Traffic Impact Fee (TIF) October 6, 2023 1 Table of Contents
1.0 INTRODUCTION AND RESULTS..................................................................................................3 INTRODUCTION......................................................................................................................... 3 LEGAL CONTEXT ....................................................................................................................... 3
2.0 FUTURE LAND USE ASSUMPTION..............................................................................................6 LAND USE ASSUMPTIONS AND FORECAST .............................................................................. 6 TRAVEL DEMAND ASSUMPTIONS AND FORECASTS ................................................................ 8
3.0 TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENTS AND COSTS ..................................................................10 PROJECT SELECTION ...............................................................................................................10 PROJECT LIST............................................................................................................................10 FACILITY COST ESTIMATES .......................................................................................................10
4.0 ESTIMATED MAXIMUM FEE......................................................................................................11 OVERVIEW OF FINDINGS.........................................................................................................11 TRAVEL DEMAND MODEL AND COST ALLOCATION.............................................................13 MAXIMUM FEE CALCULATION................................................................................................15 REFERENCES .........................................................................................................................................17
7.1.b
Packet Pg. 50
Attachment: R_100623__Patterson_TIF_Final (Approve Resolution No. 2023-50 Approving the Regional Transportation Impact Fee Report) City of Patterson Regional Traffic Impact Fee (TIF) October 6, 2023 2 LIST OF TABLES
Table 1: Maximum Allowable Transportation Impact Fee.................................................... 4 Table 2: General Plan Land Use Assumptions and Forecasts............................................... 7 Table 3: Trip Generation Rate Assumptions........................................................................... 8 Table 4: Trip Generation Projections ...................................................................................... 9 Table 5: Summary of TIF Projects and Costs..........................................................................11 Table 6: TIF Travel Demand Assumptions ..............................................................................14 Table 7: TIF Cost Allocation Assumptions and Calculations................................................15 Table 8: Maximum Fee per Trip..............................................................................................15 Table 9: Maximum TIF Schedule ............................................................................................16
LIST OF APPENDICES
DETAILED TIF PROJECT LIST AND COSTS ESTIMATES .................................A.1
7.1.b
Packet Pg. 51
Attachment: R_100623__Patterson_TIF_Final (Approve Resolution No. 2023-50 Approving the Regional Transportation Impact Fee Report) City of Patterson Regional Traffic Impact Fee (TIF) October 6, 2023 3 1.0 INTRODUCTION AND RESULTS
INTRODUCTION
The Regional Traffic Impact Fee (TIF) provides the City of Patterson (City) with the necessary technical documentation to support the adoption of a new Citywide Transportation Impact Fee Program (TIF Program). Impact fees are one-time charges on new development that the City can collect to cover the cost of impact on capital facilities and infrastructure that are required to serve new growth.1 Typically such fees are collected upon issuance of a building permit.
The City adopted a 2010 General Plan update in July 2010. The General Plan identifies roadway and infrastructure mitigation measures to accommodate the projected traffic impact due to the buildout of future land use in the City. In anticipation of funding required to build those future infrastructure improvements, the City completed the Patterson Transportation Infrastructure Master Plan (TIMP) project in 2020. The goal of the TIMP is an attempt to identify Patterson’s existing and future roadway infrastructure problem areas and potential solutions that may occur through a combination of public and private infrastructure investments.
The main purpose of this TIF is to estimate funds needed to implement key transportation improvements necessary to accommodate and mitigate the impacts of future development in the City. To support the TIF program, the City prepare this Nexus Study that will provide a legal basis for requiring development impact fees consistent with Mitigation Fee Act (AB 1600/ Government Code Section 66000 et seq.).
The Fee Program described in this TIF Study is based on growth projections and transportation infrastructure requirements identified in the General Plan, TIMP and supporting documents (e.g., GP Environmental Impact Report). This TIF Study quantifies the potential allocation of the proposed transportation improvements to new growth in the City and calculates the maximum allowable transportation impact fee schedule by land use category. The City may decide to adopt fees below the maximum supportable level based on economic or policy considerations. Such fee reductions should be considered in conjunction with the availability of other sources of capital improvement funding.
LEGAL CONTEXT
This TIF Study is designed to provide the necessary technical analysis to support a schedule of transportation impact fees to be established by an Impact Fee Act Fee Ordinance and Resolution. The Mitigation Fee Act allows the City to adopt, by resolution, the Transportation Impact Fee consistent with the supporting technical analysis and findings provided in this report. Using the Resolution approach to setting the fee allows periodic adjustments of the fee amount that may be necessary over time, without having to amend the ordinance.
Traffic impact fees could be collected and used to cover the cost of constructing capital and infrastructure improvements to serve new development and growth in the City. Therefore, these impact fees must be based on a reasonable connection or nexus between new growth and development and the need for such improvement. As such traffic impact fees cannot be used to cover the operation and maintenance costs of these or any other facilities and infrastructure. Lastly, traffic impact fees cannot be collected or used to cover the cost of existing needs/ deficiencies in the City transportation capital improvement network.
In establishing, increasing, or imposing a fee as a condition for the approval of a development project, Government Code 66001(a) and (b) state that the local agency must:
1 Assumed to include any development activity (as defined in the study) that generates new traffic impacts on the City’s transportation infrastructure when completed
7.1.b
Packet Pg. 52
Attachment: R_100623__Patterson_TIF_Final (Approve Resolution No. 2023-50 Approving the Regional Transportation Impact Fee Report) City of Patterson Regional Traffic Impact Fee (TIF) October 6, 2023 4 1. Identify the purpose of the fee;
2. Identify how the fee is to be used;
3. Determine how a reasonable relationship exists between the fee use and type of development project for which the fee is being used;
4. Determine how the need for the public facility relates to the type of development project for which the fee is imposed; and
5. Show the relationship between the amount of the fee and the cost of the public facility.
These statutory requirements have been followed in establishing this TIF.
Once the TIF is adopted, this TIF Study and the accompanying technical information should be maintained and reviewed periodically to ensure Impact Fee accuracy and to ensure the adequate programming of funding sources. As necessary, any changes to costs due to development changes over time, then the TIF will need to be updated.
MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE FEE SCHEDULE
Table 1 shows the City’s maximum traffic impact fee schedule by land use consistent with nexus requirements. These traffic impact fees apply to new residential and nonresidential development and cover the transportation improvement costs required to support new development after existing deficiencies have been taken into account. The fee estimates also include a 2 percent fee program administration fee, consistent with Mitigation Fee Act program administrative costs in many other California jurisdictions.2 The fees apply to all new development, except those exempted by the Ordinance of other means, such as approved projects under the terms of a Development Agreement.3 The adoption of the recommended fee schedule would result in fee revenues of about $200.2 million in today’s dollar terms assuming full build-out of the General Plan consistent with current land use designations. An additional $182.7 million in revenues will be required from other funding sources to cover the full cost of the transportation facilities4 included in the fee calculations. That is, the TIF is estimated to generate approximately 52 percent of the revenue needed to cover the future transportation improvements and facilities costs identified to mitigate growth impacts associated with build-out of the General Plan.
Table 1: Maximum Allowable Transportation Impact Fee
2 The 2 percent administration cost is estimated to cover expenses related development of impact fee study and subsequent updates as well as the required reporting, auditing, collection and other annual administrative costs involved in overseeing the program. It is consistent with TIF programs throughout California.
3 Includes Villages of Patterson, Arambell Development and Remains of West Patterson Business Park 4 City of Patterson Transportation Infrastructure Master Plan Residential Units (du)
Total TIF
per Unit
Single Family $7,532
Medium Density $4,261
High Density $3,633
Non-residential (ksf)
Retail $10,421
Non-Residential Mixed Use $8,460
Office $7,861
Limited Industrial $5,502
General Industrial/Warehouse $3,581
7.1.b
Packet Pg. 53
Attachment: R_100623__Patterson_TIF_Final (Approve Resolution No. 2023-50 Approving the Regional Transportation Impact Fee Report) City of Patterson Regional Traffic Impact Fee (TIF) October 6, 2023 5 KEY ISSUES AND ASSUMPTIONS
The results of this analysis are based on a variety of conditions and assumptions regarding infrastructure costs, land use growth projections, and transportation demand. These assumptions are discussed later but some of the key issues are summarized below:
• Future Development and Trips. The fee calculations were based on residential and nonresidential development projections, and associated trip generation. Land use and cost information are based on the approved 2010 General Plan, recently approved projects and TIMP information. In addition, the StanCOG Travel Demand model was utilized to conduct travel demand analysis. • Capital Improvement Program. The list of transportation improvements included in the Fee Program focus on future projects identified in the approved TIMP report. • Cost Estimates. AMG has developed or updated cost estimates based on latest available Caltrans unit cost for all TIMP transportation improvement projects identified. The cost estimates were based on assumptions about the planned right-of-way, number of lanes, cross-sections and intersection control for each improvements. Assumptions were based on similar existing corridors within the City of Patterson, input from the County, consistent with the City’s roadway design standards and have been reviewed and confirmed by City staff. • Cost Allocation. Transportation analysis conducted by AMG (including Select Link Analysis) was used to determine the portion of transportation improvements costs to be included in the fee program. Only transportation improvement costs specifically required to support new development are included in the transportation impact fee calculation.
7.1.b
Packet Pg. 54
Attachment: R_100623__Patterson_TIF_Final (Approve Resolution No. 2023-50 Approving the Regional Transportation Impact Fee Report) City of Patterson Regional Traffic Impact Fee (TIF) October 6, 2023 6 2.0 FUTURE LAND USE ASSUMPTION
This chapter documents the land use and growth assumptions and forecasts used in this study. These assumptions determine the amount of future traffic generation and attraction in the City of Patterson which are key factors in determining how to allocate new transportation improvement costs between existing and various new development land uses in the future.
LAND USE ASSUMPTIONS AND FORECAST
The existing and future City of Patterson land use estimates used in the TIF are based on several sources including the 2010 General Plan (approved in July 2010), three major approved project land uses, and more recent land use updates provided by the City5. Based on discussions with City staff6, three major approved projects included are:
• West Patterson Business Park Master Plan was approved in 2003 – Originally approved for approximately 8.5 million sf light industrial, freeway commercial, R&D and residential.
Approximately 5 million sf available.
• Villages of Patterson was approved in 2007 – 3,100 dwelling units and 1.1 million sf of light industrial, office, retail and public use. Only elementary school on Hartley Avenue has been completed.
• West Patterson Business Park Expansion was approved in 2012 –11 million sf light industrial, 839 ksf business park & 198 ksf business park. 1.5M sf distribution center has been developed.
Trips to be generated by the three approved and yet to be developed projects would be considered in future traffic forecasts. However, since future potential impacts and mitigation measures have been considered and approved by Council in Development Agreements (DA), these future trips would not be considered a part of the TIF developed in this study.
The future buildout of the remaining General Plan land use includes Zacharias/Baldwin Master Plan and Non-Committed land use in the City. The TIF would be based on these two major land uses which will generate future traffic and impacts on City transportation infrastructure.
The buildout potential of Zacharias/Baldwin Master Plan consists of:
• 5,086 dwelling units, and
• 7,765,000 square feet of non-residential uses.
The buildout potential of Non-Committed land use in the City is estimated to include:
• 15,201 dwelling units, and
• 9,988 square feet of non-residential uses.
The City of Patterson land use growth projections are used in the travel demand model based on Stanislaus Council of Government (StanCOG) model to estimate future regional travel demand based on various assumptions as it relates to roadway network and trip rates by land use category in the City and the rest of Stanislaus County. The StanCOG model used is the current 2022 Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) model which has 2019 as the base year and 2046 future year.
The current and future year land use assumptions used the forecasting model are shown in Table 2. 5 Email from City staff, December 7, 2021
6 Email from City staff, August 05, 2019
7.1.b
Packet Pg. 55
Attachment: R_100623__Patterson_TIF_Final (Approve Resolution No. 2023-50 Approving the Regional Transportation Impact Fee Report) City of Patterson Regional Traffic Impact Fee (TIF) October 6, 2023 7 Table 2: General Plan Land Use Assumptions and Forecasts Major land use category assumptions based on Institute of Engineers (ITE) are summarized in Table 2 are categorized as follows:
• Single-Family Residential: This refers to detached single-family homes. Traffic impact fees for new single-family residential development are applied on a per unit basis. • Multifamily Residential (Low-Rise): This category covers apartments, townhomes, condos, duplexes and other multifamily housing and that have one or two levels. Traffic impact fees for new construction of this type of residential development are applied on a per unit basis. • Multifamily Residential (Mid-Rise): This category covers apartments, townhomes, condos, duplexes and other multifamily housing and that have three or more levels. Traffic impact fees for new construction of this type of residential development are applied on a per unit basis. • Retail: Retail development can include shopping centers, discount stores, nurseries, factory outlets, car sale lots, convenient stores, and specialty stores. Traffic impact fees for new construction of this type of development are applied on a square footage basis. • Mixed-Use: This assumed a mix of general offices, including professional and medical office and retail development that could include shopping centers and convenient stores. Traffic impact fees for new construction of this type of development are applied on a square footage basis. • Office: This category covers general offices, including professional and medical office development, government offices, and post offices. Traffic impact fees for this type of development are applied on a square footage basis.
• Limited Industrial: It is typically a free-standing facility devoted to a single use. The facility has an emphasis on activities other than manufacturing and typically has minimal office space. Typical light industrial activities include printing, material testing, and assembly of data processing 2019 Approved
Land Use
Zacharias
Master
Plan
NonCommittedFuture
Total
TIF Growth
(2019-
2046)
Residential Units (du)
Single Family 6,000 0 831 794 1,625 1,625
Medium Density 450 2,868 3,646 14,407 20,921 18,053
High Density 100 232 609 841 609
Subtotal 6,550 3,100 5,086 15,201 23,387 20,287
Non-residential (ksf)
Retail 602 1,970 350 1,292 3,612 1,642
Non-Residential Mixed Use 0 505 2,551 3,056 3,056
Office 307 0 1,763 1,763 1,763
Limited Industrial 730 6,143 6,910 1,204 14,257 8,114
Warehouse 100 6,556 6,556 0
General Industrial/Warehouse 6,000 6,122 3,178 9,300 3,178 Subtotal 7,739 20,791 7,765 9,988 38,544 17,753
Buildout 2046
7.1.b
Packet Pg. 56
Attachment: R_100623__Patterson_TIF_Final (Approve Resolution No. 2023-50 Approving the Regional Transportation Impact Fee Report) City of Patterson Regional Traffic Impact Fee (TIF) October 6, 2023 8 equipment. Traffic impact fees for this type of development are applied on a square footage basis.
• Warehouse: Primarily devoted to the storage of materials, but it may also include office and maintenance areas. Traffic impact fees for this type of development are applied on a square footage basis.
• General Industrial/Warehouse: This is a mix of land uses with general industrial and warehouse activities. Traffic impact fees for this type of development are applied on a square footage basis.
TRAVEL DEMAND ASSUMPTIONS AND FORECASTS
The model was used to estimate future regional travel demand based on various assumptions as it relates to roadway network and trip rates by land use category in the City and the rest of Stanislaus County. The trip generation used in the 2022 RTP Model was developed using total population, households, and employment projections. The land use categories and trip generation for the City of Patterson as shown in Table 2 are based on Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation7 and further refined through model trip lengths and citywide data.
Using some of the model trip length assumptions, the resulting trip demand factor are summarized in Table
3. Table 3: Trip Generation Rate Assumptions
Table 4 combines the growth estimates summarized in Table 2 and the travel demand assumptions presented in Table 3 to estimate the total growth in trips through build-out of the General Plan which included three major approved projects mentioned earlier. As shown, this approach results in an estimated growth of 24,491 PM peak hour trips per day, which represents approximately a doubling increase over existing levels.
7 ITE Trip Generation Manual 10th Edition, 2017
Type Description Total Land Use
Remaining
Primary
Trips 1
Diverted
Trips 1
Total
Excluding
Pass-by 1
Ave. Trip
Length 2
Adjustment
Factor 3 ITE Code Description Raw Rate
PM
Ave. Rate
PM 4
Trip
Demand
Factor 5
R-L SF Low Density 2,651 86% 11% 97% 14.1 0.9 Single Family Detached (210) 0.99 0.99 0.90 R-M SF Medium Density 2,754 86% 11% 97% 14.1 0.9 Multifamily (220) 0.56 0.56 0.51 R-MH SF Medium High Density 2,361 86% 11% 97% 15.3 1.0 Multifamily Midrise (221) 0.44 0.44 0.44 C/G General/Shopping Center 980,020 47% 31% 78% 12.6 0.7 Shopping Center (820) 3.61 1.91 1.25 MX Non-Residential Mixed Use 2,313,036 62% 25% 87% 14.3 0.8 Mix Office/Shopping (710/820) 2.38 1.22 1.01 C/O Office 490,490 77% 19% 96% 12.8 0.8 Office (710) 1.15 1.15 0.94 I/L Limited Industrial 3,114,557 100% 0% 100% 15.7 1.0 General Lt Ind.l (110) 0.63 0.63 0.66 I/G Warehouse 1,402,502 100% 0% 100% 15.7 1.0 Warehouse (150) 0.19 0.19 0.20 I/G General Industrial/Warehouse 1,402,504 100% 0% 100% 15.7 1.0 Mix Lt Ind./Wrhs (110,150) 0.41 0.41 0.43 Residential
Commercial
Industrial
Note:
1 - Primary trips are direct trips to destination with no midway stops; Diverted trips are linked trips that adds at least one mile to the primary trip. Pass-by trips do not add more than one mile. 2 - Average trip length for the City are derived from the StanCOG model. Mixed Use is average of Retail and Office use. 3 - The trip adjustment factor equals the percent of non-pass-by trips multiplied by the average trip length and divided by the systemwide average trip length of 14.99 mile 4 - ITE Code: ITE Trip Generation Manual 10th Edition, 2017; trips per dwelling unit or per ksf 5 - The trip demand factor is the product of the trip adjustment factor and the average PM trips.
Addtional Reference: San Diego Association of the Goverments, Brief Guide of Vehicular Traffic Generation Rates for the San Diego Regions, April 2002
7.1.b
Packet Pg. 57
Attachment: R_100623__Patterson_TIF_Final (Approve Resolution No. 2023-50 Approving the Regional Transportation Impact Fee Report) City of Patterson Regional Traffic Impact Fee (TIF) October 6, 2023 9 Table 4: Trip Generation Projections
Residential Units (du) Units Trips Units Trips
Single Family 0.90 6,000 5,420 1,625 1,468
Medium Density 0.51 450 230 18,053 9,224
High Density 0.44 100 44 609 265
Subtotal 6,550 5,693 20,287 10,958
Non-residential (ksf)
Retail 1.25 602 752 1,642 2,053
Non-Residential Mixed Use 1.01 0 0 3,056 3,100
Office 0.94 307 289 1,763 1,662
Limited Industrial 0.66 730 482 8,114 5,354
Warehouse 0.20 100 20 0 0
General Industrial/Warehouse 0.43 6,000 2,577 3,178 1,365 Subtotal 7,739 15,506 17,753 13,533
Grand Total 21,199 24,491
2046 Buildout
(TIF Only Trips) 2019 Trip
Demand
Factor 1
Note:
1 - Final PM peak hour trips (per DU or ksf).
7.1.b
Packet Pg. 58
Attachment: R_100623__Patterson_TIF_Final (Approve Resolution No. 2023-50 Approving the Regional Transportation Impact Fee Report) City of Patterson Regional Traffic Impact Fee (TIF) October 6, 2023 10 3.0 TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENTS AND COSTS
This chapter describes the major roadway improvement projects proposed for the City of Patterson as well as their cost estimates. The following chapter discusses the nexus-based cost allocations.
PROJECT SELECTION
The list of infrastructure improvement projects used in the development of traffic impact fees are derived from the Patterson Transportation Infrastructure Master Plan (TIMP) project which was completed in 2020. 8 Estimated costs for the list of infrastructure improvement projects to accommodate new growth were reviewed by City staff at that time including recent review and updates. These capital improvements projects included in the fee program were developed based on conceptual plans and have been developed in sufficient detail to generate good cost estimates.
The list of transportation projects identified in TIMP is the primary basis and did not include the following:
• The TIF program does not include any projects that are outside of the sphere of influence of the City of Patterson.
• The TIF program does not include any projects where secured and dedicated funding source have already been established to cover the full cost such as those in the Development Agreements.
PROJECT LIST
As part of the Patterson TIMP Study, the City prepared a preliminary conceptual improvement list, as shown in Table 5. The improvements included in the list cover the intersections/segments where significant impact(s) were identified. Particularly, it is assumed that significant cost could be expected at railroad crossings.
None of the projects included in the TIF addresses existing deficiencies. Rather, they are a response to new development and limited to intersections currently operating at an acceptable level of service (LOS) within City’s standards (LOS D) but are expected to deteriorate to below City’ LOS standards with proposed new developments.
FACILITY COST ESTIMATES
The cost estimates shown in Table 5 above are based on assumptions about the planned right- of-way, roadway cross-sections for each corridor. Assumptions were based on similar existing corridors within the City of Patterson and boundary roadways with the County and have been reviewed and confirmed by City staff. Detailed cost estimate sheets for each project are attached to this report as Appendix A. 8 City of Patterson Transportation Infrastructure Master Plan, Final Report, March 6, 2020
7.1.b
Packet Pg. 59
Attachment: R_100623__Patterson_TIF_Final (Approve Resolution No. 2023-50 Approving the Regional Transportation Impact Fee Report) City of Patterson Regional Traffic Impact Fee (TIF) October 6, 2023 11 4.0 ESTIMATED MAXIMUM FEE
This chapter presents calculations for the maximum allowable TIF based on the land use projections and estimated transportation improvements cost and its nexus.
OVERVIEW OF FINDINGS
As indicated in the introduction, a “nexus” between new development in City of Patterson and its impact on the transportation improvements and their associated costs must be made before assigning a certain transportation improvement costs into a transportation impact fee calculation. Several necessary steps were taken to determine the appropriate costs to include in the new TIF calculation:
• Estimate Total Costs of Transportation Improvements. The identification of the required transportation improvement projects and their associated costs updates are based on the TIMP and key projects.
• Remove existing deficiencies. This includes evaluation of whether there is an existing deficiency at any of the project locations and the level of that deficiency. • Estimate Proportionate Allocation to New Development. Determine the proportion of the transportation improvement project cost that could be assigned to new development in Patterson after removing any existing deficiencies.
• Deduct Known Funding from Total Cost. Any dedicated funding should be deducted from the transportation fee calculation.
Table 5: Summary of TIF Projects and Costs
I. Roadway Segment Length
(mi) Cost Estimate
1 Sperry Ave I-5 NB Ramps to Baldwin Rd 1.21 $14,071,888 2 Sperry Ave Ward Ave to SR 33 0.85 $15,786,143
3 Ward Ave Sperry Ave to American Eagle Way 0.80 $6,414,628 4 Ward Ave American Eagle Way to SR 33 0.91 $6,702,419
5 Ward Ave Sperry Ave to Marshall Rd 2.00 $20,374,982
6 Baldwin Rd Keystone Pacific Way to SR 33 2.65 $30,473,386 7 Rogers Rd Sperry Ave to SR 33 4.55 $52,862,858
8 Zacharias Rd Rogers Rd to SR 33 1.89 $30,666,448
9 SR 33 Rogers Rd to Walnut Ave 4.36 $54,069,576
10 SR 33 Sperry Ave to Pomelo Ave 1.40 $17,567,994
11 Walnut Ave SR 33 to Sycamore Ave 1.04 $7,814,730
12 Sycamore Ave Eucalyptus Ave to Orange Ave 2.08 $14,603,909 13 Elm Ave Eucalyptus Ave to Orange Ave 2.08 $16,026,134 II. Interchange
14 Sperry Ave/I-5 Interchange A $18,080,640
15 Zacharias Ave/I-5 Interchange B $77,400,000
Total $382,915,736
Note:
County staff input - extra funds for the UPRR coordination & permitting ($1M per intersection). And 40% increase to reflect ENR Construction Cost Index. Email from City to County staff, Thur, April 7, 2022 A - Based on I-5/Sperry Ave Interchange Improvements Project, April 20, 2017 & assumed 20% increase B - Information provided by city staff based on estimates (March 22, 2022) Assumed the Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers increased 3.2 percent from July 2022 to July 2023.
7.1.b
Packet Pg. 60
Attachment: R_100623__Patterson_TIF_Final (Approve Resolution No. 2023-50 Approving the Regional Transportation Impact Fee Report) City of Patterson Regional Traffic Impact Fee (TIF) October 6, 2023 12 The steps described above and explained in subsequent sections establish the following TIF nexus findings, consistent with the requirements of the Mitigation Fee Act.
Purpose
The fee will ensure adequate levels of transportation service as contemplated in the General Plan are maintained in Patterson.
Use of Fee
Revenue generated by the fee will be used to fund City transportation improvements, including roadway, intersection, multi-modal and traffic signal improvements. The list of eligible transportation projects and costs are summarized in Table 5 and further detailed in the Appendix A.
Established Relationship
As discussed previously, new development in the City of Patterson will increase traffic demands on the City’s transportation network. Estimated transportation fee revenue will be used to fund transportation improvements required to maintain acceptable levels of service. New development will benefit from the increased transportation capacity.
Need
Future new development projects will add traffic and create an incremental need for transportation capacity and improvements. The transportation improvements detailed in this study are considered necessary to meet the City's future transportation needs.
Proportionality
The fee levels are estimated using fair share cost allocations for new Citywide development based on the StanCOG 2022 RTP transportation model adapted for this study.
7.1.b
Packet Pg. 61
Attachment: R_100623__Patterson_TIF_Final (Approve Resolution No. 2023-50 Approving the Regional Transportation Impact Fee Report) City of Patterson Regional Traffic Impact Fee (TIF) October 6, 2023 13 TRAVEL DEMAND MODEL AND COST ALLOCATION
Travel Demand Model Assumptions and Methodology
The StanCOG countywide travel demand model with refined traffic analysis zones (TAZ) and land use estimates for the City of Patterson was developed for the study. The refinement of the travel demand model was taken to allocate TIF program costs equitably. The StanCOG model is a mathematical representation of travel demand based on the buildout of all of the cities within Stanislaus County, including Patterson. The model uses socioeconomic data, such as number of jobs and households, for different geographic areas (transportation analysis zones) to predict the expected travel between places in the future.
AMG used an adopted model which was validated for the current socioeconomic data to predict current traffic volume, which is matched with the existing counts to calibrate the model. The calibrated model was used to forecast future travel conditions based on the expected changes in the socioeconomic conditions in the future. There are 80 transportation analysis zones (TAZ) within the StanCOG model to represent the City. The 2046 socioeconomic data are generated by StanCOG based on input from all cities in the County. In order to determine appropriate nexus, AMG further refined the model to derive both average citywide and link-specific characteristics of vehicle travel demand including the following:
• Internal (trips that start and end in Patterson)
• Internal/External (trips that have one end either beginning or ending in Patterson) • Through (trips that pass completely through Patterson without stopping) Only the trips originating and ending in Patterson (i.e., Internal trips and Internal/External trips) would be responsible for the TIF fees.
The average citywide characteristics of vehicle travel demand for TIF roadways are shown in Table 6.
These methodologies would be applied to determine the percentage of the project costs that could be funded through the TIF program. Select link methodology was used on the model for allocation and applied as follows:
• Select Link - the cost allocation would be based on link-specific characteristics of vehicle travel demand for the project-related segment (I.e., all the approaching and departure roadway segments of the intersection). The traffic model was used to estimate travel demand characteristics associated with specific transportation improvements as shown in Table 6.
7.1.b
Packet Pg. 62
Attachment: R_100623__Patterson_TIF_Final (Approve Resolution No. 2023-50 Approving the Regional Transportation Impact Fee Report) City of Patterson Regional Traffic Impact Fee (TIF) October 6, 2023 14 Table 6: TIF Travel Demand Assumptions
As shown in Table 6, using the model Select Link analysis, the proportion of transportation improvement costs allocated to new development varies by facility or improvement. Generally, approximately seven percent to 10 percent of the trips using the approaching or departure roadway segments of the intersection would pass through Patterson without stopping.
TIF Cost Allocation
The TIF nexus analysis allocates costs based on (1) the amount attributable to new versus existing development, (2) the proportion of trips with at least one trip end in the City (i.e. excludes through trips), and (3) the amount covered by secured funding sources. As described in Chapter 3, none of the projects included in the TIF addresses existing deficiencies. Rather, they are a response to new development and limited to roadways currently operating at a level of service (LOS) within City’s acceptable LOS D or better standards but are expected to deteriorate to unacceptable LOS standards with proposed new developments.
It should be noted that trips from the three major approved projects (West Patterson Business Park Master Plan, Villages of Patterson and West Patterson Business Park Expansion) which has an approved Development Agreement (DA) were not included in the TIF allocation. The cost allocated to future new development (Zacharias/Baldwin Master Plan and Non-Committed land use) are based on the analysis described above and summarized in Table 6.
Table 7 illustrates the net impact of the cost allocations described above. Overall, this TIF analysis allocates approximately $200.2 million in transportation improvement cost to the TIF. The amount represents about 52 percent of the approximately $383 million in future transportation infrastructure costs considered in this analysis.
Roadway Segment I-I I-X X-I X-X Cost Allocation
Methodology
Percent TIF
Projects A
Share Allocated to
New Development
1 Sperry Ave I-5 NB Ramps to Baldwin Rd 19% 28% 37% 16% Select Link 51% 43% 2 Sperry Ave Ward Ave to SR 33 1% 49% 47% 2% Select Link 46% 45% 3 Ward Ave Sperry Ave to American Eagle Way 14% 24% 45% 16% Select Link 48% 40% 4 Ward Ave American Eagle Way to SR 33 14% 24% 45% 16% Select Link 48% 40% 5 Ward Ave Sperry Ave to Marshall Rd 11% 36% 40% 13% Select Link 43% 37% 6 Baldwin Rd Keystone Pacific Way to SR 33 1% 49% 50% 0% Select Link 29% 29% 7 Rogers Rd Sperry Ave to SR 33 5% 40% 55% 0% Select Link 86% 86% 8 Zacharias Rd Rogers Rd to SR 33 27% 32% 40% 0% Select Link 88% 87% 9 SR 33 Rogers Rd to Walnut Ave 0% 38% 44% 17% Select Link 22% 18% 10 SR 33 Sperry Ave to Pomelo Ave 0% 48% 43% 8% Select Link 36% 34% 11 Walnut Ave SR 33 to Sycamore Ave 56% 21% 22% 1% Select Link 21% 21% 12 Sycamore Ave Eucalyptus Ave to Orange Ave 4% 39% 44% 12% Select Link 56% 49% 13 Elm Ave Eucalyptus Ave to Orange Ave 0% 42% 47% 10% Select Link 68% 61% 14 Sperry Ave I-5 Interchange Ramp 0% 40% 50% 10% Select Link 72% 65% 15 Zacharias Rd New Interchange 0% 58% 41% 0% Select Link 59% 59% Note:
A - only trips by Zacharias Master Plan & Non-Committed Land Use Trip Types
7.1.b
Packet Pg. 63
Attachment: R_100623__Patterson_TIF_Final (Approve Resolution No. 2023-50 Approving the Regional Transportation Impact Fee Report) City of Patterson Regional Traffic Impact Fee (TIF) October 6, 2023 15 Table 7: TIF Cost Allocation Assumptions and Calculations
MAXIMUM FEE CALCULATION
Based on the estimated TIF transportation improvement cost as shown in Table 7, the maximum supportable transportation impact fee per trip is shown in Table 8. The maximum fee per trip is calculated by dividing the estimated total TIF fee program cost of $200.2 million by the total number of trips generated by new TIF related development, or 24,491 (see Table 4). This results in an average TIF per peak hour trip of $8,175.
Table 8: Maximum Fee per Trip
Finally, Table 9 calculates the maximum TIF for several land use category shown in the General Plan. As typically applied in most agencies, the maximum allowable TIF by land use includes a 2 percent charge to cover the administrative cost of administering the TIF program. The maximum supportable fees are the fee levels that would generate sufficient fee revenues to cover the full TIF cost allocation of $200.2 million. As discussed below, decisions to charge fees below the maximum fee will result in funding gaps that would need to be covered by other funding sources.
Roadway Segment Total Project Cost
Share Allocated
to TIF
Development
Cost Allocated to
TIF
1 Sperry Ave I-5 NB Ramps to Baldwin Rd $14,071,888 43% $6,031,282 2 Sperry Ave Ward Ave to SR 33 $15,786,143 45% $7,148,765 3 Ward Ave Sperry Ave to American Eagle Way $6,414,628 40% $2,589,819 4 Ward Ave American Eagle Way to SR 33 $6,702,419 40% $2,706,011 5 Ward Ave Sperry Ave to Marshall Rd $20,374,982 37% $7,609,881 6 Baldwin Rd Keystone Pacific Way to SR 33 $30,473,386 29% $8,939,686 7 Rogers Rd Sperry Ave to SR 33 $52,862,858 86% $45,484,575 8 Zacharias Rd Rogers Rd to SR 33 $30,666,448 87% $26,813,568 9 SR 33 Rogers Rd to Walnut Ave $54,069,576 18% $9,893,075 10 SR 33 Sperry Ave to Pomelo Ave $17,567,994 34% $5,885,811 11 Walnut Ave SR 33 to Sycamore Ave $7,814,730 21% $1,637,348 12 Sycamore Ave Eucalyptus Ave to Orange Ave $14,603,909 49% $7,160,725 13 Elm Ave Eucalyptus Ave to Orange Ave $16,026,134 61% $9,785,011 Sperry Ave/I-5 Interchange A $18,080,640 72% $13,035,887 Zacharias Ave/I-5 Interchange B $77,400,000 59% $45,501,109 Total - Citywide TIMP Transportation Projects $382,915,736 $200,222,553 Interchange
Note:
A – Based on I-5/Sperry Ave Interchange Improvements Project, April 20, 2017 & assumed 20% increase B - Information provided by city staff based on estimates (March 22, 2022) Category Formula Amount
TIF Share of Transportation A $200,222,553
Total Growth PM Trips B 24,491
Cost per Trip (A/B) $8,175
7.1.b
Packet Pg. 64
Attachment: R_100623__Patterson_TIF_Final (Approve Resolution No. 2023-50 Approving the Regional Transportation Impact Fee Report) City of Patterson Regional Traffic Impact Fee (TIF) October 6, 2023 16 Table 9: Maximum TIF Schedule
Typical Approval Process
The TIF and corresponding fee schedule will need to be adopted by City Resolution and Ordinance.
When adopted, the City TIF Ordinance will allow the City Council to collect a fee schedule consistent with supporting technical analysis and findings provided in this Report. The Ordinance approach to setting the TIF fee allows for periodic adjustments of the fee amount that may be necessary over time, without amending the enabling Ordinance.
Fee Amount and Collection
The actual fee levels by land use will need to be approved by the City Council but cannot exceed the maximum allowable fees calculated herein (AB 1600).
While the maximum fee amount has been determined by this study, the City may elect to charge less for a variety of valid reasons. The study recommended an amount depending on the type of land use, as described above.
In the course of implementation, it is likely certain projects may not fit neatly into the land use categories defined in the fee schedule (see Table 9). When this happens, the City Manager or an authorized representative will need to make a determination as to the applicable fees. The TIF Ordinance can provide more specific guidelines for resolving such uncertainty. For example, it may include the option for applicants to furnish information or analysis that will justify their project’s inclusion in a particular land use category and/or a lower fee based on verifiable trip generation rates or other factors.
Residential Units (du)
Cost Per
Trip
Trip Demand
Factor 1 Raw Fee
Admin
Charge 2 TIF Unit Cost
Single Family $8,175 0.90 $7,385 2% $7,532
Medium Density $8,175 0.51 $4,177 2% $4,261
High Density $8,175 0.44 $3,561 2% $3,633
Non-residential (ksf)
Retail $8,175 1.25 $10,217 2% $10,421
Non-Residential Mixed Use $8,175 1.01 $8,294 2% $8,460
Office $8,175 0.94 $7,707 2% $7,861
Limited Industrial $8,175 0.66 $5,394 2% $5,502
Warehouse $8,175 0.20
General Industrial/Warehouse $8,175 0.43 $3,511 2% $3,581 Note:
1 - Final PM peak hour trips (per DU or ksf).
2 - Typical administrative charge of 2.0 percent of "raw" TIF (e.g. revenue collection, mandated public reporting, and Nexus Analysis).
7.1.b
Packet Pg. 65
Attachment: R_100623__Patterson_TIF_Final (Approve Resolution No. 2023-50 Approving the Regional Transportation Impact Fee Report) City of Patterson Regional Traffic Impact Fee (TIF) October 6, 2023 17 REFERENCES
1. 2010 Patterson General Plan Environmental Impact Report, July 2010
2. City of Patterson Transportation Infrastructure Master Plan, March 6, 2020
3. Trip Generation, 10th Edition, published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Advanced Mobility Group
Christopher Thnay, PE, AICP Principal/Project Manager
Joy Bhattacharya, PE, PTOE QA/QC
Shruti Shrivastava Project Engineer
Lawrence Liao Elite Transportation Group
Persons Consulted
Ken Irwin, PE City Manager, City of Patterson
Joel Andrews City Planner, City of Patterson
7.1.b
Packet Pg. 66
Attachment: R_100623__Patterson_TIF_Final (Approve Resolution No. 2023-50 Approving the Regional Transportation Impact Fee Report)
CITY OF PATTERSON REGIONAL TRAFFIC IMPACT FEE (TIF)
Appendix A Detailed TIF Project List and Costs Estimates October 6, 2023
A.1
DETAILED TIF PROJECT LIST AND COSTS ESTIMATES
7.1.b
Packet Pg. 67
Attachment: R_100623__Patterson_TIF_Final (Approve Resolution No. 2023-50 Approving the Regional Transportation Impact Fee Report) City of Patterson
Patterson TIF Study
Transportation Infrastructure Master Plan (TIMP)
Buildout Roadway Improvement Cost Estimates
10/4/2023
Table 5: Summary of TIF Projects and Costs CPI 2023 increase = 3.2% I. Roadway Segment Length
(mi) Cost Estimate
1Sperry Ave I-5 NB Ramps to Baldwin Rd 1.21 $14,071,888 2Sperry Ave Ward Ave to SR 33 0.85 $15,786,143
3 Ward Ave Sperry Ave to American Eagle Way 0.80 $6,414,628 4 Ward Ave American Eagle Way to SR 33 0.91 $6,702,419
5 Ward Ave Sperry Ave to Marshall Rd 2.00 $20,374,982
6 Baldwin Rd Keystone Pacific Way to SR 33 2.65 $30,473,386 7 Rogers Rd Sperry Ave to SR 33 4.55 $52,862,858
8 Zacharias Rd Rogers Rd to SR 33 1.89 $30,666,448
9 SR 33 Rogers Rd to Walnut Ave 4.36 $54,069,576
10 SR 33 Sperry Ave to Pomelo Ave 1.40 $17,567,994
11 Walnut Ave SR 33 to Sycamore Ave 1.04 $7,814,730
12 Sycamore Ave Eucalyptus Ave to Orange Ave 2.08 $14,603,909 13 Elm Ave Eucalyptus Ave to Orange Ave 2.08 $16,026,134 II. Interchange
14 Sperry Ave/I-5 Interchange A $18,080,640
15 Zacharias Ave/I-5 Interchange B $77,400,000
Total $382,915,736
1 1
Note:
County staff input - extra funds for the UPRR coordination & permitting ($1M per intersection). And 40% increase to reflect ENR Construction Cost Index. Email from City to County staff, Thur, April 7, 2022 A - Based on I-5/Sperry Ave Interchange Improvements Project, April 20, 2017 & assumed 20% increase B - Information provided by city staff based on estimates (March 22, 2022) Assumed the Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers increased 3.2 percent from July 2022 to July 2023. 10/4/2023
Z:\P2108275 - Patterson Regional TIF (Patterson)\2021 TIF Cost Estimates (T5)\2021 unit cost update (+Railroad crossing increase)\Master Plan Roadway Segment Cost - 2023 TIF Table 5 100423 Final
7.1.b
Packet Pg. 68
Attachment: R_100623__Patterson_TIF_Final (Approve Resolution No. 2023-50 Approving the Regional Transportation Impact Fee Report) City of Patterson
Master Plan Conceptual - Buildout Roadway Improvements Cost Estimates 10/4/2023
Segment # 1
Sperry Avenue: I-5 Northbound Ramps to Baldwin Road
TIMP Buildout Conceptual Budget Estimate
*Unit Prices Are Based On Caltrans Contract Cost Data
Roadway widening based on an average of total materials and labor Item Unit Quantity Unit Price Total
1 Traffic Control LS 1 $110,000 $110,000
2 Install Sign EA $400 $0
3 Install Striping LF 39,000 $4 $156,000
4 Install Pavement Marking EA $0
5 Concrete curb, gutter, and sidewalk SF 128,000 $20 $2,560,000 6 Concrete curb and gutter LF $0
7 Landscaping LS $0
8 Roadway construction, 12 feet wide lane LF 13,000 $200 $2,600,000 9 Paved shoulder SF 128,000 $12 $1,536,000
10 Manhole EA 12 $9,500 $114,000
11 Storm Drain Inlet EA 50 $3,000 $150,000
12 Storm drain laterals, 12 inch RCP LF 2,500 $200 $500,000 13 Traffic signal mast arm and pole EA $40,000 $0
14 Install Traffic Signal LS $500,000 $0
15 Structures LS 1 $2,000,000 $2,000,000
16 Land Acqusition Costs SF 412,000 $2.87 $1,182,440
Legend: Subtotal $10,908,440
LS = Lump Sum Contingency @ 25% $2,727,110
EA = Each Construction Subtotal $13,635,550
LF = Linear Foot
SF = Square Foot
Project Total $13,635,550
2022-2023 CPI increase 3.2% $14,071,888
Note:
County staff input ‐ extra funds for the UPRR coordination & permitting ($1M per intersection).
And 40% increase to reflect ENR Construction Cost Index. Email from City to County staff, Thur, 10/4/2023
Z:\P2108275 - Patterson Regional TIF (Patterson)\2021 TIF Cost Estimates (T5)\2021 unit cost update (+Railroad crossing increase)\Master Plan Roadway Segment Cost - 2023 TIF Table 5 100423 Final
7.1.b
Packet Pg. 69
Attachment: R_100623__Patterson_TIF_Final (Approve Resolution No. 2023-50 Approving the Regional Transportation Impact Fee Report) City of Patterson
Master Plan Conceptual - Buildout Roadway Improvements Cost Estimates 10/4/2023
Segment # 2
Sperry Avenue: Ward to SR 33
TIMP Buildout Conceptual Budget Estimate
*Unit Prices Are Based On Caltrans Contract Cost Data
Roadway widening based on an average of total materials and labor Item Unit Quantity Unit Price Total
1 Traffic Control LS 1 $70,000 $70,000
2 Install Sign EA $400 $0
3 Install Striping LF 27,000 $4 $108,000
4 Install Pavement Marking EA $0
5 Concrete curb, gutter, and sidewalk SF 90,000 $20 $1,800,000 6 Concrete curb and gutter LF $0
7 Landscaping LS $0
8 Roadway construction, 12 feet wide lane LF 13,000 $200 $2,600,000 9 Paved shoulder SF 90,000 $12 $1,080,000
10 Manhole EA 10 $9,500 $95,000
11 Storm Drain Inlet EA 40 $3,000 $120,000
12 Storm drain laterals, 12 inch RCP LF 2,000 $200 $400,000 13 Railroad crossing improvements LS 1 $2,000,000 $2,000,000 14 Install Traffic Signal LS 2 $500,000 $1,000,000
15 Railroad crossing improvements LS 1 $2,000,000 $2,000,000 16 Land Acqusition Costs SF 336,000 $2.87 $964,320
Legend: Subtotal $12,237,320
LS = Lump Sum Contingency @ 25% $3,059,330
EA = Each Construction Subtotal $15,296,650
LF = Linear Foot
SF = Square Foot
Project Total $15,296,650
2022-2023 CPI increase 3.2% $15,786,143
Note:
County staff input ‐ extra funds for the UPRR coordination & permitting ($1M per intersection).
And 40% increase to reflect ENR Construction Cost Index. Email from City to County staff, Thur, 10/4/2023
Z:\P2108275 - Patterson Regional TIF (Patterson)\2021 TIF Cost Estimates (T5)\2021 unit cost update (+Railroad crossing increase)\Master Plan Roadway Segment Cost - 2023 TIF Table 5 100423 Final
7.1.b
Packet Pg. 70
Attachment: R_100623__Patterson_TIF_Final (Approve Resolution No. 2023-50 Approving the Regional Transportation Impact Fee Report) City of Patterson
Master Plan Conceptual - Buildout Roadway Improvements Cost Estimates 10/4/2023
Segment # 3
Ward Avenue: Sperry Avenue to American Eagle Way
TIMP Buildout Conceptual Budget Estimate
*Unit Prices Are Based On Caltrans Contract Cost Data
Roadway widening based on an average of total materials and labor Item Unit Quantity Unit Price Total
1 Traffic Control LS 1 $57,000 $57,000
2 Install Sign EA $400 $0
3 Install Striping LF 26,000 $4 $104,000
4 Install Pavement Marking EA $0
5 Concrete curb, gutter, and sidewalk SF 42,000 $20 $840,000 6 Concrete curb and gutter LF $0
7 Landscaping LS $0
8 Roadway construction, 12 feet wide lane LF 9,000 $200 $1,800,000 9 Paved shoulder SF 84,000 $12 $1,008,000
10 Manhole EA 8 $9,500 $76,000
11 Storm Drain Inlet EA 32 $3,000 $96,000
12 Storm drain laterals, 12 inch RCP LF 1,600 $200 $320,000 13 Traffic signal mast arm and pole EA $40,000 $0
14 Modify Traffic Signal LS $100,000 $0
15 $0
16 Land Acqusition Costs SF 234,000 $2.87 $671,580
Legend: Subtotal $4,972,580
LS = Lump Sum Contingency @ 25% $1,243,145
EA = Each Construction Subtotal $6,215,725
LF = Linear Foot
SF = Square Foot
Project Total $6,215,725
2022-2023 CPI increase 3.2% $6,414,628
Note:
County staff input ‐ extra funds for the UPRR coordination & permitting ($1M per intersection).
And 40% increase to reflect ENR Construction Cost Index. Email from City to County staff, Thur, 10/4/2023
Z:\P2108275 - Patterson Regional TIF (Patterson)\2021 TIF Cost Estimates (T5)\2021 unit cost update (+Railroad crossing increase)\Master Plan Roadway Segment Cost - 2023 TIF Table 5 100423 Final
7.1.b
Packet Pg. 71
Attachment: R_100623__Patterson_TIF_Final (Approve Resolution No. 2023-50 Approving the Regional Transportation Impact Fee Report) City of Patterson
Master Plan Conceptual - Buildout Roadway Improvements Cost Estimates 10/4/2023
Segment # 4
Ward Avenue: American Eagle Way to SR 33
TIMP Buildout Conceptual Budget Estimate
*Unit Prices Are Based On Caltrans Contract Cost Data
Roadway widening based on an average of total materials and labor Item Unit Quantity Unit Price Total
1 Traffic Control LS 1 $64,000 $64,000
2 Install Sign EA $400 $0
3 Install Striping LF 27,200 $4 $108,800
4 Install Pavement Marking EA $0
5 Concrete curb, gutter, and sidewalk SF 45,000 $20 $900,000 6 Concrete curb and gutter LF $0
7 Landscaping LS $0
8 Roadway construction, 12 feet wide lane LF 9,600 $200 $1,920,000 9 Paved shoulder SF 80,000 $12 $960,000
10 Manhole EA 9 $9,500 $85,500
11 Storm Drain Inlet EA 36 $3,000 $108,000
12 Storm drain laterals, 12 inch RCP LF 1,800 $200 $360,000 13 Traffic signal mast arm and pole EA $40,000 $0
14 Modify Traffic Signal LS $100,000 $0
15 $0
16 Land Acqusition Costs SF 240,200 $2.87 $689,374
Legend: Subtotal $5,195,674
LS = Lump Sum Contingency @ 25% $1,298,919
EA = Each Construction Subtotal $6,494,593
LF = Linear Foot
SF = Square Foot
Project Total $6,494,593
2022-2023 CPI increase 3.2% $6,702,419
Note:
County staff input ‐ extra funds for the UPRR coordination & permitting ($1M per intersection).
And 40% increase to reflect ENR Construction Cost Index. Email from City to County staff, Thur, 10/4/2023
Z:\P2108275 - Patterson Regional TIF (Patterson)\2021 TIF Cost Estimates (T5)\2021 unit cost update (+Railroad crossing increase)\Master Plan Roadway Segment Cost - 2023 TIF Table 5 100423 Final
7.1.b
Packet Pg. 72
Attachment: R_100623__Patterson_TIF_Final (Approve Resolution No. 2023-50 Approving the Regional Transportation Impact Fee Report) City of Patterson
Master Plan Conceptual - Buildout Roadway Improvements Cost Estimates 10/4/2023
Segment # 5 (4 lanes)
Ward Avenue: Sperry Avenue to Marshall Road
TIMP Buildout Conceptual Budget Estimate
*Unit Prices Are Based On Caltrans Contract Cost Data
Roadway widening based on an average of total materials and labor Item Unit Quantity Unit Price Total
1 Traffic Control LS 1 $150,000 $150,000
2 Install Sign EA $400 $0
3 Install Striping LF 64,000 $4 $256,000
4 Install Pavement Marking EA $0
5 Concrete curb, gutter, and sidewalk SF 212,000 $20 $4,240,000 6 Concrete curb and gutter LF $0
7 Landscaping LS $0
8 Roadway construction, 12 feet wide lane LF 22,000 $200 $4,400,000 9 Paved shoulder SF 212,000 $12 $2,544,000
10 Manhole EA 20 $9,500 $190,000
11 Storm Drain Inlet EA 80 $3,000 $240,000
12 Storm drain laterals, 12 inch RCP LF 4,000 $200 $800,000 13 Traffic signal mast arm and pole EA $40,000 $0
14 Modify Traffic Signal LS $100,000 $0
15 Structure LS 1 $1,000,000 $1,000,000
16 Land Acqusition Costs SF 688,000 $2.87 $1,974,560
Legend: Subtotal $15,794,560
LS = Lump Sum Contingency @ 25% $3,948,640
EA = Each Construction Subtotal $19,743,200
LF = Linear Foot
SF = Square Foot
Project Total $19,743,200
2022-2023 CPI increase 3.2% $20,374,982
Note:
County staff input ‐ extra funds for the UPRR coordination & permitting ($1M per intersection).
And 40% increase to reflect ENR Construction Cost Index. Email from City to County staff, Thur, 10/4/2023
Z:\P2108275 - Patterson Regional TIF (Patterson)\2021 TIF Cost Estimates (T5)\2021 unit cost update (+Railroad crossing increase)\Master Plan Roadway Segment Cost - 2023 TIF Table 5 100423 Final
7.1.b
Packet Pg. 73
Attachment: R_100623__Patterson_TIF_Final (Approve Resolution No. 2023-50 Approving the Regional Transportation Impact Fee Report) City of Patterson
Master Plan Conceptual - Buildout Roadway Improvements Cost Estimates 10/4/2023
Segment # 6
Baldwin Road: Keystone Pacific Way to SR 33
TIMP Buildout Conceptual Budget Estimate
*Unit Prices Are Based On Caltrans Contract Cost Data
Roadway widening based on an average of total materials and labor Item Unit Quantity Unit Price Total
1 Traffic Control LS 1 $180,000 $180,000
2 Install Sign EA $400 $0
3 Install Striping LF 84,000 $4 $336,000
4 Install Pavement Marking EA $0
5 Concrete curb, gutter, and sidewalk SF 280,000 $20 $5,600,000 6 Concrete curb and gutter LF $0
7 Landscaping LS $0
8 Roadway construction, 12 feet wide lane LF 32,000 $200 $6,400,000 9 Paved shoulder SF 280,000 $12 $3,360,000
10 Manhole EA 25 $9,500 $237,500
11 Storm Drain Inlet EA 100 $3,000 $300,000
12 Storm drain laterals, 12 inch RCP LF 5,000 $200 $1,000,000 13 Railroad crossing improvements LS 1 $2,000,000 $2,000,000 14 Install Traffic Signal LS 2 $500,000 $1,000,000
15 Structure LS 1 $500,000 $500,000
16 Land Acqusition Costs SF 944,000 $2.87 $2,709,280
Legend: Subtotal $23,622,780
LS = Lump Sum Contingency @ 25% $5,905,695
EA = Each Construction Subtotal $29,528,475
LF = Linear Foot
SF = Square Foot
Project Total $29,528,475
2022-2023 CPI increase 3.2% $30,473,386
Note:
County staff input ‐ extra funds for the UPRR coordination & permitting ($1M per intersection).
And 40% increase to reflect ENR Construction Cost Index. Email from City to County staff, Thur, 10/4/2023
Z:\P2108275 - Patterson Regional TIF (Patterson)\2021 TIF Cost Estimates (T5)\2021 unit cost update (+Railroad crossing increase)\Master Plan Roadway Segment Cost - 2023 TIF Table 5 100423 Final
7.1.b
Packet Pg. 74
Attachment: R_100623__Patterson_TIF_Final (Approve Resolution No. 2023-50 Approving the Regional Transportation Impact Fee Report) City of Patterson
Master Plan Conceptual - Buildout Roadway Improvements Cost Estimates 10/4/2023
Segment # 7
Rogers Road: Sperry Avenue to SR 33
TIMP Buildout Conceptual Budget Estimate
*Unit Prices Are Based On Caltrans Contract Cost Data
Roadway widening based on an average of total materials and labor Item Unit Quantity Unit Price Total
1 Traffic Control LS 1 $350,000 $350,000
2 Install Sign EA $400 $0
3 Install Striping LF 144,000 $4 $576,000
4 Install Pavement Marking EA $0
5 Concrete curb, gutter, and sidewalk SF 480,000 $20 $9,600,000 6 Concrete curb and gutter LF $0
7 Landscaping LS $0
8 Roadway construction, 12 feet wide lane LF 54,000 $200 $10,800,000 9 Paved shoulder SF 480,000 $12 $5,760,000
10 Manhole EA 44 $9,500 $418,000
11 Storm Drain Inlet EA 200 $3,000 $600,000
12 Storm drain laterals, 12 inch RCP LF 8,800 $200 $1,760,000 13 Railroad crossing improvements LS 1 $2,000,000 $2,000,000 14 Install Traffic Signal LS 3 $500,000 $1,500,000
15 Structure LS 1 $3,000,000 $3,000,000
16 Land Acqusition Costs SF 1,608,000 $2.87 $4,614,960
Legend: Subtotal $40,978,960
LS = Lump Sum Contingency @ 25% $10,244,740
EA = Each Construction Subtotal $51,223,700
LF = Linear Foot
SF = Square Foot
Project Total $51,223,700
2022-2023 CPI increase 3.2% $52,862,858
Note:
County staff input ‐ extra funds for the UPRR coordination & permitting ($1M per intersection).
And 40% increase to reflect ENR Construction Cost Index. Email from City to County staff, Thur, 10/4/2023
Z:\P2108275 - Patterson Regional TIF (Patterson)\2021 TIF Cost Estimates (T5)\2021 unit cost update (+Railroad crossing increase)\Master Plan Roadway Segment Cost - 2023 TIF Table 5 100423 Final
7.1.b
Packet Pg. 75
Attachment: R_100623__Patterson_TIF_Final (Approve Resolution No. 2023-50 Approving the Regional Transportation Impact Fee Report) City of Patterson
Master Plan Conceptual - Buildout Roadway Improvements Cost Estimates 10/4/2023
Segment # 8
Zacharias Road: Rogers Road to SR 33
TIMP Buildout Conceptual Budget Estimate
*Unit Prices Are Based On Caltrans Contract Cost Data
Roadway widening based on an average of total materials and labor Item Unit Quantity Unit Price Total
1 Traffic Control LS 1 $220,000 $220,000
2 Install Sign EA $400 $0
3 Install Striping LF 60,000 $4 $240,000
4 Install Pavement Marking EA $0
5 Concrete curb, gutter, and sidewalk SF 300,000 $20 $6,000,000 6 Concrete curb and gutter LF $0
7 Landscaping LS $0
8 Roadway construction, 12 feet wide lane LF 26,000 $200 $5,200,000 9 Paved shoulder SF 300,000 $12 $3,600,000
10 Manhole EA 30 $9,500 $285,000
11 Storm Drain Inlet EA 120 $3,000 $360,000
12 Storm drain laterals, 12 inch RCP LF 6,000 $200 $1,200,000 13 Railroad crossing improvements LS 1 $2,000,000 $2,000,000 14 Install Traffic Signal LS 3 $500,000 $1,500,000
15 Structure LS 1 $550,000 $550,000
16 Land Acqusition Costs SF 912,000 $2.87 $2,617,440
Legend: Subtotal $23,772,440
LS = Lump Sum Contingency @ 25% $5,943,110
EA = Each Construction Subtotal $29,715,550
LF = Linear Foot
SF = Square Foot
Project Total $29,715,550
2022-2023 CPI increase 3.2% $30,666,448
Note:
County staff input ‐ extra funds for the UPRR coordination & permitting ($1M per intersection).
And 40% increase to reflect ENR Construction Cost Index. Email from City to County staff, Thur, 10/4/2023
Z:\P2108275 - Patterson Regional TIF (Patterson)\2021 TIF Cost Estimates (T5)\2021 unit cost update (+Railroad crossing increase)\Master Plan Roadway Segment Cost - 2023 TIF Table 5 100423 Final
7.1.b
Packet Pg. 76
Attachment: R_100623__Patterson_TIF_Final (Approve Resolution No. 2023-50 Approving the Regional Transportation Impact Fee Report) City of Patterson
Master Plan Conceptual - Buildout Roadway Improvements Cost Estimates 10/4/2023
Segment # 9
Highway 33: Rogers Road to Walnut Avenue
TIMP Buildout Conceptual Budget Estimate
*Unit Prices Are Based On Caltrans Contract Cost Data
Roadway widening based on an average of total materials and labor Item Unit Quantity Unit Price Total
1 Traffic Control LS 1 $450,000 $450,000
2 Install Sign EA $400 $0
3 Install Striping LF 138,000 $4 $552,000
4 Install Pavement Marking EA $0
5 Concrete curb, gutter, and sidewalk SF 460,000 $20 $9,200,000 6 Concrete curb and gutter LF $0
7 Landscaping LS $0
8 Roadway construction, 12 feet wide lane LF 52,000 $200 $10,400,000 9 Paved shoulder SF 460,000 $12 $5,520,000
10 Manhole EA 56 $9,500 $532,000
11 Storm Drain Inlet EA 240 $3,000 $720,000
12 Storm drain laterals, 12 inch RCP LF 12,000 $200 $2,400,000 13 Railroad crossing improvements LS 3 $2,000,000 $6,000,000 14 Install Traffic Signal LS 3 $500,000 $1,500,000
15 Structure LS 1 $2,000,000 $2,000,000
16 Land Acqusition Costs SF 920,000 $2.87 $2,640,400
Legend: Subtotal $41,914,400
LS = Lump Sum Contingency @ 25% $10,478,600
EA = Each Construction Subtotal $52,393,000
LF = Linear Foot
SF = Square Foot
Project Total $52,393,000
2022-2023 CPI increase 3.2% $54,069,576
Note:
County staff input ‐ extra funds for the UPRR coordination & permitting ($1M per intersection).
And 40% increase to reflect ENR Construction Cost Index. Email from City to County staff, Thur, 10/4/2023
Z:\P2108275 - Patterson Regional TIF (Patterson)\2021 TIF Cost Estimates (T5)\2021 unit cost update (+Railroad crossing increase)\Master Plan Roadway Segment Cost - 2023 TIF Table 5 100423 Final
7.1.b
Packet Pg. 77
Attachment: R_100623__Patterson_TIF_Final (Approve Resolution No. 2023-50 Approving the Regional Transportation Impact Fee Report) City of Patterson
Master Plan Conceptual - Buildout Roadway Improvements Cost Estimates 10/4/2023
Segment # 10
Highway 33: Sperry Avenue to Pomelo Avenue
TIMP Buildout Conceptual Budget Estimate
*Unit Prices Are Based On Caltrans Contract Cost Data
Roadway widening based on an average of total materials and labor Item Unit Quantity Unit Price Total
1 Traffic Control LS 1 $140,000 $140,000
2 Install Sign EA $400 $0
3 Install Striping LF 44,400 $4 $177,600
4 Install Pavement Marking EA $0
5 Concrete curb, gutter, and sidewalk SF 148,000 $20 $2,960,000 6 Concrete curb and gutter LF $0
7 Landscaping LS $0
8 Roadway construction, 12 feet wide lane LF 17,000 $200 $3,400,000 9 Paved shoulder SF 148,000 $12 $1,776,000
10 Manhole EA 20 $9,500 $190,000
11 Storm Drain Inlet EA 80 $3,000 $240,000
12 Storm drain laterals, 12 inch RCP LF 4,000 $200 $800,000 13 Traffic signal mast arm and pole EA $40,000 $0
14 Install Traffic Signal LS 1 $500,000 $500,000
15 Railroad crossing improvements LS 1 $2,000,000 $2,000,000 16 Land Acqusition Costs SF 500,000 $2.87 $1,435,000
Legend: Subtotal $13,618,600
LS = Lump Sum Contingency @ 25% $3,404,650
EA = Each Construction Subtotal $17,023,250
LF = Linear Foot
SF = Square Foot
Project Total $17,023,250
2022-2023 CPI increase 3.2% $17,567,994
Note:
County staff input ‐ extra funds for the UPRR coordination & permitting ($1M per intersection).
And 40% increase to reflect ENR Construction Cost Index. Email from City to County staff, Thur, 10/4/2023
Z:\P2108275 - Patterson Regional TIF (Patterson)\2021 TIF Cost Estimates (T5)\2021 unit cost update (+Railroad crossing increase)\Master Plan Roadway Segment Cost - 2023 TIF Table 5 100423 Final
7.1.b
Packet Pg. 78
Attachment: R_100623__Patterson_TIF_Final (Approve Resolution No. 2023-50 Approving the Regional Transportation Impact Fee Report) City of Patterson
Master Plan Conceptual - Buildout Roadway Improvements Cost Estimates 10/4/2023
Segment # 11
Walnut Avenue: Highway 33 to Sycamore Avenue
TIMP Buildout Conceptual Budget Estimate
*Unit Prices Are Based On Caltrans Contract Cost Data
Roadway widening based on an average of total materials and labor Item Unit Quantity Unit Price Total
1 Traffic Control LS 1 $100,000 $100,000
2 Install Sign EA $400 $0
3 Install Striping LF 33,000 $4 $132,000
4 Install Pavement Marking EA $0
5 Concrete curb, gutter, and sidewalk SF 110,000 $20 $2,200,000 6 Concrete curb and gutter LF $0
7 Landscaping LS $0
8 Roadway construction, 12 feet wide lane LF 11,000 $200 $2,200,000 9 Paved shoulder SF 110,000 $12 $1,320,000
10 Manhole EA 10 $9,500 $95,000
11 Storm Drain Inlet EA 40 $3,000 $120,000
12 Storm drain laterals, 12 inch RCP LF 2,000 $200 $400,000 13 Traffic signal mast arm and pole EA $40,000 $0
14 Modify Traffic Signal LS $100,000 $0
15 Structure LS 1 $500,000 $500,000
16 Land Acqusition Costs SF 352,000 $2.87 $1,010,240
Legend: Subtotal $8,077,240
LS = Lump Sum Contingency @ 25% $2,019,310
EA = Each Construction Subtotal $10,096,550
LF = Linear Foot
SF = Square Foot
Project Total $7,572,413
2022-2023 CPI increase 3.2% $7,814,730
Note:
County staff input ‐ extra funds for the UPRR coordination & permitting ($1M per intersection).
And 40% increase to reflect ENR Construction Cost Index. Email from City to County staff, Thur, 10/4/2023
Z:\P2108275 - Patterson Regional TIF (Patterson)\2021 TIF Cost Estimates (T5)\2021 unit cost update (+Railroad crossing increase)\Master Plan Roadway Segment Cost - 2023 TIF Table 5 100423 Final
7.1.b
Packet Pg. 79
Attachment: R_100623__Patterson_TIF_Final (Approve Resolution No. 2023-50 Approving the Regional Transportation Impact Fee Report) City of Patterson
Master Plan Conceptual - Buildout Roadway Improvements Cost Estimates 10/4/2023
Segment # 12
Sycamore Avenue: Eucalyptus Avenue to Orange Avenue
TIMP Buildout Conceptual Budget Estimate
*Unit Prices Are Based On Caltrans Contract Cost Data
Roadway widening based on an average of total materials and labor Item Unit Quantity Unit Price Total
1 Traffic Control LS 1 $140,000 $140,000
2 Install Sign EA $400 $0
3 Install Striping LF 66,000 $4 $264,000
4 Install Pavement Marking EA $0
5 Concrete curb, gutter, and sidewalk SF 220,000 $20 $4,400,000 6 Concrete curb and gutter LF $0
7 Landscaping LS $0
8 Roadway construction, 12 feet wide lane LF 22,000 $200 $4,400,000 9 Paved shoulder SF 220,000 $12 $2,640,000
10 Manhole EA 20 $9,500 $190,000
11 Storm Drain Inlet EA 80 $3,000 $240,000
12 Storm drain laterals, 12 inch RCP LF 4,000 $200 $800,000 13 Traffic signal mast arm and pole EA $40,000 $0
14 Modify Traffic Signal LS $100,000 $0
15 $0
16 Land Acqusition Costs SF 704,000 $2.87 $2,020,480
Legend: Subtotal $15,094,480
LS = Lump Sum Contingency @ 25% $3,773,620
EA = Each Construction Subtotal $18,868,100
LF = Linear Foot
SF = Square Foot
Project Total $14,151,075
2022-2023 CPI increase 3.2% $14,603,909
Note:
County staff input ‐ extra funds for the UPRR coordination & permitting ($1M per intersection).
And 40% increase to reflect ENR Construction Cost Index. Email from City to County staff, Thur, 10/4/2023
Z:\P2108275 - Patterson Regional TIF (Patterson)\2021 TIF Cost Estimates (T5)\2021 unit cost update (+Railroad crossing increase)\Master Plan Roadway Segment Cost - 2023 TIF Table 5 100423 Final
7.1.b
Packet Pg. 80
Attachment: R_100623__Patterson_TIF_Final (Approve Resolution No. 2023-50 Approving the Regional Transportation Impact Fee Report) City of Patterson
Master Plan Conceptual - Buildout Roadway Improvements Cost Estimates 10/4/2023
Segment # 13
Elm Avenue: Eucalyptus Avenue to Orange Avenue
TIMP Buildout Conceptual Budget Estimate
*Unit Prices Are Based On Caltrans Contract Cost Data
Roadway widening based on an average of total materials and labor Item Unit Quantity Unit Price Total
1 Traffic Control LS 1 $150,000 $150,000
2 Install Sign EA $400 $0
3 Install Striping LF 66,000 $4 $264,000
4 Install Pavement Marking EA $0
5 Concrete curb, gutter, and sidewalk SF 220,000 $20 $4,400,000 6 Concrete curb and gutter LF $0
7 Landscaping LS $0
8 Roadway construction, 12 feet wide lane LF 22,000 $200 $4,400,000 9 Paved shoulder SF 220,000 $12 $2,640,000
10 Manhole EA 20 $9,500 $190,000
11 Storm Drain Inlet EA 80 $3,000 $240,000
12 Storm drain laterals, 12 inch RCP LF 4,000 $200 $800,000 13 Traffic signal mast arm and pole EA 4 $40,000 $160,000 14 Install Traffic Signal LS 1 $300,000 $300,000
15 Structure LS 1 $1,000,000 $1,000,000
16 Land Acqusition Costs SF 704,000 $2.87 $2,020,480
Legend: Subtotal $16,564,480
LS = Lump Sum Contingency @ 25% $4,141,120
EA = Each Construction Subtotal $20,705,600
LF = Linear Foot
SF = Square Foot
Project Total $15,529,200
2022-2023 CPI increase 3.2% $16,026,134
Note:
County staff input ‐ extra funds for the UPRR coordination & permitting ($1M per intersection).
And 40% increase to reflect ENR Construction Cost Index. Email from City to County staff, Thur, 10/4/2023
Z:\P2108275 - Patterson Regional TIF (Patterson)\2021 TIF Cost Estimates (T5)\2021 unit cost update (+Railroad crossing increase)\Master Plan Roadway Segment Cost - 2023 TIF Table 5 100423 Final
7.1.b
Packet Pg. 81
Attachment: R_100623__Patterson_TIF_Final (Approve Resolution No. 2023-50 Approving the Regional Transportation Impact Fee Report) City Council Agenda Report
TO: Mayor Clauzel and Members of the City Council
FROM: Ken Irwin, City Manager
BY: Bryan Stice, Community Development Director
MEETING DATE: October 17, 2023
ITEM NO: 7.2
SUBJECT: Approve the Initial Study / EIR Addendum to the 2010 General Plan EIR for the Transportation Infrastructure Master Plan (TIMP) and adopt the Transportation Infrastructure Master Plan.
RECOMMENDATION
Motion to Approve the Initial Study / EIR Addendum to the 2010 General Plan EIR for the Transportation Infrastructure Master Plan (TIMP) and adopt the Transportation Infrastructure Master Plan.
BACKGROUND
In 2011, the City embarked on a process of updating existing Master Plans and creation of new Master Plans that would help guide how and where necessary facilities could be built in response to planned future growth. These master plans would address public safety, parks and recreation, roadways and circulation, water, wastewater and storm drainage. If the General Plan can be considered the bones of the city, providing a framework for how the city should develop, the master plans add a muscular system, which provides more definition to their respective subjects.
The master plans were undertaken concurrently, so that - as much as possible - each plan could be integrated with the others. For instance, the bicycle and pedestrian system was based, in part, upon information from both the TIMP and the Parks and Recreation Master Plan to ensure that individuals and families would be able to use that system to access key locations throughout the city, including public recreation venues.
Around 2015, as the master plans neared completion, two changes occurred: First, the City Council directed staff to more closely scrutinize the master plans to ensure the recommendations were fiscally responsible and reasonable; and second, a series of laws were passed at the state level that required some changes to the master plans, particularly related to water issues, but that
7.2 Packet Pg. 82
had impacts on other master plans. During the intervening period, staff and consultants have worked to address issues presented by a continually shifting State legal landscape.
The City’s consultant on the TIMP, Advanced Mobility Group (AMG), have completed work on the draft of the Master Plan. The Master Plan is now complete and ready for adoption by City Council.
ANALYSIS
The TIMP implements two measures identified in the General Plan Circulation Element. First, it serves as a street master plan showing existing and proposed right-of-way and street widths.
Second, it serves as a bicycle master plan. The TIMP identifies existing and future roadway infrastructure problem areas and potential solutions. It includes a comprehensive review of the City’s transportation facilities and identifies improvements and expansions to guide the City by anticipating and accommodating growth in a way that maintains an acceptable quality of life for Patterson residents, businesses, and visitors alike as anticipated by the General Plan.
The plan has been through a series of workshops and meetings with appropriate staff members and members of the public. The plan was also influenced by a number of public workshops that were held to ensure public concerns are addressed. As previously noted, it has also been prepared in concert with the other master plans to ensure a consistent development approach.
The Planning Commission recommended approval of the TIMP with a 3-0 vote with one abstention. They also made several recommendations to the City Council, each of which is followed by comments from city staff:
1. Use roundabouts rather than traffic signals where possible. Roundabouts should be the preferred solution over traffic signals.
“Since roundabouts can provide substantial traffic flow benefits compared with conventional signalized intersections, it might be appropriate for the City of Patterson to carefully weigh merits of considering roundabouts at some of the future signalized intersections which might require a signal at buildout.”
We understand the safety and other merits of a roundabout, but applicability would still require additional LOS evaluation based on delay and queuing. The City can evaluate feasibility of a roundabout feasibility of a roundabout when a signal is required in the future.
1. The Commission desires that the City be more proactive with the County of Stanislaus with respect to the Southwest Corridor design features and the Corridor actually coming to fruition.
The City has secured agreements with the County ensuring the City’s preferred route for the South County Corridor will be used. The City actively pushes for realization of the South County Corridor.
7.2 Packet Pg. 83
1. The Commission wants to make sure the South County Corridor includes a new bridge.
Staff agrees that a new bridge over the San Joaquin River would be the best outcome, providing additional access, in the event that the current river crossing is blocked. However, such a bridge would likely increase the total cost of the project by a minimum of $60 million. The placement of City of Modesto’s Wastewater Treatment Plant on the opposite side of the river, also complicates potential siting that would make sense. It is staff’s opinion that the priority should be completion of the South County Corridor over provision of a second route.
1. The Commission desires to see an alignment of the South County Corridor that flows well. The alignment can be curvilinear if necessary but without tight turns and minimal stop signs and signal lights.
City staff agrees and it is our understanding that the South County Corridor will be designed to encourage rapid movement of goods and people across the County.
1. The South County Corridor design needs to include a grade separation at Zacharias Road and State Route 33 and the railroad tracks.
Staff agrees that grade separation at the railroad tracks would be ideal for the South County Corridor. This project is in a very early stage and quite a bit of work will need to be done before the viability of this approach is determined.
1. The Planning Commission desires that a future hospital site be identified in the Transportation Master Plan and that the Master Plan should be designed around that property/site in order to insure easy access.
While being able to plan for infrastructure surrounding a hospital site would be ideal, designating land for a hospital (and only a hospital) without the express consent of the property owner presents some potential legal challenges. Additionally, a hospital user may determine that a designated site would not work well for their use and select another location instead. Staff continues to work toward this end goal, but, at this time, recommends against designating a location for a hospital.
7.2 Packet Pg. 84
Final Report
City of Patterson Transportation
Infrastructure Master Plan
March 6, 2020
In the City of Patterson, CA
7.2.a
Packet Pg. 85
Attachment: Final_Patterson_TIMP_4-22-20 (Approve the Initial Study / EIR Addendum to the 2010 General Plan EIR for the Transportation) City of Patterson
Transportation
Infrastructure Master Plan
Final Report
Prepared for:
The City of Patterson
Prepared by:
Advanced Mobility Group
March 6, 2020
7.2.a
Packet Pg. 86
Attachment: Final_Patterson_TIMP_4-22-20 (Approve the Initial Study / EIR Addendum to the 2010 General Plan EIR for the Transportation) CITY OF PATTERSON TRANSPORTATION INFRASTRUCTURE MASTER PLAN March 6, 2020
1 Table of Contents
1.0 INTRODUCTION AND EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ................................................................. 3 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................ 3 Study Scenarios ............................................................................................................... 3 SUMMARY .................................................................................................................................... 4
2.0 EXISTING CONDITION ...................................................................................................... 5 EXISTING ROADWAY NETWORK ................................................................................................. 5 LEVEL OF SERVICE ANALYSIS METHODOLOGY ......................................................................... 7 STANDARDS OF SIGNIFICANCE .................................................................................................. 7 OTHER STANDARDS ..................................................................................................................... 7 EXISTING TRAFFIC VOLUMES AND LEVEL OF SERVICE ANALYSIS ............................................. 8 EXISTING CONSTRAINTS .............................................................................................................. 9 EXISTING BICYCLE PLAN .............................................................................................................. 9
3.0 TRAFFIC DEMAND MODEL ............................................................................................. 13 NEAR-TERM 10-YEAR TRAFFIC CONDITIONS............................................................................ 14 TRAFFIC FORECAST AND METHODOLOGY ............................................................................. 14
4.0 FUTURE MASTER PLAN BUILDOUT CONDITIONS ............................................................ 18 METHODOLOGY ........................................................................................................................ 18 APPROVED PROJECTS AND REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT ........................................................ 18 OTHER MAJOR PROJECTS ........................................................................................................ 18 MAJOR TRAFFIC FLOWS ............................................................................................................ 18 POTENTIAL BUILDOUT LANE REQUIREMENTS ............................................................................ 19 ASSUMPTIONS AND TRIGGERING OF IMPROVEMENTS .......................................................... 22
5.0 COMPLETE STREETS ......................................................................................................... 24 BACKGROUND .......................................................................................................................... 24 FUTURE BIKEWAYS ...................................................................................................................... 24 CALTRANS - INTERSECTION CONTROL EVALUATION (ICE) & ROUNDABOUT ....................... 29 POTENTIAL LOCATIONS FOR ROUNDABOUTS AT BUILDOUT .................................................. 30 ADVANCE TECHNOLOGY ........................................................................................................ 31
6.0 RECOMMENDATIONS .................................................................................................... 35 REFERENCES ............................................................................................................................... 36
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1: City of Patterson Population Growth ......................................................................... 5 Table 2: Intersection Levels of Service – Existing Conditions .................................................. 8 Table 3: Existing City of Patterson Class II & Class III Bikeways ............................................. 11 Table 4: Journey to Work Data ................................................................................................ 11 Table 5: Near-Term (10-Year) Projection Peak Hour LOS ...................................................... 15 Table 6: Near-Term (10-Year) Intersection Improvement Cost Estimates ........................... 16
7.2.a
Packet Pg. 87
Attachment: Final_Patterson_TIMP_4-22-20 (Approve the Initial Study / EIR Addendum to the 2010 General Plan EIR for the Transportation) CITY OF PATTERSON TRANSPORTATION INFRASTRUCTURE MASTER PLAN March 6, 2020
2 Table 7: Buildout Improvement Cost Estimates ..................................................................... 20 Table 8: Travel Time to Work Data .......................................................................................... 25 Table 9: Proposed Future Bike Facilities .................................................................................. 27 Table 10: Comparison of Traffic Signals vs. Roundabout ..................................................... 31
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1: Existing Key Roadways and Circulation System ....................................................... 6 Figure 2: Existing Bikeways........................................................................................................ 12 Figure 3: Near-Term (10-Year) Peak Hour Volumes, Lane Geometry & Controls ............... 17 Figure 4: Recommended Buildout Roadway Improvements .............................................. 21 Figure 5: Buildout Roadway Segments ................................................................................... 23 Figure 6: Existing and Proposed Bikeways .............................................................................. 28 Figure 7: High-Level View of the National ITS Architecture .................................................. 33 Figure 8: Traffic Management and Roadway Subsystem Functions ................................... 34
LIST OF APPENDICES
LEVEL OF SERVICE METHODOLOGY .......................................................... A.1 NEAR-TERM (10-YEAR) CONCEPTUAL PLAN .............................................. B.2 NEAR-TERM (10-YEAR) IMPROVEMENTS COST ESTIMATE ........................ C.3
MASTER PLAN BUILDOUT ROADWAY IMPROVEMENTS COST
ESTIMATES D.4
INTERSECTION CONTROL EVALUATION (ICE) 13-02 ................................. E.5
7.2.a
Packet Pg. 88
Attachment: Final_Patterson_TIMP_4-22-20 (Approve the Initial Study / EIR Addendum to the 2010 General Plan EIR for the Transportation) CITY OF PATTERSON TRANSPORTATION INFRASTRUCTURE MASTER PLAN March 6, 2020
3 1.0 INTRODUCTION AND EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
INTRODUCTION
The purpose of this study is to document the process and recommendations of the Patterson Transportation Infrastructure Master Plan (TIMP). The Patterson TIMP was started in late 2011. However, the project was put on hold several times due to unforeseen events and challenges.
A substantial amount of technical work was completed before the project was put on hold in 2013. As a part of the 2011 scope, traffic forecasts were completed for two scenarios:
Short Range10-year and
Long Range Buildout scenarios.
Similar to the 2010 General Plan Update project, a long-range traffic-forecasting model was used to assess the impact of the future 10-year and Buildout developments. The StanCOG (Stanislaus County Council of Governments) countywide gravity-based model was used in the study.
The TIMP provides a short-term and long-term basis to guide the City on infrastructure improvements by anticipating and accommodating growth in a way that maintains an acceptable quality of life for Patterson residents, businesses, and visitors alike.
The goal of the TIMP is an attempt to identify Patterson’s existing and future roadway infrastructure problem areas and potential solutions that may occur through a combination of public and private infrastructure investments.
With an adopted TIMP, its findings can be used as a tool to help the City plan for anticipated growth in the future based on its adopted General Plan and approved projects. The TIMP would be flexible and readily updatable as new information emerges regarding development plans on specific parcels and will assist the City in evaluating parcel development plans as they come on line.
Study Scenarios
Based on consultation with project coordinator at that time, two land use scenarios were used in the model forecasts and analysis:
10-Year Scenario - assumed a population of approximately 28,900 and 21,980 jobs. TIMP Master Plan Buildout Scenario - assumed a population of approximately 66,300 and 81,300 jobs.
7.2.a
Packet Pg. 89
Attachment: Final_Patterson_TIMP_4-22-20 (Approve the Initial Study / EIR Addendum to the 2010 General Plan EIR for the Transportation) CITY OF PATTERSON TRANSPORTATION INFRASTRUCTURE MASTER PLAN March 6, 2020
4 SUMMARY
The following conclusions are based on the results of the TIMP Analysis:
Existing Conditions
Overall, key intersections in the City operates relatively well for the most part as shown in Table 2. The exception includes the I-5 Southbound Off- Ramps at Sperry Avenue which operate at LOS F during the PM peak hour and the intersections of Sperry Avenue/SR 33 and Rogers Road/SR 33 which operate at LOS E during the PM peak hour.
Near-Term 10-Year Scenario
The 10-Year Scenario assumed a population of approximately 28,900 and 21,980 jobs. Conceptual intersection improvements for all study intersections that require improvements were identified along with potential improvement measures.
The estimated total improvement cost for 17 intersections is estimated to be approximately $26.5 million.
The cost to improve the Sperry Avenue and I-5 interchange was estimated separately by the Interstate 5 / Sperry Ave Interchange Improvements Project at between $11.3 million and $14.6 million.
Buildout Assumptions
The assumed population and jobs at master plan buildout is approximately 66,300 residents and 81,300 jobs. Compared to the existing land use, this would be approximately a threefold increase in population and nearly 12-fold increase in jobs.
It is estimated that major roadway improvements would be required to accommodate the projected traffic growth due to buildout of land use in the future. In general, it could be assumed that major four-lane roads for all the major north-south and east-west arterials would be required. Improvements in general will be roadway widening to add lanes, new traffic signal installations (or roundabouts), and additional improvements to promote pedestrian and bicycle use. Preliminary buildout roadway improvement cost estimates for buildout projects were estimated.
In addition, it is also assumed that major improvements would be required at the Sperry Road & I-5 interchange and a new interchange in the vicinity of I-5 & Zacharias Road would be necessary. The proposed South County Corridor is assumed to be aligned generally along W Main Avenue/Eucalyptus Avenue/Zacharias Avenue route. It would be in line with the recommended alternative in the recently completed South County Corridor Feasibility Study.1
Advance Technology
Based on projected population and job growth at buildout, it is anticipated that at least 50-60 signals could be installed and operated. To effectively facilitate the smooth flow of traffic and safely accommodate pedestrians and bicycles, the City of Patterson should adopt a plan for an Advanced Traffic Management System (ATMS) and develop a Traffic Signal Master Plan. 1 South County Corridor Feasibility Study, May 18, 2016
7.2.a
Packet Pg. 90
Attachment: Final_Patterson_TIMP_4-22-20 (Approve the Initial Study / EIR Addendum to the 2010 General Plan EIR for the Transportation) CITY OF PATTERSON TRANSPORTATION INFRASTRUCTURE MASTER PLAN March 6, 2020
5 2.0 EXISTING CONDITION
The City of Patterson is located approximately 35 miles south of the junction of I-205 and I-5. Like most cities in the Central Valley, it was originally built to support the agricultural economic development of the surrounding area.
The City has seen steady population growth in the last 35 years. Substantial growth occurred between 1980 and 1990, with an annual
population growth rate of
approximately 12 percent, from
approximately 3,908 to 8,626
in 1990. Growth slowed
somewhat after 1990, with an
annual rate of approximately
3-5 percent to a population of
approximately 20,437 in 2010.
The current population is
approximately 24,000,
reflecting substantial growth in
the past 25 years as shown in
Table 1.
EXISTING ROADWAY NETWORK
Figure 1 shows the existing key roadways and circulation system in the city. Important roadways in the city are described below:
Interstate 5 (I-5) is a four-lane freeway near Patterson. Based on 2016 traffic counts obtained from the Caltrans website, I-5 carries between 40,000 to 48,000 vehicles per day (vpd) in the vicinity of Sperry Avenue. For regional travel, residents rely primarily on I-5, a major north-south freeway to the west of the city limits. I-5 connects to I-580, approximately 15 miles to the north of Patterson. I-5 and I-580 provide access to regional employment centers in Pleasanton, San Ramon, and the rest of the San Francisco Bay Area.
State Route 33 (SR-33) is located approximately three miles to the east of I-5. SR-33 provides north-south access to Westley to the north and the City of Newman to the south. Its ADT is approximately 6,000 vpd. It is the main north-south roadway in Patterson.
Sperry Avenue is a two- to four-lane major arterial roadway that serves as the primary east-west route of travel between I-5 and the City of Patterson. Sperry Avenue terminates at SR-33, three miles east of I-5.
Near the freeway, its ADT is approximately 12,000 to 14,000 vpd. A recent count to the east of Rogers Road showed the ADT to be approximately 15,040 vpd.
Table 1: City of Patterson Population Growth
7.2.a
Packet Pg. 91
Attachment: Final_Patterson_TIMP_4-22-20 (Approve the Initial Study / EIR Addendum to the 2010 General Plan EIR for the Transportation) PKWY.
KEYSTONE P ACIFIC
California
Aqueduct
DEL PUERTO CAN YON R D.
M ST.
CARPENTER RD.
MARSHALL RD.
WARD AVE.
BALDWIN RD.
ELFERS RD.
LAS PALMAS AVE. WALNUT AVE.
OLIVE AVE.
ZACHARIAS RD.
DONKIN RD.
ORANGE AVE.
FIG AVE.
SYCAMORE AVE. BARTCH AVE.
ROGERS RD.
RAINES RD. EUCALYPTUS AVE.
ALMOND AVE.
POMELO AVE.
LOCUST AVE.
APRICOT AVE. POMEGRANATE AVE.
ELM AVE.
POPLAR AVE.
EAST
PA LMAS E ST.
W. MAIN AVE.
LEMON AVE. MAGNOLIA AVE.
PARK CTR. DR.
SPERRY AVE.
W. LAS
AMERICAN
EAGLE AVE.
SchoolsCommunity DestinationsParks and Recreation Facilities City of Patterson - Transportation Infrastructure Master Plan Existing Key Roadways and Circulation System
Not to Scale
N O R T H
Figure
1 LEGEND
5 33
33 P1811154 - 2/19/19 CT
7.2.a
Attachment: Final_Patterson_TIMP_4-22-20 (Approve the Initial Study / EIR Addendum to the 2010 CITY OF PATTERSON TRANSPORTATION INFRASTRUCTURE MASTER PLAN March 6, 2020
7 Rogers Road is a north-south two to four lane roadway with a posted speed limit of 25 mph within the City of Patterson and provides connectivity to Sperry Road and California State Route 33 to the north. The average weekday daily traffic along Rogers Road is approximately 2,400 vpd.
East Las Palmas Avenue is a three-lane major east-west arterial including a center two-way left-turn lane between SR-33 and Sycamore Avenue, where it narrows to a two-lane road. To the west of SR-33, four streets form a roundabout at Las Palmas Avenue. Most traffic destined for Modesto currently uses Las Palmas Avenue. Its ADT is approximately 11,800 vpd.
Ward Avenue is generally a two-lane north-south collector street that connects SR-33 in the north to Sperry Avenue in the south. The road extends further south and connects with Fink Road. Its ADT is approximately 5,000 vpd north of Sperry Avenue.
LEVEL OF SERVICE ANALYSIS METHODOLOGY
Level of Service is a qualitative index of the performance of an element of the transportation system. Level of Service (LOS) is a rating scale running from A to F, with A indicating no congestion of any kind, and F indicating intolerable congestion and delays during a peak hour.
The 2000 Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) is the standard reference published by the Transportation Research Board, and contains the specific criteria and methods to be used in assessing LOS. There are several software packages that have been developed to implement HCM. In this study, the Synchro software was used to calculate the LOS at the study intersections. A detailed description of the methodology is provided in Appendix A.
STANDARDS OF SIGNIFICANCE
The City’s 2010 General Plan policy states that “The City shall endeavor to maintain a Level of Service (LOS) “D”, as defined by the 2000 Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) or subsequent revisions, on all streets and intersections within the City.”
OTHER STANDARDS
The minimum acceptable level of service standard for Stanislaus County roadway segments is LOS C.
Therefore, this report uses LOS C as the minimum acceptable standard and mitigation measures are recommended where service levels are below LOS C along roadways within the unincorporated areas of Stanislaus County.
Facilities under Caltrans jurisdiction include freeway segments, ramps, ramp terminals, and arterials.
Caltrans standards strive to maintain acceptable traffic operations on state facilities between LOS C and LOS D. Mitigation measures are recommended where service levels exceed this LOS C/D transition.
7.2.a
Packet Pg. 93
Attachment: Final_Patterson_TIMP_4-22-20 (Approve the Initial Study / EIR Addendum to the 2010 General Plan EIR for the Transportation) CITY OF PATTERSON TRANSPORTATION INFRASTRUCTURE MASTER PLAN March 6, 2020
8 EXISTING TRAFFIC VOLUMES AND LEVEL OF SERVICE ANALYSIS The existing intersection levels of service analysis results for selected study intersections are shown in Table
2. Results indicated that the existing stop-controlled Sperry Avenue & I-5 SB Ramps is operating at LOS F during the PM peak hour. In addition, the intersections of Sperry Avenue/SR 33 and Rogers Road/SR 33 operate at LOS E during the PM peak hour. All other intersections are operating at LOS D or better.
Table 2: Intersection Levels of Service – Existing Conditions ID Intersection Existing
Control
A.M. P.M.
Delay LOS Delay LOS
1 Sperry Avenue/I-5 SB Ramps OWSC 15.3 C 67.9 F
2 Sperry Avenue/I-5 NB Ramp OWSC 10.6 B 15.8 C
3 Sperry Avenue/Rogers Road Signal 17.4 B 14.4 B
4 Sperry Avenue/Park Center Drive Signal 9.2 A 12.4 B
5 Sperry Avenue/Baldwin Road Signal 19.9 B 20.0 B
6 Sperry Avenue/American Eagle Drive Signal 17.5 B 13.3 B 7 Sperry Avenue/W. Las Palmas Avenue Signal 29.1 C 30.3 C 8 Sperry Avenue/Ward Avenue Signal 33.0 C 30.3 C
9 Sperry Avenue/S Del Puerto Avenue Signal 8.1 A 7.0 A
10 Sperry Avenue/SR-33 TWSC 27.7 D 35.1 E
11 SR-33/E. Las Palmas Avenue Signal 18.6 B 17.4 B
12 Ward Ave/American Eagle Ave/M St Signal 36.7 D 29.6 C 14 Ward Avenue/SR-33 OWSC 16.3 C 19.0 C
15 Eucalyptus Ave/SR-33 OWSC 14.4 B 16.2 C
16 Zacharias Road/SR-33 OWSC 10.6 B 12.9 B
17 Baldwin Road/SR-33 OWSC 17.5 C 18.8 C
18 Rogers Road/SR-33 OWSC 18.4 C 36.6 E
19 Walnut Ave/M Street/SR-33 Signal 30.2 C 22.8 C
22 E. Las Palmas Ave/Sycamore Avenue Signal 16.5 B 17.5 B 23 E. Las Palmas Ave/Elm Avenue Signal 9.7 A 12.0 B
24 Poplar Avenue/Las Palmas Avenue OWSC 12.5 B 19.2 C
25 Carpenter Road/West Main Avenue AWSC 12.9 B 21.2 C
Note: Analysis based on available 2017, 2018 or 2019 counts and estimates.
OWSC - One-Way Stop; TWSC - Two-Way Stop; AWSC - All-Way Stop
7.2.a
Packet Pg. 94
Attachment: Final_Patterson_TIMP_4-22-20 (Approve the Initial Study / EIR Addendum to the 2010 General Plan EIR for the Transportation) CITY OF PATTERSON TRANSPORTATION INFRASTRUCTURE MASTER PLAN March 6, 2020
9 EXISTING CONSTRAINTS
Overall, key intersections in the City operates relatively well for the most part as shown in Table 2. The exception is the I-5 Southbound Off- Ramps at Sperry Avenue which operate at LOS F during the PM peak hour. The off-ramp is currently stop control and it is the major gateway into the city from I-5. All traffic at the southbound off-ramp needs to stop which contributes to LOS F condition.
A Project Report and Project Approval & Environmental Documentation (PA & ED) is currently underway and the final design is estimated to be completed soon. 2
EXISTING BICYCLE PLAN
Caltrans classifies bicycle facilities as documented in Chapter 1000: Bikeway Planning and Design of the Highway Design Manual (5th Edition, California Department of Transportation, January 2015). The Caltrans standards provide for four distinct types of bikeway facilities, as generally described below:
Class I Bikeway (Bike Path) – Provides a completely separate right-of-way and is designated for the exclusive use of bicycles and pedestrians with vehicle and pedestrian cross-flow minimized. Class II Bikeway (Bike Lane) – Provides a restricted right-of-way and is designated for the use of bicycles with a striped lane on a street or highway. Vehicle parking and vehicle/pedestrian crossflow are permitted.
Class III Bikeway (Bike Route) – Provides for a right-of-way designated by signs or pavement markings for shared use with pedestrians or motor vehicles.
Class IV Bikeway (Separated Bikeways) – Separated bikeway for the exclusive use of bicycles and includes a separation required between the separated bikeway and the through vehicular traffic. The separation may include, but is not limited to, grade separation, flexible posts, inflexible posts, inflexible barriers, or on-street parking.
2 Based on Interstate 5 / Sperry Ave Interchange Improvements Project, April 20, 2017
7.2.a
Packet Pg. 95
Attachment: Final_Patterson_TIMP_4-22-20 (Approve the Initial Study / EIR Addendum to the 2010 General Plan EIR for the Transportation) CITY OF PATTERSON TRANSPORTATION INFRASTRUCTURE MASTER PLAN March 6, 2020
10 Table 3 outlines the existing bike network facilities and is illustrated in Figure 2. Class II facilities are generally found along the downtown portion of the existing urbanized area. These facilities are found along parts of Las Palmas Avenue, Baldwin Road, American Eagle Avenue and ‘M’ Street.
The Class III Bike Route network is most prevalent in the Central Patterson area. However, there are gaps in the bike routes. Because of these gaps, it is not possible to fully traverse the city traveling north-to-south or east-to-west using the designated bicycle network.
Journey to work data obtained from the 2010 US Census for the City of Patterson, Stanislaus County, California, and the United States are shown in Table 4. As shown, only 23 Patterson residents commuted by bicycle. This equates to a bicycle mode share of 0.3% and is below the national, state and county averages of 0.5%, 1.0% and 0.5% respectively. This means that Patterson has a below average bicycle mode share of commuting purposes.
7.2.a
Packet Pg. 96
Attachment: Final_Patterson_TIMP_4-22-20 (Approve the Initial Study / EIR Addendum to the 2010 General Plan EIR for the Transportation) CITY OF PATTERSON TRANSPORTATION INFRASTRUCTURE MASTER PLAN March 6, 2020
11 Table 3: Existing City of Patterson Class II & Class III Bikeways Segment Name From To Bikeway
Class Length (Miles)
American Eagle Ave. Sperry Ave. SR-33 II 1.5
Baldwin Rd. Sperry Ave. City Limit II 0.99
E Las Palmas Ave. S 1st St. County Line/Ash Ave. II 2.9 Henley Pkwy. Baldwin Rd. Shearwater Dr. II 0.46
I St. N Salado Ave. SR-33 II 0.24
James Burke Ave. Red Robin Dr. Pipit Dr. II 0.34
K St. N Salado Ave. SR-33 II 0.39
N 9th St. Sperry Ave. Ward Ave. III 0.68
N Salado Ave. Ward Ave. N El Circulo Ave. II 0.51
New Forest Wy. Jersey Ln. Hackney St. II 0.22
S Del Puerto Ave. Sperry Ave. S El Circulo Ave. III 0.38 Shearwater Dr. Baldwin Rd. Henley Pkwy. II 0.32
Shearwater Dr. American Eagle Dr. James Burke Ave. II 0.37 W Las Palmas Ave. N 9th St. S El Circulo Ave. II 0.33
W Las Palmas Ave. Sperry Ave. Ward Ave. II 0.3
Walker Ranch Pkwy. Sperry Ave. Henley Pkwy. II 0.31
Ward Ave. N Salado Ave. Lilac Ave. II 0.15
Total 10.39
Table 4: Journey to Work Data
Mode United States California Stanislaus County
City of Patterson
Number Percent
Bicycle 0.5% 1.0% 0.5% 23 0.3%
Drive Alone 79.3% 76.8% 83.4% 5,049 74.3%
Carpool 10.8% 12.5% 11.7% 1,621 23.8%
Public transportation 5.1% 5.4% 0.9% 14 0.2%
Taxicab 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0%
Motorcycle 0.2% 0.4% 0.2% 0 0.0%
Walked 3.0% 2.9% 2.0% 81 1.2%
Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 6,797 100.0%
Source: U.S. Census 2010. Percentages reflect percent of workers who do not work from home.
7.2.a
Packet Pg. 97
Attachment: Final_Patterson_TIMP_4-22-20 (Approve the Initial Study / EIR Addendum to the 2010 General Plan EIR for the Transportation) PKWY.
KEYSTONE P ACIFIC
California Aqueduct
DEL PUERTO CAN Y
ON
R D.
M ST.
CARPENTER RD.
MARSHALL RD.
WARD AVE.
BALDWIN RD.
ELFERS RD.
LAS PALMAS AVE.
WALNUT AVE.
OLIVE AVE.
ZACHARIAS RD.
DONKIN RD.
ORANGE AVE.
FIG AVE.
SYCAMORE AVE. BARTCH AVE.
ROGERS RD.
RAINES RD.
EUCALYPTUS AVE.
ALMOND AVE.
POMELO AVE.
LOCUST AVE.
APRICOT AVE.
POMEGRANATE AVE.
ELM AVE.
POPLAR AVE.
EAST
PA LMAS
E ST.
W. MAIN AVE.
LEMON AVE.
MAGNOLIA AVE.
PARK CTR. DR.
SPERRY AVE.
W. LAS
AMERICAN
EAGLE AVE.
Class II does not exist between Ward Ave. & 9th St.
Existing Bicycle Facilities
SchoolsCommunity DestinationsParks and Recreation FacilitiesClass 1Class IIClass III City of Patterson - Transportation Infrastructure Master Plan Existing Bikeways
Not to Scale
N O R T H
Figure
2 LEGEND
*1
*1
5 33
33 P1811154 - 2/19/19 CT
7.2.a
Attachment: Final_Patterson_TIMP_4-22-20 (Approve the Initial Study / EIR Addendum to the 2010 CITY OF PATTERSON TRANSPORTATION INFRASTRUCTURE MASTER PLAN March 6, 2020
13 3.0 TRAFFIC DEMAND MODEL
A long-range traffic-forecasting model was used to assess the impact of the proposed Patterson General Plan Update. The StanCOG (Stanislaus County Council of Governments) countywide gravity-based model was used in the study.
The most current StanCOG model3 at that time was used in the study. The StanCOG model is used for the Stanislaus County Regional Transportation Plan (RTP). The StanCOG modeling area is the whole region where the StanCOG model operates as shown in the
figure to the right. It is assumed that this model
provides a reasonable travel pattern including the
Origin-Destination (OD) demands and the route choices
among the different areas within the modeling areas.
An AM and PM peak hour model was developed and
validated from the StanCOG model for the City of
Patterson. A detailed model calibration was made
based on the counts collected at the study intersections and study roadway segments. Detailed Traffic
Analysis Zones (TAZs) are used to represent
geographical locations in the model.
The most recent land use information was obtained
from City staff and the model TAZ updated. Trips are generated at the TAZ level and distributed onto the roadway network.
3 StanCOG model was based on a one county model in 2012. It has since incorporated a three-county model
7.2.a
Packet Pg. 99
Attachment: Final_Patterson_TIMP_4-22-20 (Approve the Initial Study / EIR Addendum to the 2010 General Plan EIR for the Transportation) CITY OF PATTERSON TRANSPORTATION INFRASTRUCTURE MASTER PLAN March 6, 2020
14 NEAR-TERM 10-YEAR TRAFFIC CONDITIONS
TRAFFIC FORECAST AND METHODOLOGY
The City of Patterson Model land use and network assumptions were used for the traffic projections. The City provided the land use data and the appropriate Traffic Analysis Zones (TAZs) in the City of Patterson model were modified. As mentioned earlier, the 10-Year Scenario assumed a population of approximately 28,900 and 21,980 jobs.
The peak hour intersection turning movement volumes from the model were used for the near-term 10-year scenario. The projected near-term 10-year peak hour volumes for 29 intersections are shown in Figure 3.
The results of the LOS analysis with the required near-term intersection improvements are shown in Table 5.
Conceptual intersection improvements for all study intersections that require improvements were identified along with potential improvement measures. The conceptual improvement plans are shown in Appendix B.
Unit cost used in the estimates for improvements at each intersection were estimated based on Caltrans, typical unit cost for the area and consultation with city staff. 4 Detailed cost assumptions based on various categories or items associated with near-term improvements for each intersection are shown in Appendix C. Some assumptions include:
Typical intersection improvements are assumed for 300 feet from each approach to the intersection. 10-foot bike lane/shoulders assumed.
Generally12-foot travel lane.
Land acquisition assumed based on unit cost provided.
A summary of estimated costs associated with intersection improvements are shown in Table 6. 4 City staff inputs on cost estimate, 2013
7.2.a
Packet Pg. 100 Attachment: Final_Patterson_TIMP_4-22-20 (Approve the Initial Study / EIR Addendum to the 2010 General Plan EIR for the Transportation) CITY OF PATTERSON TRANSPORTATION INFRASTRUCTURE MASTER PLAN March 6, 2020
15 Table 5: Near-Term (10-Year) Projection Peak Hour LOS Intersection Existing
Control
A.M. P.M. Mitigated
Control
A.M. P.M.
Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS
1 Sperry Ave/I-5 SB Ramps OWSC 15.3 C 67.9 F Signal A 14.5 B 21.2 C 2 Sperry Ave/I-5 NB Ramps OWSC 10.6 B 15.8 C Signal A 6.4 A 5.9 A 3 Sperry Ave/Rogers Rd Signal 17.4 B 14.4 B Signal 12.9 B 13.8 B 4 Sperry Ave/Park Center Dr Signal 9.2 A 12.4 B Signal 17.3 B 23.7 C 5 Sperry Ave/Baldwin Rd Signal 19.9 B 20.0 B Signal 23.5 C 19.2 B 6 Sperry Ave/American Eagle
Dr Signal 17.5 B 13.3 B Signal 19.1 B 15.7 B
7 Sperry Ave/W. Las Palmas
Ave Signal 29.1 C 30.3 C Signal 31.0 C 43.2 D
8 Sperry Ave/Ward Ave Signal 33.0 C 30.3 C Signal 46.7 D 34.8 C 10 Sperry Ave/SR-33 TWSC 27.7 D 35.1 E Signal 27.7 D 24.3 C 13 Ward Ave/ N. Salado Ave OWSC 28.8 D 31.2 D Signal 24.8 C 16.6 C 14 Ward Ave/SR-33 OWSC 16.3 C 19.0 C Signal 7.3 A 10.6 B 16 Zacharias Rd/SR-33 OWSC 10.6 B 12.9 B OWSC 15.2 C 27.1 D 17 Baldwin Rd/SR-33 OWSC 17.5 C 18.8 C Signal 13.2 B 9.7 A 18 Rogers Rd/SR-33 OWSC 18.4 C 36.6 E Signal 9.5 A 18.5 C 24 Poplar Ave/Las Palmas Ave OWSC 12.5 B 19.2 C Signal 3.7 A 7.9 A 25 Carpenter Rd/West Main
Ave AWSC 12.9 B 21.2 C Signal 26.1 D 26.8 D
28 Baldwin Rd/Zacharias Rd AWSC 8.0 A 7.8 A Signal 23.5 C 18.0 C 29 Zacharias Rd/Rogers Rd TWSC 10.3 B 10.5 B Signal 26.0 D 24.1 C 30 Keystone Pacific
Pkwy/Rogers Rd OWSC 10.7 B 10.6 B Signal 11.8 B 11.7 B
Note:
A
– Current on-going project, I-5/Sperry Avenue PAED Study Report, February 2016 OWSC - One Way Stop control, TWSC - Two Way Stop control, AWSC - All Way Stop control
7.2.a
Packet Pg. 101 Attachment: Final_Patterson_TIMP_4-22-20 (Approve the Initial Study / EIR Addendum to the 2010 General Plan EIR for the Transportation) CITY OF PATTERSON TRANSPORTATION INFRASTRUCTURE MASTER PLAN March 6, 2020
16 Table 6: Near-Term (10-Year) Intersection Improvement Cost Estimates ID Intersections Cost Estimates
1 Sperry/I-5 Southbound Ramps $11.3 to $14.6 M 2 Sperry Avenue/I-5 Northbound Ramps 3 Sperry Avenue/Rogers Road $1,883,330
4 Sperry Avenue/Park Center Drive $1,595,006
5 Sperry Avenue/Baldwin Road $1,441,184
6 Sperry Avenue/American Eagle Way $118,030
7 Sperry Avenue/Las Palmas Avenue $107,590
8 Sperry Avenue/Ward Avenue $77,430
10 Sperry Avenue/Highway 33 $1,852,027
13 Salado Avenue and Ward Avenue $1,117,428
14 Highway 33/Ward Avenue $2,005,130
16 Highway 33/Zacharias Road $1,968,985
17 Highway 33 /Baldwin Road $1,989,470
18 Highway 33/Rogers Road $2,374,300
24 Las Palmas Avenue and Poplar Avenue $1,616,408
25 West Main Avenue and Carpenter Road $2,405,968
28 Zacharias Road/Baldwin Road $2,439,028
29 Zacharias Road/Rogers Road $2,680,690
30 Rogers Road and Keystone Pacific Parkway $852,890
Total $26,524,892
The estimated total improvement cost for 17 intersections is approximately $26.5 million. The cost to improve the Sperry Avenue and I-5 interchange was estimated separately by the Interstate 5 / Sperry Avenue Interchange Improvements Project at between $11.3 million and $14.6 million.
Note:
Interstate 5 / Sperry Ave Interchange Improvements Project, April 20, 2017
7.2.a
Packet Pg. 102 Attachment: Final_Patterson_TIMP_4-22-20 (Approve the Initial Study / EIR Addendum to the 2010 General Plan EIR for the Transportation) Not to Scale
NO R T H
City of Patterson – Transportation Infrastructure Master Plan Projected 10-Year Peak Hour Turning Movement Volumes, Lane Geometry & Controls Figure
3 Intersection #1
Sperry/I-5 SB Ramps*
Intersection #3
Sperry/Rogers
Intersection #4
Sperry/Park Center
Intersection #5
Sperry/Baldwin
Intersection #2
Sperry/I-5 NB Ramps*
Intersection #6
Sperry/American Eagle
Intersection #8
Sperry/Ward
Intersection #7
Sperry/Las Palmas
64 (163)
358 (773)
17 (37)
40 (56)
519 (538)
29 (74)
43 (10)
102 (55)
75 (31)
140 (200)
316 (369)
57 (144)
72 (70)
366 (317)
22 (87)
64 (102)
92 (110)
26 (14)
224 (169)
515 (620)
34 (98)
276 (786)
34 (234)
160 (179)
502 (479)
170 (57)
533 (557)
10 (13)
297 (99)
121 (24)
20 (12)
Intersection #10
Sperry/SR 33
Intersection #11
SR 33/Las Palmas
Intersection #9
Sperry/S. Del Puerto
Intersection #12
Ward/American Eagle
Intersection #13
Ward/Salado
149 (144)
223 (300)
21 (58)
14 (12)
352 (303)
6 (19)
56 (35)
84 (34)
16 (5)
32 (24)
279 (288)
42 (56)
226 (96)
356 (345)
162 (218)
140 (163)
180 (285)
52 (68)
309 (276)
95 (158)
16 (25)
45 (362)
143 (309)
82 (141)
123 (92)
443 (178)
155 (86)
125 (77)
442 (258)
111 (43)
8 (12)
82 (122)
18 (39)
Intersection #14
Ward/SR 33
Intersection #17
Baldwin/SR 33
Intersection #18
Rogers/SR 33
Intersection #16
Zacharias/SR 33
350 (579)
74 (125)
490 (475)
24 (6)
504 (333)
78 (25)
151 (94)
5 (69)
399 (645)
230 (92)
557 (455)
74 (5)
71 (257)
7 (75)
0 (5)
91 (335)
Intersection #15
SR 33/Eucalyptus
Intersection #19
SR 33/Walnut
30 (12)
173 (189)
69 (118)
27 (16)
218 (101)
211 (158)
102 (89)
201 (498)
69 (97)
23 (57)
333 (416)
30 (13)
Intersection #20
Sycamore/Walnut
Intersection #21
Walnut/Elm
Intersection #23
E. Las Palmas/Elm
0 (111)
23 (23)
74 (89)
180 (17)
60 (23)
72 (0)
0 (20)
249 (216)
95 (80)
0 (29)
168 (380)
32 (78)
25 (8)
22 (12)
15 (19)
427 (463)
547 (569)
10 (42)
Intersection #22
Sycamore/E. Las Palmas
9 (11) 331 (444)
5 (41)
45 (45)
518 (597)
11 (28)
67 (119)
48 (72)
32 (17)
56 (50)
120 (79)
117 (5)
Intersection #24
E. Las Palmas/West Main/Poplar
7 (47)
6 (2)
107 (9)
521 (612)
9 (5)
506 (507)
Intersection #25
West Main/Carpenter
Intersection #30
Rogers/Keystone
282 (280)
5 (39)
98 (183)
69 (155)
128 (25)
1 (1)
212 (499)
158 (232)
58 (102)
157 (462)
32 (47)
175 (198)
104 (84)
20 (26)
2 (6)
168 (181)
2 (2)
131 (20)
181 (47)
16 (16)
60 (203)
46 (224)
124 (26)
47 (146)
27 (34)84 (371)
102 (91)
129 (148)44 (59)
4 (3)
324 (78)421 (632)
65 (46)
118 (208)
90 (172)
168 (125)2 (0)
19 (169)
93 (95)39 (115)
54 (73)
148 (81)81 (41)
80 (38)
Intersection #27
Keystone/Baldwin
Intersection #28
Zacharias/Baldwin
Intersection #29
Zacharias/Rogers
14 (102)
24 (162)
97 (39)
148 (45)
)383( 344
240 (315)
65 (114)
459 (105)
101 (200)
77 (105)
90 (72)
71 (241) )571( 511 )083( 31341 )91(
10 (6)
64 (50)
45 (29) 248 (132) 336 (268) 39 (35)
392 (419)
176 (167)
340 (330)
3 (4)
90 (160)
7 (5)
113 (128)
257 (625)
10 (7)
15 (25)
605 (649)
17 (16)
224 (93)
29 (47)
176 (86)
48 (44)
134 (131)
399 (1,090)
123 (88)
926 (683)
14 (8)
200 (540)
327 (131)
0 (15)
0 (158)
0 (15)
0 (15)
312 (17)
0 (15)
15 (15)
45 (23)
15 (23)
15 (15)
45 (45)
15 (15)
2 (3)
367 (634)
3 (5)
34 (23)
622 (635)
11 (24)
20 (26)
5 (32)
12 (32)
41 (77)
5 (42)
8 (22)
Study Intersection
Stop Sign
Traffic Signal
Recommended Traffic Signal
Recommended Lane Improvement
AM Peak Hour Volume
PM Peak Hour Volume
LEGEND
XX
(XX)
71 (122)
322 (503)
11 (42)
69 (84)
539 (343)
74 (178) 19 (29) 245 (137) 97 (83)
1 (0)
60 (249)
16 (68)
3 (1)
232 (91)
40 (24) 69 (23) 162 (180) 42 (24)
13 (114)
30 (159)
13 (82)
7 (16)
159 (59)
136 (8)
87 (17)
65 (219)
31 (108)
53 (81)
440 (641)
468 (349)
123 (337)
24 (4)
1 (3)
297 (149)
8 (0)
1 (0)
2 (15)
33 PKWY.
KEYSTONE PACIFIC
California Aqueduct
AVE. MULBERRY
VINEYARD AVE.
NEEDHAM RD.
LOQUAT AVE.
FRUIT AVE.
DEL PUERTO CANYON RD.
CARPENTER RD.
BALDWIN RD.
LAS PALMAS AVE.
WALNUT AVE.
OLIVE AVE.
ZACHARIAS RD.
DONKIN RD.
ORANGE AVE.
FIG AVE. BARTCH
AVE.
ROGERS RD.
RAINES RD.
EUCALYPTUS AVE.
ELM AVE.
POPLAR AVE.
EAST
PA LMAS
E ST.
W. MAIN AVE.
LEMON AVE.
MAGNOLIA AVE.
PARK CTR. DR.
SPERRY AVE.
W. LAS
AMERICAN
EAGLE AVE.
5 12
14 29 28 16
30 31
27 15
21 19
23 20
22 24
25 17
18 1 2 3 4 5
13 6 7 8 9 10
11 SYCAMORE AVE.
Note: * Final improvements to be determined by PAED underway P1811154 - 1/30/20 CT
7.2.a
Packet Pg1
CITY OF PATTERSON TRANSPORTATION INFRASTRUCTURE MASTER PLAN March 6, 2020
18 4.0 FUTURE MASTER PLAN BUILDOUT CONDITIONS
METHODOLOGY
The estimated existing population (2012) consists of approximately 21,100 residents and approximately 6,980 jobs. Therefore, with a projected master plan buildout population of approximately 66,300 and 81,300 jobs, it is estimated that there would be a threefold increase in population and nearly 12-fold increase in jobs.
The Patterson Model land use and network assumptions were updated and used for traffic projections.
APPROVED PROJECTS AND REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT
Previously approved and reasonably foreseeable developments anticipated in the region surrounding the City that will contribute traffic to the cumulative impacts were added. Some of the major approved project includes the West Patterson Business Park, Villages of Patterson, Diablo Grande Planned Residential/Resort Community, and the West Patterson Business Park Expansion – approximately 11 million square feet (sf) light industrial, 839 thousand square feet (ksf) business park and 198 ksf business park.
OTHER MAJOR PROJECTS
One of the largest land use development projects in the County of Stanislaus is the Crows Landing Project.
The Crows Landing Project includes the former National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) Crows Landing Air Facility (CLAF). The project site is located south of the City of Patterson between I-5 and the California Aqueduct and SR-33.
Stanislaus County has initiated an environmental review of for the Crows Landing Industrial Business Park for industrial, business park and public use.
The City is currently in the process of evaluating potential impacts of the proposed Zacharias Master Plan / Baldwin Master Plan 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.
MAJOR TRAFFIC FLOWS
The projected buildout peak hour roadway volumes indicated substantial traffic increases on all roadways and particularly large increases could be expected on key arterials. Major increases are anticipated on all key east-west routes such as W Main Street, Sperry Avenue, E Las Palmas, and Zacharias Road.
Additionally, anticipated major traffic growth could be expected on key north-south arterials such as SR33, Rogers Road, Ward Avenue, and Baldwin Road.
A key traffic flow map is shown in Exhibit I below. A summary of major traffic flows observed entering or exiting the City during the peak hours are as follows:
7.2.a
Packet Pg. 104 Attachment: Final_Patterson_TIMP_4-22-20 (Approve the Initial Study / EIR Addendum to the 2010 General Plan EIR for the Transportation) CITY OF PATTERSON TRANSPORTATION INFRASTRUCTURE MASTER PLAN March 6, 2020
19 W Main Street (crossing San Joaquin River) - approximately 35 to 40 percent of total traffic I-5 (north of Sperry Avenue) – approximately 15 percent entering/exiting Patterson I-5 (south of Sperry Avenue) – approximately 10 percent entering/exiting Patterson Traffic from the north (SR-33, Baldwin Road and Rogers Road) – approximately 30 percent Traffic from the south (SR-33) – approximately 10 percent
POTENTIAL BUILDOUT LANE REQUIREMENTS
It is estimated that major roadway improvements would be required to accommodate the projected traffic growth due to buildout land use in the future. In general, it could be assumed four-lane roads would be required for all the major north-south and east-west arterials. The assumed roadway improvements are illustrated in Figure 4.
Improvements in general will be roadway widening to add lanes, new traffic signal installations (or roundabouts), and additional improvements to accommodate pedestrian and bicycle use. Preliminary buildout roadway improvement conceptual plans and order of magnitude cost estimates are contained in Appendix D. A summary of 13 major roadway order of magnitude improvement cost estimates for buildout projects are shown in Table 7.
In addition, it is also assumed that major improvements contemplated for the Sperry Road & I-5 interchange would be completed in the next few years and a new interchange in the vicinity of I-5 & Zacharias Road would also be implanted in the future. The proposed South County Corridor is assumed to Exhibit I: Master Plan Buildout Major Traffic Flow
South County Corridor
7.2.a
Packet Pg. 105 Attachment: Final_Patterson_TIMP_4-22-20 (Approve the Initial Study / EIR Addendum to the 2010 General Plan EIR for the Transportation) CITY OF PATTERSON TRANSPORTATION INFRASTRUCTURE MASTER PLAN March 6, 2020
20 be aligned generally along W Main Avenue & Eucalyptus Avenue & Zacharias Avenue. It would be in line with the recommended alternative in the adopted South County Corridor Feasibility Study.5 Table 7: Buildout Improvement Cost Estimates
Roadway Segment Length (mi) Cost Estimate
I. Local Segments
1 Sperry Ave I-5 NB Ramps to Baldwin Road 1.21 $12,610,440 2 Sperry Ave Ward Avenue to SR 33 0.85 $7,188,200
3 Ward Ave Sperry Avenue to American Eagle Way 0.80 $5,402,895 4 Ward Ave American Eagle Way to SR 33 0.91 $5,775,968
5 Ward Ave Sperry Avenue to Marshall Road 2.00 $17,853,476 6 Baldwin Road Keystone Pacific Way to SR 33 2.65 $22,505,650 7 Rogers Rd Sperry Avenue to SR 33 4.55 $41,482,900
8 Zacharias Rd Rogers Road to SR 33 1.89 $17,233,500
9 SR 33 Rogers Road to Walnut Avenue 4.36 $37,945,500
10 SR 33 Sperry Avenue to Pomelo Avenue 1.40 $12,105,040 11 Walnut Ave SR 33 to Sycamore Avenue 1.04 $6,952,725
13 Sycamore Ave Eucalyptus Avenue to Orange Avenue 2.08 $12,911,700 14 Elm Ave Eucalyptus Avenue to Orange Avenue 2.08 $13,858,575 Total $213,826,569
II. Interchange & Regional Roadway
1 Sperry Ave/I-5 Interchange $11.3 to $14.6 M A
2 Zacharias Ave/I-5 Interchange $75 M B
3 S. County Corridor - Sperry Avenue Alignment $266M C
5 South County Corridor Feasibility Study, May 18, 2016 Note:
A
– Based on Interstate 5 / Sperry Ave Interchange Improvements Project, April 20, 2017 B
- Information provided by city staff based on estimates C
- South County Corridor (SCC) Feasibility Study (Study), May 18, 2016
7.2.a
Packet Pg. 106 Attachment: Final_Patterson_TIMP_4-22-20 (Approve the Initial Study / EIR Addendum to the 2010 General Plan EIR for the Transportation) SR 33
PKWY.
KEYSTONE PACIFIC
California
Aqueduct
DAVIS AVE.OAK FLAT RD.
MULAVE. BERRY
VINEYARD AVE.
NEEDHAM RD.
LOQUAT AVE.
FRUIT AVE.
HOWARD RD.
DEL PUERTO CANYON RD.
JENNINGS RD.
M ST.
CARPENTER RD.
MARSHALL RD. WARD AVE.
BALDWIN
RD.
ELFERS RD.
LAS PALMAS AVE. WALNUT AVE.
ZACHARIAS RD. OLIVE AVE.
DONKIN RD.
ORANGE AVE.
FIG AVE.
SYCAMORE AVE. BARTCH AVE.
ROGERS RD.
RAINES RD. EUCALYPTUS AVE.
ALMOND AVE.
POMELO AVE.
LOCUST AVE.
APRICOT AVE. POMEGRANATE AVE.
ELM AVE.
POPLAR AVE.
EAST
PA LMAS E ST.
W. MAIN AVE.
LEMON AVE. MAGNOLIA AVE.
PARK CTR. DR.
SPERRY AVE.
W. LAS
AMERICAN
EAGLE AVE.
City of Patterson - Transportation Infrastructure Master PlanRecommended Buildout Roadway Improvements 5 Not to Scale
N O R T H
Figure
4 33
33 Study IntersectionProposed Future Study IntersectionProposed Future RoadSchoolsCommunity Destinations4 Lanes6 LanesNew InterchangeFuture Roadway LEGEND
14 29 28 16
30 31
27 15
21 19
23 20
22 24
25 26
17 18
1 2
XX
*A
*A
*B
*B
XX
3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
11 4 lanes south of “M” St. not as critical4 lanes south of Keystone Pacific Parkway if R.O.W. available NOTES:
Assumed South County Corridor
3 Lanes
P1811154 - 1/30/20 CT
13 12
7.2.a
Attachment: Final_Patterson_TIMP_4-22-20 (Approve the Initial Study / EIR Addendum to the 2010 CITY OF PATTERSON TRANSPORTATION INFRASTRUCTURE MASTER PLAN March 6, 2020 22 ASSUMPTIONS AND TRIGGERING OF IMPROVEMENTS
Ideally, roadway infrastructure modifications should be installed prior to the opening of major traffic generators. It is assumed that implementation of improvements discussed will occur over time as needs arise.
Many variables could affect the actual need for a roadway improvement as more is learned about the specific nature of the City’s development activity. The intent of the TIMP analysis is to serve as a long-term guide to plan for and accommodate traffic from new development as it occurs but before any major significant traffic congestions or constraints develop. The analysis conducted can be modified over time to reflect actual development proposals as they come online. The schedule for private sector investments and the ability and schedule of public sector funding for enhancing the public roadway infrastructure to accommodate private sector investments are significant variables that will shift over time. As in any infrastructure enhancement program, it makes sense to conduct underground and overhead utility upgrades simultaneous with roadway infrastructure investments, if possible.
Table 7 summarizes potential major roadway improvement projects in the city and associated implementation costs by location. The 14 roadway segments are shown in Figure 5. Three distinct components affect infrastructure enhancement costs: existing traffic, growth in background traffic unrelated to new development; and new development traffic.
Generally, individual private sector developers should be responsible for accommodating their specific traffic impacts, but not the impacts due to existing traffic or background traffic growth unrelated to their development (AB1600). As appropriate the City could use a model and develop a select link analysis procedure for estimating the proportion of traffic anticipated from new development to assist in identifying the amount of traffic generated by new development through critical intersection.
Improvements Trigger
As indicated earlier, the results of the traffic forecasts showed that under future scenarios, Sperry Avenue near the I-5 interchange should be improved to four-lane road and it is our understanding that improvements to the Sperry Avenue/I-5 NB &SB on/off-ramps could be underway shortly.
An improved four-lane Sperry Avenue and I-5 interchange would likely be able to accommodate a significant amount of land use developments in the future. Depending on the level of other developments in the area and regional traffic, it is estimated that a new interchange at Zacharias Road might not be triggered for a few decades.
For a typical two-lane urban roadway to be triggered for four lanes widening consideration, generally two-way peak hour volumes of approximately 1,500 or Average Daily Traffic (ADT) of approximately 15,000 vehicles are commonly used for planning level considerations6. It is recommended that traffic monitoring be conducted periodically for key roadways so that appropriate actions could be taken based on results of the traffic volumes.
6 2009 FDOT Quality/Level of Service Handbook & Table 3-12 of the Stanislaus County Standards, 2014 Edition were consulted
7.2.a
Packet Pg. 108 Attachment: Final_Patterson_TIMP_4-22-20 (Approve the Initial Study / EIR Addendum to the 2010 General Plan EIR for the Transportation) Schools
Community DestinationsParks and Recreation Facilities
City of Patterson - Transportation Infrastructure Master Plan Buildout Roadway Segments
Not to Scale
N O R T H
Figure
5 LEGEND
PKWY.
KEYSTONE P ACIFIC
California
Aqueduct
DEL PUERTO CAN YON R D.
M ST.
CARPENTER RD.
MARSHALL RD. WARD
AVE.
BALDWIN RD.
ELFERS RD.
LAS PALMAS
AVE.
WALNUT AVE.
OLIVE AVE.
ZACHARIAS RD.
DONKIN RD.
ORANGE AVE.
FIG AVE.
SYCAMORE
AVE.
BARTCH
AVE.
ROGERS RD.
RAINES RD. EUCALYPTUS AVE.
ALMOND AVE.
POMELO AVE.
LOCUST
AVE.
APRICOT AVE.
POMEGRANATE AVE.
ELM
AVE.
POPLAR AVE.
EAST
PA LMAS E ST.
W. MAIN AVE.
LEMON AVE. MAGNOLIA AVE.
PARK CTR. DR.
SPERRY AVE.
W. LAS
AMERICAN
EAGLE AVE.
5 33
xx Roadway Segment Number
4 1 2
3 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
33 14
P1811154 - 2/19/19 CT
7.2.a
Attachment: Final_Patterson_TIMP_4-22-20 (Approve the Initial Study / EIR Addendum to the 2010 CITY OF PATTERSON TRANSPORTATION INFRASTRUCTURE MASTER PLAN March 6, 2020 24 5.0 COMPLETE STREETS
BACKGROUND
Too often in the past, roadway projects were developed and planned with only autos in mind. Instead, the planning and design of any successful roadway projects should consider livability and include access for all modes of travel, including pedestrians and bicyclists.
In California, Complete Streets
Policy Legislation was passed at the
state level with AB1358 (2008),
requiring cities and counties to
include complete streets policies.
Therefore, a key priority of future
planning for streets in Patterson is to
ensure that they are more bikable
and walkable. This approach to
urban design will bring an
understanding for the streetscape
that is based on servicing the needs
of all modes of travel, as well as
improving the character of the
streetscape in Patterson.
FUTURE BIKEWAYS
The bicycle is a low-cost and
effective means of transportation that is quiet, non-polluting, extremely energy-efficient, versatile, healthy, and fun. Bicycles also offer low-cost mobility to the non-driving public. Bicycling as a means of transportation has been growing in popularity as many communities work to create more balanced transportation systems by giving bicyclists a greater share in use of the roadway networks. In addition, recent national surveys find that more people are willing to cycle more frequently if better bicycle facilities are provided.
Based on information provided in U.S. Census 2010, Table 8 shows the average travel time to work pattern. Travel time is important because it gives an indication of the number of potential new bicycle commuters. As discussed earlier, the existing bike to work is less than 0.5% of the total modes of travel.
With the estimates of total travel time to work of 10 minutes or less at approximately 20%, it means that there is much opportunity to increase the bike modes of travel.
7.2.a
Packet Pg. 110 Attachment: Final_Patterson_TIMP_4-22-20 (Approve the Initial Study / EIR Addendum to the 2010 General Plan EIR for the Transportation) CITY OF PATTERSON TRANSPORTATION INFRASTRUCTURE MASTER PLAN March 6, 2020
25 Table 8: Travel Time to Work Data
Mode United States California Stanislaus County
City of Patterson
Number Percent
Less than 10 minutes 14.1% 11.4% 17.4% 1,311 19.3%
10 to 14 minutes 14.5% 13.8% 16.1% 474 7.0%
15 to 29 minutes 36.2% 35.8% 35.3% 663 9.8%
30 to 59 minutes 27.2% 29.0% 20.0% 2,345 34.5%
60 minutes or more 8.0% 10.0% 11.2% 2,004 29.5%
Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 6,797 100.0%
Source: U.S. Census 2010. Percentages reflect percent of workers who do not work from home.
General Plan Bike Policies
The City of Patterson’s General Plan was updated on November 30, 2010. The General Plan serves as a “local constitution” that outlines the City’s environmental, social and economic goals, objectives and policies and guides all future decisions about development within the City. The plan is comprehensive, long-range, and general.
Bicycle-related policies and strategies can be found in the Circulation Element within the Patterson General Plan.
Circulation Element
The Circulation Element contains the following policies and goals that relate to bicycles and bicycling.
Policy and goal numbers have been retained from the Circulation Element.
Goal T-1: To create and maintain a roadway network that will ensure the safe and efficient movement of people and goods throughout the city.
Goal T-7: To promote pedestrian, bicycle, and rail travel as alternatives to automobile use.
Policies
T-7.1 Safe pedestrian and bike pathways. The City shall create and maintain a safe and convenient system of pedestrian and bicycle pathways that encourages walking and bicycling as an alternative to driving. New development shall be required to pay its fair share of the costs for development of this pathway system.
T-7.3 Bike routes. The City shall establish a safe and convenient network of identified bicycle routes connecting new residential areas by the shortest possible routes with recreation, shopping, and employment areas within the city. The City shall cooperate with surrounding jurisdictions in designing and implementing an area-wide bikeway system. T-7.4 Separation of bike routes from motor vehicles. Bicycle routes shall emphasize paths separated from vehicle traffic (Class I) to the maximum extent possible, but shall also include bicycle lanes within public streets (Class II and III). The City shall limit on-street bicycle routes to
7.2.a
Packet Pg. 111 Attachment: Final_Patterson_TIMP_4-22-20 (Approve the Initial Study / EIR Addendum to the 2010 General Plan EIR for the Transportation) CITY OF PATTERSON TRANSPORTATION INFRASTRUCTURE MASTER PLAN March 6, 2020
26 those streets where the available roadway width and traffic volumes permit safe coexistence of bicycle and motor vehicle traffic.
T-7.5 Include pathways in open space. To the extent practicable, bicycle and pedestrian pathways shall be included within open space areas.
T-7.6 Bike storage. The City shall require the inclusion of bicycle parking facilities at all new major public facilities and commercial and employment sites and shall encourage large employers to provide showers for employees.
T-7.7 Bicycle-automobile conflicts. The City shall promote the safe “sharing” of roads between automobiles and bicyclists.
T-7.8 Bike safety. Bicycle safety shall be considered when implementing improvements for automobile traffic operations.
T-7.9 Coordination with schools. The City shall collaborate with the School District to promote bike use and shall actively pursue Safe Route to School grants to fund programs that facilitate safe bike routes.
T-7.10 Coordination with other agencies. The City shall coordinate1 with Stanislaus County, the Stanislaus Council of Governments, Caltrans, and other agencies to improve bicycle and pedestrian circulation region-wide.
To further promote and implement some of these bike policies from the General Plan, potential future bicycle routes have been developed and are shown in Figure 6. A list of the future Class I, II and III bike lanes are shown in Table 9.
Some policies and action items which could help implement bike friendly objectives include:
Encourage future commercial development to provide bicycle access to surrounding residential areas.
Require future commercial development to place bike racks near entrances for employees and customers.
As appropriate require future development to construct bikeways included in the proposed system as a condition of development.
Meet the requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act when constructing facilities contained in the proposed system, where applicable.
Encourage future development to consider schools as important destinations for bicyclists when designing circulation systems within new developments.
7.2.a
Packet Pg. 112 Attachment: Final_Patterson_TIMP_4-22-20 (Approve the Initial Study / EIR Addendum to the 2010 General Plan EIR for the Transportation) CITY OF PATTERSON TRANSPORTATION INFRASTRUCTURE MASTER PLAN March 6, 2020
27 Table 9: Proposed Future Bike Facilities
ID Segment
Name From To Bikeway Class
Length
(Miles)
Cost
Estimates
1 American Eagle Sperry Ave. Sweet Briar Dr. II 0.44 $ 11,616 2 Sperry Ave. Del Puerto Ward Ave. II 2.21 $ 58,344
3 N 1st St. Olive Ave. E Las Palmas Ave. II 1.00 $ 26,400 4 N 9th St. Ward Ave. Sperry Ave. III/II 0.68 $ 17,952
5 N Hartley St. Walnut Ave. Chesterfield Dr. II 0.72 $ 19,008 6 Peregrine Dr. Flicker Ln. Heartland Ranch Ave. II 0.41 $ 10,824 7 Pipit Dr. American W Las Palmas Ave. II 0.32 $ 8,448
8 S 1st St. E Las Palmas Patterson City Limits II 0.66 $ 17,424 9 S Del Puerto S El Circulo. Poppy Ave. III/II 0.64 $ 16,896 10 S El Circulo. All All II 0.54 $ 14,256
11 Clover Ave. Sperry Ave. Bartch Ave. II 0.49 $ 12,936 13 Ward Ave. SR 33 Sperry Ave. II 1.69 $ 44,616
14 Calvinson Pkwy. Baldwin Rd. Ward Ave. II 1.04 $ 27,456 15 W Las Palmas Sperry Ave. Ward Ave./Mackilhaffy II 0.33 $ 8,712 16 Roadrunner Dr Cliff Swallow Heartland Ranch Ave. II 0.52 $ 13,728 17 Baldwin Rd. Sperry Ave. Calvinson Pkwy. II 0.19 $ 5,016 18 Baldwin Rd. Zacharias Rd. Existing Class II II 0.49 $ 12,936 19 Cliff Swallow Dr. Snake Creek Baldwin Rd. II 0.4 $ 10,560 20 Heartland Ranch Pipit Dr. Ward Ave. II 0.62 $ 16,368 21 Kestrel Dr. Heartland W. Las Palmas Ave. II 0.25 $ 6,600 22 Eucalyptus Ave. Rt. 33 Sycamore Ave. II 0.49 $ 12,936 23 Olive Ave. Rt. 33 Poplar Ave. II 2.52 $ 66,528
24 Poplar Ave. Olive Ave. Las Palmas Ave. II 0.49 $ 12,936 25 Washburn St. 1st St. Weber Ave. II 0.11 $ 2,904
26 Weber Ave. Washburn E. Las Palmas Ave. II 0.35 $ 9,240 27 E St. Rt. 33 9th St. II 0.52 $ 13,728
28 L St. Rt. 33 7th St. II 0.38 $ 10,032
29 Hartley Ave. Olive Ave. Walnut Ave. II 0.49 $ 12,936 30 7th St. L St. W. Las Palmas Ave. II 0.45 $ 11,880
31 Scarlet Ln Horizon Ln Daisy Dr II 0.24 $ 6,336
32 SR 33 Ward Ave. Bartch Ave. II 2.54 $ 67,056
34 SR 33 Magnolia Ave. Ward Ave. II 1.19 $ 31,416
35 Sycamore Ave. Marshall Rd. Walnut Ave. II 3.8 $ 100,320 37 Bartch Ave. Ward Ave. Rt 33 II 1.27 $ 33,528
38 S Del Puerto Poppy Ave. Elfers Road II 0.74 $ 19,536 39 Poppy Ave. Clover Ave. Rt 33 II 0.86 $ 22,704
40 Zacharias Rd. Existing Rt. 33 II 2.76 $ 72,864
41 Cliff Swallow Dr. Snake Creek Ward Ave. I/II 0.64 $ 861,696
Total Proposed 33.48 $ 1,728,672
7.2.a
Packet Pg. 113 Attachment: Final_Patterson_TIMP_4-22-20 (Approve the Initial Study / EIR Addendum to the 2010 General Plan EIR for the Transportation) PKWY.
KEYSTONE P ACIFIC
California
Aqueduct
DEL PUERTO CAN YON R D.
M ST.
CARPENTER RD.
MARSHALL RD.
WARD AVE.
BALDWIN RD.
ELFERS RD.
LAS PALMAS AVE.
WALNUT AVE.
OLIVE AVE.
ZACHARIAS RD.
DONKIN RD.
ORANGE AVE.
FIG AVE.
SYCAMORE AVE.
BARTCH
AVE.
ROGERS RD.
RAINES RD.
EUCALYPTUS AVE.
ALMOND AVE.
POMELO AVE.
LOCUST AVE.
APRICOT AVE.
POMEGRANATE AVE.
ELM AVE.
POPLAR AVE.
EAST
PA LMAS
E ST.
W. MAIN AVE.
LEMON AVE.
MAGNOLIA AVE.
PARK CTR. DR.
SPERRY AVE.
W. LAS
AMERICAN
EAGLE AVE.
Class II does not exist between Ward Ave. & 9th St.
Proposed Bicycle Facilities
Existing Bicycle Facilities
Schools
Community Destinations
Parks and Recreation Facilities
Class 1
Class II
Class 1
Class II
Paseo
Existing Class III/
Proposed Class II
City of Patterson - Transportation Infrastructure Master Plan Existing and Future Bikeways
Not to Scale
N O R T H
Figure
6 LEGEND
*1
*1
5 33
33 P1811154 - 01/02/20 CT
7.2.a
Packet Pg. 114 Attachment: Final_Patterson_TIMP_4-22-20 (Approve the Initial Study / EIR Addendum to the 2010 CITY OF PATTERSON TRANSPORTATION INFRASTRUCTURE MASTER PLAN March 6, 2020
29 CALTRANS - INTERSECTION CONTROL EVALUATION (ICE) & ROUNDABOUT In August 23, 2013, Caltrans issued Traffic Operations Policy Directive, Intersection Control Evaluation (ICE) 13-02. Based on Caltrans guidelines,7 an engineering study of traffic conditions, pedestrian characteristics, and physical characteristics of the location should be performed to determine whether installation of a traffic control signal is justified at a location. It stated that on local streets and State highways, the engineering study should include consideration of a roundabout (yield control). If a roundabout is determined to provide a viable and practical solution, it should be studied in lieu of, or in addition to a traffic control signal. If a roundabout is determined to provide a viable and practical solution, it should be studied in lieu of, or in addition to a traffic control signal. Details of Intersection Control Evaluation (ICE) 13-02 are shown in Appendix E.
The results of numerous studies8 demonstrated that roundabouts can provide substantial traffic flow benefits compared with conventional intersections. They bring conflicting traffic streams into a steady flow and allow vehicles to safely merge without the stop-and-go conditions caused by stop signs and traffic signals. And by eliminating left turns, roundabouts eliminate delays caused by left-turning vehicles waiting for safe gaps in oncoming traffic.
Negative effects of traffic signals, including increased vehicle queuing, delays, fuel consumption, and crashes, can be expected to last for many years. In addition to operational and safety benefits, roundabouts eliminate the expense of installing and maintaining traffic signals; installation of a traffic signal costs an estimated $300,000. Roundabouts also eliminate the electricity consumption and routine maintenance required to operate traffic signals, estimated at $5,000 annually. There also are costs associated with roundabout construction; however, because costs for building roundabouts vary widely based on site-specific factors, it is not possible to make generalized cost comparisons between roundabouts and traffic signals. However, unless there is extensive right-of-way take it could be assumed that the cost would be less than $300,000.
According to research done by the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (www.iihs.org), at locations (23 locations studied) where roundabouts have replaced stop signs and/or traffic signals crashes:
Decreased 39%
Involving injuries decreased 76%
Involving fatalities and/or incapacitating injuries decreased 90% Vehicle delay was reduced by 62 – 74% resulting in (10 locations studied) Saving 325,000 hours of motorists’ time annually
Reduction in fuel consumption of 235,000 gallons annually Environmental benefit of reduction in vehicle emissions Saved $5,000 per year per intersection in electricity and maintenance costs Despite their benefits, roundabouts may not be the best solution at all locations. Roundabouts may not be feasible at locations where topographic or site constraints limit the ability to provide appropriate geometry. Also, intersections with very unbalanced traffic flows (i.e., very high traffic volumes on the main street and very light traffic on the side street) may preclude roundabouts for reasons of traffic flow. 7 California MUTCD 2014 Edition
8 Roundabout vs. Signals, When, Where & How to Decide What’s Best, Ben Jetta L. Johnson, P.E., August 21, 2008
7.2.a
Packet Pg. 115 Attachment: Final_Patterson_TIMP_4-22-20 (Approve the Initial Study / EIR Addendum to the 2010 General Plan EIR for the Transportation) CITY OF PATTERSON TRANSPORTATION INFRASTRUCTURE MASTER PLAN March 6, 2020
30 However, as the proportion of minor street traffic volumes increase, roundabouts typically become more feasible and provide greater reductions in vehicle delays compared with traffic signals. Error! Reference source not found. provides a comparison of traffic signals vs. roundabout in several areas including safety, traffic operations, right of way impacts, community impacts and costs.
POTENTIAL LOCATIONS FOR ROUNDABOUTS AT BUILDOUT
Since roundabouts can provide substantial traffic flow benefits compared with conventional signalized intersections, it might be appropriate for the City of Patterson to carefully weigh merits of considering roundabouts at some of the future signalized intersections which might require a signal at buildout.
7.2.a
Packet Pg. 116 Attachment: Final_Patterson_TIMP_4-22-20 (Approve the Initial Study / EIR Addendum to the 2010 General Plan EIR for the Transportation) CITY OF PATTERSON TRANSPORTATION INFRASTRUCTURE MASTER PLAN March 6, 2020
31 Table 10: Comparison of Traffic Signals vs. Roundabout Signal Roundabout
Safety
Crash Frequency Higher than a roundabout Lower than a traffic signal Crash Severity Higher due to higher speeds and higher speed differential
Lower due to lower speeds and lower speed differential.
Elimination of high-speed T-bone (angle) crashes.
Number of conflict points
between vehicles 32 Reduced to 8
Number of driver decisions.
Higher than a roundabout since drivers need
to be aware of vehicles to the left, right and
straight ahead.
Reduced since drivers only need to be aware of vehicles to their left at entry.
Severity of driver errors Higher due to higher speeds and larger speed differentials.
Reduced since overall speeds are lower and the relative differences in speeds are also lower.
Traffic Calming Not effective as a traffic calming measure. Entering and circulating geometry constrains the speed to 18 – 30 mph. Geometrics ensure lower speeds.
Traffic Operations
Trucks (turning movements) May encroach on adjacent lanes while turning May encroach on adjacent lanes while turning. May require the use of the truck apron on the inside of the roundabout when making a left turn.
Capacity Constrained by green time in cycle length Generally greater capacity than a traffic signal.
Operational Benefits More delay to all vehicles than a roundabout. Less delay.
Traffic Signing Typical Intersection Signing Same signing as signalized intersection except YIELD signs are used to control the traffic entering the roundabout.
Traffic Speed
Not limited by geometrics. Speed on side
roads, which previously had stop signs, will
increase.
Geometric features ensure slow entering and circulating speeds. Speed is restrained to 18- 30 mph by the
geometrics.
User Familiarity
Drivers are very familiar with using
intersections with separate left turn and right
turn lanes.
Roundabout is already available in Patterson.
Community
Impacts
Community Enhancements Community enhancements are available on the perimeter of the intersection.
In addition to the perimeter the central island may be
developed as a “gateway” to the community.
Environmental Benefits
Increase in fuel consumption and emissions due
to stopped and riding vehicles during red light
phases.
Overall reduction in fuel consumption and vehicle emissions since delay at the intersection is reduced.
Right of
Way
Overall Typically requires additional area on the
approaches to the intersection.
Typically require more area at the junction of the roadways but not as much area on the approaches
Cost
Maintenance
Signals are susceptible to care and trucks
hitting them, power outages and malfunctions.
Routine signal head repair, and replacement,
loop repair, and maintenance required.
Pavement markings and landscaping. No impact on
intersection due to power outages
ADVANCE TECHNOLOGY
As Patterson continues to develop and grows, so will its signal system. The assumed Master Plan Buildout of Patterson is projected to include approximately 66,300 residents and 81,300 jobs. By that time, the City’s land use development will include much more residential, retail, and commercial developments.
Based on the projected population and job growth, it is anticipated that at least 50-60 signals could be installed and operated in the city by that time. To effectively facilitate the smooth flow of traffic and safely accommodate pedestrians and bicycles, it is important to leverage the use of the latest technology to manage traffic flow.
7.2.a
Packet Pg. 117 Attachment: Final_Patterson_TIMP_4-22-20 (Approve the Initial Study / EIR Addendum to the 2010 General Plan EIR for the Transportation) CITY OF PATTERSON TRANSPORTATION INFRASTRUCTURE MASTER PLAN March 6, 2020
32 Therefore, the first step for the City of Patterson is to plan for an Advanced Traffic Management System (ATMS) as it develops a Traffic Signal Master Plan.
Communications Equipment-Signal Interconnect
For traffic signals to consistently work together and be coordinated, they require interconnect. Interconnect usually is in the form of a fiber optic cable or copper wire that is located in underground conduit and used to connect several signals along a roadway.
In some cases, interconnect may also utilize wireless technologies. In Patterson, interconnected signals will ultimately communicate with a local traffic management center (TMC), which is a centralized communication hub for those intersections, similar to how a network server is connected to individual desktop computers.
It is likely that all future 50-60 signals ultimately will be interconnected via underground conduit and report to a TMC. There is a significant advantage in having a signal system centrally connected to a TMC in that it allows a city maximum flexibility in grouping traffic signals for coordination according to various combinations of intersections, days, and time periods. This flexibility is greater when compared to mastercontrolled signals, which have hard wire connections only to their master controller. While signal timing coordination plans can be reprogrammed within a given zone under a master controller, these signals are not physically integrated with signal zones in other areas of a city and thus timing plans cannot be customized between zones. Under a TMC-controlled signal system, however, timing plans can be customized as needed for day-to-day operations, as well as for special events.
Another advantage of a TMC-controlled system is to segment signalized intersections into zones that correspond with levels of development. This is particularly applicable to Patterson as its several different neighborhoods will develop in the future including Villages of Patterson. Signal zones under a TMCcontrolled system are easily scalable and can be revised as development priorities change over time.
AMG recommends that Patterson consider establishing a City-owned network of conduit that can use fiber, copper, and possibly wireless technologies to communicate with all Intelligent Transportation System (ITS) field devices via a common Ethernet protocol. Additional details and recommendations on communications technologies for the Patterson system will be based on the ultimate ITS plans for the community, since the interconnect system will also serve as the community’s communications backbone.
Communications Layer
This layer of the physical architecture depicts the flow of information and data transfer for transportation layer components. It shows all of the communications that are needed for transferring data and information among transportation agencies, traveler information and emergency service providers, and other service providers such as towing and recovery. The communications layer clearly defines system interface points where national standards and communications protocols can be used.
It is important to note that although agencies technically are not part of the physical architecture of a signal system, it is necessary to determine the jurisdictional structure and working relationships in order to fully define the physical architecture. Determining these interactions provides a framework for system planning and implementation, including how information is communicated and between which agencies.
7.2.a
Packet Pg. 118 Attachment: Final_Patterson_TIMP_4-22-20 (Approve the Initial Study / EIR Addendum to the 2010 General Plan EIR for the Transportation) CITY OF PATTERSON TRANSPORTATION INFRASTRUCTURE MASTER PLAN March 6, 2020
33 In this regard, Figure 7 shows a high-level view of the National ITS Architecture, showing how the transportation and
communications layers of the
physical architecture can be
connected. In all, the physical
architecture includes 19
transportation subsystems
(white rectangles) and four
general communication
methods (ovals) that are used
to exchange information
between the subsystems.
The transportation subsystems
are further grouped into four
overall classes that are
roughly based on the
physical elements of
transportation management
systems (gray rectangles).
These classes are: Centers,
Roadside, Vehicles, and
Travelers.
Figure 8 shows how basic traffic signal control systems such as the future Patterson system fit within the overall physical architecture. Signal systems are represented by two transportation subsystems: Traffic Management (under the Centers classification) and Roadway (under the Roadside classification). Figure 8 further illustrates the specific functions contained
Figure 7: High-Level View of the National ITS Architecture
7.2.a
Packet Pg. 119 Attachment: Final_Patterson_TIMP_4-22-20 (Approve the Initial Study / EIR Addendum to the 2010 General Plan EIR for the Transportation) CITY OF PATTERSON TRANSPORTATION INFRASTRUCTURE MASTER PLAN March 6, 2020
34 within these subsystems. The Traffic Management subsystem includes traffic management center and central computer system elements, while the Roadway subsystem includes signal control, surveillance (loops and/or cameras), and controller cabinet elements. In terms of communications, wireline is used to connect these Traffic Management
and Roadway
subsystem functions. In
Patterson, the future
traffic signal system
could ultimately
include these
elements and
functions at buildout.
The Traffic
Management and
Roadway subsystems
identified in Figure 8,
together with the
necessary
communications that
are used to exchange
surveillance and
control information,
provide the following
capabilities that are
typically associated
with traffic signal
control systems:
Arterial
network
traffic conditions
Area-wide signal coordination
Range of adaptive traffic control strategies
Integration with other subsystem functions, such as emergency and incident management, freeway management, and transit management.
Implementation of the traffic management functions occurs at traffic management center (TMC), where central equipment is located, including computers, video display and switching systems, and traffic control consoles. For Roadway subsystem functions, implementation occurs in the field with such equipment as traffic signal controllers and heads, vehicle detectors (video, radar, inductive loop), and video cameras.
Figure 8: Traffic Management and Roadway Subsystem Functions
7.2.a
Packet Pg. 120 Attachment: Final_Patterson_TIMP_4-22-20 (Approve the Initial Study / EIR Addendum to the 2010 General Plan EIR for the Transportation) CITY OF PATTERSON TRANSPORTATION INFRASTRUCTURE MASTER PLAN March 6, 2020
35 6.0 RECOMMENDATIONS
Based on the results of the study, the following are some of our recommendations in order of priorities:
Complete Interstate 5 / Sperry Avenue Interchange Improvements – a comprehensive evaluation under Caltrans process is currently underway. An improved interchange would provide very significant improvement to the City’s major gateway to the I-5 freeway. Improve Sperry Avenue to four lanes – currently several segments are two lanes including east of Ward Avenue to SR 33 and west of Baldwin Road. A complete four-lane Sperry Avenue would add significant capacity to the major east-west arterial street in the City. Create an Advanced Traffic Management System (ATMS) and develop a Traffic Signal Master Plan – an ATMS system would allow the city to effectively manage the city’s traffic signals, services other modes of travel and improve safety.
Whenever it is feasible, use roundabout in place of traffic signal. Establish and provide Complete Street policies for all future roadways. Adopt recommended bike facilities plan and provide future funding for its construction. Creation of more continuous bike lanes at key destinations would encourage more people to use bikes instead of autos. Focus on redesign of downtown streets based walkable and livable principles. Initiate process to plan and fund the future I-5/Zacharias Interchange
7.2.a
Packet Pg. 121 Attachment: Final_Patterson_TIMP_4-22-20 (Approve the Initial Study / EIR Addendum to the 2010 General Plan EIR for the Transportation) CITY OF PATTERSON TRANSPORTATION INFRASTRUCTURE MASTER PLAN March 6, 2020
36 REFERENCES
1. City of Patterson, 2010 General Plan Policy Document and land use Diagram.
2. Caltrans, 2012, Traffic Volumes Annual Average Daily Traffic (AADT) on California State Highways.
3. Patterson Community Design Guidelines, October 2002
4. Patterson Strategic Plan (2017-2021), November 2016
5. Interstate 5 / Sperry Ave Interchange Improvements Project, Meeting Agenda, April 20, 2017
6. Final South County Corridor Feasibility Study, May 18, 2016 Advanced Mobility Group
Christopher Thnay, PE, AICP
Joy Bhattacharya, PE, PTOE
Steve Au, PE
Chris K.S. Higbee, PE
Persons Consulted
Mike Willett Director of Public Works, City of Patterson Joel Andrews City Planner, City of Patterson
Fernando Ulloa, PE Director of Engineering, City of Patterson David James, AICP Community Development Director, City of Patterson
7.2.a
Packet Pg. 122 Attachment: Final_Patterson_TIMP_4-22-20 (Approve the Initial Study / EIR Addendum to the 2010 General Plan EIR for the Transportation)
CITY OF PATTERSON TRANSPORTATION INFRASTRUCTURE MASTER PLAN A.1
LEVEL OF SERVICE METHODOLOGY
7.2.a
Packet Pg. 123 Attachment: Final_Patterson_TIMP_4-22-20 (Approve the Initial Study / EIR Addendum to the 2010 General Plan EIR for the Transportation)
CITY OF PATTERSON TRANSPORTATION INFRASTRUCTURE MASTER PLAN B.2
NEAR-TERM (10-YEAR) CONCEPTUAL PLAN
7.2.a
Packet Pg. 124 Attachment: Final_Patterson_TIMP_4-22-20 (Approve the Initial Study / EIR Addendum to the 2010 General Plan EIR for the Transportation)
CITY OF PATTERSON TRANSPORTATION INFRASTRUCTURE MASTER PLAN C.3
NEAR-TERM (10-YEAR) IMPROVEMENTS COST
ESTIMATE
7.2.a
Packet Pg. 125 Attachment: Final_Patterson_TIMP_4-22-20 (Approve the Initial Study / EIR Addendum to the 2010 General Plan EIR for the Transportation)
CITY OF PATTERSON TRANSPORTATION INFRASTRUCTURE MASTER PLAN D.4
MASTER PLAN BUILDOUT ROADWAY
IMPROVEMENTS COST ESTIMATES
7.2.a
Packet Pg. 126 Attachment: Final_Patterson_TIMP_4-22-20 (Approve the Initial Study / EIR Addendum to the 2010 General Plan EIR for the Transportation)
CITY OF PATTERSON TRANSPORTATION INFRASTRUCTURE MASTER PLAN E.5
INTERSECTION CONTROL EVALUATION (ICE) 13-02
7.2.a
Packet Pg. 127 Attachment: Final_Patterson_TIMP_4-22-20 (Approve the Initial Study / EIR Addendum to the 2010 General Plan EIR for the Transportation) 1 INITIAL STUDY/ADDENDUM
TRANSPORTATION INFRASTRUCTURE MASTER PLAN
1.0 BACKGROUND AND ISSUE PRESENTED
In November 2010, the City of Patterson adopted the City of Patterson 2010 General Plan update and certified the City of Patterson 2010 General Plan Environmental Impact Report (EIR) (State Clearinghouse Number 2010022035). The 2010 General Plan includes the goals, policies, standards, implementation programs, quantified objectives, draft land use diagram, and preliminary circulation diagram recommended as the City’s formal policy for land use, development, and environmental quality. The General Plan identified the need for preparation of a Master Plan to guide the installation of facilities and the provision of services to properties located within the General Plan Study Area to meet Patterson’s needs as it developed toward the growth projections assumed in the General Plan. The City developed the Transportation Infrastructure Master Plan (Master Plan; TIMP) to address transportation infrastructure needs as the city grows as envisioned in the General Plan. Specifically, the TIMP builds on the goals and objectives contained in the Circulation Element of the 2010 General Plan and directly implements the General Plan policies and implementation measures cited below. 2010 PATTERSON GENERAL PLAN
Public Services Element – Implementation Measures
T-2 The City shall maintain a Street Master Plan showing the existing and proposed ultimate rights-of-way and street width for each road segment within the city. The Street Master Plan shall be based on the adopted Circulation Diagram and indicate the necessary rightsof-way to be acquired or dedicated. The Street Master Plan shall be regularly updated.
The TIMP includes transportation analyses; a conceptual plan for master plan–level transporation infrastructure needed to serve new development and correct existing deficiencies; opinions of probable cost for new and upgraded transportation infrastructure; and documentation regarding existing conditions, facilities, studies, and regulations. The SDMP includes a comprehensive review of the City’s existing conditions and anticipated growth to identify improvements and expansions that are required to accommodate future growth anticipated by the General Plan and analyzed in the General Plan EIR.
1.1 CEQA REQUIREMENTS AND PURPOSE OF THIS DOCUMENT
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Section 15162 specifies the type of documentation required when changes are proposed to a project. CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 states:
(a) When an EIR has been certified or a negative declaration adopted for a project, no subsequent EIR shall be prepared for that project unless the lead agency determines, on the basis of substantial evidence in the light of the whole record, one or more of the following:
(1) Substantial changes are proposed in the project which will require major revisions of the previous EIR or negative declaration due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects;
7.2.b
Packet Pg. 128 Attachment: Admin Draft TIMP Addendum current (Approve the Initial Study / EIR Addendum to the 2010 General Plan EIR for the 2 (2) Substantial changes occur with respect to the circumstances under which the project is undertaken which will require major revisions of the previous EIR or Negative Declaration due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects; or (3) New information of substantial importance, which was not known and could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the previous EIR was certified as complete or the Negative Declaration was adopted, shows any of the following:
(A) The project will have one or more significant effects not discussed in the previous EIR or negative declaration;
(B) Significant effects previously examined will be substantially more severe than shown in the previous EIR;
(C) Mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible would in fact be feasible, and would substantially reduce one or more significant effects of the project, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative; or (D) Mitigation measures or alternatives which are considerably different from those analyzed in the previous EIR would substantially reduce one or more significant effects on the environment, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative.
(b) If changes to a project or its circumstances occur or new information becomes available after adoption of a negative declaration, the lead agency shall prepare a subsequent EIR if required under subdivision (a). Otherwise the lead agency shall determine whether to prepare a subsequent negative declaration, an addendum, or no further documentation. (c) Once a project has been approved, the lead agency's role in project approval is completed, unless further discretionary approval on that project is required. Information appearing after an approval does not require reopening of that approval. If after the project is approved, any of the conditions described in subdivision (a) occurs, a subsequent EIR or negative declaration shall only be prepared by the public agency which grants the next discretionary approval for the project, if any. In this situation no other responsible agency shall grant an approval for the project until the subsequent EIR has been certified or subsequent negative declaration adopted. (d) A subsequent EIR or subsequent negative declaration shall be given the same notice and public review as required under Section 15087 or Section 15072. A subsequent EIR or negative declaration shall state where the previous document is available and can be reviewed.
Section 15164 of the CEQA Guidelines includes situations when a subsequent or supplemental EIR is not required. CEQA Guidelines Section15164 states:
(a) The lead agency or responsible agency shall prepare an addendum to a previously certified EIR if some changes or additions are necessary but none of the conditions described in Section 15162 calling for preparation of a subsequent EIR have occurred. (b) An addendum to an adopted negative declaration may be prepared if only minor technical changes or additions are necessary or none of the conditions described in Section 15162 calling for the preparation of a subsequent EIR or negative declaration have occurred. (c) An addendum need not be circulated for public review but can be included in or attached to the final EIR or adopted negative declaration.
7.2.b
Packet Pg. 129 Attachment: Admin Draft TIMP Addendum current (Approve the Initial Study / EIR Addendum to the 2010 General Plan EIR for the 3 (d) The decision making body shall consider the addendum with the final EIR or adopted negative declaration prior to making a decision on the project.
(e) A brief explanation of the decision not to prepare a subsequent EIR pursuant to Section 15162 should be included in an addendum to an EIR, the lead agency's findings on the project, or elsewhere in the record. The explanation must be supported by substantial evidence.
1.2 CONCLUSION
The General Plan contains policies and implementation measures that specifically call out the need for the TIMP. The TIMP was envisioned in the General Plan as a method to ensure adequate infrastructure and services are provided to growth that was anticipated in the General Plan and analyzed in the General Plan EIR. The Master Plan would not provide for the expansion of services beyond that needed to accommodate the level of growth identified in the General Plan.
The City of Patterson, acting as the lead agency, determined that an Addendum is the appropriate environmental document under CEQA, because the proposed Master Plan would not require major revisions to the previous EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or substantial increases in the severity of significant effects previously identified in the City of Patterson 2010 General Plan EIR. As required by Section 15164 of the CEQA Guidelines, this determination must be supported by substantial evidence, which is included in the following analysis.
2.0 ANALYSIS
The following analysis documents that the Master Plan would not constitute substantial changes to the assumptions contained in the City of Patterson 2010 General Plan EIR that would require major revisions to the EIR. No further mitigation would be required to reduce impacts. Based on the analysis below, the Master Plan would not result in new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects that would require the preparation of a subsequent or supplemental EIR.
The City of Patterson 2010 General Plan EIR analyzed three equal-weight alternatives. The City Council ultimately approved a plan identical to the Jobs Emphasis Alternative analyzed in the Draft EIR with the following exceptions:
• An additional 339 acres of land are designated for Heavy Industrial development north of the future high school site along the railroad right-of-way and spur; and • The General Plan makes no distinction between a 20-year and 40-year buildout time frame.
The City Council found that impacts associated with the approved General Plan were adequately addressed in the Jobs Emphasis Alternative analyzed in the EIR.
The proposed TIMP assumes development consistent with the development density and intensity as analyzed in the General Plan EIR. While the TIMP identifies infrastructure based on the buildout potential of the General Plan, new development projects will be required to provide sitespecific or project-specific storm drainage solutions that are consistent with the overall infrastructure approach presented in the TIMP.
7.2.b
Packet Pg. 130 Attachment: Admin Draft TIMP Addendum current (Approve the Initial Study / EIR Addendum to the 2010 General Plan EIR for the 4 2.1 IMPACT DISCUSSIONS
The impacts discussed below are based on the City of Patterson 2010 General Plan Draft EIR.
Because the Draft EIR contains analysis of multiple alternatives, which were numbered separately in the EIR, the numbering below may not be sequential.
5.1 LAND USE IMPACTS
Impact 5.1-1 Land use compatibility conflicts between existing and future land uses within the Study Area
Applicable General Plan Policies and Implementation Measures Policies: LU-1.1, LU-1.2, LU-1.13, LU-1.14, LU-1.15, LU-3.2, LU-7.2, LU-7.4, LU-8.1, CD-1.1, CD-3.2, HS-4.7, HS-4.8, HS-4.11, HS-6.4, HS-6.6, HS-6.7, NR-2.1, NR-2.2, NR-2.3, NR-2.10, PS-9.1, and PS-9.5
General Plan EIR Mitigation Measures
No additional mitigation required.
Previously Identified Impacts
The EIR determined that implementation of the General Plan could result in land use compatibility conflicts between existing and future land uses within the General Plan area, but compliance with the City’s Municipal Code would reduce the impact to a less than significant level. The Patterson Municipal Code includes a number of performance standards to minimize land use compatibility impacts. For example, Title 6, Health and Safety, describes standards for (among other things), Property Maintenance (6.16), Neglected Vacant Structures (6.18), Storage of Fuels (6.24), Hazardous Materials (6.40), Noise Control (6.44), and Right to Farm (6.48). In addition, the City’s Zoning Ordinance (Title 18) sets forth, for each zone, development and use standards that are intended to help ensure compatibility among land uses. The ordinance establishes conditionally allowable uses for each zone that require discretionary review of new development. The City’s Community Design Guidelines and Downtown Physical Design Plan set forth the City’s expectations for the qualities to be incorporated in new development. The guidelines illustrate design strategies to help ensure new development complements existing development and minimizes impacts to surrounding development. The General Plan includes policies intended to minimize conflicts between existing and new development to ensure that this impact would be less than significant.
Master Plan Impact
The TIMP includes guidance for the timing, size, and general location of transportation facilities such as roadways and bike paths to accommodate growth identified in the General Plan. The TIMP does not add or change land uses identified in the General Plan and thus would not alter any assumptions in the EIR regarding the potential for incompatibility with these facilities. The General Plan policies and implementation measures, as well as the City’s Municipal Code, including the Zoning Ordinance, would continue to apply to these facilities. With implementation of the General Plan policies and compliance with the City’s Municipal Code, potential incompatibilities would be less than significant. This is an impact for which the General Plan EIR
7.2.b
Packet Pg. 131 Attachment: Admin Draft TIMP Addendum current (Approve the Initial Study / EIR Addendum to the 2010 General Plan EIR for the 5 adequately addresses potential impacts of the proposed Master Plan; no additional analysis or mitigation measures are required.
Impact 5.1-2 Consistency with the County General Plan
Applicable General Plan Policies and Implementation Measures Policies: LU-1.1, LU-1.2, LU-1.9, LU-1.13, LU-1.14, LU-1.15, LU-9.1, CD-1.1, CD-1.7, CD-3.2, NR-2.1, NR-2.2, NR-2.3, NR-2.4, NR-2.5, NR-3.11, AI-1.1, AI-1.2, and AI-1.3 Implementation Measures: LU-5, CD-1, NR-3, NR-5, and AI-1 General Plan EIR Mitigation Measures
None available.
Previously Identified Impacts
The EIR found that inconsistencies exist between the County’s land use designations and those of the City’s General Plan, in that the Patterson General Plan designates land surrounding the city with urban land use designations that would allow the conversion of agricultural land to urban uses. The General Plan includes policies that require the inclusion of land within the City’s sphere of influence and annexation prior to urban development. Amendment of the City’s sphere of influence and annexation require the approval of the Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCo) and cannot be guaranteed. Prior to annexation, the land use designations of the Patterson General Plan will remain inconsistent with those of the County. The EIR found that inconsistencies between the Stanislaus County General Plan and the Patterson General Plan would remain unless and until the areas in question are included within the City’s sphere of influence and annexed to the city by LAFCo. Moreover, impacts associated with development of these areas with urban uses would be greater than those associated with uses allowed by the County General Plan. These impacts were considered significant and unavoidable.
Master Plan Impact
The TIMP does not propose changes in land use designations from agricultural to urban uses; the Master Plan provides guidance on the necessary transportation infrastructure to accommodate growth identified in the Patterson General Plan. Therefore, while the TIMP would not reduce impacts identified in the EIR regarding consistency with the County General Plan, there would be no new or more severe impacts. This is an impact for which the General Plan EIR adequately addresses potential impacts of the proposed Master Plan; no additional analysis or mitigation measures are required.
Impact 5.1-3 Inconsistencies with City of Patterson zoning regulations Applicable General Plan Policies and Implementation Measures Implementation Measure: LU-1
General Plan EIR Mitigation Measures
No additional mitigation required.
7.2.b
Packet Pg. 132 Attachment: Admin Draft TIMP Addendum current (Approve the Initial Study / EIR Addendum to the 2010 General Plan EIR for the 6 Previously Identified Impacts
Site-specific development in Patterson is regulated by the Patterson Zoning Ordinance (Title 18 of the Patterson Municipal Code). In accordance with the California Government Code, the zoning districts applied within the city must be consistent with the land use designations in the General Plan. The EIR found that the General Plan would result in changes to the land use designations within the city limits, which in turn would result in inconsistencies between the land use designations and the current zoning for particular areas. Thus, until the applicable zoning regulations are amended consistent with the adopted General Plan land use designations, there would be inconsistencies between the two. This was considered a less than significant impact because potential inconsistencies between the recommended land use designations associated with the General Plan would be resolved by implementation measure LU-1, which requires an amendment of the City’s Zoning Ordinance following adoption of the General Plan. The City Zoning Ordinance was amended in 2013.
Master Plan Impact
The Master Plan would not alter land use designations or zoning within the city, so there would be no increased potential for inconsistencies between General Plan designations and zoning.
This is an impact for which the General Plan EIR adequately addresses potential impacts of the proposed TIMP; no additional analysis or mitigation measures are required.
Impact 5.1-4 Consistency with LAFCo policies
Applicable General Plan Policies and Implementation Measures Policies: LU-1.1, LU-1.2, LU-1.9, LU-1.13, LU-1.14, LU-1.15, LU-9.1, CD-1.1, CD-1.7, CD-3.2, NR-2.1, NR-2.2, NR-2.3, NR-2.4, NR-2.5, NR-3.11, AI-1.1, AI-1.2, and AI-1.3 Implementation Measures: LU-1, LU-5, CD-1, NR-3, NR-5, and AI-1 General Plan EIR Mitigation Measures
No feasible measures available.
Previously Identified Impacts
The General Plan designates land for urban development outside the City’s previous General Plan area and adopted sphere of influence to meet the General Plan objectives. The General Plan sets forth a long-term development strategy and a set of policies and implementation measures to meet these objectives. The General Plan policies and implementation measures encourage the application of “Smart Growth” principles, which encourage the city’s orderly outward expansion through the development of “complete neighborhoods,” which facilitates the efficient provision of public services.
However, land for urban development would be needed over time to meet the City’s objectives for affordable housing, balancing jobs with housing, the expansion of local retail opportunities, and the provision of public facilities, such as health care and schools. The city is surrounded by prime agricultural land, which comprises most of the acreage in the General Plan Study Area (see Table 5.11-5 on page 5.11-17 of Draft EIR Section 5.11, Agricultural Resources). To meet the
7.2.b
Packet Pg. 133 Attachment: Admin Draft TIMP Addendum current (Approve the Initial Study / EIR Addendum to the 2010 General Plan EIR for the 7 General Plan objectives described in Draft EIR Section 3.0, a portion of this acreage would be converted to urban use. The General Plan thus results in a trade-off between urban development and prime agricultural land.
The 2010 General Plan does not propose the annexation of land or an amendment of the City’s sphere of influence. However, the draft policies and programs in the General Plan anticipate the expansion of City services to serve development in the General Plan area. Draft EIR Section 5.3, Public Services, describes the various policies and programs to be implemented to ensure the provision of services concurrently or in advance of annexation. The infrastructure programs described in Draft EIR Sections 5.4, Water Supply; 5.5, Wastewater; 5.6, Transportation; and
5.13, Hydrology and Water Quality, set forth the City’s programs for providing these services.
Thus, the EIR found that the draft General Plan is consistent with LAFCo Policy 4.
The EIR discloses that the boundaries chosen for the extent of urban development accommodated by each of the Equal-Weight Alternatives were chosen to result in logical boundaries. In each case, the boundaries follow property lines, canals, roadways, or a creek.
However, when weighing the various competing interests reflected in the General Plan, together with the General Plan policies, certain aspects could be found to be inconsistent with applicable LAFCo policies. For this reason, this impact was considered in the EIR to be significant and unavoidable.
Master Plan Impact
As discussed above, the General Plan does not propose the annexation of land or an amendment of the City’s sphere of influence. Similarly, the TIMP does not propose the annexation of land or an amendment of the City’s sphere of influence. Some improvements identified in the Master Plan would occur in lands outside the city’s current boundaries. However, because the TIMP is intended to accommodate the growth in the General Plan by providing adequate transportation infrastructure, it would not itself result in development that would encroach on land outside the city boundaries that was not already considered for development in the General Plan. Therefore, there would be no new or additional impacts. This is an impact for which the General Plan EIR adequately addresses potential impacts of the proposed Master Plan; no additional analysis or mitigation measures are required.
Impact 5.1-5 Consistency with adopted plans and policies, cumulative population growth Applicable General Plan Policies and Implementation Measures Policies: LU-1.1, LU-1.2, LU-1.9, LU-1.13, LU-1.14, LU-1.15, LU-9.1, CD-1.1, CD-1.7, CD-3.2, NR-2.1, NR-2.2, NR-2.3, NR-2.4, NR-2.5, NR-3.11, AI-1.1, AI-1.2, and AI-1.3 Implementation Measures: LU-1, LU-5, CD-1, NR-3, NR-5, and AI-1 General Plan EIR Mitigation Measures
No feasible measures available.
Previously Identified Impacts
The EIR disclosed that the General Plan designates land for urban development surrounding the city that would remain inconsistent with the Stanislaus County General Plan. The EIR determined
7.2.b
Packet Pg. 134 Attachment: Admin Draft TIMP Addendum current (Approve the Initial Study / EIR Addendum to the 2010 General Plan EIR for the 8 that the conversion of these areas from a largely agricultural to an urban setting could conflict with LAFCo policies relating to the protection of prime agricultural land and unless and until these areas are annexed into the city, the inconsistency would remain. Although General Plan policies and implementation measures would help reduce the cumulative, long-term impacts of such development, impacts relating to consistency with adopted plans were found to remain cumulatively considerable and significant and unavoidable.
Master Plan Impact
While the TIMP would not directly result in growth outside the previous city boundaries, it would accommodate growth by providing necessary storm drainage infrastructure to serve that growth.
Consequently, the TIMP would not reduce the cumulative effects related to consistency with adopted plans and policies, but there would be no new or more severe impacts related to the Master Plan. This is an impact for which the General Plan EIR adequately addresses potential impacts of the proposed Master Plan; no additional analysis or mitigation measures are required.
5.2 POPULATION, HOUSING, AND EMPLOYMENT IMPACTS
Impact 5.2-1 Increase in population, housing, and employment will result in direct and indirect physical impacts to the environment.
Applicable General Plan Policies and Implementation Measures Policies: LU-1.1, LU-1.7, LU-1.9, LU-1.10, LU-1.13, LU-1.14, ED-3.1, ED-3.2, and ED-3.3 Housing Element Policies and Programs: 1-3-1, 1-3-2, 1-3-3, 1-3-4, 1-3-5, 1-3-6, 1-3-7, and 1-3-8 General Plan EIR Mitigation Measures
None available.
Previously Identified Impacts
The EIR found that the projected increase in urban development and the resulting increase in population, housing, and employment associated with the General Plan would result in direct and indirect physical environmental impacts. Direct impacts include noise, traffic, air pollution, potential erosion, and water quality impacts associated with construction activities, as well as the conversion of productive agricultural soils. Indirect impacts include an increased demand for water, wastewater collection and treatment, schools, and police and fire protection, and increased traffic, air pollution, and noise. The EIR also concluded that policies included in the General Plan would minimize impacts related to traffic, air, and noise by (among other things) promoting a balance among jobs, housing, and shopping and by facilitating alternate modes of transportation.
Nevertheless, implementation of the General Plan would allow for a substantial increase in population, housing units, and employment in the General Plan Study Area. This increase would have a significant adverse impact on the physical environment (as documented in the topical sections of the Draft EIR, Sections 5.1 through 5.15), regardless of the policies in the General Plan. Therefore, this impact was considered significant and unavoidable.
7.2.b
Packet Pg. 135 Attachment: Admin Draft TIMP Addendum current (Approve the Initial Study / EIR Addendum to the 2010 General Plan EIR for the 9 Master Plan Impact
The TIMP identifies the construction of facilities to serve development in the city, the construction of which would result in physical environmental impacts. However, the General Plan assumed construction of the necessary facilities to serve the increased population associated with the implementation of the General Plan. Therefore, although facilities identified in the Master Plan would contribute to this significant effect, the physical effects of the facilities identified in the TIMP were addressed in the EIR and there would be no new or additional impacts. This is an impact for which the General Plan EIR adequately addresses potential impacts of the proposed Master Plan; no additional analysis or mitigation measures are required.
Impact 5.2-2 Displacement of existing dwellings as result of new urban development Applicable General Plan Policies and Implementation Measures None identified.
General Plan EIR Mitigation Measures
No additional mitigation required.
Previously Identified Impacts
The EIR found that the General Plan, in and of itself, would not result in the construction of any new development. It would change the existing land use designations to allow an intensification of development, including housing. Urban development accommodated by the General Plan could result in the displacement of as many as 669 dwelling units as the city expands outward. The Circulation Diagram identifies a circulation system that would require the construction of new roadways within the area, which in turn may require the removal of some housing units and/or businesses, thereby displacing persons. The EIR concluded, however, that such displacement would be minor, given that roadway sizing and alignments are designed to avoid impacts to existing development areas and adoption of the General Plan would not, in and of itself, displace substantial numbers of housing units or people, nor would the General Plan redesignate existing residential areas to land uses that would require the relocation of residents. If relocation is required, state and federal laws require due compensation for persons required to relocate as a result of redevelopment projects carried out by the City or any projects that use federal or state funding. Any private development that may occur would pay the fair market price for any land/housing acquired as a result of project development. Therefore, although some isolated displacement of persons or housing may result, due compensation will be provided in accordance with the law to offset any cost-related effects.
In summary, although some existing units and their associated occupants will be displaced over the time frame of the General Plan (40 or more years), the number in each case is small compared to the number of units and population accommodated by the General Plan, so there would be ample opportunity for relocation within the General Plan Study Area. The EIR determined that implementation of the 2010 Patterson General Plan would result in a less than significant impact.
7.2.b
Packet Pg. 136 Attachment: Admin Draft TIMP Addendum current (Approve the Initial Study / EIR Addendum to the 2010 General Plan EIR for the 10 Master Plan Impact
Development of facilities associated with the TIMP was anticipated as part of the General Plan, as noted above in reference to road improvements. The Master Plan would not provide for infrastructure or facilities beyond those anticipated in the EIR and thus would not result in additional impacts. This is an impact for which the General Plan EIR adequately addresses potential impacts of the proposed Master Plan; no additional analysis or mitigation measures are required.
Impact 5.2-3 Cumulative impacts to population, housing, and employment Applicable General Plan Policies and Implementation Measures Policies: LU-1.1, LU-1.7, LU-1.9, LU-1.10, LU-1.13, LU-1.14, ED-3.1, ED-3.2, and ED-3.3 Housing Element Policies and Programs: 1-3-1, 1-3-2, 1-3-3, 1-3-4, 1-3-5, 1-3-6, 1-3-7, and 1-3-8 General Plan EIR Mitigation Measures
No additional mitigation required.
Previously Identified Impacts
Population growth projections for the region included in the EIR show the regional population was expected to be about 3.6 million in 40 years. The General Plan Study Area will accommodate a growth in population of about 47,831 by 2030, which exceeds the Stanislaus Council of Governments (StanCOG) Regional Transportation Plan projection for Patterson for the year 2030.
The EIR found that when the additional population accommodated by the General Plan is added to the projected 2030 population for the county, it would raise the projected Stanislaus County population from 1 to 3 percent above the most recent 2030 projection. It should be noted, however, that the population growth in the city would, at least partially, accommodate some of the projected growth in the county.
The General Plan contains policies that help minimize impacts relating to traffic, air, and noise by (among other things) promoting a balance among jobs, housing, and shopping and by facilitating alternate modes of transportation. Nevertheless, implementation of the General Plan will allow for a substantial increase in population, housing units, and employment in Patterson. This increase would have a significant adverse impact on the physical environment (as documented in the topical sections of the Draft EIR, Sections 5.1 through 5.15) regardless of the policies listed above.
Therefore, this impact was considered significant and unavoidable.
Master Plan Impact
Implementation of the TIMP would result in physical environmental effects from the construction of facilities to serve the population growth in the city. As discussed above, the EIR considered the physical effects of serving the population growth in Patterson (Draft EIR Sections 5.1 through
5.15). Because the effects of providing transportation facilities to the growing population in the city were disclosed in the EIR, there would be no new or additional impacts. This is an impact for which the General Plan EIR adequately addresses potential impacts of the proposed Master Plan; no additional analysis or mitigation measures are required.
7.2.b
Packet Pg. 137 Attachment: Admin Draft TIMP Addendum current (Approve the Initial Study / EIR Addendum to the 2010 General Plan EIR for the 11 5.3 PUBLIC SERVICES AND UTILITIES IMPACTS
Impact 5.3-1 Increased city population, the number of structures, and the geographic area served by the Fire Department
Applicable General Plan Policies and Implementation Measures Policies: PS-6.1, PS-6.2, PS-6.3, and PS-6.4
Implementation Measures: PS-9, PS-11, and PS-13
General Plan EIR Mitigation Measures
No additional mitigation required.
Previously Identified Impacts
The EIR determined that implementation of the General Plan would increase the population, number of structures, and geographic area served by the Patterson Fire Department. As the geographic area and population served by the Fire Department increases, the desired response times may not be achieved without additional fire stations and firefighting personnel. Based on a buildout population of 66,673, a total of 67 career firefighting personnel (24 more than in 2010) would be needed to achieve and maintain the desired level of service of 1 career firefighter per 1,000 residents. In addition, the city’s geographic area would increase to 11,796 acres. However, the EIR identified General Plan policies and implementation measures that would ensure additional fire stations and firefighting personnel are provided in order to achieve and maintain the desired response times. Implementation of these policies and measures would ensure impacts related to fire protection are less than significant.
Master Plan Impact
The TIMP identifies the construction of transportation facilities to serve development in the city; however, the Master Plan would not increase the number of structures served by the Fire Department. Therefore, the TIMP would not contribute to an increase in demand for fire protection services. The General Plan assumed construction of the necessary facilities to serve the increased population associated with the implementation of the General Plan. This impact was adequately addressed in the EIR; no additional analysis or mitigation measures are required.
Impact 5.3-2 Increased city population, number of businesses, and geographic area served by the Police Department
Applicable General Plan Policies and Implementation Measures Policies: PS-5.1, PS-5.2, PS-5.3, and PS-5.4
Implementation Measures: PS-9, PS-11, and PS-12
General Plan EIR Mitigation Measures
No additional mitigation required.
7.2.b
Packet Pg. 138 Attachment: Admin Draft TIMP Addendum current (Approve the Initial Study / EIR Addendum to the 2010 General Plan EIR for the 12 Previously Identified Impacts
The EIR determined that implementation of the General Plan would increase the population, number of businesses, and geographic area served by the Patterson Police Department. As the geographic area and population served increases, the desired response times may not be achieved without additional police substations and personnel. The EIR concluded, based on a buildout population of 66,673, that a total of 100 law enforcement personnel would be needed (79 more than in 2010) to maintain the desired ratio of 1.5 officers per 1,000 residents. However, the EIR found that policies and implementation measures contained in the General Plan would ensure additional police stations and law enforcement personnel are provided in order to achieve and maintain the desired response times. The EIR determined that implementation of these policies and measures will ensure impacts related to police protection are less than significant.
Master Plan Impact
The TIMP would not increase the number of structures requiring police services or otherwise result in an increase in demand for police services or facilities. This is an impact for which the General Plan EIR adequately addresses potential impacts of the proposed Master Plan; no additional analysis or mitigation measures are required.
Impact 5.3-3 The project will increase the city’s population with a corresponding increase in the demand for parks and recreational facilities.
Applicable General Plan Policies and Implementation Measures Policies: LU-1.3, LU-1.4, PR-1.1, PR-1.2, PR-1.3, PR-1.4, PR-1.5, PR-1.6, PR-1.7, PR-1.10, PR-1.12, PR-2.1, PR-2.2, PR-2.3, and PR-4
Implementation Measures: PR-1, PR-2, PR-3, PR-4, PR-5, PR-6, PR-7, and PS-11 General Plan EIR Mitigation Measures
No additional mitigation required.
Previously Identified Impacts
Based on the ratio of 5 acres of developed parkland per 1,000 residents desired in the city, the General Plan would require a total of 333 acres of developed parkland at buildout, or 256 acres more than in 2010. The EIR determined that a significant impact relating to parks could occur if developed parkland is not provided concurrently or in advance of population growth to achieve and maintain the desired ratio of 5 acres of parkland per 1,000 residents. As disclosed in the EIR, the General Plan includes policies and implementation measures that ensure additional developed parkland is provided in order to achieve and maintain the desired ratio of parkland to population. Implementation of these policies and programs would ensure impacts related to the demand for parkland would be less than significant.
Master Plan Impact
The City has undertaken a Parks and Recreation Master Plan, pursuant to General Plan Policy PR 1.1, which considers locational standards, preferred sites, improvement and equipment standards, development priorities, financing mechanisms, development of community activity
7.2.b
Packet Pg. 139 Attachment: Admin Draft TIMP Addendum current (Approve the Initial Study / EIR Addendum to the 2010 General Plan EIR for the 13 centers, sports facilities, and joint-use facilities. The TIMP includes provisions for the construction of facilities to link parks and related recreation facilities, but it does not identify specific locations for all anticipated facilities. As future development is proposed, each project applicant would be required to investigate the feasibility of construction of such facilities. However, the TIMP would not hinder the City’s ability to operate existing parks or construct new parks to serve city residents.
In addition, the TIMP would not increase population in the city, increase use of existing parks, increase demand for new or expanded parks, or conflict with the Parks and Recreation Master Plan. Consequently, there would be no additional impacts on parks and recreational facilities. This is an impact for which the General Plan EIR adequately addresses potential impacts of the proposed Master Plan; no additional analysis or mitigation measures are required.
Impact 5.3-4 The increased population accommodated by the project would generate additional students with a corresponding increase in the demand for school facilities provided by the Patterson Joint Unified School District.
Applicable General Plan Policies and Implementation Measures Policies: LU-1.3, LU-1.4, PS 7-1, PS-7.2, PS-7.3, PS-7.4, PS-7.5, PS-7.6, PS-7.7, PS-7.8, and PS-7.9
General Plan EIR Mitigation Measures
No additional mitigation required.
Previously Identified Impacts
The EIR identified a potential buildout population of 66,673, which could generate as many as 18,441 additional school-aged children (7,864 kindergarten through 5th grade, 3,248 6th through 8 th grade, and 7,328 9th through 12th grade). As discussed on page 5.3-32 of Draft EIR Section
5.3, Public Services and Utilities, Senate Bill (SB) 50 preempts a city or school district from levying or imposing additional fees (or other mitigation) in connection with, or made a condition of, any new land use approval as additional mitigation for the impacts of land use approvals on school facilities. In addition, a local agency may not deny or refuse land use entitlements on the basis that school facilities are inadequate, notwithstanding other provisions of the law, including CEQA.
The provisions of SB 50 are the exclusive means of both considering and mitigating a project’s impacts on school facilities. The Patterson Joint Unified School District owns a 12-acre site along Ward Avenue in the Patterson Gardens project area that it plans to use for an elementary school and a 56-acre site located north of Zacharias Road at Baldwin Road that it plans to use for a high school. The timing of the construction of these facilities will be based on the availability of funds and the demand for these facilities. The Villages of Patterson Development Plan EIR (2006) also notes that two additional school sites could be accommodated within that project’s boundaries, both of which would be K–5 facilities. Lastly, the General Plan includes policies to ensure potential school facilities impacts are mitigated in accordance with the provisions of state law.
Master Plan Impact
The TIMP would not increase the city’s population or generate additional students. In addition, the Master Plan would not hinder the school district’s ability to serve the increased population in the city. Consequently, there would be no additional school impacts. This is an impact for which
7.2.b
Packet Pg. 140 Attachment: Admin Draft TIMP Addendum current (Approve the Initial Study / EIR Addendum to the 2010 General Plan EIR for the 14 the General Plan EIR adequately addresses potential impacts of the proposed Master Plan; no additional analysis or mitigation measures are required.
Impact 5.3-5 Cumulative impacts relating to health care facilities Applicable General Plan Policies and Implementation Measures Policies: LU-1.3, LU-1.4, PS 7-1, PS-7.2, PS-7.3, PS-7.4, PS-7.5, PS-7.6, PS-7.7, PS-7.8, PS-7.9, PS-8.1, PS-8.2, PS-8.3, and PS-8.4
Implementation Measures: PS-16 and PS-17
General Plan EIR Mitigation Measures
None available.
Previously Identified Impacts
The EIR found that, although the City will implement a variety of policies and implementation measures to address the range of potential environmental impacts that may be associated with the construction and operation of new health care facilities, the ability to mitigate certain potential impacts is contingent on a number of factors, including the severity of the impact, existing land use conditions, and the technical feasibility of the proposed mitigation measures. Because of these contingencies, the potential impacts of construction of new health care facilities that may be needed to serve the expanded service population remain significant. No additional measures were identified to reduce impacts to a less than significant level, so this impact was considered significant and unavoidable.
Master Plan Impact
The TIMP would not directly affect health care facilities. While it would not reduce impacts compared with those disclosed in the EIR, it would not increase the need for health care facilities or hinder the development of new health care facilities beyond what has been considered in the General Plan EIR. Therefore, there would be no new impacts or increases in severity of previously disclosed impacts. This is an impact for which the General Plan EIR adequately addresses potential impacts of the proposed Master Plan; no additional analysis or mitigation measures are required.
Impact 5.3-6 Additional solid waste which in turn will reduce capacity of the landfill serving the city
Applicable General Plan Policies and Implementation Measures Policies: PS-4.1, PS-4.2, PS-4.3, PS-4.4, PS-4.5, PS-4.6, PS-4.7, PS-4.8, and PS-4.9 General Plan EIR Mitigation Measures
No additional mitigation required.
7.2.b
Packet Pg. 141 Attachment: Admin Draft TIMP Addendum current (Approve the Initial Study / EIR Addendum to the 2010 General Plan EIR for the 15 Previously Identified Impacts
The EIR determined that future development accommodated by the General Plan would generate as much as 53,119 tons per year of additional solid waste at buildout, which would reduce the capacity of the landfill serving Patterson. In addition to solid waste, sludge produced at the wastewater treatment plant will require disposal at a landfill. Sludge dewatered to about 20 percent solids would produce about 10,000 tons per year, but dried sludge production would be about 7,000 tons per year. Assuming total sludge produced by development within the 20-year growth boundary is about two-thirds of the buildout total, about 4,620 tons per year will require disposal by 2030 and 7,000 tons by 2050.
Brine generated through the treatment of groundwater and surface water will also necessitate disposal at a landfill. Brine production could result in about 31 tons per year of concentrated salts at buildout that would be periodically hauled to the landfill.
When the EIR was written, the Fink Road Landfill had a remaining capacity of 10 million cubic yards. The facility is permitted to receive 2,400 tons per day and was projected to close in 2023 if it accepted waste at that maximum daily rate. However, when the EIR was written, the landfill was receiving about 369 tons per day and has continued to receive waste at a rate far lower than the maximum rate. If this rate continues into the future, the remaining life of the landfill could be an additional 25 to 50 years. Its actual life would depend on several factors, including whether the waste stream received at the landfill remains around 369 tons per day, the density of the waste, and the rate at which solid waste is recycled.
The Fink Road Landfill had sufficient capacity for an additional 10 million cubic yards of solid waste over current levels (estimated to be 6 million tons, assuming 0.6 tons per cubic yard). If there were no other source of solid waste entering the landfill, Patterson’s contribution would take 130 years to bring the facility to capacity. Thus, the EIR found there is ample capacity to accommodate the city’s contribution to the landfill under existing plus project conditions. For these reasons and because the General Plan contains policies to ensure impacts to landfill capacity are minimized, the impact was found to be less than significant.
Master Plan Impact
The facilities included in the TIMP would not generate substantial amounts of solid waste.
Construction of facilities could result in the need for removal of excavated soil, but this soil would not be disposed at a landfill. A minimal amount of construction waste may occur, however, the TIMP would not alter the conclusions of the EIR or result in new or more severe impacts with regard to landfills. This is an impact for which the General Plan EIR adequately addresses potential impacts of the proposed Master Plan; no additional analysis or mitigation measures are required.
Impact 5.3-7 Cumulative impacts to solid waste disposal capacity Applicable General Plan Policies and Implementation Measures Policies: PS-4.1, PS-4.2, PS-4.3, PS-4.4, PS-4.5, PS-4.6, PS-4.7, PS-4.8, and PS-4.9
7.2.b
Packet Pg. 142 Attachment: Admin Draft TIMP Addendum current (Approve the Initial Study / EIR Addendum to the 2010 General Plan EIR for the 16 General Plan EIR Mitigation Measures
None available.
Previously Identified Impacts
The EIR disclosed that the landfill serving Patterson received 134,574 tons of waste in 2007 or about 0.2585 tons per year per capita (based on a 2007 county population of 520,506). The Stanislaus Council of Governments projects the total county population in 2030 to be about 791,332, assuming a 2030 population for Patterson of about 39,067, which is less than that accommodated by the General Plan for the year 2030 (about 47,000) and does not include waste generation associated with the West Park project. Assuming the 2007 per capita rate of solid waste generation continues into the future, the total additional solid waste disposed in the landfill between 2007 and 2030 would be about 4 million tons, which is less than the remaining estimated capacity of 6 million tons. However, by applying these same assumptions, the capacity of the landfill would be reached around 2039. Therefore, the EIR found that the General Plan’s contribution to landfill capacity impacts associated with solid waste generated in the city would be considered cumulatively considerable and significant and unavoidable.
Master Plan Impact
The proposed TIMP would not reduce the amount of solid waste delivered to the landfill, nor would it increase the landfill’s capacity. However, as noted above, facilities included in the Master Plan would not generate substantial amounts of solid waste. Consequently, although this impact would remain significant and unavoidable, the Master Plan would not result in new or more severe impacts than already disclosed in the EIR. This is an impact for which the General Plan EIR adequately addresses potential impacts of the proposed Master Plan; no additional analysis or mitigation measures are required.
Impact 5.3-8 Increased demand for library services
Applicable General Plan Policies and Implementation Measures Policy: PS-7.8
General Plan EIR Mitigation Measures
No additional mitigation required.
Previously Identified Impacts
The Patterson Library is part of a 13-branch network that serves the people of Stanislaus County, and the branch libraries are augmented by an extensive online library system. The EIR found that future development associated with the General Plan would increase demand for public information, including information available within the library system. However, with the growth in the use and availability of the Internet since the mid-1990s, access to information of all kinds has increased dramatically and Internet access is generally available for a nominal cost. For citizens without Internet access, the library continues to provide such access, to check out books and other documents, and to augment information available to residents online. The City will continue to coordinate with the library system to ensure that adequate public meeting space is available,
7.2.b
Packet Pg. 143 Attachment: Admin Draft TIMP Addendum current (Approve the Initial Study / EIR Addendum to the 2010 General Plan EIR for the 17 with the City’s recently completed community center/senior center providing one such venue. At the same time, with increased population, there will be increased opportunities for volunteerism to assist the library system. For the reasons noted above and with implementation of General Plan Policy PS-7.8, which is intended to minimize the impact on library services, the EIR found this impact to be less than significant.
Master Plan Impact
The TIMP would accommodate growth in Patterson by providing for necessary circulation facilities, but it would not increase the city’s population and thus would not result in an increase in demand for library services. There would therefore be no new or more severe impacts than those disclosed in the EIR. This is an impact for which the General Plan EIR adequately addresses potential impacts of the proposed Master Plan; no additional analysis or mitigation measures are required.
Impact 5.3-9 Increased demand for electricity and natural gas Applicable General Plan Policies and Implementation Measures Policies: NR-6.1, NR-6.2, NR-6.3, NR-6.4, NR-6.5, AR-6.1, AR-6.2, AR-7.3, AR-7.5, AR-7.6, AR-7.7, AR-7.8, and CD-1.8
Implementation Measures: NR-8, NR-9, and NR-11
General Plan EIR Mitigation Measures
The EIR recommended an additional policy, as follows:
LU-1.16 Provision of public services. The City shall ensure that adequate public services are available concurrently or in advance of new development consistent with the policies and implementation measures of the General Plan. Such services include, but are not limited to, water supply; wastewater collection, treatment, and disposal capacity; storm drainage and flood control; roadway and intersection capacity; electricity and natural gas; schools; health care; police and fire protection; and solid waste disposal capacity.
Previously Identified Impacts
The EIR determined that buildout of the General Plan could result in an increase in demand for electricity of about 292,264 megawatts over usage in 2010, for a total of about 596,066 megawatts. It should be noted that the EIR assumed that the per capita consumption of electricity in the future would remain at 2009 levels; however, compliance with newer efficiency requirements for electrical appliances and regulations intended to reduce the effects of climate change will likely result in a reduction in the future per capita consumption of electricity. In addition, the Turlock Irrigation District (TID), which supplies electrical energy to Patterson, does not anticipate any generation or capacity shortages in meeting the buildout demand of the General Plan. According to TID, as growth occurs in areas that currently have little to no electrical facilities, TID will upgrade existing lines or build new overhead or underground primary facilities and install service transformers and services. Adding capacity to existing substations will also be required in the form of new transformer banks or replacement of the existing banks with larger units. While TID does not currently have plans to build new transmission lines, it is likely that the increase in load would necessitate upgrading the existing lines serving Patterson, and the EIR assumed
7.2.b
Packet Pg. 144 Attachment: Admin Draft TIMP Addendum current (Approve the Initial Study / EIR Addendum to the 2010 General Plan EIR for the 18 these facilities may not be limited to facilities in the General Plan Study Area. All electrical distribution lines, substations, transmission lines, delivery facilities, and easements required to serve the city would be subject to CEQA review, but it would be speculative at this time to predict the timing, location, and therefore impacts of any such facilities. The future demand for electricity that exceeds TID’s generating capacity will be satisfied by purchasing additional power on the open market.
Natural gas is provided to the city by the Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E). Assuming 422 therms per capita per year, the city’s current (2010) natural gas consumption is about 8,862,000 therms (422 therms times 21,000 population). Future natural gas consumption associated with General Plan buildout is estimated at about 32,014,186 therms. However, improvements to energy efficiency and regulations intended to mitigate the effects of humaninduced climate change will likely significantly reduce the per capita demand for natural gas.
Nonetheless, PG&E does not anticipate any capacity shortages in meeting the buildout demand associated with the city. Similar to the approach TID takes to providing electricity, as growth occurs in areas that currently have little to no natural gas distribution lines, PG&E will upgrade existing lines or install new lines. All natural gas distribution lines, delivery facilities, and easements required to serve the city would be subject to CEQA review, but it would be speculative at this time to predict the timing, location, and therefore impacts of any such facilities. The future demand for natural gas that exceeds PG&E’s supplies will likely be satisfied by purchasing additional natural gas on the open market.
Master Plan Impact
Improvements outlined in the TIMP would result in the need for additional street lights, traffic signals, and other improvements that may require the need for increased use of electricity. The General Plan EIR estimated the electricity use on a per capita basis, which includes not just household and commercial use, but total energy demand in the entire city, which includes demand from infrastructure. Therefore, the projections include the demand generated by future transportation facilities and would not result in increases in demand for electricity or natural gas beyond that disclosed in the EIR. There would therefore be no new or more severe impacts than those disclosed in the EIR. This is an impact for which the General Plan EIR adequately addresses potential impacts of the proposed Master Plan; no additional analysis or mitigation measures are required.
Impact 5.3-10 Cumulative impacts to utility services
Applicable General Plan Policies and Implementation Measures Policies: NR-5.1, NR-5.2, NR-5.3, NR-5.4, NR-5.5, AR-6.1, AR-6.2, AR-7.3, AR-7.5, AR-7.6, AR-7.7, AR-7.8, and CD-1.8
Implementation Measures: NR-7, NR-8, and NR-10
General Plan EIR Mitigation Measures
None required.
7.2.b
Packet Pg. 145 Attachment: Admin Draft TIMP Addendum current (Approve the Initial Study / EIR Addendum to the 2010 General Plan EIR for the 19 Previously Identified Impacts
The EIR found that implementation of the General Plan, in addition to future development in the region, would result in cumulative utility service impacts, but neither TID nor PG&E predict any capacity shortages or problems in meeting the buildout demands of the city. While TID does not have plans at the present time to build new transmission lines to Patterson, it is likely that the increase in load would necessitate upgrading the existing lines in the area serving the city. All electrical distribution lines, substations, transmission, delivery facilities, and easements required to serve the city would be subject to CEQA review, but it would be speculative at this time to predict the timing, location, and therefore impacts of any such facilities. Because capacity shortages are not predicted and the General Plan includes policies and implementation measures that would improve the city’s efficient use of energy and reduce overall energy demand, the EIR determined the General Plan’s contribution to future energy demands would not be considerable.
Master Plan Impact
The TIMP provides for infrastructure and facilities needed to serve the projected population growth in the city over buildout of the General Plan. As noted above, the EIR considered energy demand associated with that growth, including that related to demand from public facilities.
Therefore, there would be no new or more severe impacts than those already disclosed in the EIR. This is an impact for which the General Plan EIR adequately addresses potential impacts of the proposed Master Plan; no additional analysis or mitigation measures are required.
Impact 5.3-11 Impacts related to the construction of public facilities Applicable General Plan Policies and Implementation Measures Policies: AR-1.3, AQ-1.4, AR-5.1, NR-1.3, and HS-2.9
Implementation Measures: AR-1, AR-2, PS-6, and PS-7
General Plan EIR Mitigation Measures
AR-6 The City will require all of the following as a condition of project approval:
• All disturbed areas, including storage piles, which are not being actively utilized for construction purposes, shall be effectively stabilized of dust emissions using water, chemical stabilizer/suppressant, covered with a tarp or other suitable cover or vegetative ground cover.
• All on-site unpaved roads and off-site unpaved access roads shall be effectively stabilized of dust emissions using water or chemical stabilizer/suppressant. • All land clearing, grubbing, scraping, excavation, land leveling, grading, cut & fill, and demolition activities shall be effectively controlled of fugitive dust emissions utilizing application of water or by presoaking.
• With the demolition of buildings up to six stories in height, all exterior surfaces of the building shall be wetted during demolition.
• When materials are transported off-site, all material shall be covered, or effectively wetted to limit visible dust emissions, and at least six inches of freeboard space from the top of the container shall be maintained.
7.2.b
Packet Pg. 146 Attachment: Admin Draft TIMP Addendum current (Approve the Initial Study / EIR Addendum to the 2010 General Plan EIR for the 20 • All operations shall limit or expeditiously remove the accumulation of mud or dirt from adjacent public streets at the end of each workday. (The use of dry rotary brushes is expressly prohibited except where preceded or accompanied by sufficient wetting to limit the visible dust emissions.) (Use of blower devices is expressly forbidden.)
• Following the addition of materials to, or the removal of materials from, the surface of outdoor storage piles, said piles shall be effectively stabilized of fugitive dust emissions utilizing sufficient water or chemical stabilizer/suppressant. • Within urban areas, track-out (earth material deposited on City streets by construction equipment) shall be immediately removed when it extends 50 or more feet from the site and at the end of each workday.
• Any site with 150 or more vehicle trips per day shall prevent carryout and trackout. • Limit traffic speeds on unpaved roads to 15 mph;
• Install sandbags or other erosion control measures to prevent silt runoff to public roadways from sites with a slope greater than one percent. • Install wheel washers for all exiting trucks, or wash off all trucks and equipment leaving the site;
• Install wind breaks at windward side(s) of construction areas; • Suspend excavation and grading activity when winds exceed 20 mph; and • Limit area subject to excavation, grading, and other construction activity at any one time. Regardless of wind speed, an owner/operator must comply with Regulation VIII’s 20 percent opacity limitation.
HS-10 The City will require the following as a condition of project approval to mitigate the adverse noise effects of construction-related activities:
a. Construction activities shall be restricted to the hours between 7:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, and between 9:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m. on Saturday, with no construction on Sundays or federal and state holidays; minor construction equipment servicing and maintenance will be exempted from this restriction. b. During construction, mufflers shall be provided for all heavy construction equipment and all stationary noise sources in accordance with the manufacturers’ recommendations.
c. Stationary noise sources and staging areas shall be located as far as is feasible from existing residences, or contractors shall be required to provide additional noise-reducing engine enclosures (with the goal of achieving approximately 10 dBA of reduction compared to uncontrolled engines).
d. Air compressors and pneumatic equipment should be equipped with mufflers, and impact tools should be equipped with shrouds or shields. e. If for construction purposes, locating stationary construction equipment near existing residential uses is required, an eight-foot-tall sound rated fence should be erected between the equipment and the sensitive receptor. The fence should be located as close to the equipment as is feasible.
7.2.b
Packet Pg. 147 Attachment: Admin Draft TIMP Addendum current (Approve the Initial Study / EIR Addendum to the 2010 General Plan EIR for the 21 f. Construction vehicle access routes shall be designed to minimize the impact on existing residences and occupied hospital facilities.
g. A “construction liaison” shall be designated to ensure coordination between construction staff and neighbors to minimize disruptions due to construction noise.
Occupants and property owners of residences within 400 feet of construction activity shall be notified in writing of the construction schedule and the contact information for the construction liaison.
h. A qualified acoustical engineer should be retained during the construction phase of the project to determine if the noise levels generated from construction equipment at the project site to adjacent property lines are within the standards.
The EIR found that implementation of General Plan policies and implementation measures would address the range of potential environmental impacts associated with the construction and operation of new or expanded facilities. Compliance with the City’s Small MS4 General Permit Best Management Practices and Chapter 6.44 of the Patterson Municipal Code (noise ordinance) would also reduce construction-related impacts. The additional measures identified above (AR-6 and HS-10) would further reduce the potential effects of the construction of new facilities to serve the expanded population. However, because the ability to mitigate certain potential impacts is contingent on a number of factors, including the severity of the impact, existing land use conditions, and the technical feasibility of the proposed mitigation measures, the potential impacts of construction of new public facilities and utilities that may be needed to serve the expanded service population were determined to remain significant. Since no additional measures were identified in the EIR to reduce impacts to a less than significant level, this impact was considered significant and unavoidable.
Master Plan Impact
The impact discussion relates directly to the provision of services addressed in the proposed TIMP. The Master Plan includes facilities in areas considered for development in the General Plan EIR. Because these effects were already considered in the EIR, no additional effects would occur. This is an impact for which the General Plan EIR adequately addresses potential impacts of the proposed Master Plan; no additional analysis or mitigation measures are required.
5.4 WATER SUPPLY IMPACTS
Impact 5.4-1 Water demand will exceed available supplies.
Applicable General Plan Policies and Implementation Measures Policies: NR-1.10, PR-1.11, PS-1.1, PS-1.2, PS-1.3, PS-1.4, PS-1.5, PS-1.6, PS-1.7, PS-1.8, PS-1.9, PS-1.10, and PS-1.11
Implementation Measures: NR-2, PS-1, and PS-2
General Plan EIR Mitigation Measures
PS-1.3 Supply for new development (as amended in the Draft EIR). The City shall not approve any new development without the demonstrated assurance of an adequate water supply to support such development and a City-approved funding mechanism to pay
7.2.b
Packet Pg. 148 Attachment: Admin Draft TIMP Addendum current (Approve the Initial Study / EIR Addendum to the 2010 General Plan EIR for the 22 for necessary improvements. Such assurance shall be provided in a form and manner determined by the City, and may include, but is not limited to, the following:
• A contract between the property owner(s) and a water purveyor guaranteeing the long-term delivery of a suitable quantity of water to serve the intended use of the property consistent with the General Plan;
• A contract between a water purveyor and the City guaranteeing the long-term delivery of a suitable quantity of water to serve the intended use of the property consistent with the General Plan;
• Such other mechanism suitable to the City.
NR-2 (As amended in the Draft EIR) Within 24 months of adoption of the General Plan, the City shall prepare and adopt a comprehensive water conservation plan, which includes but is not limited to, the following:
a. Landscape watering timing restrictions;
b. Requirements for water-efficient irrigation equipment for all new private and public development;
c. Enforcement strategies for water waste;
d. Recommendations for water-efficient landscape ordinances; e. Evaluation of and recommendations for water conservation pricing (such as tiered rates for water users) to encourage efficient use;
f. Strategies for providing individualized water audits for large accounts to identify conservation opportunities;
g. Requirements for water efficiency training and certification for irrigation designers, installers, and property managers operating within the City. h. Measures to ensure a reduction in per capita water demand City-wide of 20 percent by the year 2030. Such measures may include, but are not limited to, the following:
• Water Survey Programs for Single-Family Residential and Multi-family Residential Customers;
• Residential Plumbing Retrofit;
• System Water Audits, Leak Detection and Repair;
• Metering with Commodity Rates for all New Connections and Retrofit of Existing Connections;
• Large Landscape Water Audits and Incentives;
• High-efficiency Washing Machine Rebate Programs;
• Public Information Programs;
• School Education Programs;
• Commercial and Industrial Water Conservation;
• Wholesale Agency Assistance;
7.2.b
Packet Pg. 149 Attachment: Admin Draft TIMP Addendum current (Approve the Initial Study / EIR Addendum to the 2010 General Plan EIR for the 23 • Conservation Pricing;
• Conservation Coordinator;
• Water Waste Prohibition;
• Residential Ultra Low Flow Toilet Replacement Programs PS-15 The City will prepare, adopt and implement a program for development of a secure, reliable, affordable long-term secondary water supply. Such a program shall include, but shall not be limited to, the following:
a. The development of multiple sources of water, including, but not limited to:
i. Recycled water;
ii. Surface water;
iii. Conservation;
b. Water conservation measures, including but not limited, the following:
i. Best Management Practices as recommended by the Department of Water Resources;
ii. Conservation strategies necessary to ensure compliance with the per capita water demand reduction requirements of state law;
iii. The installation of non-potable water supply infrastructure in all new expansion areas;
c. Groundwater management, including:
i. Participation in regional groundwater management efforts; ii. The enhancement of groundwater recharge to increase groundwater supplies, ensure the protection of water quality and reliability, and to minimize impacts to other groundwater users;
d. The conjunctive management of water resources.
Water demand associated with the General Plan was estimated in the EIR to be between 24,705 and 27,311 acre-feet per year, which exceeds the available supplies to the city (assumed for planning purposes to be about 7,700 acre-feet). Section 5.4, Water Supply, of the Draft EIR and Appendix 5.4 set forth a water supply program to serve the General Plan Study Area. With regard to water supply, the Draft EIR recommends a program comprising the following elements, as articulated in implementation measure PS-15. In addition, the General Plan includes policies and implementation measures that address (among other things):
• Water conservation (Policies NR-1.10 and PS-1.5)
• The requirements for a demonstrated assurance of water supply for new development (Policy PS-1.3)
• The use of reclaimed water (Policy PS-1.6)
7.2.b
Packet Pg. 150 Attachment: Admin Draft TIMP Addendum current (Approve the Initial Study / EIR Addendum to the 2010 General Plan EIR for the 24 Previously Identified Impacts
The water supply program and the analysis in Draft EIR Section 5.4 acknowledged that there are considerable uncertainties associated with the recommended water supply strategy. The primary uncertainty relates to the willingness of the water purveyors currently providing water to properties in the Study Area to continue to provide water either to the property owners or to the City to serve these properties. Under the water supply program, the responsibility for acquiring the water rights rests with the property owner/proponent of development. Should the water purveyors choose not to sell the water to the property owner or to the City, the development could not go forward unless and until a suitable water supply alternative is provided.
The General Plan policies and implementation measures listed in the EIR would ensure that new development in the city would not proceed without verification and determination that an adequate water supply exists. However, it is speculative to state that a reliable water supply source would be available to serve buildout of the entire Study Area, due to the significant obstacles and costs associated with obtaining surface water supplies from the local water purveyors. In addition, the water supply strategy outlined for the General Plan would contribute to significant environmental impacts associated with planned water supply projects and other potential future water supply sources. The EIR disclosed that the water supply program outlined in the EIR would require extensive new and expanded infrastructure to transport water to the city, including canals, pipelines, pump stations, and transmission lines, as well as the construction and operation of a new water treatment plant. Given these conditions, this impact was considered significant and unavoidable.
Master Plan Impact
The proposed TIMP would not increase the population in the city compared to that analyzed in the EIR and would therefore not increase water demand. The Master Plan would not result in increased impacts related to water supply. Therefore, this is an impact for which the General Plan EIR adequately addresses potential impacts of the proposed Master Plan; no additional analysis or mitigation measures are required.
Impact 5.4-2 Construction of water supply infrastructure Applicable General Plan Policies and Implementation Measures Policies: AR-1.3, AQ-1.4, AR-5.1, NR-1.3, and HS-2.9
Implementation Measures: AR-1, AR-2, HS-6, PS-6, and PS-7 General Plan EIR Mitigation Measures
PS-14 The City shall require new development to implement relevant portions of the May 2010 Water Supply Analysis by:
a. Installation of improvements necessary to serve such development, and/or b. By the payment of in-lieu development impact fees that may be established from time to time by the City to fund water supply improvements required for new development.
AR-6 The City shall require all of the following as a condition of project approval:
7.2.b
Packet Pg. 151 Attachment: Admin Draft TIMP Addendum current (Approve the Initial Study / EIR Addendum to the 2010 General Plan EIR for the 25 • All disturbed areas, including storage piles, which are not being actively utilized for construction purposes, shall be effectively stabilized of dust emissions using water, chemical stabilizer/suppressant, covered with a tarp or other suitable cover or vegetative ground cover.
• All on-site unpaved roads and off-site unpaved access roads shall be effectively stabilized of dust emissions using water or chemical stabilizer/suppressant. • All land clearing, grubbing, scraping, excavation, land leveling, grading, cut & fill, and demolition activities shall be effectively controlled of fugitive dust emissions utilizing application of water or by presoaking.
• With the demolition of buildings up to six stories in height, all exterior surfaces of the building shall be wetted during demolition.
• When materials are transported off-site, all material shall be covered, or effectively wetted to limit visible dust emissions, and at least six inches of freeboard space from the top of the container shall be maintained. All operations shall limit or expeditiously remove the accumulation of mud or dirt from adjacent public streets at the end of each workday. (The use of dry rotary brushes is expressly prohibited except where preceded or accompanied by sufficient wetting to limit the visible dust emissions.) (Use of blower devices is expressly forbidden.) • Following the addition of materials to, or the removal of materials from, the surface of outdoor storage piles, said piles shall be effectively stabilized of fugitive dust emissions utilizing sufficient water or chemical stabilizer/suppressant. • Within urban areas, track-out (earth material deposited on City streets by construction equipment) shall be immediately removed when it extends 50 or more feet from the site and at the end of each workday.
• Any site with 150 or more vehicle trips per day shall prevent carryout and trackout. • Limit traffic speeds on unpaved roads to 15 mph;
• Install sandbags or other erosion control measures to prevent silt runoff to public roadways from sites with a slope greater than one percent. • Install wheel washers for all exiting trucks, or wash off all trucks and equipment leaving the site;
• Install wind breaks at windward side(s) of construction areas; • Suspend excavation and grading activity when winds exceed 20 mph; and • Limit area subject to excavation, grading, and other construction activity at any one time. Regardless of wind speed, an owner/operator must comply with Regulation VIII’s 20 percent opacity limitation.
HS-10 The City shall require the following as a condition of project approval to mitigate the adverse noise effects of construction-related activities:
• Construction activities shall be restricted to the hours between 7:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, and between 9:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m. on Saturday, with no construction on Sundays or federal and state holidays; minor construction equipment servicing and maintenance shall be exempted from this restriction.
7.2.b
Packet Pg. 152 Attachment: Admin Draft TIMP Addendum current (Approve the Initial Study / EIR Addendum to the 2010 General Plan EIR for the 26 • During construction, mufflers shall be provided for all heavy construction equipment and all stationary noise sources in accordance with the manufacturers’ recommendations.
• Stationary noise sources and staging areas shall be located as far as is feasible from existing residences, or contractors shall be required to provide additional noise-reducing engine enclosures (with the goal of achieving approximately 10 dBA of reduction compared to uncontrolled engines).
• Air compressors and pneumatic equipment should be equipped with mufflers, and impact tools should be equipped with shrouds or shields. • If for construction purposes, locating stationary construction equipment near existing residential uses is required, an eight-foot-tall sound rated fence should be erected between the equipment and the sensitive receptor. The fence should be located as close to the equipment as is feasible.
• Construction vehicle access routes shall be designed to minimize the impact on existing residences and occupied hospital facilities.
• A “construction liaison” shall be designated to ensure coordination between construction staff and neighbors to minimize disruptions due to construction noise.
Occupants and property owners of residences within 400 feet of construction activity shall be notified in writing of the construction schedule and the contact information for the construction liaison.
• A qualified acoustical engineer should be retained during the construction phase of the project to determine if the noise levels generated from construction equipment at the project site to adjacent property lines are within the standards.
Mitigation Provided by Existing Regulations
Chapter 6.44 of the Patterson Municipal Code discourages construction-related noise-generating activities that would result in a disturbance at nearby noise-sensitive land uses between the hours of 8:00 p.m. and 10:00 p.m. and typically prohibits these activities between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m.
Continued compliance with relevant provisions of the Clean Water Act regarding the protection of surface water and groundwater quality ensures impacts to water quality associated with development accommodated by any of the Equal-Weight Alternatives will be less than significant.
Specifically:
• Compliance with the City’s Small MS4 General Permit Best Management Practices (BMPs) before, during, and after construction. Such BMPs include:
o Good housekeeping activities such as storing of materials covered and elevated off the ground, in a central location.
o Securely locating portable toilets away from the storm drainage system and performing routine maintenance.
o Providing a central location for concrete washout and performing routine maintenance. o Providing several dumpsters and trash cans throughout the construction site for Litter/floatable management.
7.2.b
Packet Pg. 153 Attachment: Admin Draft TIMP Addendum current (Approve the Initial Study / EIR Addendum to the 2010 General Plan EIR for the 27 o Covering and/or containing stockpiled materials and overall good housekeeping on the site.
• For projects disturbing more than 1 acre of land during construction continuing to file a Notice of Intent (NOI) with the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) to be covered under the State National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) General Construction Permit for discharges of stormwater associated with construction activity. Under the provisions of the City’s General Permit, a developer must propose control measures that are consistent with the State General Permit. A Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) must be developed and implemented for each site.
Previously Identified Impacts
The City does not supply water to areas outside the city limits. Land within the Study Area identified for growth in the General Plan is largely in agricultural use and supplied water by the Patterson Irrigation District, the West Stanislaus Irrigation District, and the Del Puerto Water District or from on-site wells. Supplying water to the expansion areas would require the construction of water supply infrastructure that includes water lines, wells, storage tanks, booster pumps, pressure-reducing valves, one or more water treatment plants, and a groundwater recharge basin.
The City implements a variety of General Plan policies and implementation measures to address the range of potential environmental impacts that may be associated with the construction and operation of water supply facilities. Nonetheless, the ability to mitigate certain potential impacts, such as the permanent loss of agricultural land and habitat for sensitive species, is contingent on a number of factors including the severity of the impact, existing land use conditions, and the technical feasibility of the proposed mitigation measures. Because of these contingencies, the potential impacts of construction of new water supply infrastructure were identified as significant.
The following are some impacts associated with the provision of water infrastructure, as identified in the EIR:
• Surface Water Hydrology: Changes in the magnitude and timing of flows in affected streams.
• Water Quality: Changes in stream and reservoir/lake temperature, dissolved oxygen levels, turbidity, total suspended solids, and other water quality parameters of concern during construction and operation of new facilities.
• Fishery Resources: Change in the amount and quality of fishery habitat in affected streams, and potential fish entrainment at possible diversion sites. • Wetlands and Riparian Habitat: Changes in the amount or functions and values of various types of wetlands from the construction of new facilities or in riparian areas from changes in the operation of stream flows. Riparian habitat could be affected by hydrology changes or new construction and is especially important habitat for wildlife and botanical species.
• Botanical Resources: Disturbance to rare plants and their habitat and other types of vegetation from construction activities or changes in hydrology along streams. • Wildlife Resources: Changes in the amount and quality of affected wildlife habitat near affected streams and where appurtenant facilities would be located.
7.2.b
Packet Pg. 154 Attachment: Admin Draft TIMP Addendum current (Approve the Initial Study / EIR Addendum to the 2010 General Plan EIR for the 28 • Geology and Soils: Increase in erosion and sedimentation from construction activities; change in sediment transport in streams; geologic hazards could cause problems for new facilities and their operators if they are not sited carefully. • Recreation: Changes in the quantity or quality of recreation opportunities; some impacts could also occur during construction and operation of new conveyance, treatment, storage, and pumping facilities.
• Visual Resources: Changes in stream flows and the addition of new project facilities could affect the visual environment. New pipelines, pumping stations, or transmission lines near or in residential areas or highly visited areas would cause negative impacts. • Agriculture: Some irrigated land or grazing land could be taken out of production where project conveyance facilities need to be located and to accommodate growth. The availability of water supplies for agricultural uses could decrease. • Cultural Resources: Historic, prehistoric, and ethnographic resources could be affected by hydrology changes or the construction and maintenance of new facilities. • Compatibility with Existing Land Uses and Consistency with Adopted Plans and Policies: Some new project facilities may not be compatible with surrounding land uses or may be inconsistent with related federal, state, tribal, and local plans and policies (including those of the US Fish and Wildlife Service and California Department of Fish and Game [now the Department of Fish and Wildlife]).
• Mineral Resources: New project facilities could interfere with the extraction of minerals at known or yet-to-be discovered mineral sites.
• Public Utilities: The routing and siting of new project facilities could interfere with the operation or maintenance of existing or planned public utilities, including communication and energy infrastructure.
• Socioeconomic Resources: Water service customers of the City and others would enjoy the socioeconomic benefits associated with a more reliable water supply and related economic growth. Water rates would likely increase to help pay for new facilities. Facility construction would cause short-term and beneficial employment and income impacts.
Energy or mineral impacts would also cause related socioeconomic effects. • Air Quality and Noise: Air emissions and excessive noise from construction equipment and traffic could occur during the construction phase of new projects. New pumping stations would likely cause adverse noise impacts for nearby residents. This could also result in additional greenhouse gas emissions.
• Transportation: Local roads would experience traffic increases during construction. • Public Health and Safety: Construction activities could create some short-term safety hazards.
• Growth Inducing Effects: New system infrastructure and water supply projects would likely cause growth-inducing impacts.
Since no additional measures were identified in the EIR to reduce impacts to a less than significant level, this impact was considered significant and unavoidable.
7.2.b
Packet Pg. 155 Attachment: Admin Draft TIMP Addendum current (Approve the Initial Study / EIR Addendum to the 2010 General Plan EIR for the 29 Master Plan Impact
The TIMP would not result in any increase in population beyond that identified in the General Plan EIR and would not require the construction of any water supply infrastructure. There would be no new or additional impacts. This is an impact for which the General Plan EIR adequately addresses potential impacts of the proposed Master Plan; no additional analysis or mitigation measures are required.
Impact 5.4-3 Potential impacts to surrounding wells from increased groundwater pumping Applicable General Plan Policies and Implementation Measures Policy: NR-1.8
Implementation Measure: PS-1
General Plan EIR Mitigation Measures
The EIR recommended an additional policy, as follows:
PS-1.12 Effect of City Wells on Surrounding Wells. If, in the unlikely event that an existing user of the confined aquifer finds its well affected by the City’s pumping, the City shall compensate that user for the cost of deepening the pump setting and the increased cost of operating the well to draw water from greater depths. New development in the City’s sphere of influence shall be required to pay its fair share of such costs.
The EIR recommended implementation measures, as follows:
PS-15 The City shall sample groundwater quality semi-annually to assess water quality and shall conduct additional studies to better understand the direction and rate of groundwater flow in the confined aquifer. These investigations will allow the City to optimize the arrangement of new water supply wells to maximize water quality and minimize the severity of the resulting cone of depression and associated impacts. To the extent feasible, new wells shall be located at greater spacings to reduce the cone of depression and maximize their distance from nearby users. This would reduce the risk and/or severity of the potential impacts from subsidence discussed above.
PS-16 The City shall implement a subsidence monitoring program. Subsidence shall be monitored annually at each well and new wells shall be designed to prevent damage to the wells from subsidence as described in the groundwater study.
Previously Identified Impacts
The EIR found that use of the upper aquifer could interfere with the existing wells used by individual groundwater users in areas near the city, but the likelihood of interfering with other groundwater uses would be reduced substantially by several factors. Local agricultural and domestic groundwater users rely on the shallow, unconfined aquifer, which reduces their well installation and operation costs. The City of Patterson prohibits the use of private wells for domestic or irrigation use. Thus, privately owned well locations are outside of the city limits. When sites are annexed into the city, they would be required to connect to the City water system, and the private wells would be abandoned. Therefore, the EIR found that if the City were to use water
7.2.b
Packet Pg. 156 Attachment: Admin Draft TIMP Addendum current (Approve the Initial Study / EIR Addendum to the 2010 General Plan EIR for the 30 from the upper aquifer, it is not anticipated to have a measurable impact on private use of that aquifer. It is not known, however, if existing wells would be affected by new City wells pumping from both the unconfined (upper) and the confined (lower) aquifer. Therefore, the EIR found impacts to other wells significant.
Master Plan Impact
The TIMP would not increase the population in the city compared to that analyzed in the EIR and would therefore not increase water demand or require additional groundwater pumping. There would be no new or additional impacts. This is an impact for which the General Plan EIR adequately addresses potential impacts of the proposed Master Plan; no additional analysis or mitigation measures are required.
Impact 5.4-4 Disposal of brine from water treatment
Applicable General Plan Policies and Implementation Measures Policies: PS-4.5 and PS-9.4
Implementation Measure: PS-10
General Plan EIR Mitigation Measures
None required.
Previously Identified Impacts
The EIR identified that treatment of groundwater or surface water would require one of four water treatment technology options: reverse osmosis, membrane treatment, ion exchange, and lime softening. Any of the treatment technologies would produce concentrated brine, which could be as high as 1.5 million gallons per day (1,680 acre-feet) per year of brine. The brine produced by water treatment would require disposal.
Brine processing can be accomplished through drying beds, mechanical dewatering, and/or blending with other wastewaters. Use of evaporative drying beds and lagoons alone would require many acres of land (350 to 400 acres). In lieu of an ocean discharge, membrane reject is often treated to reduce the volume of brine residuals, or in combination with other processing solutions to minimize land use and operating expenses and to meet discharge requirements.
Evaporation would require the City to purchase new property and construct evaporation ponds with impervious linings to prevent percolation of the brine into the shallow aquifer. After evaporation, salts would need to be collected and transported to an appropriate solid-waste disposal facility. If evaporated, the 1,680 acre-feet annually of brine would produce approximately 31 tons of salts per year that would require proper disposal. As discussed under Impact 5.3-6 in Section 5.3, Public Services and Utilities, the additional 31 tons per year will contribute to a cumulatively considerable adverse impact on the capacity of the landfill.
A common process is to concentrate the brine through use of additional mechanical and nonmechanical processes. Based on the experience of other similar projects, a cost-effective membrane residuals treatment process could consist of mechanical processes, including (additional) high-pressure reverse osmosis or electrodialysis reversal, followed by mechanical
7.2.b
Packet Pg. 157 Attachment: Admin Draft TIMP Addendum current (Approve the Initial Study / EIR Addendum to the 2010 General Plan EIR for the 31 vapor recompression evaporators or crystallizers. Nonmechanical processes may include solaror wind-induced evaporation and chemical precipitation. The end process would include a highly concentrated brine solution with lined-pond evaporation. The dried solids would be hauled off every 10–20 years to a municipal landfill. There are two possible disposal sites: the Fink Road Landfill and the Kettleman Hills Landfill. If the waste salts were considered hazardous and could not be disposed of at the Fink Road Landfill, they would need to be trucked to Kettleman City, the location of the nearest landfill that accepts hazardous waste. Thus, disposal of the dried salts would not be a significant impact. While the additional vehicle miles traveled (approximately 260 miles per trip) would incrementally increase air emissions in the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District, the increase would not substantially change the already significant impact (see Impacts 5.7-3 and 5.7-8).
Lagoon space at the City's wastewater treatment plant has also been proposed to be used for membrane concentrate processing (around 20–40 acres). The City was also in discussions with the RWQCB regarding brine disposal and salt management solutions, including brine reject from proposed groundwater treatment processes. Emerging technologies may also offer solutions to brine handling. Under any of the disposal methods, the brine would need to be piped from the treatment facility to the disposal site. Laying of that pipeline and the pipeline from wellheads to the treatment facility would entail physical impacts that would be evaluated in project-specific environmental review after the treatment disposal systems have been designed, though it is anticipated that the pipelines would be installed in existing rights-of-way and impacts would be similar to other pipeline construction, including temporary noise increases and air quality emissions.
Master Plan Impact
The TIMP would not increase the population in the city compared to that analyzed in the EIR and would therefore not increase water demand or require additional water treatment or the disposal of brine associated with water treatment. The Master Plan would not increase the amount of brine generated in the city. Therefore, there would be no new or more severe impacts than those already disclosed in the EIR. This is an impact for which the General Plan EIR adequately addresses potential impacts of the proposed Master Plan; no additional analysis or mitigation measures are required.
Impact 5.4-5 Impacts to agricultural water supply
Applicable General Plan Policies and Implementation Measures The policies and implementation measures listed in the discussion of Impact 5.4-1 would help reduce cumulative impacts relating to water supply by developing multiple sources of water; conserving water; and encouraging the conjunctive use of groundwater, surface water, and nonpotable water supplies in a manner that enhances groundwater recharge.
General Plan EIR Mitigation Measures
No feasible mitigation available.
Previously Identified Impacts
The EIR determined that although the water supply program recommended for the Patterson General Plan will result in a reduction of water use by properties currently served by irrigation
7.2.b
Packet Pg. 158 Attachment: Admin Draft TIMP Addendum current (Approve the Initial Study / EIR Addendum to the 2010 General Plan EIR for the 32 water, the net result will be a net decrease in the amount of irrigation water available for agricultural uses delivered by the Central Valley Project via the Patterson Irrigation District, the West Stanislaus Irrigation District, and the Del Puerto Water District. This impact was considered significant and unavoidable.
Master Plan Impact
The TIMP would not increase water demand compared to that analyzed in the EIR and would therefore not decrease the availability of water for agricultural use beyond that already identified in the General Plan EIR. The Master Plan would not result in additional impacts on agricultural water supply. This is an impact for which the General Plan EIR adequately addresses potential impacts of the proposed Master Plan; no additional analysis or mitigation measures are required.
Impact 5.4-6 Impacts to cumulative water supply
Applicable General Plan Policies and Implementation Measures The policies and implementation measures listed in the discussion of Impact 5.4-1 will help minimize cumulative impacts to water supply by developing multiple sources of water; conserving water; and encouraging the conjunctive use of groundwater, surface water, and non-potable water supplies in a manner that enhances groundwater recharge.
General Plan EIR Mitigation Measures
No feasible mitigation available.
Previously Identified Impacts
The EIR found that the City of Patterson has historically satisfied all its demand for water from the underlying groundwater basin. The EIR reported that the City operates nine wells with a total capacity of 9,600 gallons per minute, with a projected production of about 7,500 acre-feet per year. In 2010, the wells produced a combined 5,000 acre-feet. However, the local groundwater basin has production limitations, and for purposes of water supply planning, it was estimated that an average of 8,300 acre-feet per year of groundwater is available for City use, which (according to the City’s 2006 Urban Water Management Plan) is sufficient to serve a population of about 35,000. Accordingly, the EIR found that water demand associated with a population greater than 35,000 will require a secondary source of water.
Policies and implementation measures listed in the discussion of Impact 5.4-1 set forth a program for ensuring a reliable secondary source of water is available to serve development beyond 35,000 residents. Although the water supply program recommended for the Patterson General Plan will result in a reduction of water use by properties currently served by irrigation water, the net result will be a permanent loss of irrigation water available for agricultural use. This impact is considered cumulatively considerable and significant and unavoidable.
Master Plan Impact
The TIMP would not increase water demand compared to that analyzed in the EIR and would therefore not increase the cumulative demand beyond that identified in the General Plan EIR.
7.2.b
Packet Pg. 159 Attachment: Admin Draft TIMP Addendum current (Approve the Initial Study / EIR Addendum to the 2010 General Plan EIR for the 33 This is an impact for which the General Plan EIR adequately addresses potential impacts of the proposed Master Plan; no additional analysis or mitigation measures are required.
5.5 WASTEWATER IMPACTS
Impact 5.5-1 Projected wastewater flows will exceed treatment plant design capacity.
Applicable General Plan Policies and Implementation Measures Policies: PS-2.1, PS-2.2, PS-2.3, PS-2.4, PS-2.4, PS-2.5, and PS-2.7 Implementation Measures: PS-4, PS-9, and PS-11
General Plan EIR Mitigation Measures
The following additional implementation measure was recommended:
PS-14 The City shall implement the improvements recommended by the 2010 Wastewater Master Plan as determined by the City Council.
Previously Identified Impacts
This impact was considered potentially significant prior to the implementation of mitigation.
In 2010, the wastewater treatment plant had a rated capacity of 2.25 million gallons per day (mgd) and a permitted capacity of 3.5 mgd. Planned improvements will increase the rated capacity to approximately 3.5 mgd. The EIR identified that buildout of the General Plan would result in average annual wastewater flows of between 6.4 and 7.0 mgd and peak flows of between 16.6 and 17.9 mgd. According to the EIR, buildout of the General Plan will generate wastewater flows that will exceed the rated capacity of the wastewater treatment plant by approximately 4.1–4.75 mgd. The 2010 Wastewater Master Plan included in Appendix 5.5 of the EIR recommended improvements to the wastewater treatment plant to accommodate projected flows. The improvements recommended included (among others):
• Expansion of capacity of the influent pump station;
• The construction of emergency/equalization basins;
• Improvements to the south activated sludge treatment systems; • Construction of primary sedimentation tanks;
• Construction of vortex grit removal tanks;
• The addition of a mixed liquor channel;
• The construction of secondary clarifiers;
• The addition of filters and ultraviolet disinfection systems to meet Title 22 water reclamation requirements;
• Construction of a sludge storage area;
• The addition of anaerobic digesters; and
• The construction of an administration building.
7.2.b
Packet Pg. 160 Attachment: Admin Draft TIMP Addendum current (Approve the Initial Study / EIR Addendum to the 2010 General Plan EIR for the 34 The policies and implementation programs listed above would help minimize impacts relating to wastewater collection, treatment, and disposal. Therefore, this impact was considered less than significant.
Master Plan Impact
The TIMP would not increase the population in the city compared to that analyzed in the EIR and thus would not increase effluent flows entering the wastewater treatment plant beyond those considered in the General Plan EIR. Therefore, this is an impact for which the General Plan EIR adequately addresses potential impacts of the proposed Master Plan; no additional analysis or mitigation measures are required.
Impact 5.5-2 Construction of wastewater collection and disposal infrastructure Applicable General Plan Policies and Implementation Measures Policies: AR-1.3, AQ-1.4, AR-5.1, NR-1.3, and HS-2.9
Implementation Measures: AR-1, AR-2, PS-6, and PS-7
General Plan EIR Mitigation Measures
The EIR recommended the following:
PS-14 The City shall implement the improvements recommended by the 2010 Wastewater Master Plan as determined by the City Council.
In addition, the EIR recommended additional mitigation measures AR-6 and HS-10 as described in Impact 5.3-11.
Previously Identified Impacts
The General Plan designated additional land for urban development in areas not served by wastewater collection systems. Moreover, the EIR identified that the existing trunk sewer system does not have capacity sufficient to accommodate the additional flows associated with the buildout of the General Plan. To assess the potential impacts to the wastewater collection, treatment, and disposal systems, a Wastewater Master Plan was prepared as part of the General Plan EIR. Construction of the relevant trunk systems was determined to provide sufficient capacity to convey the anticipated wastewater flows.
General Plan policies and implementation measures were determined to address a range of potential environmental impacts associated with the construction and operation of wastewater facilities. Nonetheless, the ability to mitigate certain potential impacts, such as the permanent loss of agricultural land and habitat for sensitive species, would be contingent on a number of factors including the severity of the impact, existing land use conditions, and the technical feasibility of the proposed mitigation measures. Because of these contingencies, the potential impacts of construction of new wastewater infrastructure were identified to remain significant. Since no additional measures were available to reduce impacts to a less than significant level, this impact was considered significant and unavoidable.
7.2.b
Packet Pg. 161 Attachment: Admin Draft TIMP Addendum current (Approve the Initial Study / EIR Addendum to the 2010 General Plan EIR for the 35 Master Plan Impact
The TIMP does not include the construction of wastewater collection and disposal infrastructure, so there would be no new or additional impacts. This is an impact for which the General Plan EIR adequately addresses potential impacts of the proposed Master Plan; no additional analysis or mitigation measures are required.
Impact 5.5-3 Treatment plant expansion will require revisions to the City’s discharge permit from the Regional Water Quality Control Board.
Applicable General Plan Policies and Implementation Measures Policies: PS-2.3 and PS-2.7
General Plan EIR Mitigation Measures
The EIR recommended the following additional mitigation as an implementation measure:
PS-15 The City will apply to the Regional Water Quality Control Board to modify or re-issue the City’s National Pollution Discharge Elimination Permit for the wastewater treatment plant as necessary to accommodate the increase in disposal capacity necessary to serve buildout of the General Plan.
Previously Identified Impacts
Under the NPDES program, local governments and development projects are required to adopt and implement best management practices (BMPs) to reduce water pollution. The Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board issues NPDES permits for the City’s wastewater treatment plant, establishing allowable effluent discharge levels. The current NPDES permit limits the treatment plant capacity to an annual average daily flow of 3.5 mgd. NPDES permits typically expire 5 years after issuance and must be reissued every 5 years or less. During the re-issuance process, the discharger must comply with all conditions of the existing permit until a new final permit is reissued.
Issuance of a revised NPDES permit is necessary to increase the permitted treatment capacity of the treatment plant. Because issuance of the amended permit falls under the jurisdiction of another agency (the RWQCB), the City cannot guarantee the increased permitted capacity.
Therefore, the need for additional permitted capacity was considered a significant and unavoidable impact.
Master Plan Impact
The TIMP would not increase flows to the wastewater treatment plant or otherwise affect discharge at the plant. Therefore, there would be no new or additional impacts. This is an impact for which the General Plan EIR adequately addresses the proposed Master Plan; no additional analysis or mitigation measures are required.
7.2.b
Packet Pg. 162 Attachment: Admin Draft TIMP Addendum current (Approve the Initial Study / EIR Addendum to the 2010 General Plan EIR for the 36 Impact 5.5-4 Cumulative impacts
Applicable General Plan Policies and Implementation Measures Policies: AR-1.3, AQ-1.4, AR-5.1, NR-1.3, HS-2.9, PS-2.1, PS-2.2, PS-2.3, PS-2.4, PS-2.4, PS-2.5, and PS-2.7
Implementation Measures: AR-1, AR-2, PS-4, PS-6, PS-7, PS-9, and PS-11 General Plan EIR Mitigation Measures
Additional implementation measures: PS-14, PS-15, AR-6, and HS-10 as included above Previously Identified Impacts
The EIR identified that buildout of the General Plan will result in the demand for wastewater collection, treatment, and disposal capacity. Buildout of the General Plan will result in an estimated total cumulative flow of about 7.0 mgd. The General Plan includes policies and implementation measures to ensure adequate collection, treatment plant, and disposal capacity is available to serve new development. These impacts were considered less than cumulatively considerable.
The cumulative impacts associated with the permanent loss of habitat for sensitive biological resources associated with the construction of disposal ponds were discussed under Impacts
5.10-1 and 5.10-20 in EIR Section 5.10, Biological Resources. Project and cumulative impacts associated with the permanent loss of prime agricultural land associated with the construction of disposal ponds were discussed under Impacts 5.11-2 and 5.11-5 in EIR Section 5.11, Agricultural Resources.
Master Plan Impact
The TIMP does not change the development assumptions from those analyzed in the EIR. The Master Plan would have no effect on wastewater collection, treatment, or disposal capacity at the wastewater treatment plant. Therefore, there would be no new or additional impacts. This is an impact for which the General Plan EIR adequately addresses the proposed Master Plan; no additional analysis or mitigation measures are required.
5.6 TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION IMPACTS
Impact 5.6-3 Project impacts to streets and intersections serving the project Applicable General Plan Policies and Implementation Measures Implementation Measures: T-2, T-3, T-4, T-5, T-6, T-7, T-11, T-12, T-13, and T-14 General Plan EIR Mitigation Measures
The EIR recommended the following additional implementation measures:
5.6-1 Intersection No. 1 – Sperry Ave/I-5 SB Off-Ramps. Signalize intersection. Southbound:
add left turn lane. Westbound: add two left turn lanes.
7.2.b
Packet Pg. 163 Attachment: Admin Draft TIMP Addendum current (Approve the Initial Study / EIR Addendum to the 2010 General Plan EIR for the 37 Funding: Not completely funded in 2010. Partial funding in 2007 Regional Transportation Plan Tier I; partially funded by City traffic impact fees.
5.6-2 Intersection No. 2 – Sperry Ave/I-5 NB On-Ramps. Signalize intersection. Eastbound:
add left turn and through lane. Westbound: add a right turn lane. Northbound: add right turn lane.
Funding: Not completely funded in 2010. Partial funding in 2007 Regional Transportation Plan Tier I; partially funded by City traffic impact fees.
5.6-3 Intersection No. 7 – Sperry Ave/Las Palmas Ave. Signalize intersection.
Funding: Not completely funded in 2010. Included in City traffic impact fees.
5.6-4 Intersection No. 8 – Sperry Ave/Ward Ave. Eastbound: add one left turn lane.
Northbound: add a left turn lane. Southbound: add a right turn lane.
Funding: Not completely funded in 2010. Included in City traffic impact fees.
5.6-5 Intersection No. 9 – Sperry Avenue/S. Del Puerto Avenue. Add eastbound and westbound left turn lanes.
Funding: Not completely funded in 2010. Included in City traffic impact fees.
5.6-6 Intersection No. 10 – Sperry Ave/SR 33. Signalize intersection. Eastbound: add left turn and right turn lanes. Westbound: add a left turn lane. Northbound: add two left turn lanes. Southbound: add a left turn lane; restripe the shared through and left turn lane as a shared through and right turn lane.
Funding: Not completely funded in 2010. Included in City traffic impact fees.
5.6-7 Intersection No. 13 – Ward Ave/SR 33. Signalize intersection. Add a northbound left turn lane. Add one through lane to the northbound and southbound.
Funding: Not completely funded in 2010. Included in City traffic impact fees.
5.6-8 Intersection No. 14 – Zacharias Rd/SR 33. It is assumed that this intersection will be realigned as a part of the proposed South County Corridor project. Signalize intersection. Northbound: add two left turn lanes. Eastbound: add a left turn lane.
Funding: Not completely funded in 2010. Included in City traffic impact fees.
5.6-9 Intersection No. 15 – Baldwin Rd/SR 33. Signalize intersection and add left-turn lane in the northbound. And add a southbound right-turn lane.
Funding: Not completely funded in 2010. Included in City traffic impact fees.
5.6-10 Intersection No. 16 – Rogers Rd/SR 33. Signalize intersection. Add eastbound and northbound left turn lanes. Southbound: add a right turn lane.
Funding: Not completely funded in 2010. Included in City traffic impact fees.
5.6-11 Intersection No. 17 – SR 33/Eucalyptus Ave. Southbound: add a left turn and through lane. Northbound: add a through lane
Funding: Not completely funded in 2010. Included in City traffic impact fees.
7.2.b
Packet Pg. 164 Attachment: Admin Draft TIMP Addendum current (Approve the Initial Study / EIR Addendum to the 2010 General Plan EIR for the 38 5.6-12 Intersection No. 19 – Walnut Ave/M Street/SR 33. Signalize intersection. Eastbound, Westbound: add a left turn lane and restripe shared through and left turn lane as a shared through and right turn lane.
Funding: Not completely funded in 2010. Included in City traffic impact fees.
5.6-13 Intersection No. 20 – E. Las Palmas Ave/Sycamore Ave. Signalize intersection. Add left turn lane to southbound and northbound approaches.
Funding: Not completely funded in 2010. Included in City traffic impact fees.
5.6-15 Intersection No. 11 – East Las Palmas Ave/SR 33. Add additional westbound left turn lane.
Funding: Not completely funded in 2010. Included in City traffic impact fees.
Previously Identified Impacts
The General Plan would accommodate approximately 16,000 additional dwelling units and about 25 million square feet of nonresidential floor space. Morning and afternoon peak-hour vehicle trip generation associated with buildout of the General Plan would range between 38,897 (during AM peak period) and 68,660 (during PM peak period) trips.
The EIR found that implementation of the roadway and intersection improvements recommended by the General Plan and the Draft EIR would reduce potential impacts to intersections and roadways serving the Study Area through buildout. Although the City has adopted a development impact fee ordinance and has included the partial cost of these improvements in currently collected fees on new development, none of these improvements were fully funded in 2010 and future funding cannot be guaranteed.
Although the measures described above, in conjunction with the policies and implementation measures in the General Plan and the EIR, help to mitigate potential traffic impacts associated with buildout of the General Plan, the precise nature of the growth in background traffic associated with development in the region through buildout is unknown. In addition, roadway and intersection improvements to roadways outside the City’s jurisdiction may be required and cannot be guaranteed. For these reasons, project-level traffic impacts associated with the General Plan were considered significant and unavoidable.
Master Plan Impact
The TIMP is an extension of the General Plan’s Circulation Element and would not change the development assumptions from those analyzed in the EIR and would therefore not increase traffic volumes or adversely impact any streets or intersections in the city. There would be no new or additional impacts. This is an impact for which the General Plan EIR adequately addresses potential impacts of the proposed Master Plan; no additional analysis or mitigation measures are required.
7.2.b
Packet Pg. 165 Attachment: Admin Draft TIMP Addendum current (Approve the Initial Study / EIR Addendum to the 2010 General Plan EIR for the 39 Impact 5.6-7 Increased truck traffic
Applicable General Plan Policies and Implementation Measures Policies: T-1.6, T-1.7, T-1.9, T-1.10, T-1.13, T-1.14, HS-5.5, HS-5.6, HS-5.7, and HS-5.8 Implementation Measures: T-2, T-3, T-4, T-11, T-12, T-13, T-14, T-19, T-20, T-21, T-22, HS-5, HS-6, HS-7, and HS-8
General Plan EIR Mitigation Measures
Implement the truck route plan as provided in the EIR and the development impact fee program as required in Impact 5.6-3.
Previously Identified Impacts
According to the EIR, development of properties designated for additional commercial and industrial uses would generate approximately 68,600 truck trips, or 6,866 truck trips during the PM peak period. Businesses such as distribution centers, similar to those previously established in the West Patterson Business Park, would likely generate a significant number of additional truck trips between the business location and roadways that connect Patterson with the region.
These roadways include Interstate 5, Sperry Avenue, E. Las Palmas Avenue, and State Route
33. In addition, increased truck traffic could adversely increase the effects on existing neighborhoods. Although the City has adopted a development impact fee ordinance, none of the improvements were fully funded and future funding cannot be guaranteed. In addition, several of the intersections and roadways on the list of improvements fall under the jurisdiction of other agencies, such as the State of California or Stanislaus County. Improvements to these roadways would require approvals and/or funding which cannot be guaranteed by the City. Therefore, truck traffic impacts were considered significant and unavoidable.
Master Plan Impact
The TIMP Is an extension of the General Plan Circulation Element and would not change the development assumptions from those analyzed in the EIR and would therefore not increase truck traffic volumes. Therefore, there would be no new or additional impacts. This is an impact for which the General Plan EIR adequately addresses potential impacts of the proposed Master Plan; no additional analysis or mitigation measures are required.
Impacts 5.6-8Project impacts to roadways and intersections of other agencies Applicable General Plan Policies and Implementation Measures T-11, T-12, and T-13
General Plan EIR Mitigation Measures
None identified.
7.2.b
Packet Pg. 166 Attachment: Admin Draft TIMP Addendum current (Approve the Initial Study / EIR Addendum to the 2010 General Plan EIR for the 40 Previously Identified Impacts
As identified in the EIR, buildout of the General Plan will adversely impact roadways under the jurisdiction of other agencies, including Stanislaus County. Roadways surrounding the city (other than state highways) are improved and maintained by Stanislaus County. Traffic generated by buildout of the General Plan will result in roadways and intersections surrounding the city in the unincorporated county operating at level of service (LOS) C or below, in the absence of mitigation.
Since Stanislaus County has decision-making authority on implementing improvements to county roadways, the City of Patterson cannot guarantee the implementation and/or timing of the mitigation measures for roadways outside the city. Therefore, project-level impacts to county roadways were considered significant and unavoidable.
Master Plan Impact
The TIMP would not change the development assumptions from those analyzed in the EIR, but it would result in new roadways that would alter the traffic flows considered in the General Plan EIR on roadways and intersections under other agencies’ jurisdiction. There would be no new or additional impacts. This is an impact for which the General Plan EIR adequately addresses potential impacts of the proposed Master Plan; no additional analysis or mitigation measures are required.
Impacts 5.6-9 Project traffic impacts on freeway operations Applicable General Plan Policies and Implementation Measures Policies: T-1.10, T-1.13, T-2.1, T-2.2, T-2.3, T-3.1, T-3.2, T-3.3, T-5.1, T-.5.2, AQ-1.11, AQ-1.12, AR-2.1, AR-2.2, AR-2.3, AR-2.4, AR-2.5, AR-3.1, AR-3.2, AR-3.3, AR-3.4, and NR-3.3 Implementation Measures: T-3, T-4, T-5, T-6, T-7, T-11, T-12, T-13, T-14, T-19, T-20, T-21, and T-22
General Plan EIR Mitigation Measures
None available.
Previously Identified Impacts
According to the EIR, traffic generated by buildout of the General Plan will adversely impact Interstate 5 (I-5). The mitigation recommended by the traffic study prepared for the General Plan EIR was to add an additional lane in each direction on I-5 from north of Zacharias Avenue to south of Fink Road. However, since the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) has decision-making authority over improvements to the freeway segments, the City of Patterson cannot guarantee the implementation and/or timing of this mitigation measure. Therefore, the project-level impact was considered significant and unavoidable.
Master Plan Impact
The TIMP would not change the development assumptions from those analyzed in the EIR and would therefore not increase traffic volumes or otherwise adversely impact freeway operations.
There would be no new or additional impacts. This is an impact for which the General Plan EIR
7.2.b
Packet Pg. 167 Attachment: Admin Draft TIMP Addendum current (Approve the Initial Study / EIR Addendum to the 2010 General Plan EIR for the 41 adequately addresses potential impacts of the proposed Master Plan; no additional analysis or mitigation measures are required.
Impact 5.6-10 Impacts to transit facilities
Applicable General Plan Policies and Implementation Measures Policies: T-2.1, T-2.2, T-2.3, AQ-1.11, AQ-1.12, AR-3.2, AR-3.3, and LU-1.1 Implementation Measures: T-13 and T-14
General Plan EIR Mitigation Measures
None identified.
Previously Identified Impacts
The EIR identified that buildout of the General Plan will significantly increase the population and number of jobs, which will result in increased demand for transit services in the city. Policies in the General Plan facilitate the expanded use of alternate forms of transportation, including public transit. Moreover, the development strategy envisioned in the Land Use Element emphasizes the creation of “complete” neighborhoods in which the day-to-day needs of residents can be provided within a short walk or bike ride. The General Plan designated additional land for employment opportunities in Patterson as a means of improving the ratio of jobs to housing, with a goal to reduce area-wide home-to-work motor vehicle trips and facilitate the use of transit for these trips.
The EIR found that with implementation of General Plan policies and implementation measures, the impacts to transit could be reduced to less than significant. However, because improvements to transit facilities are dependent on funding and approvals from other jurisdictions, the City of Patterson cannot control their implementation or timing. Therefore, these impacts were considered significant and unavoidable.
Master Plan Impact
The TIMP would not directly or indirectly result in demand for transit or increase the population in the city compared to that analyzed in the EIR. Therefore, the project would not increase demand for transit services. There would be no new or additional impacts. This is an impact for which the General Plan EIR adequately addresses potential impacts of the proposed Master Plan; no additional analysis or mitigation measures are required.
Impact 5.6-11Impacts to pedestrian facilities
Applicable General Plan Policies and Implementation Measures Policies: T-1.4, T-1.14, T-7.1, T-7.2, T-7.5, T-7.10, LU-1.1, AQ-1.12, and AR-3.2 Implementation Measures: T-3, T-4, T-10, T-15, and T-16 General Plan EIR Mitigation Measures
None available.
7.2.b
Packet Pg. 168 Attachment: Admin Draft TIMP Addendum current (Approve the Initial Study / EIR Addendum to the 2010 General Plan EIR for the 42 Previously Identified Impacts
As identified in the EIR, the General Plan would accommodate a significant increase in population, employment, and retail development, which will result in an overall increase in the generation of pedestrian trips in the city. Although a precise measure of current levels of pedestrian activity is not available, the number of pedestrian trips may be expected to grow proportionately with population and employment. The construction of additional pedestrian facilities was identified to potentially result in adverse physical impacts. In addition, new or expanded pedestrian facilities may require construction in roadways outside the City’s jurisdiction.
Land Use Element policies encourage the development of “complete” neighborhoods in which more of the day-to-day needs of residents are provided within a short walk or bicycle ride. Thus, an increase in pedestrian traffic is an expected and encouraged outcome of the General Plan. In addition, the General Plan designates land for additional employment-generating land uses, which in turn is expected to help reduce motor vehicle use for home-to-work trips. In addition, the City’s development regulations in Municipal Code Chapter 15.26 require the installation of curbs, gutters, and sidewalks in new development. Together, the General Plan policies and implementation measures and the provisions of the Patterson Municipal Code would reduce potential impacts to pedestrian systems. However, new or expanded pedestrian facilities may require construction in roadways outside the City’s jurisdiction. Because some pedestrian improvements necessary to serve the General Plan are dependent on funding and approvals from other jurisdictions, the City of Patterson cannot control their implementation or timing. Therefore, the project-level impacts were considered significant and unavoidable.
Master Plan Impact
The TIMP considers pedestrian activity but would not increase the population in the city compared to that analyzed in the EIR. No additional facilities beyond those anticipated in the General Plan EIR would occur. This is an impact for which the General Plan EIR adequately addresses potential impacts of the proposed Master Plans; no additional analysis or mitigation measures are required.
Impacts 5.6-12 Impacts to bicycle facilities
Applicable General Plan Policies and Implementation Measures Policies: T-1.4, T-1.10, T-5.1, T-5.2, T-7.1, T-7.3, T-7.4, T-.5, T-7.6, T-7.7, T-7.8, T-7.9, T-7.10, and LU-1.1
Implementation Measures: T-3, T-4, T-8, T-9, T-13, and T-14 General Plan EIR Mitigation Measures
Adopt the recommended Bicycle Circulation Master Plan as provided in the EIR.
Previously Identified Impacts
The General Plan will accommodate a significant increase in population, employment, and retail development over current levels. As with transit and pedestrian systems, bicycle ridership is expected to increase proportionately with population, employment, and shopping. The construction of additional bicycle facilities has the potential to result in adverse physical impacts.
7.2.b
Packet Pg. 169 Attachment: Admin Draft TIMP Addendum current (Approve the Initial Study / EIR Addendum to the 2010 General Plan EIR for the 43 In addition, new or expanded bicycle facilities may require construction in roadways outside the City’s jurisdiction.
Land Use Element policies encourage the development of “complete” neighborhoods in which more of the day-to-day needs of residents are provided within a short walk or bicycle ride. Thus, an increase in bicycle traffic is an expected and encouraged outcome of the General Plan. In addition, the General Plan designates land for additional employment-generating land uses, which in turn is expected to help reduce motor vehicle use for home-to-work trips and facilitate the use of alternate modes of travel such as bicycles. Implementation of policies and implementation measures and compliance with provisions of the Patterson Municipal Code would reduce potential impacts to bicycle systems. However, new or expanded bicycle facilities may require construction in roadways outside the City’s jurisdiction. In addition, because some bicycle improvements necessary to serve the General Plan are dependent on funding and approvals from other jurisdictions, the City of Patterson cannot control their implementation or timing. For these reasons, project-level impacts to bicycle facilities were considered significant and unavoidable.
Master Plan Impact
The TIMP considers bicycle facilities, but would not increase the population in the city compared to that analyzed in the EIR. There would be no new or additional impacts. This is an impact for which the General Plan EIR adequately addresses potential impacts of the proposed Master Plan; no additional analysis or mitigation measures are required.
Impact 5.6-13Increased demand for parking facilities
Applicable General Plan Policies and Implementation Measures Policies: T-6.1, T-6.2, T-6.3, T-6.4, T-6.5, T-6.6, T-7.1, T-7.2, T-7.3, T-7.4, T-7.5, T-7.6, T-7.7, T-7.8, T-7.9, and T-7.10
Implementation Measures: T-3 and T-15
General Plan EIR Mitigation Measures
None identified.
Previously Identified Impacts
As identified in the EIR, the General Plan would accommodate a significant increase in population, employment, and retail development. This increase is expected to result in a corresponding increase in the demand for on-street and off-street parking in the city. Chapter 18.72 of the Patterson Municipal Code (Title 18, Zoning) sets forth the City’s parking standards for new development. All new development is required to comply with the off-street parking and loading requirements with respect to the number, location, and size of required spaces, including spaces for the disabled. Continued compliance with these regulations would reduce potential impacts to parking to less than significant. The policies and implementation measures in the General Plan ensure adequate parking is provided to serve new development.
7.2.b
Packet Pg. 170 Attachment: Admin Draft TIMP Addendum current (Approve the Initial Study / EIR Addendum to the 2010 General Plan EIR for the 44 Master Plan Impact
The TIMP would not change the development assumptions from those analyzed in the EIR.
Master Plan facilities, in themselves, would not create a demand for parking. There would be no new or additional impacts. This is an impact for which the General Plan EIR adequately addresses potential impacts of the proposed Master Plan; no additional analysis or mitigation measures are required.
Impact 5.6-14 Potential increase in traffic hazards
Applicable General Plan Policies and Implementation Measures Policies: T-1.1, T-1.2, T-1.5, T-1.6, T-1.7, T-1.9, T-1.10, T-1.12, T-1.13, T-1.14, T-5.1, T-5.2, T-7.1, T-7.3, T-7.4, T-7.7, T-7.8, T-7.9, and T-7.10
Implementation Measures: T-3, T-4, T-8, T-9, T-13, T-14, T-19, T-20, T-21, and T-22 General Plan EIR Mitigation Measures
Additional recommended implementation measures: 5.6-1, 5.6-2, 5.6-3, 5.6-4, 5.6-5, 5.6-6, 5.6-7,
5.6-8, 5.6-9, 5.6-10, 5.6-11, 5.6-12, 5.6-13, 5.6-15,
Previously Identified Impacts
According to the EIR, development accommodated by the General Plan will significantly increase the volume of traffic on city streets and intersections. As a result, the number and frequency of traffic-related accidents and the overall hazards associated with motor vehicle and bicycle traffic could increase.
Recommended roadway and intersection improvements (as described under Impacts 5.6-1, 5.6- 2, 5.6-3, 5.6-4, 5.6-5 and 5.6-6) would ensure that roadways and intersections operate at safe and efficient levels of service. However, none of these improvements have been fully funded, and future funding cannot be guaranteed. In addition, several of the intersections and roadways on the list of improvements fall under the jurisdiction of other agencies, such as the State or the County. Improvements to these roadways would require approvals and/or funding that cannot be guaranteed by the City. Therefore, the impacts are considered significant and unavoidable.
Master Plan Impact
The TIMP reviews recommended roadway and intersection improvements, consistent with the General Plan Circulation Element. During construction, traffic control will be implemented so that construction of facilities outlined in the TIMP would not result in increased traffic hazards.
Therefore, this is an impact for which the General Plan EIR adequately addresses potential impacts of the proposed Master Plan; no additional analysis or mitigation measures are required.
Impact 5.6-15 Impacts related to the construction of roadway and intersection improvements
Applicable General Plan Policies and Implementation Measures Policies: AR-1.3, AQ-1.14, AR-5.1, NR-1.3, and HS-2.9
7.2.b
Packet Pg. 171 Attachment: Admin Draft TIMP Addendum current (Approve the Initial Study / EIR Addendum to the 2010 General Plan EIR for the 45 Implementation Measures: AR-1, AR-2, HS-6, PS-6, and PS-7 General Plan EIR Mitigation Measures
AR-6 and HS-10 as described in Impact 5.3-11
Previously Identified Impacts
The EIR identified that roadway and intersection improvements would be necessary to achieve and maintain an acceptable level of service on roadways and intersections serving the General Plan Study Area, which is largely in agricultural use. Roadway improvements to serve expansion areas will require the construction of new or expanded roadways, intersections, and bridges and would be subject to project-specific environmental review.
The General Plan policies and implementation measures identified above will help reduce impacts related to the construction of roadway infrastructure.
General Plan policies and implementation measures address the range of potential environmental impacts that may be associated with the construction and operation of roadways. Nonetheless, the ability to mitigate certain potential impacts, such as the permanent loss of agricultural land and habitat for sensitive species, is contingent on a number of factors, including the severity of the impact, existing land use conditions, and the technical feasibility of the proposed mitigation measures. Because of these contingencies, the potential impacts of construction of new road improvements were identified to remain significant. Since no additional measures were available to reduce impacts to a less than significant level, this impact was considered significant and unavoidable.
Master Plan Impact
The TIMP includes improvements to roadways and intersections consistent with the General Plan Circulation Element. Because the TIMP addresses the same population and distribution of uses as was assumed in the General Plan EIR, impacts would be the same as those identified in the EIR. This is an impact for which the General Plan EIR adequately addresses potential impacts of the proposed Master Plan. No additional analysis or mitigation measures are required.
Impact 5.6-16 Cumulative impacts to streets and intersections serving the project Applicable General Plan Policies and Implementation Measures Implementation Measures: 5.6-1, 5.6-2, 5.6-3, 5.6-4, 5.6-5, 5.6-6, 5.6-7, 5.6-8, 5.6-9, 5.6-10, 5.6- 11, 5.6-12, 5.6-13, 5.6-15, T-18, T-19, and T-20 as noted above under Impact 5.6-3 General Plan EIR Mitigation Measures
No further measures available
Previously Identified Impacts
As noted above under Impact 5.6-3, the General Plan would generate approximately 38,897 trips during the AM peak hour and 68,660 trips during the PM peak hour. Implementation of the
7.2.b
Packet Pg. 172 Attachment: Admin Draft TIMP Addendum current (Approve the Initial Study / EIR Addendum to the 2010 General Plan EIR for the 46 roadway and intersection improvements recommended by the General Plan and the Draft EIR would reduce potential impacts to intersections and roadways serving the General Plan Study Area through buildout. Although the City has adopted a development impact fee ordinance and has included the partial cost of these improvements in currently collected fees on new development, future funding of these improvements cannot be guaranteed. For these reasons, cumulative traffic impacts associated with the General Plan are considered cumulatively considerable and significant and unavoidable.
Master Plan Impact
The TIMP would not change the development assumptions from those considered in the EIR and would therefore not increase traffic volumes or otherwise adversely impact roadways or intersections. This is an impact for which the General Plan EIR adequately addresses potential impacts of the proposed Master Plan; no additional analysis or mitigation measures are required.
Impacts 5.6-17 Cumulative impacts to roadways of other jurisdictions Applicable General Plan Policies and Implementation Measures None identified.
General Plan EIR Mitigation Measures
Additional recommended implementation measures: 5.6-1, 5.6-2, 5.6-3, 5.6-4, 5.6-5, 5.6-6, 5.6-7,
5.6-8, 5.6-9, 5.6-10, 5.6-11, 5.6-12, 5.6-13, 5.6-15, T-18, T-19, T-20, T-21, and T-22 as noted above under Impact 5.6-8
Previously Identified Impacts
As identified under Impact 5.6-8, buildout of the General Plan will adversely impact roadways under the jurisdiction of other agencies, including Stanislaus County. Since Stanislaus County has decision-making authority on implementing improvements to county roadways, the City of Patterson cannot guarantee implementation and/or the timing of the mitigation measures listed above for roadways outside the city. Therefore, cumulative traffic impacts to county roadways were considered cumulatively considerable and significant and unavoidable.
Master Plan Impact
The TIMP would not change the development assumptions from those considered in the EIR and would therefore not increase traffic volumes or otherwise adversely impact the roadways of under the jurisdiction of other agencies. The TIMP would not result in any new or additional impacts.
Therefore, this is an impact for which the General Plan EIR adequately addresses potential impacts of the proposed Master Plan; no additional analysis or mitigation measures are required.
Impacts 5.6-18 Cumulative traffic impacts on freeway operations Applicable General Plan Policies and Implementation Measures Policies: T-1.10, T-1.13, T-2.1, T-2.2, T-2.3, T-3.1, T-3.2, T-3.3, T-5.1, T-.5.2, AQ-1.11, AQ-1.12, AR-2.1, AR-2.2, AR-2.3, AR-2.4, AR-2.5, AR-3.1, AR-3.2, AR-3.3, AR-3.4, and NR-3.3
7.2.b
Packet Pg. 173 Attachment: Admin Draft TIMP Addendum current (Approve the Initial Study / EIR Addendum to the 2010 General Plan EIR for the 47 Implementation Measures: T-3, T-4, T-5, T-6, T-7, T-11, T-12, T-13, T-14, T-19, T-20, T-21, and T-22
General Plan EIR Mitigation Measures
Add an additional lane in each direction on I-5 from north of Zacharias Avenue to south of Fink Road.
Previously Identified Impacts
As identified in the EIR, cumulative traffic generated by buildout of the General Plan will adversely impact Interstate 5. The mitigation recommended by the traffic study is to add an additional lane in each direction on I-5 from north of Zacharias Avenue to south of Fink Road. However, since Caltrans has decision-making authority over the improvements to the freeway segments described above, the City of Patterson cannot guarantee the implementation and/or timing of this mitigation measure. Therefore, this impact would be considered cumulatively considerable and significant and unavoidable.
Master Plan Impact
The TIMP would not change the development assumptions from those analyzed in the EIR and would therefore not increase traffic volumes or otherwise adversely impact freeway operations.
No additional facilities beyond those anticipated in the General Plan EIR would occur. Therefore, this is an impact for which the General Plan EIR adequately addresses potential impacts of the proposed Master Plan; no additional analysis or mitigation measures are required.
Impact 5.6-19 Cumulative impacts to transit, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities Applicable General Plan Policies and Implementation Measures Policies: T-1.4, T-1.10, T-1.14, T-5.1, T-5.2, T-7.1, T-7.2, T-7.4, T-7.5, T-7.6, T-7.7, T-7.8, T-7.9, T-7.10, LU-1.1, AQ-1.12, and AR-3.2
Implementation Measures: T-3, T-4, T-8, T-9, T-10, T-13, T-15, T-14, and T-16 General Plan EIR Mitigation Measures
None identified.
Previously Identified Impacts
As noted above, the General Plan will accommodate a significant increase in population, employment, and retail development over current levels. As with transit and pedestrian systems, bicycle ridership is expected to increase proportionately with population, employment, and shopping. The construction of additional bicycle, pedestrian, and transit facilities has the potential to result in adverse physical impacts. In addition, new or expanded facilities may require construction in roadways outside the City’s jurisdiction.
The development strategy embodied by policies in the Land Use Element encourage the development of “complete” neighborhoods in which more of the day-to-day needs of residents are provided within a short walk or bicycle ride. Thus, an increase in bicycle traffic is an expected and
7.2.b
Packet Pg. 174 Attachment: Admin Draft TIMP Addendum current (Approve the Initial Study / EIR Addendum to the 2010 General Plan EIR for the 48 encouraged outcome of the General Plan. In addition, the General Plan designates land for additional employment-generating land uses, which in turn is expected to help reduce motor vehicle use for home-to-work trips and facilitate the use of alternate modes of travel such as bicycles. Together, the General Plan policies and implementation measures and the provisions of the Patterson Municipal Code could reduce potential impacts to bicycle systems from the General Plan to a less than significant level. However, new or expanded facilities may require construction in roadways outside the City’s jurisdiction. In addition, because some improvements necessary to serve the General Plan are dependent on funding and approvals from other jurisdictions, the City of Patterson cannot control their implementation or timing. For these reasons, impacts to bicycle, pedestrian, and transit facilities were considered cumulatively considerable and significant and unavoidable.
Master Plan Impact
Because the population and distribution of land uses considered in the TIMP is the same as the General Plan, the TIMP does not consider facilities beyond those anticipated in the General Plan EIR. Therefore, this is an impact for which the General Plan EIR adequately addresses potential impacts of the proposed Master Plan; no additional analysis or mitigation measures are required.
5.7 AIR QUALITY AND CLIMATE CHANGE IMPACTS
Impact 5.7-1 Urban development accommodated by the General Plan may expose sensitive receptors to short-term particulate matter emissions resulting from construction activities.
Applicable General Plan Policies and Implementation Measures Policies: NR-4.7 and AR-5.1
Implementation Measures: AR-1 and AR-2
General Plan EIR Mitigation Measures
AR-6 The City shall require all of the following as a condition of project approval:
• All disturbed areas, including storage piles, which are not being actively utilized for construction purposes, shall be effectively stabilized of dust emissions using water, chemical stabilizer/suppressant, covered with a tarp or other suitable cover or vegetative ground cover.
• All on-site unpaved roads and off-site unpaved access roads shall be effectively stabilized of dust emissions using water or chemical stabilizer/suppressant. • All land clearing, grubbing, scraping, excavation, land leveling, grading, cut & fill, and demolition activities shall be effectively controlled of fugitive dust emissions utilizing application of water or by presoaking.
• With the demolition of buildings up to six stories in height, all exterior surfaces of the building shall be wetted during demolition.
• When materials are transported off-site, all material shall be covered, or effectively wetted to limit visible dust emissions, and at least six inches of freeboard space from the top of the container shall be maintained.
7.2.b
Packet Pg. 175 Attachment: Admin Draft TIMP Addendum current (Approve the Initial Study / EIR Addendum to the 2010 General Plan EIR for the 49 • All operations shall limit or expeditiously remove the accumulation of mud or dirt from adjacent public streets at the end of each workday. (The use of dry rotary brushes is expressly prohibited except where preceded or accompanied by sufficient wetting to limit the visible dust emissions.) (Use of blower devices is expressly forbidden.)
• Following the addition of materials to, or the removal of materials from, the surface of outdoor storage piles, said piles shall be effectively stabilized of fugitive dust emissions utilizing sufficient water or chemical stabilizer/suppressant. • Within urban areas, track-out (earth material deposited on City streets by construction equipment) shall be immediately removed when it extends 50 or more feet from the site and at the end of each workday.
• Any site with 150 or more vehicle trips per day shall prevent carryout and trackout. • Limit traffic speeds on unpaved roads to 15 mph;
• Install sandbags or other erosion control measures to prevent silt runoff to public roadways from sites with a slope greater than one percent. • Install wheel washers for all exiting trucks, or wash off all trucks and equipment leaving the site;
• Install wind breaks at windward side(s) of construction areas; • Suspend excavation and grading activity when winds exceed 20 mph; and • Limit area subject to excavation, grading, and other construction activity at any one time. Regardless of wind speed, an owner/operator must comply with Regulation VIII’s 20 percent opacity limitation.
Previously Identified Impacts
The EIR identified that construction activities associated with buildout of the General Plan would generate exhaust emissions from construction equipment and vehicles, evaporative emissions from coatings, and particulate matter (fugitive dust). These emissions may contribute to exceedances of particulate matter ambient air quality standards. Although the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (SJVAPCD) has not adopted standards of significance for construction-related emissions, the potential exists for such emissions to adversely impact air quality on a temporary and short-term basis.
General Plan policies were developed to comply with criteria established by the SJVAPCD to minimize future increases in vehicle travel and to assist in implementing appropriate indirect source regulations. In addition, Policy AR-5.1 requires the City to work with the SJVAPCD to reduce particulate emissions from construction. Implementation of the 2010 Patterson General Plan was determined to result in a less than significant impact.
Master Plan Impact
The TIMP would not result in additional development and/or construction beyond that assumed in the General Plan. Therefore, this is an impact for which the General Plan EIR adequately addresses potential impacts of the proposed Master Plan; no additional analysis or mitigation measures are required.
7.2.b
Packet Pg. 176 Attachment: Admin Draft TIMP Addendum current (Approve the Initial Study / EIR Addendum to the 2010 General Plan EIR for the 50 Impact 5.7-2 Buildout of the land uses accommodated by the General Plan may create objectionable odors or expose sensitive receptors to toxic air contaminants.
Applicable General Plan Policies and Implementation Measures Policies: AR-1.0, AR-1.2, AR-1.3, AR-4.1, AR-4.2, AQ-1.4, and AQ-1.10 Implementation Measures: AR-1 and AR-2
General Plan EIR Mitigation Measures
AIR-9 The following measures shall be required as a condition of approval for development projects with the potential to have adverse air quality impacts to sensitive land uses:
• Maintain a minimum 500 foot separation between sensitive land uses and the Interstate 5 freeway;
• Maintain a minimum 1,000 foot separation between sensitive land uses and major rail yards;
• Maintain a minimum 1,000 foot separation between sensitive land uses and major distribution centers (more than 100 trucks per day);
• Maintain a minimum 300 foot separation between sensitive land uses and dry cleaning operations (500 feet for operations with two or more machines); and • Maintain a minimum 50 foot separation between sensitive land uses and gasoline dispensing facilities (300 feet if throughput exceeds 3.6 million gallons per year).
AIR-10 When a project could expose sensitive receptors to toxic air contaminants the City shall require an applicant to perform a prioritization on all sources of emissions in accordance with guidelines adopted by the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District to determine if it is necessary to conduct a Health Risk Assessment. If a project has a prioritization score of 10 or more, the project has the potential to exceed the District’s significance threshold for health impacts of 10 in a million and a Health Risk Assessment shall be performed.
Previously Identified Impacts
The EIR identified that as the city’s population grows in accordance with the buildout of the General Plan, the number and distribution of sensitive receptors such as schools, day care facilities, nursing homes, and health care facilities is likely to grow proportionately. New sensitive land uses may be sited near existing sources of odors and toxic air contaminants (TACs). TAC emissions from mobile and stationary sources may result in elevated ambient concentrations of TACs at these sensitive land uses, which may significantly increase human health risk. In addition, new commercial and industrial land uses may generate TAC emissions and may be located near existing sensitive land uses, which may significantly increase human health risk.
General Plan policies and implementation measures minimize the potential impact of toxic air contaminants on sensitive receptors. Policy AR-4.1 states that the City shall, to the extent practicable, separate sensitive land uses from significant sources of air pollutants or odor emissions. Implementation measure AR-1 requires the City to submit development applications
7.2.b
Packet Pg. 177 Attachment: Admin Draft TIMP Addendum current (Approve the Initial Study / EIR Addendum to the 2010 General Plan EIR for the 51 to the SJVAPCD for review as part of the CEQA compliance process. Therefore, implementation of the 2010 Patterson General Plan was determined to result in a less than significant impact.
Master Plan Impact
The TIMP would not alter the land use pattern as envisioned in the General Plan and would not result in additional sources of TACs. While the TIMP includes construction of transportation facilities as well as vehicle operations on those facilities, which would generate emissions, these effects were assumed in the EIR. Therefore, the Master Plan would not create any new odor sources or new sensitive land uses beyond those already anticipated in the General Plan.
Therefore, this is an impact for which the General Plan EIR adequately addresses potential impacts of the proposed Master Plan; no additional analysis or mitigation measures are required.
Impact 5.7-3 Emission of ozone precursors
Applicable General Plan Policies and Implementation Measures Policies: AR-1.0, AR-1.2, AR-1.3, AR-2.1, AR-2.2, AR-2.3, AR-2.4, AR-2.5, AR-3.1, AR-3.2, AR-3.3, AR-3.4, AR-5.2, AR-5.3, AR-6.1, AR-6.2, AR-6.3, AQ-1.4, AQ-1.5, AQ-1.6, AQ-1.7, AQ-1.8, AQ-1.9, AQ-1.10, AQ-1.11, AQ-1.12, AQ-1.13, AQ-1.14, and AQ-1.14 Implementation Measures: AR-1 and AR-2
General Plan EIR Mitigation Measures
AR-8 The following measures shall be incorporated into the design of projects to be constructed within the City of Patterson to minimize operational emissions:
• Bike racks shall be provided at proposed commercial land uses and schools, at a minimum rate of one bike rack space per 20 vehicle parking spaces; • Non-residential projects shall include facilities for bike commuters including showers, lockers and changing space;
• Multi-unit residential projects shall include long-term bike parking facilities (locker, locked room or standard bike rack under surveillance);
• Bike lanes (Class II) shall be provided on all arterials and linked to a regional bikeway network;
• Sidewalks shall be provided on all roadways to facilitate pedestrian access to land uses;
• New roads and major roadway improvements shall provide adequate roadway widths to safely accommodate buses and provide bus turn-outs and shelters as needed to serve proposed commercial and industrial land uses, and schools; • Commercial projects shall charge for parking (if determined to be feasible by the City Council) to entice use of the transit system;
• Parking lots shall provide pedestrian pathways that connect to transit facilities; • Facilities for charging electric vehicles shall be provided as an amenity for residential land uses;
7.2.b
Packet Pg. 178 Attachment: Admin Draft TIMP Addendum current (Approve the Initial Study / EIR Addendum to the 2010 General Plan EIR for the 52 • Electrical outlets shall be provided to facilitate use of electrical landscape maintenance equipment;
• Residential units shall be pre-wired with internet cables/lines to facilitate telecommuting;
• Wood-burning heaters and fireplaces shall be prohibited; and • Energy conservation measures shall be implemented to exceed Title 24 requirements, and may include reflective roofing materials, energy efficient lighting, appliances, heating and cooling systems, use of natural lighting (skylights or solar tubes), and use of awnings and overhangs.
Previously Identified Impacts
The EIR identified that development of land uses accommodated by the General Plan would generate motor vehicle emissions and area source emissions (from sources such as natural gas combustion, fireplaces, woodstoves, landscaping maintenance, consumer products, and architectural coatings). The incremental increase in operational emissions of reactive organic gases (ROG) and nitrogen oxides (NOx) would exceed the thresholds of 10 tons per year established by the SJVAPCD.
Although General Plan policies and implementation measures, on-site emissions reductions, and off-site emissions reductions required by the district’s Indirect Source Rule, as well as the recommended additional mitigation, help to reduce emissions associated with development accommodated by the General Plan, operational emissions were determined to remain significant and unavoidable.
Master Plan Impact
The TIMP provides for the infrastructure needs of development anticipated in the General Plan and analyzed in the EIR. Consequently, the TIMP would not result in additional development or sources of ROG or NOx beyond those already anticipated in the General Plan EIR. Therefore, this is an impact for which the General Plan EIR adequately addresses potential impacts of the proposed Master Plan; no additional analysis or mitigation measures are required.
Impact 5.7-4 Consistency with Extreme Ozone Attainment Demonstration Plan Applicable General Plan Policies and Implementation Measures Policies: AR-1.0, AR-1.2, AR-1.3, AR-2.1, AR-2.2, AR-2.3, AR-2.4, AR-2.5, AR-3.1, AR-3.2, AR-3.3, AR-3.4, AR-5.2, AR-5.3, AR-6.1, AR-6.2, AR-6.3, AQ-1.4, AQ-1.5, AQ-1.6, AQ-1.7, AQ-1.8, AQ-1.9, AQ-1.10, AQ-1.11, AQ-1.12, AQ-1.13, AQ-1.14, and AQ-1.14 Implementation Measures: AR-1 and AR-2
General Plan EIR Mitigation Measures
None identified.
7.2.b
Packet Pg. 179 Attachment: Admin Draft TIMP Addendum current (Approve the Initial Study / EIR Addendum to the 2010 General Plan EIR for the 53 Previously Identified Impacts
The EIR identified that the General Plan would accommodate a population of approximately 47,831 by 2030, which is higher than StanCOG’s population forecasts and those estimates used by the SJVAPCD in the Extreme Ozone Attainment Demonstration Plan (population projected at 39,067).
The EIR determined that General Plan policies and implementation measures help to minimize air quality impacts associated with buildout of the General Plan. However, because the population at buildout will exceed the population assumptions used in the Extreme Ozone Attainment Demonstration Plan, this impact was considered significant and unavoidable.
Master Plan Impact
The population assumptions in the EIR would not increase due to the TIMP. Therefore, the extent to which development of the General Plan would exceed assumptions in the Extreme Ozone Attainment Demonstration Plan would not be changed with this Master Plan. This is an impact for which the General Plan EIR adequately addresses potential impacts of the proposed Master Plan; no additional analysis or mitigation measures are required.
Impact 5.7-5 Carbon monoxide hotspots
Applicable General Plan Policies and Implementation Measures Policies: AR-1.0, AR-1.2, AR-1.3, AR-2.1, AR-2.2, AR-2.3, AR-2.4, AR-2.5, AR-3.1, AR-3.2, AR-3.3, AR-3.4, AR-5.2, AR-5.3, AR-6.1, AR-6.2, AR-6.3, AQ-1.4, AQ-1.5, AQ-1.6, AQ-1.7, AQ-1.8, AQ-1.9, AQ-1.10, AQ-1.11, AQ-1.12, AQ-1.13, AQ-1.14, and AQ-1.14 Implementation Measures: AR-1 and AR-2
General Plan EIR Mitigation Measures
None identified.
Previously Identified Impacts
The EIR identified that implementation of the roadway and intersection improvements recommended by the General Plan will achieve and maintain a level of service below LOS D on area roadways and intersections; however, several of the intersections fall under the jurisdiction of other agencies where approval for improvements cannot be guaranteed. Therefore, intersection levels of service below LOS D are possible, which in turn could result in carbon monoxide hotspots. The potential for carbon monoxide hotspots was determined to be a significant and unavoidable impact.
Master Plan Impact
The TIMP would not result in additional population, trips, or improvements beyond those already anticipated in the General Plan. Therefore, the TIMP would not result in additional growth that would contribute to carbon monoxide hotspots. This is an impact for which the General Plan EIR adequately addresses potential impacts of the proposed Master Plan; no additional analysis or mitigation measures are required.
7.2.b
Packet Pg. 180 Attachment: Admin Draft TIMP Addendum current (Approve the Initial Study / EIR Addendum to the 2010 General Plan EIR for the 54 Impact 5.7-6 Project and cumulative impacts relating to climate change Applicable General Plan Policies and Implementation Measures Policies: LU-1.1, LU-1.10, LU-2.3, LU-7.4, CD-1.1, CD-1.8, CD-3.2, CD-4.1, ED-1.5, ED-3.1, ED-4.4, T-2.1, T-2.2, T-2.3, T-3.1, T-3.2, T-3.3, T-7.1, T-7.2, T-7.3, T-7.5, T-7.6, T-7.11, NR-2.1, NR-2.2, NR-2.3, NR-2.4, NR-2.5, NR-2.6, NR-2.7, NR-2.9, NR-4.1, NR-4.2, NR-4.3, NR-5.1, NR-5.2, NR-5.3, NR-6.1, NR-6.2, NR-6.3, NR-6.4, NR-6.5, NR-6.6, PR-1.14, PS-4.3, AR-2.1, AR-2.2, AR-2.3, AR-2.4, AR-2.5, AR-3.1, AR-3.2, AR-3.3, AR-6.1, AR-6.2, AR-6.3, AR-7.2, AR-7.3, AR-7.4, AR-7.5, AR-7.6, AR-7.7, AR-7.8, AR-7.9, AR-7.10, AR-7.11, and AQ-1.12 Implementation Measures: CD-1, T-3, T-4, T-6, NR-3, NR-8, NR-9, NR-11, NR-12, NR-14, and PR-6
General Plan EIR Mitigation Measures
None identified.
Previously Identified Impacts
The EIR identified that the General Plan would result in an increase in population, housing, commercial and industrial development, vehicle trips, and solid waste generation that would generate additional greenhouse gases (GHGs) through fuel combustion, electricity usage, and other sources.
The GHG reduction targets established by Assembly Bill (AB) 32 and Executive Order S-03-05 are as follows: by 2010, reduce greenhouse gas emissions to 2000 levels; by 2020, reduce greenhouse gas emissions to 1990 levels (or 15 percent below 2010 levels); and by 2050, reduce greenhouse gas emissions to 80 percent of 1990 levels. According to the Climate Change Scoping Plan prepared by the California Air Resources Board and adopted in December 2008, reducing greenhouse gas emissions to 1990 levels means cutting approximately 30 percent from business-as-usual emission levels projected for 2020, or about 15 percent from 2010 levels.
Accordingly, reducing the City’s 2009 GHG emissions by 15 percent was assumed to achieve the 1990 GHG emission level required by AB 32. For 2050, Executive Order S-3-05 establishes a reduction target of 80 percent below 1990 levels. For purposes of the General Plan EIR analysis, the 2050 reduction target was assumed to be a 35 percent reduction from the 2009 baseline emissions.
GHG emissions for the year 2020 would be about 317,744 metric tons carbon dioxide equivalent (MTCO2e), which represents a significant increase over the 2009 baseline of 287,494 MTCO2e for year 2020, which exceeds the reduction target of 15 percent required by AB 32. In addition, GHG emissions projected for the year 2050 would be about 913,706 MTCO2e, which represents a significant increase over the 2009 baseline of 287,494 MTCO2e for year 2050, which exceeds the reduction target of 35 percent required by Executive Order S-3-05.
The General Plan includes a wide range of policies and implementation measures intended to reduce the effect of future development on climate change as noted above. However, even with the potential reductions associated with policies and programs of both the City and the State, the net GHG emissions for the years 2020 and 2050 are expected to greatly exceed the GHG reduction targets for these years. Thus, impacts on climate change were considered cumulatively considerable and significant and unavoidable.
7.2.b
Packet Pg. 181 Attachment: Admin Draft TIMP Addendum current (Approve the Initial Study / EIR Addendum to the 2010 General Plan EIR for the 55 Master Plan Impact
The TIMP would not result in additional population, housing, commercial or industrial development, vehicle trips, or solid waste generation beyond that anticipated in the General Plan EIR. Energy use and related emissions from transportation sources were considered in the EIR.
The TIMP would not generate additional greenhouse gases through fuel combustion, electricity usage, and other sources beyond that disclosed in the EIR. This is an impact for which the General Plan EIR adequately addresses potential impacts of the proposed Master Plan; no additional analysis or mitigation measures are required.
Impact 5.7-7 Risks associated with climate change
Applicable General Plan Policies and Implementation Measures Policies: NR-1.1, NR-2.1, NR-2.4, NR2.5, NR-2.10, NR-6.1, NR-3.2, AR-7.1, and AR-7.2 Implementation Measures: NR-3, NR-8, and N-9
General Plan EIR Mitigation Measures
None identified.
Previously Identified Impacts
The EIR identified that existing and new development and the natural environment in Patterson will be subject to climate change impacts resulting from past, present, and future GHG emissions, regardless of the success of local, state, national, or international efforts in reducing future GHG emissions. Due to the existing concentrations of GHG emissions in the atmosphere and the inevitable additional emissions before GHG reduction plans result in reductions, a known amount of warming in the lower atmosphere and consequent changes in historical climate patterns will occur.
The EIR found that changes to the city’s agriculture, water supplies, flooding, wildfire potential, environmental health, air quality, and other areas are reasonably foreseeable, although not quantifiable in some aspects at present. New development allowed by the General Plan could place people and property at higher levels of risk to climate change effects if it does not anticipate reasonably foreseeable changes in environmental conditions. Without further planning, current requirements may provide inadequate protection against adverse physical impacts and may not anticipate different conditions resulting from climate change. However, General Plan policies and implementation measures would help to minimize the impacts of climate change on the city’s economy and natural resources and promote a climate-resilient community. Policy AR-7.1 and implementation measure NR-7 require the preparation of a climate action plan within 24 months of General Plan adoption. Implementation measure NR-7 requires the climate action plan to address (among other things) resiliency and adaptation programs to prepare for potential impacts of climate change and to provide a phased implementation plan to achieve these goals. These policies and implementation measures reduce the risk of exposing future populations accommodated by the General Plan to impacts resulting from climate change. However, the range of potential environmental impacts and the potential responses that may be enacted over time cannot be identified with certainty. For these reasons, this impact was considered cumulatively considerable and significant and unavoidable.
7.2.b
Packet Pg. 182 Attachment: Admin Draft TIMP Addendum current (Approve the Initial Study / EIR Addendum to the 2010 General Plan EIR for the 56 Master Plan Impact
The TIMP would not alter the amount of existing or new development or the natural environment beyond that anticipated in the General Plan EIR. Therefore, the climate change impacts resulting from past, present, and future GHG emissions would remain the same for the Master Plan as they would for the General Plan. This is an impact for which the General Plan EIR adequately addresses potential impacts of the proposed Master Plan; no additional analysis or mitigation measures are required.
Impact 5.7-8 Cumulative emission of air pollutants
Applicable General Plan Policies and Implementation Measures Policies: AR-1.0, AR-1.2, AR-1.3, AR-2.1, AR-2.2, AR-2.3, AR-2.4, AR-2.5, AR-3.1, AR-3.2, AR-3.3, AR-3.4, AR-5.2, AR-5.3, AR-6.1, AR-6.2, AR-6.3, AQ-1.4, AQ-1.5, AQ-1.6, AQ-1.7, AQ-1.8, AQ-1.9, AQ-1.10, AQ-1.11, AQ-1.12, AQ-1.13, AQ-1.14, and AQ-1.14 Implementation Measures: AR-1 and AR-2
General Plan EIR Mitigation Measures
None identified.
Previously Identified Impacts
The EIR identified that the population accommodated by the General Plan would exceed the population projections used to prepare the Extreme Ozone Attainment Demonstration Plan.
General Plan development and resulting populations that exceed anticipated projections were not accounted for in the Extreme Ozone Attainment Demonstration Plan. Accordingly, these emissions, together with emissions associated with regional development, would hinder efforts to achieve and maintain federal and state air quality standards. Although General Plan policies and implementation measures would help to mitigate regional air quality impacts related to increased population and housing, cumulative impacts were determined to remain cumulatively considerable and significant and unavoidable.
Master Plan Impact
The TIMP would not increase population beyond that anticipated in the General Plan EIR; therefore, the cumulative air pollutant emissions would remain the same for the Master Plan as for the General Plan. This is an impact for which the General Plan EIR adequately addresses potential impacts of the proposed Master Plan; no additional analysis or mitigation measures are required.
5.8 NOISE IMPACTS
Impact 5.8-1 Construction activities could result in elevated noise levels at noise-sensitive land uses. Increases in ambient noise levels, particularly during the nighttime hours, could result in increased levels of annoyance and potential sleep disruption.
7.2.b
Packet Pg. 183 Attachment: Admin Draft TIMP Addendum current (Approve the Initial Study / EIR Addendum to the 2010 General Plan EIR for the 57 Applicable General Plan Policies and Implementation Measures Policy: HS-4.9
Implementation Measures: HS-5, HS-6, and HS-7
General Plan EIR Mitigation Measures
The EIR recommended additional implementation measure HS-10 as described in Impact 5.3-11.
Previously Identified Impacts
Construction activities associated with buildout of the General Plan would include the use of heavy equipment for grading and other activities, through completion of streets, buildings, bridges, public facilities, utilities, and landscaping. Heavy trucks would travel to and from, and within, the development areas to perform earthwork and to move equipment and building materials. Smaller equipment, such as jackhammers, pneumatic tools, and saws, could also be used throughout the construction phases. The noise associated with these activities would be generated within the entire development project area and at off-site locations near any infrastructure improvements.
The EIR found that existing residences and other sensitive receptors located adjacent to a particular project site with direct line of sight to construction activities and construction traffic would be affected along with new residences as they are developed within the General Plan Study Area.
Utility improvements (e.g., water, gas, electrical) and widening of roadways adjacent to sensitive receptors would also affect these residences. Residences at increased setback distances from the roadways bordering the project site would be buffered and shielded from construction activities by buildings closer to the roadways and thus would not be significantly impacted by these construction activities.
For any one receptor location or residence, construction noise would be an intermittent, shortterm impact, corresponding with the development schedule for the nearby project components.
Because some construction equipment causes intermittent noise levels up to 89 dBA (A-weighted decibels) at a distance of 50 feet, any noise-sensitive locations that would be in close proximity to project-related construction noise could experience a recognizable noise increase. However, compliance with Chapter 6.44 of the Patterson Municipal Code would discourage constructionrelated noise-generating activities at nearby noise-sensitive land uses during the hours between 8:00 p.m. and 10:00 p.m. and typically prohibit these activities between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m.
Master Plan Impact
The EIR assumed construction of transportation improvements to serve development in the General Plan. The TIMP would not result in additional development and/or construction beyond that assumed in the General Plan. Therefore, this is an impact for which the General Plan EIR adequately addresses potential impacts of the proposed Master Plan; no additional analysis or mitigation measures are required.
7.2.b
Packet Pg. 184 Attachment: Admin Draft TIMP Addendum current (Approve the Initial Study / EIR Addendum to the 2010 General Plan EIR for the 58 Impact 5.8-2 Traffic noise
Applicable General Plan Policies and Implementation Measures Policies: HS-4.9, HS-4.10, HS-4.11, HS-4.12, HS-4.13, and HS-4.14 Implementation Measures: HS-5, HS-6, HS-7, and HS-8
General Plan EIR Mitigation Measures
The EIR recommended implementation of the following mitigation measure:
HS-10 Noise contours derived from the acoustical analysis prepared by Brown Buntin Associates, Inc., entitled Noise Element Update, City of Patterson, Stanislaus County, California, May 2010, shall be incorporated into the General Plan Noise Element.
Previously Identified Impacts
Future transportation-related noise levels at a point 75 feet from the centerline of several streets in the Study Area will exceed the 60 Ldn/CNEL standard for outdoor activity areas. A comparison of the resulting noise levels within the right-of-way width reveals that the outdoor activity areas for existing residential neighborhoods adjoining these rights-of-way will exceed the 60 Ldn/CNEL standard established by the Patterson General Plan Noise Element.
The EIR found that implementation of policies in the General Plan would minimize traffic-related noise impacts from new development as a result of General Plan buildout. However, existing development will experience an increase in noise, especially from traffic. The General Plan would allow for a substantial increase in traffic which will expose the outdoor activity areas in existing residential neighborhoods to noise levels that exceed the City’s currently adopted standard.
Therefore, this impact was considered significant and unavoidable.
Master Plan Impact
The TIMP would not result in increased development or traffic beyond that assumed in the General Plan EIR; therefore, this is an impact for which the General Plan EIR adequately addresses the proposed Master Plan. No additional analysis or mitigation measures are required.
Impact 5.8-3 Development accommodated by the project would expose future land uses and residents to increased train- and rail-related noise.
Applicable General Plan Policies and Implementation Measures Policies: HS-4.9, HS-4.10, HS-4.11, HS-4.12, HS-4.13, and HS-4.14 Implementation Measures: HS-5, HS-6, HS-7, and HS-8
General Plan EIR Mitigation Measures
None required.
7.2.b
Packet Pg. 185 Attachment: Admin Draft TIMP Addendum current (Approve the Initial Study / EIR Addendum to the 2010 General Plan EIR for the 59 Previously Identified Impacts
The General Plan designates land for additional residential development near the existing railroad tracks. Rail activity in Patterson is likely to increase in the future. Development of the West Park Specific Plan at the former Crows Landing Airfield Facility is expected to generate approximately six train operations per day that would pass through the Study Area. This would represent more than double the number of trains currently passing through the city. According to the EIR, noise levels at future residential outdoor activity areas would be exposed to temporary noise levels that exceed the 60 dB Ldn standard established by the City’s currently adopted Noise Element.
Assuming six trains per day, the generalized 60 dB Ldn contours would be located at approximately 900 feet from the center of the tracks near grade crossings and 450 feet from the tracks at distances greater than 1,000 feet from an at-grade crossing. Calculated distances do not take into consideration site-specific conditions such as acoustic shielding or reflections caused by nearby buildings.
The General Plan policies and implementation measures are intended to ensure that noise levels associated with rail activities do not adversely impact noise-sensitive land uses. Policy HS-4.11 prohibits development of noise-sensitive land uses in areas exposed to existing or projected levels of noise from transportation noise sources that exceed the levels specified in Table HS-3 of the Noise Element, unless the project design includes effective mitigation measures to reduce noise in outdoor activity areas and interior spaces to the levels specified in Table HS-1. Policies HS-4.9 and HS-4.13 require an acoustical analysis to be performed to ensure compliance with the noise standards in the Noise Element. Lastly, implementation measure HS-7 requires continued compliance with noise insulation standards in Chapter 35 of the Uniform Building Code.
Consequently, the EIR found that the noise impact from rail activities would be less than significant.
Master Plan Impact
The TIMP would not change the development assumptions from those analyzed in the EIR and would not increase rail traffic or result in development of sensitive uses closer to rail locations than assumed in the EIR. Therefore, this is an impact for which the General Plan EIR adequately addresses the proposed Master Plan; no additional analysis or mitigation measures are required.
Impact 5.8-4 Exposure to aircraft-related noise
Applicable General Plan Policies and Implementation Measures Policies: HS-4.7, HS-4.8, HS-4.9, H-4.10, HS-4.11, LU-9.1, and LU-9.2 General Plan EIR Mitigation Measures
No additional feasible mitigation has been identified.
Previously Identified Impacts
Buildout of the General Plan could expose future sensitive receptors to aircraft-related noise generated at the Patterson Airport and the Crows Landing Airfield. The EIR assumed that the Patterson Airport would be converted to a non-airport use in the near future. However, the Crows Landing Airfield Facility may be reopened as a general aviation airport as part of the Stanislaus
7.2.b
Packet Pg. 186 Attachment: Admin Draft TIMP Addendum current (Approve the Initial Study / EIR Addendum to the 2010 General Plan EIR for the 60 County public airport system. According to the January 2009 draft of the Crows Landing Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (ALUCP), the airport would reopen with a single 5,300-foot-long runway with approximately 4,000 annual aircraft operations. In the “ultimate” configuration (20 years+), the airfield would have two parallel runways 6,300 feet long and 200,000 annual operations. Operations would be mostly single- and twin-engine propeller or turboprop aircraft and helicopters, with approximately 10 percent business jet operations. The airport design aircraft for the ultimate development of the airport is the Gulfstream III business jet.
Buildout of the General Plan would allow approximately 30 acres of estate residential development within the 55–60 CNEL dB contour of the Crows Landing Airfield. The draft ALUCP contains noise compatibility criteria for a wide variety of residential and nonresidential land uses based on guidelines established by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) and Caltrans.
According to Table 1 on page 2-18 of the draft Crows Landing Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan, single-family dwellings of the type that would be accommodated by the Estate Residential land use category are considered “normally compatible” in this area. Thus, impacts relating to aircraft noise were considered less than significant in the EIR.
Master Plan Impact
The Patterson Airport has been decommissioned. The TIMP would not alter anticipated development patterns adjacent to the Crows Landing Airfield and would not increase aircraft operations or alter the types of aircraft flying into or out of Patterson. Therefore, the Master Plan would not result in a change related to potential exposure to aircraft noise. This is an impact for which the General Plan EIR adequately addresses the proposed Master Plan; no additional analysis or mitigation measures are required.
Impact 5.8-5 Encroachment of noise from stationary sources Applicable General Plan Policies and Implementation Measures Policies: HS-4.9, HS-4.10, HS-4.11, HS-4.12, HS-4.13, HS-4.14. LU-9.1, and LU-9.2 Implementation Measures: HS-5, HS-6, HS-7, and HS-8
General Plan EIR Mitigation Measures
Implementation of mitigation measure HS-10 as noted above in Impact 5.8-2 Previously Identified Impacts
Buildout of the General Plan may result in the future development of land uses that generate noise levels in excess of applicable City noise standards. Such land uses may include commercial, industrial, and public and quasi-public uses and could expose existing noise-sensitive land uses to noise levels that exceed the adopted standards listed in Table H-1 of the Noise Element. In addition, new noise-sensitive land uses could be located in areas of existing stationary noise sources that exceed noise standards.
The EIR found that implementation of General Plan policies and measures would reduce potential noise impacts at new stationary noise sources and the placement of new noise-sensitive land uses over which the City has jurisdiction (e.g., commercial and industrial sites, residential uses).
However, some stationary noise impacts cannot be mitigated to a less than significant level due
7.2.b
Packet Pg. 187 Attachment: Admin Draft TIMP Addendum current (Approve the Initial Study / EIR Addendum to the 2010 General Plan EIR for the 61 to limitations on the City to control the exact placement of substantial noise-generating uses (e.g., school facilities) in proximity to noise-sensitive land uses (e.g., residential). Accordingly, stationary source noise levels from activities on uses for which the City has limited control could result in noise levels that exceed the City’s maximum allowable noise standards. Thus, this impact was considered significant and unavoidable.
Master Plan Impact
The TIMP would not alter assumptions in the General Plan related to development of noisesensitive land uses and would not increase the noise levels of noise-generating uses beyond those assumed in the EIR. Therefore, this is an impact for which the General Plan EIR adequately addresses the proposed Master Plan; no additional analysis or mitigation measures are required.
Impact 5.8-6 Exposure to groundborne vibration impacts
Applicable General Plan Policies and Implementation Measures None identified.
General Plan EIR Mitigation Measures
None required.
Previously Identified Impacts
Development accommodated by the General Plan could be exposed to groundborne vibration impacts associated with railroad operations and construction activities.
Groundborne vibration levels associated with railroad operations are dependent on various factors, including track type and condition, train speeds, site conditions, and train characteristics, such as the number of engines, number of cars, weight, and wheel type and condition. Site and geologic conditions can also influence how vibration propagates at increasing distance from the track. Based on Caltrans vibration measurement data, the highest train vibration level measured was 0.36 inches per second at 10 feet. Based on this level, Caltrans prepared a “drop-off curve” used to estimate maximum train vibration levels at distance from the track centerline. The curve represents maximum expected vibration levels from trains and thus is considered by Caltrans to be “very conservative.” Based on the Caltrans drop-off curve for train vibration levels, predicted maximum groundborne vibrations levels along the California Northern railroad corridors would not exceed 0.20 inches per second peak particle velocity (ppv) beyond approximately 7.5 feet from the track centerline. Any vibrations above this level may cause architectural damage for typical building construction or increased levels of annoyance for individuals in buildings. The project does not designate land for the development of new land uses within 7.5 feet of railroad corridors.
As a result, this impact was considered less than significant.
Construction-generated noise levels can result in a high potential for human annoyance, and piledriving activities are typically considered potentially significant if these activities are performed within 200 feet of permanent structures. The EIR found that this impact would be mitigated through continued compliance with Chapter 6.44 of the City’s Municipal Code, which restricts construction activities to between the hours of 6:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m.
7.2.b
Packet Pg. 188 Attachment: Admin Draft TIMP Addendum current (Approve the Initial Study / EIR Addendum to the 2010 General Plan EIR for the 62 Master Plan Impact
The TIMP would not alter railroad or construction operations assumed under the General Plan, and any construction of improvements associated with the Master Plan would comply with all applicable regulations related to noise. Therefore, this is an impact for which the General Plan EIR adequately addresses the proposed Master Plan; no additional analysis or mitigation measures are required.
Impact 5.8-7 Cumulative noise impacts
Applicable General Plan Policies and Implementation Measures Policies: HS-4.9, HS-4.10, HS-4.11, HS-4.12, HS-4.13, HS-4.14. LU-9.1, and LU-9.2 Implementation Measures: HS-5, HS-6, HS-7, and HS-8
General Plan EIR Mitigation Measures
None identified.
Previously Identified Impacts
The EIR identified that future noise would increase with buildout of the General Plan due to increased motor vehicle, rail, and aircraft noise sources. Buildout of the General Plan Study Area would result in additional traffic along area roadways and result in increased noise. Furthermore, buildout could result in additional stationary noise conflicts. The cumulative impact of the growth in background noise, together with noise associated with regional development, was identified to be cumulatively considerable and significant and unavoidable.
Master Plan Impact
As noted above, the TIMP would not increase development in the city or result in increases in motor vehicle, rail, or aircraft noise sources beyond those identified in the EIR. Therefore, the Master Plan would result in no change regarding exposure to noise. This is an impact for which the General Plan EIR adequately addresses the proposed Master Plan. No additional analysis or mitigation measures are required.
5.9 GEOLOGY AND SOILS IMPACTS
Impact 5.9-1 Implementation of the project and the resulting increase in population, employment, and development activity within the Study Area would expose people, structures, and development to ground shaking and seismic hazards as a consequence of earthquakes that could result in the risk of loss, injury, or death.
Applicable General Plan Policies and Implementation Measures Policies: LU-1.4, HS-1.1, and HS-1.2
Implementation Measure: HS-A
7.2.b
Packet Pg. 189 Attachment: Admin Draft TIMP Addendum current (Approve the Initial Study / EIR Addendum to the 2010 General Plan EIR for the 63 General Plan EIR Mitigation Measures
None required.
Previously Identified Impacts
Hazards related to ground shaking include the risk of loss, injury, or death. Buildings that were constructed within the Study Area prior to 1930, including unreinforced masonry buildings that have not been seismically retrofitted, are most likely to have structural failure or collapse occur.
Buildings that have been seismically retrofitted would have a decreased chance of failure.
However, even structurally enhanced buildings and newer buildings could experience significant damage and present a hazard to occupants.
The City of Patterson adopted the California Code of Regulations, Title 24, also known as the California Building Code or CBC. The EIR identified that a combination of the area’s characteristics and compliance with the CBC would be sufficient to prevent significant damage from ground shaking during movement from seismic events on any of the nearby faults or fault systems. In addition, General Plan policies and implementation measures address potential impacts from seismic events. Therefore, the 2010 Patterson General Plan was determined to result in a less than significant impact with regard to seismic safety.
Master Plan Impact
The TIMP would have no impact on existing structures, and any future construction related to the Master Plan would be required to comply with the CBC and General Plan policies and implementation measures to ensure seismic safety. Therefore, this is an impact for which the General Plan EIR adequately addresses the proposed Master Plan. No additional analysis or mitigation measures are required.
Impact 5.9-2 Adoption and implementation of the General Plan will result in urban development in the foothills of the Diablo Range, which is known to contain areas of geologic instability.
Applicable General Plan Policies and Implementation Measures Policies: LU-1.4, HS-1.1, and HS-1.2
Implementation Measure: HS-A
General Plan EIR Mitigation Measures
None required.
Previously Identified Impacts
The General Plan designated the area west of Interstate 5 between Sperry Avenue and Zacharias Road as Mixed-Use Hillside Development. According to the Stanislaus County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan (Volume One, page 29), virtually the entire area located west of Interstate 5 is composed of geologic formations that, due to structure, slope, runoff, lack of vegetation, earthquake, and human activity, are considered extremely susceptible to failure and sliding. In the winter of 1982–83, saturation of the soil in this area resulted in a considerable
7.2.b
Packet Pg. 190 Attachment: Admin Draft TIMP Addendum current (Approve the Initial Study / EIR Addendum to the 2010 General Plan EIR for the 64 amount of damage to Del Puerto Canyon Road. There is a history of a number of slides throughout the Diablo Range in Stanislaus County. It is evident that the steep slopes and underlying geology of the area on the west side of the county, even without considering the very real possibility of an earthquake, present substantial risks in certain conditions. On a California Geological Survey scale used to rate landslide potential, this area is rated at five, on a scale where six is the highest rating. The remainder of the area is rated at six. The prime reason is the generally unstable formation comprising the underlying geologic structure of the Diablo Range.
General Plan policies and implementation measures reduce the potential for risk associated with these geologic hazards. Policy LU-1.4 requires a geotechnical investigation to be performed for each development proposed in an area with a designation of Mixed-Use Hillside Development. In addition, Policy HS-1.2 requires underground utilities to be constructed to be resistant to seismic events. Therefore, the EIR determined that the General Plan would result in a less than significant impact related to geologic instability.
Master Plan Impact
The TIMP would not alter development anticipated in the General Plan, and any future construction related to the Master Plan would be required to comply with the CBC and General Plan policies and implementation measures to ensure geologic stability. Therefore, this is an impact for which the General Plan EIR adequately addresses the proposed Master Plan. No additional analysis or mitigation measures are required.
Impact 5.9-3 The General Plan will accommodate subsequent development activities that may include construction and site preparation activities such a grading and excavation. These activities can increase the potential for soil, wind, and water erosion, due to minor or major grading over large areas of land.
Applicable General Plan Policies and Implementation Measures Policies: NR-1.2, NR-1.3, NR-1.4, NR-1.5, and NR-2.11
General Plan EIR Mitigation Measures
None required.
Previously Identified Impacts
The EIR identified that continued development of the city would include new roadways, improvements to existing roadways, new bridges, substantial infrastructure (water, storm drainage, and sanitary sewer facilities), and additional commercial, residential, and industrial development. Grading and site preparation activities associated with development would remove topsoil, disturbing and potentially exposing the underlying soils to erosion from a variety of sources, including wind and water. In addition, construction activities generally involve the use of water, which may further erode the topsoil as the water moves across the ground.
Construction activities involving clearing, grading, or excavation that causes soil disturbance on 1 or more acres (or any project involving less than 1 acre that is part of a larger development plan and includes clearing, grading, or excavation) would be subject to coverage under the State’s National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) General Construction Storm Water
7.2.b
Packet Pg. 191 Attachment: Admin Draft TIMP Addendum current (Approve the Initial Study / EIR Addendum to the 2010 General Plan EIR for the 65 Permit. Project applicants are required to prepare and comply with a stormwater pollution prevention plan (SWPPP) that specifies best management practices (BMPs) to avoid soil erosion and associated pollution of waterways and are also required to report any water pollution and remediate the pollution occurrence.
The Storm Water Phase II Final Rule applies to operators of regulated small municipal separate storm sewer systems (MS4s). Under the NPDES stormwater program, operators of large, medium, and regulated small MS4s require authorization to discharge pollutants under an NPDES permit. Medium and large operators are required to submit comprehensive permit applications and are issued individual permits. The City of Patterson is a regulated small MS4 operator and submitted an application to be covered under the General Permit in January 2004. A Storm Water Management Program (SWMP) to comply with the Small MS4 General Permit was prepared and submitted to the State Water Resources Control Board by the co-permittees (the participating city agencies). The SWMP describes the program to be implemented by the city agencies. The City of Patterson is legally obligated to implement the requirements of the SWMP and to comply with the requirements of the small MS4 General Permit.
The General Plan also includes policies and programs to reduce the effects of soil erosion associated with new development. Therefore, erosion generated by buildout of the General Plan was determined to have a less than significant impact.
Master Plan Impact
The TIMP would not result in increased development beyond that anticipated in the General Plan, and any future construction related to the Master Plan would be subject to the NPDES requirements and General Plan policies and implementation measures. Therefore, this is an impact for which the General Plan EIR adequately addresses the proposed Master Plan. No additional analysis or mitigation measures are required.
Impact 5.9-4 Urban development accommodated by the General Plan could place development in areas with unstable soils or expose buildings, pavements, and utilities to significant damage as a result of underlying expansive or unstable soils.
Applicable General Plan Policies and Implementation Measures Policies: LU-1.4, HS-1.1, and HS-1.2
Implementation Measure: HS-A
General Plan EIR Mitigation Measures
None required.
Previously Identified Impacts
The EIR identified that continued development of the city would result in construction activities overlying expansive or unstable soils. Newly constructed buildings, pavement, and utilities could be damaged by differential settlement due to soil expansion and contraction. When structures are located on expansive soils, foundations have the tendency to rise during the wet season and shrink during the dry season. Movement can vary under the structures, which in turn creates new
7.2.b
Packet Pg. 192 Attachment: Admin Draft TIMP Addendum current (Approve the Initial Study / EIR Addendum to the 2010 General Plan EIR for the 66 stresses on various sections of the foundation and connected utilities. These variations in ground settlement can lead to structural failure and damage to infrastructure. Development on soils west of Interstate 5 could pose additional constraints related to shallow bedrock, steep and unstable slopes, expansive soils, and the potential for landslides.
The CBC includes common engineering practices requiring special design and construction methods that reduce or eliminate potential expansive soil–related impacts. Compliance with the CBC would ensure the adequate design and construction of building foundations to resist soil movement. In addition, the CBC contains drainage-related requirements to control surface drainage and reduce seasonal fluctuations in soil moisture content.
The General Plan contains policies and implementation measures to minimize the impact of expansive or unstable soils on new development. Therefore, exposure of urban development to unstable and/or expansive soil during buildout of the General Plan was determined to be a less than significant impact.
Master Plan Impact
The TIMP would not result in increased development beyond that anticipated in the General Plan.
Any future construction related to the Master Plan would be subject to CBC requirements and General Plan policies and implementation measures to reduce impacts associated with expansive or unstable soils. Therefore, this is an impact for which the General Plan EIR adequately addresses the proposed Master Plan. No additional analysis or mitigation measures are required.
Impact 5.9-5 New roadway and/or pedestrian bridges may be required over Diablo Creek, Salado Creek, the Delta-Mendota Canal, California Aqueduct, and/or the San Joaquin River. The construction of new bridges may result in significant grading, excavation, fill, and boring activities which in turn could result in unstable cut and fill slopes, the placement of structures on expansive soils, and the potential for increased erosion.
Applicable General Plan Policies and Implementation Measures Policy: HS-1.1
Implementation Measure: HS-A
General Plan EIR Mitigation Measures
None required.
Previously Identified Impacts
The EIR identified that implementation of the General Plan will involve the construction of new roadway bridges to complete the circulation system. Bridge construction involves activities such as bridge demolition; structural excavation and backfill; erecting falsework; forming and pouring concrete for footings columns and superstructures; the placement of sheet piles; and boring, drilling, grinding, mortar mixing, blasting, and bridge cleaning. Grading and site preparation activities associated with development activities would remove topsoil, disturbing and potentially
7.2.b
Packet Pg. 193 Attachment: Admin Draft TIMP Addendum current (Approve the Initial Study / EIR Addendum to the 2010 General Plan EIR for the 67 exposing the underlying soils to erosion. In addition, construction activities generally involve the use of water, which may further erode the topsoil as the water moves across the ground.
The General Plan includes policies and implementation measures to ensure that geologic impacts associated with the construction of bridges are reduced to less than significant level. In addition to compliance with the CBC, Policy HS-1.1 requires a geotechnical report to be prepared to ensure new structures are designed to withstand the effects of seismic activity. Therefore, the potential for increased erosion due to new bridge construction during buildout of the Patterson General Plan was determined to be a less than significant impact.
Master Plan Impact
The TIMP does contemplate new roadways and pedestrian bridges. No new or increased impacts are anticipated beyond those anticipated by the General Plan EIR. Therefore, this is an impact for which the General Plan EIR adequately addresses the proposed Master Plan. No additional analysis or mitigation measures are required.
Impact 5.9-6 Cumulative seismic hazards, expansive soils, and soil erosion impacts Applicable General Plan Policies and Implementation Measures None identified.
General Plan EIR Mitigation Measures
None required.
Previously Identified Impacts
The EIR identified that implementation of the General Plan, in combination with existing, planned, proposed, and reasonably foreseeable development, would result in cumulative impacts relating to seismic hazards, expansive soils, and soil erosion. However, continued compliance with the City’s NPDES permit would reduce Patterson’s contribution to cumulative soil erosion impacts.
Development projects are analyzed on an individual basis and must comply with established requirements of the City and the CBC as they pertain to protection against known geologic hazards and potential geologic and expansive soil–related impacts. There are no known active faults in the General Plan Study Area, there is a low incidence of historical geologic activity in the vicinity, and there is no contribution with other regional geologic impacts. Therefore, the General Plan’s contribution to cumulative geology-related impacts was considered less than cumulatively considerable.
Master Plan Impact
The TIMP would not result in increased development beyond that anticipated in the General Plan.
Any future construction related to the Master Plan would be subject to requirements of the CBC, best management practices as part of an NPDES permit, and General Plan policies and implementation measures. Therefore, this is an impact for which the General Plan EIR adequately addresses the proposed Master Plan. No additional analysis or mitigation measures are required.
7.2.b
Packet Pg. 194 Attachment: Admin Draft TIMP Addendum current (Approve the Initial Study / EIR Addendum to the 2010 General Plan EIR for the 68 5.10 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCE IMPACTS
Impact 5.10-1Potential loss of aquatic habitat within concrete- and soil-lined laterals and irrigation ponds
Applicable General Plan Policies and Implementation Measures None identified.
General Plan EIR Mitigation Measures
None required.
Previously Identified Impacts
The EIR identified that development accommodated by the General Plan would result in the permanent loss of approximately 15.23 acres of aquatic habitat in concrete- and soil-lined laterals and irrigation ponds. These ponds were artificially created for the conveyance and storage of irrigation water and did not appear to be waters of the United States subject to US Army Corps of Engineers jurisdiction or subject to Section 1600 provisions of the California Fish and Game Code administered by the California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) [now the California Department of Fish and Wildlife]. Therefore, the impacts associated with converting the exposed canals to closed conveyance features or removing the ponds was considered less than significant.
Master Plan Impact
The TIMP would not directly or indirectly affect concrete- and soil-lined laterals or irrigation ponds.
Therefore, the TIMP would not increase the potential loss of aquatic habitat beyond that anticipated in the General Plan EIR. Therefore, this is an impact for which the General Plan EIR adequately addresses the proposed Master Plan. No additional analysis or mitigation measures are required.
Impact 5.10-2Permanent loss of orchard, vineyard, irrigated agriculture/other, ruderal, redwood plantation, and developed habitats
Applicable General Plan Policies and Implementation Measures Policies: NR-2.1, NR-2.2, NR-2.3, NR-2.4, NR-2.5, NR-2.6, NR-2.7, NR-2.8, NR-2.9, NR-2.10, and NR-2.11
General Plan EIR Mitigation Measures
None required.
Previously Identified Impacts
The EIR identified that urban development accommodated by the General Plan would result in the loss of orchard, vineyard, irrigated agriculture/other, ruderal, redwood plantation, and developed habitats that predominantly support common plant and wildlife species. The biotic
7.2.b
Packet Pg. 195 Attachment: Admin Draft TIMP Addendum current (Approve the Initial Study / EIR Addendum to the 2010 General Plan EIR for the 69 resources associated with these habitats will continue to be abundant following development in the General Plan Study Area. Biological impacts associated with converting these habitats were therefore considered less than significant.
The US Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service has classified nearly all of the land between Interstate 5 and the San Joaquin River in Stanislaus County as prime agricultural land. Prime agricultural land is defined as “land that has the best combination of physical and chemical characteristics for producing ...agricultural crops with minimum inputs of fuel, fertilizer, pesticides, and labor, and without intolerable soil erosion...” (7 USC Section 4201(c)(1)(A)). Prime farmland does not include land already in, or committed to, urban development. General Plan policies and implementation measures help reduce potential impacts associated with the loss of orchards and other agricultural habitat to a less than significant level.
Master Plan Impact
The TIMP would not increase development or the potential loss of habitat beyond that anticipated in the General Plan EIR. Therefore, this is an impact for which the General Plan EIR adequately addresses the proposed Master Plan. No additional analysis or mitigation measures are required.
Impact 5.10-3Permanent loss of California annual grassland habitat Applicable General Plan Policies and Implementation Measures Policies: NR-3.3 and NR-3.4
General Plan EIR Mitigation Measures
None required.
Previously Identified Impacts
The EIR identified that urban development west of Interstate 5 would result in the loss of California annual grassland habitat, which is moderately disturbed by grazing and predominantly supports common plant species. Because of this habitat’s abundance throughout this region and the state (a contiguous band stretching over 100 miles to the north and south west of Interstate 5), impacts associated with converting annual grassland habitat are considered less than significant. General Plan policies and implementation measures help to reduce potential impacts associated with the loss of this habitat to a less than significant level.
Master Plan Impact
The TIMP would not increase development or the potential loss of grassland habitat beyond that anticipated in the General Plan EIR. Therefore, this is an impact for which the General Plan EIR adequately addresses the proposed Master Plan. No additional analysis or mitigation measures are required.
7.2.b
Packet Pg. 196 Attachment: Admin Draft TIMP Addendum current (Approve the Initial Study / EIR Addendum to the 2010 General Plan EIR for the 70 Impact 5.10-4 Permanent loss of foraging habitat for greater sandhill crane and American peregrine falcon
Applicable General Plan Policies and Implementation Measures Policies: NR-3.3 and NR-3.7
General Plan EIR Mitigation Measures
None required.
Previously Identified Impacts
The EIR identified that development accommodated by the General Plan will result in the loss of foraging habitat for greater sandhill crane and American peregrine falcon. However, the greater sandhill crane and American peregrine falcon may only occur as occasional visitors, migrants, transients, or foragers in the General Plan Study Area. According to the EIR, anticipated development would have no effect on the breeding success of either of these species, although it could potentially result in a small reduction of foraging or wintering habitat available to them regionally.
According to the International Crane Foundation, “Loss and degradation of riverine and wetland ecosystems are the most important threats to sandhill crane populations. For the migratory populations, this is of greatest concern in staging and wintering areas. Spring staging areas along the Platte River in Nebraska are of special concern because of their importance to the migratory subspecies and the development pressures facing this region. Approximately 80% of all sandhill cranes utilize a 75-mile stretch of the Platte River in spring migration. Elsewhere, small breeding populations can face disproportionate mortality on fall staging areas due to over-hunting.
Residential and commercial development pressures facing lands occupied by birds belonging to non-migratory subspecies in Mississippi, Florida, and Cuba also pose significant threats.” Critical habitat area for the American peregrine falcon has been designated in Northern California, near the city of Santa Rosa (Federal Register, Vol. 42, No. 155, p. 40685). There are no areas of appropriate breeding habitat (especially steep cliffs) in the planning area. The species is known to exist throughout North America and was “de-listed” from the federal Endangered Species Act due to recovery; however, it is listed as endangered under the California Endangered Species Act.
Due to the abundance of similar habitats regionally, the development accommodated by the General Plan is expected to have a less than significant impact on these species. In addition, General Plan policies and implementation measures reduce potential impacts associated with the loss of foraging habitat for greater sandhill crane and American peregrine falcon to a less than significant level.
Master Plan Impact
Because the TIMP would not increase development compared to that analyzed in the EIR, the Master Plan would not result in the potential loss of foraging habitat for greater sandhill crane or American peregrine falcon beyond that anticipated in the General Plan EIR. Therefore, this is an
7.2.b
Packet Pg. 197 Attachment: Admin Draft TIMP Addendum current (Approve the Initial Study / EIR Addendum to the 2010 General Plan EIR for the 71 impact for which the General Plan EIR adequately addresses the proposed Master Plan. No additional analysis or mitigation measures are required.
Impact 5.10-5Permanent loss of habitat for certain special-status wildlife species Applicable General Plan Policies and Implementation Measures Policies: NR-3.3 and NR-3.7
General Plan EIR Mitigation Measures
None required.
Previously Identified Impacts
The EIR identified that development accommodated by the General Plan would result in the loss of habitat for certain special-status wildlife species. Some special-status wildlife species may occasionally visit the Study Area during migration or during transient movements. Similarly, some species may occasionally forage in small numbers on the site. These species include the American peregrine falcon, greater sandhill crane, foothill yellow-legged frog, mountain plover, tricolored blackbird, short-eared owl, yellow warbler, and pallid bat. According to the EIR, development of the General Plan Study Area would have no effect on the breeding success of any of these species, although it may result in a small reduction of foraging habitat and a small reduction in the value of roosting habitat available to some of these species on a regional level.
Habitat loss associated with the future projects covered by the General Plan would constitute a less than significant effect to these species due to the abundance of similar habitats regionally and the infrequency with which these species might occur in the Study Area.
In addition, the Study Area is outside the known distribution of, or there is a lack of suitable habitat for, the giant garter snake and the western mastiff bat. No impacts would occur to these species, as they are not present in the Study Area.
Some special-status wildlife species may be present in the Study Area in small numbers, though the quality of habitat is already diminished by existing human disturbance. These species include the San Joaquin whipsnake, northern harrier, loggerhead shrike, American badger, western red bat, and hoary bat. The EIR found that development accommodated by the General Plan will have no effect on the breeding success of any of these species, although it may result in a small reduction of foraging habitat and a small reduction in the value of roosting habitat available to some of these species on a regional level. Habitat loss associated with the buildout of the General Plan would constitute a less than significant effect to these species due to the abundance of similar habitats regionally.
General Plan policies and implementation measures would reduce the potential impacts associated with the permanent loss of habitat for these special-status wildlife species to a less than significant level.
Master Plan Impact
The TIMP would not increase development beyond that anticipated in the General Plan EIR; therefore, the Master Plan would not result in new or more severe impacts related to the potential
7.2.b
Packet Pg. 198 Attachment: Admin Draft TIMP Addendum current (Approve the Initial Study / EIR Addendum to the 2010 General Plan EIR for the 72 loss of habitat for special-status wildlife. This is an impact for which the General Plan EIR adequately addresses the proposed Master Plan. No additional analysis or mitigation measures are required.
Impact 5.10-6Development west of Interstate 5 accommodated by the General Plan may result in the loss of vernal pool habitat.
Applicable General Plan Policies and Implementation Measures Policies: NR-3.4 and NR-3.9
Implementation Measure: NR-13
Implement the requirements of BIO-1 in Appendix NR of the General Plan Natural Resources Element.
General Plan EIR Mitigation Measures
None identified.
Previously Identified Impacts
Although the single vernal pool in the Study Area is heavily disturbed with little ability to support sensitive plant or animal species, the CDFG asserts jurisdiction over stream courses and waterways as stated in Sections 1600–1607 of the California Fish and Game Code. The US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) also has jurisdiction and maintains a “no net loss” policy related to wetlands. Where avoidance of these habitats is not feasible, full mitigation at ratios required by the USACE will be required, in addition to a 404 permit and 401 certification. A Section 1602 streambed alteration agreement would also be required from the CDFG. General Plan policies and implementation measures would reduce potential impacts associated with the loss of vernal pool habitat to a less than significant level.
Master Plan Impact
The TIMP would not increase development compared to that analyzed in the General Plan EIR, so there would be no new or more severe impacts related to the potential loss of vernal pool habitat west of I-5. Therefore, this is an impact for which the General Plan EIR adequately addresses the proposed Master Plan. No additional analysis or mitigation measures are required.
Impact 5.10-7 Urban development accommodated by the General Plan could result in the loss of riparian habitat.
Applicable General Plan Policies and Implementation Measures Policies: NR-3.1, NR-3.2, NR-3.7, NR-3.8, and NR-3.11
Implementation Measure: NR-13
Implement the requirements BIO-2 in Appendix NR of the General Plan Natural Resources Element.
7.2.b
Packet Pg. 199 Attachment: Admin Draft TIMP Addendum current (Approve the Initial Study / EIR Addendum to the 2010 General Plan EIR for the 73 General Plan EIR Mitigation Measures
Implement the following additional recommended mitigation measure:
BIO-34 A no-disturbance area of 100 feet shall be established from the high water mark, or outside edge of existing riparian vegetation, whichever is greater, along Del Puerto Creek and Salado Creek, and existing wetland and vernal pool habitats.
Previously Identified Impacts
The EIR identified that there are approximately 16 acres of riparian habitat in the General Plan Study Area, of which approximately 5 acres may be adversely impacted by development accommodated by the General Plan. Construction activities associated with the General Plan may result in the loss of riparian habitat occurring along Del Puerto Creek and Salado Creek, on Elfers Road adjacent to an irrigation pond, along the San Joaquin River where bridges would be constructed or widened, and along an unnamed drainage west of I-5, resulting in significant impacts to sensitive habitats.
Both Salado Creek and Del Puerto Creek meet the regulatory definition of waters of the United States. Therefore, project activities within the tributary must comply with Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. The boundary of the areas falling under USACE jurisdiction is defined by the ordinary high water mark (OHWM) of the waters of the United States in areas without adjacent wetlands.
When adjacent wetlands are present, USACE jurisdiction extends to the boundary of the wetlands, which is defined by the limits of wetland soils, hydrology, and vegetation. The San Joaquin River, Salado Creek, Del Puerto Creek, and an unnamed ephemeral drainage within the General Plan Study Area are also subject to the regulatory jurisdiction of the CDFG under Section 1602 of the Fish and Game Code.
The EIR found that General Plan policies and implementation measures would reduce potential impacts associated with the loss of riparian habitat. Policy NR-3.8 requires the City to preserve the integrity of riparian resources. Policy NR-3.9 states that the City shall preserve and protect wetlands to the extent feasible. Appendix NR of the Natural Resources Element requires preconstruction surveys for activities that may adversely impact Del Puerto Creek, Salado Creek, and Elfers Creek. The EIR found that compliance with these requirements would ensure that implementation of the General Plan would result in a less than significant impact.
Master Plan Impact
The TIMP would not increase development beyond that analyzed in the General Plan EIR, so there would be no new or more severe impacts on riparian habitat along the specified creeks.
Therefore, this is an impact for which the General Plan EIR adequately addresses the proposed Master Plan. No additional analysis or mitigation measures are required.
Impact 5.10-8Permanent loss of irrigated agriculture/alfalfa habitat Applicable General Plan Policies and Implementation Measures None identified.
7.2.b
Packet Pg. 200 Attachment: Admin Draft TIMP Addendum current (Approve the Initial Study / EIR Addendum to the 2010 General Plan EIR for the 74 General Plan EIR Mitigation Measures
None required.
Previously Identified Impacts
The EIR identified that urban development accommodated by the General Plan could result in the loss of irrigated agriculture/alfalfa habitat, which is a common habitat type in the region, and the loss of this habitat alone is not significant. Therefore, this impact was determined to be less than significant.
Master Plan Impact
The TIMP would not increase development compared to the General Plan, so it would not result in the loss of irrigated agriculture/alfalfa habitat beyond that anticipated in the General Plan EIR.
Therefore, this is an impact for which the General Plan EIR adequately addresses the proposed Master Plan. No additional analysis or mitigation measures are required.
Impact 5.10-9 The General Plan could accommodate individual projects near Del Puerto Creek that could disturb valley elderberry longhorn beetle and result in the loss of suitable habitat.
Applicable General Plan Policies and Implementation Measures Policies: NR-3.1, NR-3.2, NR-3.6, NR-3.7, NR-3.8, NR-3.10, and NR-3.11 Implementation Measure: NR-13
Implement the requirements of BIO-3, BIO-4, and BIO-5 in Appendix NR of the General Plan Natural Resources Element.
General Plan EIR Mitigation Measures
None identified.
Previously Identified Impacts
The EIR identified that the federally threatened valley elderberry longhorn beetle (VELB) may occur within the General Plan Study Area. An elderberry shrub was observed near Del Puerto Creek in the area west of I-5, and elderberry shrubs may also be present downstream along the boundary of this area. Physically damaging the elderberry shrubs, causing dust or other debris to cover foliage, or otherwise harming the shrubs in any manner during project activities would constitute a potentially significant impact. Requirements in Appendix NR of the General Plan’s Natural Resources Element call for a qualified biologist to conduct preconstruction surveys in accordance with the US Fish and Wildlife Service’s Conservation Guidelines for Valley Elderberry Longhorn Beetle to ensure that projects occurring within or adjacent to suitable habitat do not disturb VELB.
7.2.b
Packet Pg. 201 Attachment: Admin Draft TIMP Addendum current (Approve the Initial Study / EIR Addendum to the 2010 General Plan EIR for the 75 Master Plan Impact
The TIMP would not increase development in the vicinity of Del Puerto Creek beyond that anticipated in the General Plan EIR, so there would be no new or more severe impacts related to the potential loss of suitable VELB habitat. Any improvements associated with the Master Plan would be subject to the same requirements in Appendix NR of the Natural Resources Element.
Therefore, this is an impact for which the General Plan EIR adequately addresses the proposed Master Plan. No additional analysis or mitigation measures are required.
Impact 5.10-10 Individual projects in the area west of Interstate 5 could disturb California tiger salamander and result in the loss of suitable habitat.
Applicable General Plan Policies and Implementation Measures Policies: NR-3.1, NR-3.2, NR-3.7, NR-3.8, NR-3.10, and NR-3.11 Implementation Measure: NR-13
Implement the requirements BIO-6, BIO-7, and BIO-8 in Appendix NR of the General Plan Natural Resources Element.
General Plan EIR Mitigation Measures
None required.
Previously Identified Impacts
The EIR identified that there is potential breeding habitat for California tiger salamander (CTS) in the form of a vernal pool present on the western edge of the area west of I-5. Although this pool could not be definitively determined to be capable of providing CTS breeding habitat, there was suitable aestivation habitat surrounding this pool in the area west of I-5 and off site to the west.
Therefore, potential CTS aestivation habitat was present should the vernal pool support CTS breeding. Natural Resources Element Appendix NR requires preconstruction surveys, compensatory habitat mitigation, and implementation of avoidance and minimization measures.
Therefore, the EIR the determined that the General Plan would result in a less than significant impact on CTS breeding habitat.
Master Plan Impact
The TIMP would not increase development west of Interstate 5 beyond that anticipated in the General Plan EIR, so it would not result in new or more severe impacts related to the potential loss of suitable habitat for California tiger salamander. Any improvements associated with the Master Plan would be subject to the same requirements in Appendix NR of the Natural Resources Element. Therefore, this is an impact for which the General Plan EIR adequately addresses the proposed Master Plan. No additional analysis or mitigation measures are required.
7.2.b
Packet Pg. 202 Attachment: Admin Draft TIMP Addendum current (Approve the Initial Study / EIR Addendum to the 2010 General Plan EIR for the 76 Impact 5.10-11 Individual projects accommodated by the General Plan could disturb California red-legged frog and result in the loss of suitable habitat.
Applicable General Plan Policies and Implementation Measures Policies: NR-3.1, NR-3.2, NR-3.7, NR-3.8, NR-3.10, and NR-3.11 Implementation Measure: NR-13
Implement the requirements of BIO-9, BIO-10, and BIO-10 in Appendix NR of the General Plan Natural Resources Element.
General Plan EIR Mitigation Measures
None required.
Previously Identified Impacts
The EIR identified that there was potential habitat for California red-legged frog (CRLF) in Del Puerto Creek west of I-5. The quality of this habitat was low due to the ephemeral flow of the creek and lack of vegetative cover present along the creek, and was further reduced by the presence of bullfrogs in Del Puerto Creek. However, due to the presence of suitable habitat and connectivity to occupied red-legged frog habitats via Del Puerto Creek, the presence of redlegged frogs in the vicinity of the creek west of I-5 cannot be ruled out without surveys.
In addition, the San Joaquin River in the vicinity of potential bridge widening and/or construction provides suitable habitat for red-legged frog, and its presence cannot be ruled out without surveys.
Natural Resources Element Appendix NR requires preconstruction surveys, compensatory habitat mitigation, and implementation of avoidance and minimization measures. Therefore, the EIR determined that implementation of the General Plan would result in a less than significant impact to CRLF.
Master Plan Impact
The TIMP would not increase development in the vicinity of Del Puerto Creek or the San Joaquin River beyond that anticipated in the General Plan EIR, so there would be no new or more severe impacts related to the potential loss of suitable habitat for California red-legged frog. Any improvements associated with the Master Plan would be subject to the same requirements in Appendix NR of the Natural Resources Element. Therefore, this is an impact for which the General Plan EIR adequately addresses the proposed Master Plan. No additional analysis or mitigation measures are required.
Impact 5.10-12 Individual projects accommodated by the General Plan could disturb nesting Swainson’s hawk and result in the loss of foraging habitat.
Applicable General Plan Policies and Implementation Measures Policies: NR-3.1, NR-3.2, NR-3.7, NR-3.10, and NR-3.11
Implementation Measure: NR-13
7.2.b
Packet Pg. 203 Attachment: Admin Draft TIMP Addendum current (Approve the Initial Study / EIR Addendum to the 2010 General Plan EIR for the 77 Implement the requirements of BIO-12, BIO-13, and BIO-14 in Appendix NR of the General Plan Natural Resources Element.
General Plan EIR Mitigation Measures
None required.
Previously Identified Impacts
The EIR identified that Swainson’s hawk nests occur in areas such as riparian woodlands, roadside trees, trees along field borders, and the edges of remnant oak woodlands. Suitable nesting and foraging habitat for Swainson’s hawk exists in the Study Area, especially in areas adjacent to alfalfa fields in the eastern and southern portions. Therefore, it is likely that nesting Swainson’s hawks would be present within the General Plan Study Area. Construction activities (noise, human activity) could result in disrupted foraging activities, incidental loss of fertile eggs or nestlings, or nest abandonment. The CDFG recommends that the buffer zone in nesting areas be increased to 0.5 mile in areas of urban development. These buffer zones may be adjusted as appropriate in consultation with a qualified ornithologist and the CDFG.
The General Plan Study Area includes 4,533.4 acres of irrigated row crops, 1,898 acres of which are alfalfa, which may serve as foraging habitat for Swainson’s hawks. Swainson’s hawks may also forage in non-native annual grassland in this area. Loss of these habitats could represent a significant impact if active Swainson’s hawk nests are present within 10 miles (the average maximum distance from nests that pairs are known to forage).
Natural Resources Element Appendix NR requires preconstruction surveys, prohibits the removal of nest trees, and requires compensation for loss of foraging habitat. Therefore, this impact was determined to be less than significant.
Master Plan Impact
The TIMP would not increase development beyond that anticipated in the General Plan EIR, so there would be no new or more severe impacts related to the potential loss of suitable habitat for Swainson’s hawks. Any improvements associated with the Master Plan would be subject to the same requirements in Appendix NR of the Natural Resources Element. Therefore, this is an impact for which the General Plan EIR adequately addresses the proposed Master Plan. No additional analysis or mitigation measures are required.
Impact 5.10-13 Individual projects accommodated by the General Plan could result in the loss of habitat for, and potential take of, San Joaquin kit fox.
Applicable General Plan Policies and Implementation Measures Implementation Measure: NR-13
Implement the requirements of BIO-15, BIO-16, and BIO-17 in Appendix NR of the General Plan Natural Resources Element.
7.2.b
Packet Pg. 204 Attachment: Admin Draft TIMP Addendum current (Approve the Initial Study / EIR Addendum to the 2010 General Plan EIR for the 78 General Plan EIR Mitigation Measures
None required.
Previously Identified Impacts
The EIR identified that some potential impacts to San Joaquin kit fox (SJKF) may occur in the General Plan Study Area near the Delta-Mendota Canal, particularly between the Delta-Mendota Canal and the California Aqueduct. Kit foxes in other portions of their range use canals of this type on occasion. These linear features are potential travel corridors for kit foxes during dispersal or exploratory forays. Impacts as a result of future projects covered by the General Plan, including construction activities associated with future development projects, may contribute to the injury and mortality of or loss of habitat for SJKF. However, Natural Resources Element Appendix NR would reduce any potential impacts to kit foxes to a less than significant level by requiring focused surveys, preservation of off-site habitat, and implementation of avoidance and minimization measures.
Master Plan Impact
The TIMP would not increase development along the Delta-Mendota Canal and the California Aqueduct or disturb travel corridors for kit foxes beyond the level anticipated in the General Plan EIR. There would be no new or more severe impacts related to San Joaquin kit fox habitat. In addition, any improvements associated with the Master Plan would be subject to the same requirements in Appendix NR of the Natural Resources Element. Therefore, this is an impact for which the General Plan EIR adequately addresses the proposed Master Plan. No additional analysis or mitigation measures are required.
Impact 5.10-14 Individual projects accommodated by the General Plan could result in the mortality or injury of, and loss of habitat for, southwestern pond turtles.
Applicable General Plan Policies and Implementation Measures Implementation Measure: NR-13
Implement the requirements of BIO-18, BIO-19, BIO-20, and BIO-21 in Appendix NR of the General Plan Natural Resources Element.
General Plan EIR Mitigation Measures
None required.
Previously Identified Impacts
The EIR identified that impacts as a result of buildout of the General Plan, including construction activities associated with future development projects, may contribute to the injury and mortality of or loss of habitat for southwestern pond turtle. Future construction projects may contribute to the loss of this species through mechanical crushing; loss of nesting, breeding, or basking sites; and human trampling. Induced indirect impacts of future specific projects could contribute to a decline in water quality, temporary loss of upland nesting sites and foraging habitat, disruption of breeding activity, or disturbance of basking sites. Natural Resources Element Appendix NR
7.2.b
Packet Pg. 205 Attachment: Admin Draft TIMP Addendum current (Approve the Initial Study / EIR Addendum to the 2010 General Plan EIR for the 79 requires focused surveys (individuals and nesting sites); monitoring, avoidance, and minimization measures; and relocation of nests and individual from construction zones. With implementation of requirements in Natural Resources Element Appendix NR, impacts to southwestern pond turtles were determined to be less than significant.
Master Plan Impact
The TIMP would not increase development beyond that anticipated in the General Plan EIR, so there would be no new or more severe impacts related to injury or loss of habitat for southwestern pond turtle. In addition, any improvements associated with the Master Plan would be subject to the same requirements in Appendix NR of the Natural Resources Element. Therefore, this is an impact for which the General Plan EIR adequately addresses the proposed Master Plan. No additional analysis or mitigation measures are required.
Impact 5.10-15 Individual projects accommodated by the General Plan could disturb nesting burrowing owls and result in the loss of occupied burrowing owl habitat.
Applicable General Plan Policies and Implementation Measures Implementation Measure: NR-13
Implement the requirements of BIO-22 and BIO-23 in Appendix NR of the General Plan Natural Resources Element.
General Plan EIR Mitigation Measures
None required.
Previously Identified Impacts
The EIR identified that burrowing owl, a CDFG Species of Special Concern, has been observed in the General Plan Study Area and that there is suitable habitat throughout the western edge of the area west of I-5 and in the margins of irrigated crops. Buildout of the General Plan, including associated construction activities, may contribute to the loss of habitat or injury and mortality of burrowing owls. Disturbance of habitat during the breeding season could also result in the displacement of breeding birds and the abandonment of active nests. Ground disturbance from future construction projects could contribute to the incidental loss of fertile eggs or nestlings or otherwise lead to nest abandonment. Requirements in Appendix NR of the Natural Resources Element include CDFG protocol surveys and compensation for loss of habitat. The EIR found that with implementation of these requirements, impacts to burrowing owls would be less than significant.
Master Plan Impact
The TIMP would not increase development or disturbance to burrowing owl habitat beyond that anticipated in the General Plan EIR. Any improvements associated with the Master Plan would be subject to the same requirements in Appendix NR of the Natural Resources Element.
Therefore, this is an impact for which the General Plan EIR adequately addresses the proposed Master Plan. No additional analysis or mitigation measures are required.
7.2.b
Packet Pg. 206 Attachment: Admin Draft TIMP Addendum current (Approve the Initial Study / EIR Addendum to the 2010 General Plan EIR for the 80 Impact 5.10-16 Individual projects accommodated by the General Plan could disturb nesting avian species of special concern.
Applicable General Plan Policies and Implementation Measures Implementation Measure: NR-13
Implement the requirements of BIO-24 and BIO-25 in Appendix NR of the General Plan Natural Resources Element.
General Plan EIR Mitigation Measures
None required.
Previously Identified Impacts
The EIR identified that loggerhead shrike has been identified as nesting within the General Plan Study Area, and there is marginal nesting habitat for tricolored blackbirds. The grasshopper sparrow is also considered a Species of Special Concern and has been documented in Del Puerto Canyon; however, no evidence of nests has been documented.
The area west of Interstate 5 in the General Plan expansion area contains about 415 acres of California annual grasslands, which could serve as habitat for the grasshopper sparrow. While the grasshopper sparrow was not listed in the California Natural Diversity Database or listed as a species with the likelihood to occur in the area, the loss of California annual grassland could have a cumulative impact on this species. While individual projects would not substantially reduce habitat available for these species, restrict their range, or cause their regional populations to drop below self-sustaining levels, the direct or indirect loss of nests through physical removal, nest abandonment, or reproductive suppression of these regionally rare species would constitute a significant impact without mitigation if large numbers of nests or unique isolated breeding populations are affected. However, the EIR found that General Plan policies and implementation measures would reduce potential impacts to nesting avian species to a less than significant level.
Master Plan Impact
The TIMP would not increase development beyond that anticipated in the General Plan EIR, so there would be no new or more severe impacts related to loss of nesting avian species or habitat.
In addition, any improvements associated with the Master Plan would be subject to the same requirements in Appendix NR of the Natural Resources Element. Therefore, this is an impact for which the General Plan EIR adequately addresses the proposed Master Plan. No additional analysis or mitigation measures are required.
Impact 5.10-17 Individual projects accommodated by the General Plan could disturb raptors.
Applicable General Plan Policies and Implementation Measures Implementation Measure: NR-13
7.2.b
Packet Pg. 207 Attachment: Admin Draft TIMP Addendum current (Approve the Initial Study / EIR Addendum to the 2010 General Plan EIR for the 81 Implement the requirements of BIO-26 and BIO-27 in Appendix NR of the General Plan Natural Resources Element.
General Plan EIR Mitigation Measures
None required.
Previously Identified Impacts
The EIR identified that the northern harrier, a Species of Special Concern, and white-tailed kite, a state fully protected species, are known or have the potential to nest in the vicinity of the General Plan Study Area. While individual development projects would not substantially reduce habitat available for these species, restrict their range, or cause their regional populations to drop below self-sustaining levels, the direct or indirect loss of nests through physical removal, nest abandonment, or reproductive suppression of these regionally rare species would constitute a significant impact if large numbers of nests or unique isolated breeding populations are affected without mitigation. As a state fully protected species, the white-tailed kite is protected from take of any kind. Additionally, all raptors (i.e., eagles, hawks, and owls) and their nests are protected under both federal and state law. Impacts as a result of approval of the General Plan, including construction activities associated with future development projects, may contribute to the injury and mortality of or loss of habitat for nesting raptors. Disturbance of habitat during the breeding season could also result in the displacement of breeding raptors and the abandonment of active nests. The EIR found that General Plan policies and implementation measures would reduce potential impacts to nesting raptors to a less than significant level.
Master Plan Impact
The TIMP would not increase development beyond that anticipated in the General Plan EIR, so there would be no new or more severe impacts related to disturbance or loss of raptors. In addition, any improvements associated with the Master Plan would be subject to the same requirements in Appendix NR of the Natural Resources Element. Therefore, this is an impact for which the General Plan EIR adequately addresses the proposed Master Plan. No additional analysis or mitigation measures are required.
Impact 5.10-18 Individual projects accommodated by the General Plan could result in impacts to special-status plants.
Applicable General Plan Policies and Implementation Measures Policy: NR-3.6
Implementation Measure: NR-13
Implement the requirements of BIO-28, BIO-29, BIO-30, BIO-32, and BIO-33 in Appendix NR of the General Plan Natural Resources Element.
General Plan EIR Mitigation Measures
None required.
7.2.b
Packet Pg. 208 Attachment: Admin Draft TIMP Addendum current (Approve the Initial Study / EIR Addendum to the 2010 General Plan EIR for the 82 Previously Identified Impacts
The EIR identified that the showy madia is a state rare species that may occur in the California annual grassland habitat west of Interstate 5. The nearest records of the species are from approximately 8 miles northwest of the General Plan Study Area. Delta button-celery is a state endangered species that, although reportedly extirpated from San Joaquin County, may still occur in vernally mesic clay depressions in the Study Area. The nearest records of the species are from approximately 1 mile southeast and 1 mile north of the General Plan Study Area. Several California Native Plant Society (CNPS) listed species also have the potential to occur within the General Plan Study Area. List 1B species are rare throughout their range and include big tarplant, round-leaved filaree, Lemmon’s jewelflower, diamond-petaled California poppy, and red-flowered lotus. List 4 species include California androsace, Oakland star-tulip, small-flowered morning glory, gypsum-loving larkspur, stinkbells, hogwallow starfish, serpentine leptosiphon, and delta woolly-marbles. List 4 species are of limited distribution in California and may be significant locally.
The EIR found that construction activities associated with buildout of the General Plan may reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant. However, General Plan policies and implementation measures reduce potential impacts to special-status plant species to a less than significant level.
Master Plan Impact
The TIMP would not increase development beyond that anticipated in the General Plan EIR, so there would be no new or more severe impacts related to loss of special-status plant species. Any improvements associated with the Master Plan would also be subject to the same requirements in Appendix NR of the Natural Resources Element. Therefore, this is an impact for which the General Plan EIR adequately addresses the proposed Master Plan. No additional analysis or mitigation measures are required.
Impact 5.10-19 Future projects accommodated by the General Plan have the potential to degrade water quality within the irrigation laterals, in Del Puerto Creek in the area west of Interstate 5, in the San Joaquin River, and at the terminus of the laterals and within Salado Creek as a result of pollution, sedimentation, and litter stemming from site construction. These factors could result in significant indirect effects to downstream biological resources.
Applicable General Plan Policies and Implementation Measures None identified.
General Plan EIR Mitigation Measures
None required.
7.2.b
Packet Pg. 209 Attachment: Admin Draft TIMP Addendum current (Approve the Initial Study / EIR Addendum to the 2010 General Plan EIR for the 83 Previously Identified Impacts
The EIR identified that future projects would have to comply with state and federal water quality regulations, including California’s General Construction Stormwater Permit, which requires preparation and implementation of a stormwater pollution prevention plan (SWPPP). SWPPPs are designed to manage stormwater quality degradation through best management practices during and after construction. These practices may include temporary drainage ditches, culverts, berms, and/or straw bales that confine stormwater and prevent it from carrying sedimentation off the project site. The EIR found that project compliance with the SWPPP would ensure that indirect impacts to biological resources are reduced to less than significant levels.
Master Plan Impact
The TIDMP would not increase development beyond that anticipated in the General Plan EIR.
Any improvements associated with the Master Plan would be subject to the General Construction Stormwater Permit requirements and would implement BMPs as required by existing regulations, as discussed in the EIR. Therefore, there would be no new or more severe impacts related to water quality effects on biological resources. This is an impact for which the General Plan EIR adequately addresses the proposed Master Plan. No additional analysis or mitigation measures are required.
Impact 5.10-20 Cumulative impacts to sensitive biological resources Applicable General Plan Policies and Implementation Measures Policies: NR-3.1, NR-3.2, NR-3.3, NR-3.4, NR-3.5, NR-3.6, NR-3.7, NR-3.8, NR-3.9, NR-3.10, and NR-3.11
Implementation Measure: NR-13
Implement the requirements of BIO-1 through BIO-33 in Appendix NR of the General Plan Natural Resources Element.
General Plan EIR Mitigation Measures
None identified.
Previously Identified Impacts
The EIR identified that future development activities in the vicinity of the General Plan Study Area would result in considerable disturbance to special-status wildlife and plants, their habitats, and other sensitive biological resources. The incremental effect of the General Plan, when combined with the effects created by other past and reasonably foreseeable projects, would be cumulatively considerable even though project applicants will be required to obtain regulatory approvals and implement the mitigation measures previously described to address direct and indirect effects of individual projects.
The EIR found that General Plan policies, implementation measures, and additional mitigation measures recommended by the General Plan EIR and incorporated into Appendix NR of the Natural Resources Element reduce regional impacts relating to habitat loss for plant and animal
7.2.b
Packet Pg. 210 Attachment: Admin Draft TIMP Addendum current (Approve the Initial Study / EIR Addendum to the 2010 General Plan EIR for the 84 species. However, cumulative impacts were determined to remain cumulatively considerable and significant and unavoidable.
Master Plan Impact
The TIMP would not increase development beyond that anticipated in the General Plan EIR. Any improvements associated with the Master Plan would be subject to the General Plan policies, implementation measures, mitigation measures, and requirements in Appendix NR.
Implementation of these measures would ensure that no new or more severe impacts related to cumulative effects on biological resources would result from the Master Plan. Therefore, this is an impact for which the General Plan EIR adequately addresses the proposed Master Plan. No additional analysis or mitigation measures are required.
5.11 AGRICULTURAL RESOURCE IMPACTS
Impact 5.11-1 Permanent loss of prime agricultural land and other Important Farmland
Applicable General Plan Policies and Implementation Measures Policies: NR-2.1, NR-2.2, NR-2.3, NR-2.4, NR-2.5, NR-2.6, NR-2.7, NR-2.8, NR-2.9, NR-2.10, and NR-2.11
Implementation Measures: NR-C and NR-F
General Plan EIR Mitigation Measures
None identified.
Previously Identified Impacts
The EIR identified that development accommodated by the General Plan would permanently convert approximately 8,514 acres of Prime Farmland as well as other Important Farmland to nonagricultural uses. General Plan policies help to minimize impacts relating to the permanent conversion of productive agricultural lands. Nevertheless, buildout of the General Plan would result in the permanent loss of productive agricultural land. Therefore, this impact was considered significant and unavoidable.
Master Plan Impact
Any improvements associated with the TIMP would be subject to the General Plan policies, implementation measures, and mitigation measures provided in the General Plan EIR to reduce impacts related to the loss of agricultural land. The Master Plan would not increase development beyond that anticipated in the General Plan EIR, so additional farmland would not be converted to provide storm drainage facilities. There would be no new or more severe impact related to conversion of Important Farmland. This is an impact for which the General Plan EIR adequately addresses the proposed Master Plan. No additional analysis or mitigation measures are required.
7.2.b
Packet Pg. 211 Attachment: Admin Draft TIMP Addendum current (Approve the Initial Study / EIR Addendum to the 2010 General Plan EIR for the 85 Impact 5.11-2Permanent loss of prime agricultural land for road widenings Applicable General Plan Policies and Implementation Measures Policies: NR-2.1, NR-2.2, NR-2.3, NR-2.4, NR-2.5, NR-2.6, NR-2.7, NR-2.8, NR-2.9, NR-2.10, and NR-2.11
Implementation Measures: NR-C and NR-F
General Plan EIR Mitigation Measures
No feasible mitigation identified.
Previously Identified Impacts
The EIR identified a number of roadway improvements outside the General Plan Study Area that would result in the permanent conversion of Important Farmland. The permanent loss of Important Farmland for roadway improvements outside the General Plan Study Area would range from 113.3 to 122.6 acres.
Almost all of the land surrounding the city is classified as Important Farmland by the State.
Accordingly, there are no feasible alternative alignments that would avoid these resources.
Although the roadway improvements would be constructed within existing rights-of-way wherever possible, portions of each roadway improvement will be constructed outside of existing rights-ofway, which would likely result in the conversion of Important Farmland.
General Plan policies and implementation measures would apply to the conversion of agricultural land for roadway improvements. However, the result was that the permanent loss of prime farmland was considered a significant and unavoidable impact.
Master Plan Impact
The TIMP does not propose roadway improvements outside of the General Plan area that would impact agricultural land to a greater degree than what was evaluated in the General Plan EIR.
Because there would be no additional roadways and Master Plan development would be required to implement General Plan policies and implementation measures, the Master Plan would not have new or more severe impacts. Therefore, this is an impact for which the General Plan EIR adequately addresses the proposed Master Plan. No additional analysis or mitigation measures are required.
Impact 5.11-3 Permanent loss of prime agricultural land to construct a regional park Applicable General Plan Policies and Implementation Measures Policies: NR-2.1, NR-2.2, NR-2.3, NR-2.4, NR-2.5, NR-2.6, NR-2.7, NR-2.8, NR-2.9, NR-2.10, and NR-2.11
Implementation Measures: NR-C and NR-F
General Plan EIR Mitigation Measures
No feasible mitigation identified.
7.2.b
Packet Pg. 212 Attachment: Admin Draft TIMP Addendum current (Approve the Initial Study / EIR Addendum to the 2010 General Plan EIR for the 86 Previously Identified Impacts
The EIR identified that buildout of the General Plan will include a site for a regional park in the vicinity of the San Joaquin River. Although a specific parcel (or parcels) has not been chosen for this facility, all of the properties near the river are classified as Important Farmland by the State.
Assuming a regional park is about 50 acres in size, any location for a park in this area would result in the permanent conversion of about 50 acres of prime farmland (this acreage is already assumed in the overall General Plan impact on Important Farmland).
General Plan policies and implementation measures would apply to the conversion of agricultural land for a regional park. However, the net result was determined to remain a permanent loss of prime farmland, which was identified as a significant and unavoidable impact.
Master Plan Impact
The TIMP would not involve increases in population such that construction of any park facilities would be required. Consequently, there would be no new or more severe impacts associated with conversion of Important Farmland due to park construction. This is an impact for which the General Plan EIR adequately addresses the proposed Master Plan. No additional analysis or mitigation measures are required.
Impact 5.11-4 Conflicts between urban land uses and ongoing agricultural operations
Applicable General Plan Policies and Implementation Measures Policies: NR-2.2, NR-2.4, and NR-2.10
General Plan EIR Mitigation Measures
Additional recommended implementation measure:
5.11-2(a) Buffering Techniques. As residential or school development occurs adjacent to agricultural uses, such development shall implement one or more of the following buffering techniques in its design:
• Roadways, creeks or canals shall be used as buffers where feasible; • Where incompatible uses directly abut, fences shall be installed on the nonagricultural use, which shall be designed to limit the drift of pesticides or other sprays, and shall discourage climbing and graffiti to the extent possible; • If additional non-residential development is anticipated in an area that is currently in agricultural use, fencing at the current interface of conflict shall be removed if requested by the current property owner on which the fence is located. The cost for the fence removal must be borne by the developer of the land being converted from agriculture to urban uses.
7.2.b
Packet Pg. 213 Attachment: Admin Draft TIMP Addendum current (Approve the Initial Study / EIR Addendum to the 2010 General Plan EIR for the 87 Previously Identified Impacts
The EIR identified that future development under the General Plan would place residences and businesses in close proximity to ongoing agricultural operations, potentially burdening local agricultural operations. The dust, noise, odors, chemicals, aircraft and other machinery, and hours of operation associated with agricultural operations may be perceived as a nuisance to residents and merchants. This in turn may give rise to complaints and lead to an increase in public support for conversion of surrounding agricultural lands. Developing urban land uses at the edge of agricultural land uses may also increase the potential for trespass on agricultural land, as well as crop pilfering, crop damage, and potential personal injury liability associated with trespass.
Other indirect impacts to agriculture from nearby urban uses can affect the long-term viability of such operations. Increased regulations and liability insurance to protect the farmer from adjacent urban uses cost time and money. Some farmers sensitive to nearby public uses voluntarily limit their hours of operation and do not intensively use the portions of their property closest to urban uses, in effect establishing informal buffer zones on their own property. This has the effect of lowering the crop yield and therefore the long-term economic viability of the agricultural operation. Over time, this may provide an incentive for the property owners of adjacent lands under Williamson Act contract to file a Notice of Non-Renewal.
The EIR found that General Plan policies would help to minimize agricultural land use conflicts.
However, the conversion of agricultural land to urban uses is expected to occur over the planning horizon, during which conflicts between urban development and ongoing agricultural operations will continue to occur. As a result, impacts relating to conflicts between urban development and ongoing agricultural operations were determined to be significant and unavoidable.
Master Plan Impact
The TIMP would not increase development or agricultural operations beyond those anticipated in the General Plan EIR. Master Plan improvements could potentially cause temporary conflicts with agricultural operations if they restrict agricultural operations during construction when improvements are placed in nearby roadways. However, since the Master Plan improvements would not introduce sensitive land uses, the conflicts of Master Plan improvements with agricultural operations would be less than those identified for other uses in the General Plan.
Therefore, this is an impact for which the General Plan EIR adequately addresses the proposed Master Plan. No additional analysis or mitigation measures are required.
Impact 5.11-5Conflicts between urban land uses and land zoned for agricultural operations as well as land governed by existing Williamson act contracts Applicable General Plan Policies and Implementation Measures Policies: NR-2.1, NR-2.2, NR-2.3, NR-2.4, NR-2.5, NR-2.6, NR-2.7, NR-2.8, NR-2.9, NR-2.10, and NR-2.11
Implementation Measures: NR-C and NR-F
General Plan EIR Mitigation Measures
No feasible mitigation identified.
7.2.b
Packet Pg. 214 Attachment: Admin Draft TIMP Addendum current (Approve the Initial Study / EIR Addendum to the 2010 General Plan EIR for the 88 Previously Identified Impacts
The EIR identified that development of the General Plan Study Area with urban uses would result in conflicts between urban uses and land zoned for agricultural uses and land governed by existing Williamson Act contracts. The Study Area contains approximately 5,216 acres of land subject to Williamson Act contracts, with 3,209 nonrenewal acres. The majority of acreage outside of the existing city limits and in the county is designated and zoned for agricultural use.
General Plan goals, policies, and action items assist in reducing the loss of Williamson Act contracted lands and the conversion of agriculturally zoned lands to urban land uses.
Nevertheless, implementation of the General Plan was identified to result in additional land use conflicts with land zoned for agriculture and potentially pressure owners of existing Williamson Act contracted lands to file for nonrenewal. Therefore, this impact was considered significant and unavoidable.
Master Plan Impact
The TIMP improvements could potentially conflict with land zoned for agricultural use or governed by existing Williamson Act contracts. However, the Master Plan would not directly increase development on land zoned for agricultural use or under a Williamson Act contract beyond that anticipated in the General Plan EIR. In addition, because the Master Plan would not include land uses that are considered sensitive to agricultural activities, the potential for indirect pressure to convert existing Williamson Act contracted lands to file for nonrenewal would be lower overall than for other uses identified in the General Plan EIR. Therefore, this is an impact for which the General Plan EIR adequately addresses the proposed Master Plan. No additional analysis or mitigation measures are required.
Impact 5.11-6 Cumulative loss of Important Farmland
Applicable General Plan Policies and Implementation Measures Policies: NR-2.1, NR-2.2, NR-2.3, NR-2.4, NR-2.5, NR-2.6, NR-2.7, NR-2.8, NR-2.9, NR-2.10, and NR-2.11
Implementation Measures: NR-C and NR-F
General Plan EIR Mitigation Measures
No feasible mitigation identified.
Previously Identified Impacts
The EIR identified that most of the agricultural land in the western Stanislaus region is considered prime farmland. Cumulative development throughout Stanislaus County and Patterson would impact the region’s agricultural resources and convert prime farmland to urban uses. Future development in accordance with the General Plan would incrementally contribute to this substantial change.
General Plan policies help minimize impacts relating to the permanent conversion of productive agricultural lands. Nevertheless, implementation of the General Plan was identified to result in the
7.2.b
Packet Pg. 215 Attachment: Admin Draft TIMP Addendum current (Approve the Initial Study / EIR Addendum to the 2010 General Plan EIR for the 89 permanent loss of productive agricultural land, which was considered cumulatively considerable and significant and unavoidable.
Master Plan Impact
The TIMP would not contribute to the cumulative permanent conversion of productive agricultural lands beyond that anticipated in the General Plan EIR. As previously discussed, improvements associated with the Master Plan were considered in the General Plan EIR as part of the infrastructure necessary to support the population growth that would occur in the city. Therefore, this is an impact for which the General Plan EIR adequately addresses the proposed Master Plan.
No additional analysis or mitigation measures are required.
Impact 5.11-7 Cumulative conflicts between urban land uses and ongoing agricultural operations
Applicable General Plan Policies and Implementation Measures Policies: NR-2.2, NR-2.4, and NR-2.10
The EIR recommended additional implementation measure 5.11-2(a) as described in Impact
5.11-4.
General Plan EIR Mitigation Measures
No feasible mitigation identified.
Previously Identified Impacts
The EIR identified that development accommodated by the General Plan, together with development throughout the region, would result in compatibility conflicts between urban development and ongoing agricultural operations. General Plan policies help to minimize impacts relating to the permanent conversion of productive agricultural lands. Nevertheless, implementation of the General Plan would result in potential incompatibilities that could affect operations on existing agricultural land, which was considered cumulatively considerable and significant and unavoidable.
Master Plan Impact
As discussed above, the TIMP would not include land uses that are considered sensitive to agricultural activities, so the Master Plan would not contribute to compatibility conflicts between urban development and ongoing agricultural operations in the region beyond those anticipated in the General Plan EIR. Therefore, this is an impact for which the General Plan EIR adequately addresses the proposed Master Plan. No additional analysis or mitigation measures are required.
7.2.b
Packet Pg. 216 Attachment: Admin Draft TIMP Addendum current (Approve the Initial Study / EIR Addendum to the 2010 General Plan EIR for the 90 5.12 HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS IMPACTS
Impact 5.12-1Transport of hazardous materials on Study Area roadways could result in exposure of such materials to the public either through routine use or due to accidental release.
Applicable General Plan Policies and Implementation Measures Policies: HS-4.1, HS-4.2, HS-4.3, HS-4.4, HS-4.5, and HS-4.6 General Plan EIR Mitigation Measures
None required.
Previously Identified Impacts
The EIR identified that development accommodated by the General Plan could include the transport of hazardous materials on Study Area roadways, which could result in the public’s exposure to such materials either through routine use or due to accidental release.
Developers, contractors, business owners, and others using, storing, and transporting hazardous materials are required to comply with local, state, and federal regulations during project construction and operation. Facilities that use hazardous materials are required to obtain permits and comply with appropriate regulatory agency standards and regulations designed to avoid hazardous material releases. All existing and future development would be required to comply with federal, state, and local regulations regarding the handling and transportation of hazardous materials. The EIR also found that General Plan policies would contribute to reductions in hazards associated with the transport of hazardous materials through the General Plan Study Area.
Therefore, this impact was determined to be less than significant.
Master Plan Impact
Construction of improvements included in the SDMP was assumed as part of the General Plan, so the Master Plan would not increase the transport of hazardous materials beyond that anticipated in the General Plan EIR. Any improvements associated with the Master Plan would be required to comply with existing local, state, and federal regulations to reduce the risk to human health and the environment from the routine use of hazardous substances. Therefore, this is an impact for which the General Plan EIR adequately addresses the proposed Master Plan. No additional analysis or mitigation measures are required.
Impact 5.12-2Release of hazardous materials into the environment under reasonably foreseeable upset or accident conditions
Applicable General Plan Policies and Implementation Measures Policies: HS-3.6, HS-3.8, HS-4.1, HS-4.2, HS-4.4, HS-6.3, HS-6.4, HS-6.5, HS-6.6, HS-6.7, HS-6.8, HS-6.9, and HS-7.1
7.2.b
Packet Pg. 217 Attachment: Admin Draft TIMP Addendum current (Approve the Initial Study / EIR Addendum to the 2010 General Plan EIR for the 91 General Plan EIR Mitigation Measures
None required.
Previously Identified Impacts
The EIR identified that development accommodated by the General Plan could result in the release of hazardous materials into the environment under reasonably foreseeable conditions.
The transportation of hazardous materials on area roadways is regulated by the California Highway Patrol (CHP), US Department of Transportation (Hazardous Materials Transportation Act), and Caltrans, and use of these materials is regulated by the California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) (22 California Code of Regulations Section 66001, et seq.).
Developers, contractors, business owners, and others using, storing, and transporting hazardous materials are required to comply with local, state, and federal regulations during project construction and operation. Facilities that use hazardous materials are required to obtain permits and comply with appropriate regulatory agency standards designed to avoid hazardous waste releases. The EIR disclosed that all existing and future projects in the Study Area would be required to comply with federal, state, and local regulations regarding the handling, transportation, disposal, and cleanup of hazardous materials. General Plan policies ensure that hazards associated with the transport of hazardous materials through the Study Area are reduced.
Therefore, this was determined to be a less than significant impact.
Master Plan Impact
The TIMP would not increase development beyond that anticipated in the General Plan EIR. As noted above, the EIR states that all existing and future projects in the Study Area would be required to comply with federal, state, and local regulations regarding the handling, transportation, disposal, and cleanup of hazardous materials. These regulations have a mitigating effect related to the handling of hazardous materials and reduce the potential for accidental release. Therefore, this is an impact for which the General Plan EIR adequately addresses the proposed Master Plan.
No additional analysis or mitigation measures are required.
Impact 5.12-3 The General Plan would accommodate urban land uses that would potentially expose construction workers and future residents to potentially hazardous concentrations of environmentally persistent pesticides (e.g., DDT, toxaphene).
Applicable General Plan Policies and Implementation Measures Policies: HS-6.5, HS-6.7, HS-6.8, and HS-6.9
General Plan EIR Mitigation Measures
None required.
Previously Identified Impacts
The EIR identified that surface and shallow-surface soils in the Study Area that have historically have been used for intensive agricultural production may contain residual concentrations of environmentally persistent pesticides or heavy metals (lead or arsenic) above adopted human
7.2.b
Packet Pg. 218 Attachment: Admin Draft TIMP Addendum current (Approve the Initial Study / EIR Addendum to the 2010 General Plan EIR for the 92 health thresholds. Chlorinated pesticides, such as DDT and toxaphene, were extensively used throughout California farmlands prior to their prohibition in the mid-1970s. The US Environmental Protection Agency, Region IX, has developed risk-based screening levels (RBSLs) for toxic compounds in soil for residential and commercial properties. The RBSLs are health risk standards that have been developed for a wide range of toxic compounds, including volatile organic compounds, metals, semi-volatile organic compounds, and pesticides. The Stanislaus County Department of Environmental Health Services applies RBSLs to cleanup sites when reviewing site remediation and development proposals. General Plan policies also contribute to a reduction in potential hazards associated with exposure to hazardous materials in the soil. Therefore, this was determined to be a less than significant impact.
Master Plan Impact
As noted above, the Stanislaus County Department of Environmental Health Services applies RBSLs to cleanup sites when reviewing site remediation and development proposals. Therefore, any improvements associated with the TIMP that could result in human exposure to hazardous materials in the soils would be subject to review and remediation as determined by the Stanislaus County Department of Environmental Health Services. Therefore, this is an impact for which the General Plan EIR adequately addresses the proposed Master Plan. No additional analysis or mitigation measures are required.
Impact 5.12-4The General Plan designates areas for urban development in the vicinity of the Patterson Airport and the Crows Landing Air Facility, which may expose people or property to hazards associated with aircraft operations.
Applicable General Plan Policies and Implementation Measures Policies: LU-9.1 and LU-9.2
General Plan EIR Mitigation Measures
None required.
Previously Identified Impacts
The EIR identified that the Study Area is subject to two airport land use plans: the Patterson Airport and the Crows Landing Naval Airfield. Appropriate land uses and densities were chosen for the General Plan to be consistent with the restrictions of each airport land use plan. Future development within each airport plan area must comply with the restrictions associated with the applicable airport plan. The General Plan designates land for additional residential development to the south of the city and north of the Delta-Mendota Canal. A portion of the land designated by the General Plan for estate residential development is located in safety zones 3 and 4. Rural residential development of 10 acres or more is considered a conditionally approvable use in zone 3, and residential development up to multi-family densities is considered a compatible use in zone 4. The General Plan also designates additional land for industrial and residential development north of the Patterson Airport. These uses are consistent with the adopted airport land use plan for the Patterson Airport. Therefore, this was determined to be a less than significant impact.
7.2.b
Packet Pg. 219 Attachment: Admin Draft TIMP Addendum current (Approve the Initial Study / EIR Addendum to the 2010 General Plan EIR for the 93 Master Plan Impact
The SDMP would not increase development within the Patterson Airport and the Crows Landing Naval Airfield land use planning areas beyond that anticipated in the General Plan EIR and would not include uses that conflict with airport land use plans such that there would be a safety hazard.
Therefore, this is an impact for which the General Plan EIR adequately addresses the proposed Master Plan. No additional analysis or mitigation measures are required.
Impact 5.12-5The Equal-Weight Alternatives may be inconsistent with the draft Airport Land Use Plan for the Crows Landing Airfield.
Applicable General Plan Policies and Implementation Measures None identified.
General Plan EIR Mitigation Measures
None required.
Previously Identified Impacts
The EIR identified that the Land Use Plan for the Crows Landing Airfield (draft) sets forth revised safety compatibility requirements and safety zones. The areas designated for urban development lie outside the recommended safety zones. Therefore, the General Plan was determined to be consistent with safety standards recommended by the Airport Land Use Plan for the Crows Landing Airfield. This impact was considered less than significant.
Master Plan Impact
The TIMP would not increase development within the safety zones of the Crows Landing Airfield beyond that anticipated in the General Plan EIR. In addition, any improvements associated with the Master Plan would be subject to review to determine consistency with the airfield’s safety zones. Therefore, this is an impact for which the General Plan EIR adequately addresses the proposed Master Plan. No additional analysis or mitigation measures are required.
Impact 5.12-6Proposed land uses and/or changes in land use patterns would not interfere with adopted emergency response or evacuation plans.
Applicable General Plan Policies and Implementation Measures Policies: HS-4.1, HS-4.2, and HS-4.4
Implementation Measures: HS-3 and HS-4
General Plan EIR Mitigation Measures
None required.
7.2.b
Packet Pg. 220 Attachment: Admin Draft TIMP Addendum current (Approve the Initial Study / EIR Addendum to the 2010 General Plan EIR for the 94 Previously Identified Impacts
The EIR identified that proposed land uses and/or changes in land use patterns that would occur as a result of the General Plan would not interfere with adopted emergency response or evacuation plans. The General Plan would not alter Patterson’s overall land use pattern or land use designations to such an extent that it would conflict with the City’s emergency response and/or evacuation plans. The roadway improvements recommended by the Circulation Plan incorporate the recommendations of the City Fire Department and Police Department regarding emergency access to all parts of the Study Area. Where necessary, additional fire and police substations would be provided to serve the growing population accommodated by the General Plan. The proposed roadway system would improve city roadway connectivity, allowing better emergency vehicle access to residences as well as evacuation routes for area residents. In addition, General Plan policies and implementation measures ensure consistency with adopted emergency response plans. Therefore, this impact was determined to be less than significant.
Master Plan Impact
The TIMP would not change the development assumptions from those anticipated in the EIR and would not interfere with adopted emergency response or evacuation plans. Furthermore, implementation of the General Plan policies identified above would ensure that adequate emergency access is provided throughout the city. Therefore, this is an impact for which the General Plan EIR adequately addresses the proposed Master Plan. No additional analysis or mitigation measures are required.
Impact 5.12-7Increased rail operations over time, combined with an increase in population, employment, and motor vehicle, pedestrian, and bicycle traffic associated with the project, will increase the risk associated with at-grade railroad crossings.
Applicable General Plan Policies and Implementation Measures Policies: HS-7.1 and HS-7.2
General Plan EIR Mitigation Measures
None required.
Previously Identified Impacts
The EIR identified that future train traffic through the Study Area could increase from one to two trains per day to as many as six per day over the next 20 or more years. In addition, the increase in motor vehicle trips generated by development will result in an increase in the number of vehicles on city roadways and the potential hazard associated with at-grade railroad crossings. The annual rate of at-grade rail crossings accidents per 100,000 residents has remained fairly constant since 1998, with a high of 1.39 accidents per 100,000 in 1999 and a low of zero in 2001. During the same period, the county population grew by about 97,000 residents.
When considering the safety of at-grade crossings, it is important to distinguish between the hazard associated with the crossings and the actual risk. The hazard associated with the crossings is an accident involving a train and a motor vehicle, pedestrian, or bicycle. The risk,
7.2.b
Packet Pg. 221 Attachment: Admin Draft TIMP Addendum current (Approve the Initial Study / EIR Addendum to the 2010 General Plan EIR for the 95 however, is the likelihood that an accident will occur. Although the hazard associated with atgrade railroad crossings is likely to increase over time as population and employment in the city grows, the rate of accidents per 100,000 residents (the risk) will likely exhibit similar characteristics as over the 1998 to 2009 time frame and remain low. The historical risk associated with at-grade railroad crossings has been relatively low in the Study Area. While the potential increase in train trips in the future is large when compared with current conditions, the risk associated with trains passing through the city will remain low. In addition, General Plan policies ensure the continued safety of at-grade railroad crossings. Therefore, this was determined to be a less than significant impact.
Master Plan Impact
The TIMP would not increase train traffic or motor vehicle, pedestrian, or bicycle trips beyond that anticipated in the General Plan EIR. At-grade railroad crossings would be subject to review by the California Public Utilities Commission for safety consideration. The Master Plan does not contemplate railroad crossings not previously considered in the General Plan EIR. Therefore, no new or more severe impacts would occur. This is an impact for which the General Plan EIR adequately addresses the proposed Master Plan. No additional analysis or mitigation measures are required.
Impact 5.12-8Future residents and property could be isolated from emergency services as a result of a train blocking one or more of the at-grade railroad crossings.
Applicable General Plan Policies and Implementation Measures Policies: HS-4.2 and HS-4.4
Implementation Measures: HS-2, HS-3, and HS-4
General Plan EIR Mitigation Measures
None required.
Previously Identified Impacts
The EIR identified that future residents and property accommodated by the General Plan could be isolated from emergency services as a result of a train blocking one or more of the at-grade railroad crossings. The General Plan designates land for additional development on both the east and west sides of the existing railroad right-of-way. A train parked or stalled on the tracks by an accident could result in areas on the east side of the tracks being isolated from emergency services originating at the existing police station located at 33 S. Del Puerto Avenue and the Fire Station located at 344 W. Las Palmas Avenue. Discussions with the Police and Fire departments suggest that additional substations for emergency personnel and equipment will be needed to serve the General Plan buildout over time. However, to address the potential isolation of the east side of the city from emergency services, land has been designated for a fire station in The Villages of Patterson project approved in 2006. The City’s Capital Improvement Program and development impact fees will fund construction of the fire station when needed. In addition, General Plan policies ensure the continued safety of residents and property isolated by a train blocking at-grade railroad crossings. Therefore, this was determined to be a less than significant impact.
7.2.b
Packet Pg. 222 Attachment: Admin Draft TIMP Addendum current (Approve the Initial Study / EIR Addendum to the 2010 General Plan EIR for the 96 Master Plan Impact
The TIMP would not change the development assumptions of the General Plan EIR and would not result in emergency calls that could be affected by train activity. Therefore, this is an impact for which the General Plan EIR adequately addresses the proposed Master Plan. No additional analysis or mitigation measures are required.
Impact 5.12-9 Development west of Interstate 5 in the foothills of the Diablo Range could place residents and property at risk from wildland fires.
Applicable General Plan Policies and Implementation Measures Policies: PS-6.1, PS-6.2, PS-6.3, and PS-6.4
Implementation Measures: PS-8, PS-9, and PS-11
General Plan EIR Mitigation Measures
None required.
Previously Identified Impacts
The EIR disclosed that land west of Interstate 5, considered to be at “high” and “moderate” risk to wildland fires, has been designated for Mixed-Use Hillside Development in the General Plan. The City of Patterson and the West Stanislaus Fire Protection District have a mutual aid agreement and share administrative duties, and the California Division of Forestry and Fire Protection (Cal Fire) operates a fire station on Sperry Avenue just west of Baldwin Road. The EIR found that General Plan policies and implementation measures intended to maintain an acceptable response time to all areas of the city, an additional fire protection substation and secondary vehicular access route, and enforcement of applicable fire protection building codes would reduce the risk associated with wildland fires to a less than significant level.
Master Plan Impact
The TIMP would not increase development west of Interstate 5 beyond that anticipated in the General Plan EIR. The TIMP would not result in facilities that would increase risks of wildland fire.
Any improvements associated with the Master Plan would be subject to the General Plan policies, implementation measures, and mitigation measures provided in the General Plan EIR. Therefore, this is an impact for which the General Plan EIR adequately addresses the proposed Master Plan.
No additional analysis or mitigation measures are required.
Impact 5.12-10 Implementation of the General Plan together with regional development through buildout will contribute to the cumulative increase in the use, storage, and transport of hazardous materials and the risk associated with these materials.
Applicable General Plan Policies and Implementation Measures Policies: HS-3.6, HS-3.8, HS-4.1, HS-4.2, HS-4.4, HS-6.3, HS-6.4, HS-6.5, HS-6.6, HS-6.7, HS-6.8, HS-6.9, and HS-7.1
7.2.b
Packet Pg. 223 Attachment: Admin Draft TIMP Addendum current (Approve the Initial Study / EIR Addendum to the 2010 General Plan EIR for the 97 General Plan EIR Mitigation Measures
None required.
Previously Identified Impacts
The EIR identified that development accommodated by the General Plan could result in increased hazard-related impacts; however, these impacts would be specific to individual sites in the Study Area and would not be tied to any regional hazard or contamination issues. Federal, state, and local regulations would determine appropriate land uses in the vicinity of airports affecting the Study Area. The EIR anticipated that not only development projects (e.g., residential, commercial, park, and recreational land uses) would occur under the General Plan, but there would also be infrastructure projects, such as public and utility extension projects, roadway widenings and extensions, intersection improvements, water system distribution improvements, and trail extensions. The EIR determined that the nature of these projects would not significantly increase human health or safety risks, and the impact was determined to be a less than significant.
Master Plan Impact
As discussed above, the EIR considered the effects of infrastructure-related impacts such as would occur under the TIMP. Therefore, the Master Plan would not result in additional impacts beyond those anticipated in the General Plan EIR. Any improvements associated with the Master Plan would be subject to the General Plan policies, implementation measures, and mitigation measures in the General Plan EIR, as well as existing regulations that reduce the potential for exposure to hazards. Therefore, this is an impact for which the General Plan EIR adequately addresses the proposed Master Plan. No additional analysis or mitigation measures are required.
Impact 5.12-11 Exposure of additional people and property to the hazards associated with aircraft operations at the Patterson Airport and the Crows Landing Airfield Applicable General Plan Policies and Implementation Measures Policies: HS-6.5, HS-6.7, HS-6.8, HS-6.9, LU-9.1, and LU-9.2 General Plan EIR Mitigation Measures
None required.
Previously Identified Impacts
The EIR identified that implementation of the General Plan together with regional development through 2050 may expose additional people and property to the hazards associated with aircraft operations at the Patterson Airport and the Crows Landing Airfield. Development accommodated by the General Plan will increase the number of dwellings, businesses, schools, and other uses in the city which, together with other development in the region, will be exposed to an increased hazard of aircraft operations. However, the land use designations of the General Plan are consistent with the adopted Airport Land Use Plans for the Patterson Airport and the Crows Landing Airfield. Cumulative impacts were therefore considered less than cumulatively considerable.
7.2.b
Packet Pg. 224 Attachment: Admin Draft TIMP Addendum current (Approve the Initial Study / EIR Addendum to the 2010 General Plan EIR for the 98 Master Plan Impact
The TIMP would not result in development of uses within airport land use planning areas that would result in increased exposure to aircraft operations hazards. Any improvements associated with the Master Plan would be subject to review to ensure that they comply with restrictions of these Airport Land Use Plans. Therefore, this is an impact for which the General Plan EIR adequately addresses the proposed Master Plan. No additional analysis or mitigation measures are required.
Impact 5.12-12 Cumulative development may interfere with adopted emergency response or evacuation plans
Applicable General Plan Policies and Implementation Measures Policies: HS-4.1, HS-4.2, and HS-4.4
Implementation Measures: HS-3 and HS-4
General Plan EIR Mitigation Measures
None required.
Previously Identified Impacts
The EIR identified that proposed land uses and/or changes in land use patterns that would occur due to the General Plan, together with regional growth, may interfere with adopted emergency response or evacuation plans. However, the City’s adopted Emergency Operations Plan (EOP) is to be periodically reviewed and updated over time. The EIR found that since the type and nature of hazards affecting the city and the region are not likely to change over time, the procedures provided in the EOP would continue to apply and, should a previously unforeseen potential for emergency arise during the 20-year or 40-year buildout time frames of the General Plan, the policies and implementation measures which require the periodic update of the EOP would ensure continued consistency. Therefore, the EIR found that this impact was less than significant.
Master Plan Impact
The TIMP would not result in development beyond that evaluated in the General Plan EIR or otherwise interfere with emergency response or evacuation. Therefore, this is an impact for which the General Plan EIR adequately addresses the proposed Master Plan. No additional analysis or mitigation measures are required.
Impact 5.12-13 Increased rail operations, combined with an increase in population, employment, and motor vehicle, bicycle, and pedestrian traffic in the region, will increase the risk associated with at-grade railroad crossings.
Applicable General Plan Policies and Implementation Measures Policies: HS-4.2 and HS-4.4
Implementation Measures: HS-2, HS-3, and HS-4
7.2.b
Packet Pg. 225 Attachment: Admin Draft TIMP Addendum current (Approve the Initial Study / EIR Addendum to the 2010 General Plan EIR for the 99 General Plan EIR Mitigation Measures
None required.
Previously Identified Impacts
The EIR identified that rail traffic may increase in the future along with the population and employment accommodated with the General Plan, in addition to regional development. Together, this will contribute to an increase in the potential exposure of motor vehicles, pedestrians, and bicyclists to hazards associated with at-grade rail crossings. The EIR found that the overall risk associated with at-grade crossings (the likelihood that an accident at an at-grade crossing will occur) was expected to remain low through the time frame of the General Plan. Therefore, this was determined to be a less than significant impact.
Master Plan Impact
The TIMP would not increase the amount of rail operations, population, employment, motor vehicle trips, bicycle trips, or pedestrians beyond that anticipated in the General Plan EIR.
Therefore, the Master Plan would not increase risks associated with at-grade crossing accidents.
This is an impact for which the General Plan EIR adequately addresses the proposed Master Plan. No additional analysis or mitigation measures are required.
5.13 HYDROLOGY AND WATER RESOURCE IMPACTS
Impact 5.13-1Development activities accommodated by the project could result in the discharge of polluted runoff from the construction of future urban development, potentially causing harm to the biological integrity of waterways, violating water quality standards, or otherwise substantially degrading surface water quality.
Applicable General Plan Policies and Implementation Measures Policies: NR-1.2, NR-1.3, NR-1.4, NR-1.7, NR-2.11, NR-6.1, HS-2.9, HS-2.14, HS-6.5, PS-2.5, HS-3.13, and PS-3.14
Implementation Measures: HS-1, PS-5, NR-1, PS-6, and PS-7 General Plan EIR Mitigation Measures
Recommended additional policy:
NR-1.4 New development. The City shall require new development to protect the quality of water bodies and drainage systems through adaptive site design, stormwater management, and the implementation of best management practices (BMPs). The City shall apply the following principles of Low Impact Development in the review of development projects for purposes of minimizing runoff and potential water quality impacts:
a. Make Sensitive Choices in Site Layout. Identify the most sensitive natural areas and, where possible, leave them undeveloped. To the extent possible, set back development from creeks, wetlands, and riparian habitats. Preserve significant
7.2.b
Packet Pg. 226 Attachment: Admin Draft TIMP Addendum current (Approve the Initial Study / EIR Addendum to the 2010 General Plan EIR for the 100
trees. Conform the site along natural land forms, avoid excessive grading and disturbance of vegetation and soils, and mimic the site’s natural drainage patterns.
Where possible, concentrate development on portions of the site with less permeable soils, and preserve areas that can promote infiltration. To the extent possible, limit overall coverage of paving and roofs by designing compact structures, narrower and shorter streets and sidewalks, smaller parking lots, and indoor or underground parking. Where possible, detain and retain runoff throughout the site. Use drainage design elements such as depressed landscape areas, vegetated buffers, and bioretention facilities (consisting of a shallow surface reservoir, a layer of imported planting medium, and a gravel underlayer with perforated pipe underdrains) as amenities and focal points within the site and landscape design.
b. Use Pervious Surfaces. In new buildings and major retrofits, evaluate the technical and economic feasibility of green roofs. Identify where permeable pavements, such as crushed aggregate, turf block, unit pavers, pervious concrete, or pervious asphalt could be substituted for impervious concrete or asphalt paving. c. Disperse Runoff to Adjacent Pervious Areas. Where possible, direct roof downspouts across pervious areas. A maximum 2:1 ratio between impervious and pervious surfaces is recommended. Receiving pervious areas should be relatively flat, and soils should be amended as needed to promote infiltration. Similarly, parking areas should be designed so that runoff can sheet flow to landscaped areas. Where feasible, use curb cuts or no curbs to allow runoff to flow to vegetated areas.
d. Direct runoff to bioretention facilities, flow-through planters, dry wells, or cisterns.
On densely developed sites, and where runoff from impervious roofs and paved areas cannot be dispersed to landscaping, consider directing runoff to facilities designed to detain and treat runoff before letting it seep away slowly. Dry wells or infiltration basins may be used if soils are sufficiently permeable and geotechnical considerations allow. Bioretention facilities can be a suitable option for many sites.
Previously Identified Impacts
According to the EIR, construction and grading activities associated with development associated with General Plan buildout could result in the exposure of soil to runoff, potentially causing erosion and entrainment of sediment in the runoff. Soil stockpiles and excavated areas would be exposed to runoff and, if not managed properly, the runoff could cause erosion and increased sedimentation in off-site receiving waters and eventually the San Joaquin River.
However, the EIR found that continued compliance with the relevant provisions of the Clean Water Act relative to the protection of surface water and groundwater quality will ensure impacts to water quality associated with development accommodated by the General Plan will be reduced.
Specifically, compliance with the City’s Small MS4 General Permit best management practices (BMPs) before, during, and after construction would include:
• Good housekeeping activities such as storing of materials covered and elevated off the ground, in a central location.
• Securely locating portable toilets away from the storm drainage system and performing routine maintenance.
• Providing a central location for concrete washout and performing routine maintenance.
7.2.b
Packet Pg. 227 Attachment: Admin Draft TIMP Addendum current (Approve the Initial Study / EIR Addendum to the 2010 General Plan EIR for the 101
• Providing several dumpsters and trash cans throughout the construction site for litter/floatable management.
• Covering and/or containing stockpiled materials and overall good housekeeping on the site.
Projects disturbing more than 1 acre of land during construction would continue to be required to file a Notice of Intent (NOI) with the RWQCB to be covered under the State NPDES General Construction Permit for discharges of stormwater associated with construction activity. Under the provisions of the City’s General Permit, a developer must propose control measures that are consistent with the State General Permit. A stormwater pollution prevention plan (SWPPP) must also be developed and implemented for each site. General Plan policies and implementation measures would also contribute to the protection of water quality. Therefore, this impact was determined to be less than significant.
Master Plan Impact
The TIMP identifies the construction of facilities to serve development in the city, which could result in the discharge of polluted runoff during construction if not properly mitigated. General Plan policies and implementation measures and the City’s Municipal Code would reduce environmental impacts associated with any physical improvements. This is an impact for which the General Plan EIR adequately addresses potential impacts of the proposed Master Plan; no additional analysis or mitigation measures are required.
Impact 5.13-2Development accommodated by the project could result in the discharge of polluted runoff, potentially causing harm to the biological integrity of waterways, violating water quality standards, or otherwise substantially degrading surface water quality.
Applicable General Plan Policies and Implementation Measures Policies: NR-1.2, NR-1.3, NR-1.4, NR-1.7, NR-2.11, NR-6.1, HS-2.9, HS-2.14, HS-6.5, PS-2.5, HS-3.13, and PS-3.14
Implementation Measures: HS-1, PS-4, PS-5, NR-1, PS-6, and PS-7 General Plan EIR Mitigation Measures
Recommended additional Policy NR-1.4, as noted in Impact 5.13-1.
Previously Identified Impacts
The EIR found that intensified land uses accommodated by the General Plan would result in increased vehicle use and potential discharge of associated pollutants. Leaks of fuel or lubricants, tire wear, and fallout from exhaust contribute petroleum hydrocarbons, heavy metals, and sediment to the pollutant load in runoff being transported to receiving waters. Runoff from landscaped areas and individual home sites may contain residual pesticides and nutrients. Longterm degradation of the quality of runoff from the site could potentially degrade the quality of receiving waters.
7.2.b
Packet Pg. 228 Attachment: Admin Draft TIMP Addendum current (Approve the Initial Study / EIR Addendum to the 2010 General Plan EIR for the 102
The City of Patterson operates under a State Water Resources Control Board General Permit for the Discharge of Stormwater from Small Municipal Separate Storm Sewer Systems, also known as MS4s. As required for coverage under this permit, the City prepared a Storm Water Management Program to implement and enforce BMPs designed to reduce the discharge of pollutants from the city’s municipal separate storm drain systems to protect water quality. These BMPs include public participation and involvement, public education and outreach, construction site runoff control, illicit discharge detection and elimination, pollution prevention and good housekeeping, and post-construction runoff control. In addition, General Plan policies and implementation measures contribute to the protection of water quality. Therefore, this was determined to be a less than significant impact.
Master Plan Impact
The TIMP identifies the construction of facilities to serve development in the city, the operation of which could result in the discharge of polluted runoff if not mitigated. General Plan policies and implementation measures and the City’s Municipal Code would further reduce environmental impacts associated with any physical improvements deemed necessary per the Master Plan.
Therefore, this is an impact for which the General Plan EIR adequately addresses potential impacts of the proposed Master Plan; no additional analysis or mitigation measures are required.
Impact 5.13-3The expansion of the city’s use of recycled water for landscape irrigation and/or groundwater recharge as contemplated under the project could pose a health risk to future residents and visitors.
Applicable General Plan Policies and Implementation Measures Compliance with US Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) Surface Water Treatment Rule and state and local regulations
General Plan EIR Mitigation Measures
None required.
Previously Identified Impacts
According to the EIR, the delivery of recycled water would occur in plumbing systems completely separate from the potable supply. Human health risks from recycled water arise mainly from the presence of microbial pathogens in sewage or greywater. Both of these water sources contain a broad range of pathogenic microorganisms, and Title 22 requires that the levels of these microorganisms be reduced by treatment so that exposure to recycled water does not pose an unacceptable health risk. A diverse range of chemicals may also be present in sewage and greywater.
The reliability or relative safety of water reuse can be assessed in comparison to domestic water supplies that meet the EPA’s Surface Water Treatment Rule (SWTR). When the disinfected, filtered secondary effluent (tertiary treatment) is chlorinated at about 10 milligrams per liter (mg/L), there is virtually no difference in the probability of enteric virus infection whether reclaimed water or domestic water is used for golf course irrigation, crop irrigation, or groundwater recharge.
However, depending on the water quality of the secondary effluent, health risks associated with exposure to recreational impoundments used for body contact sports and swimming may be
7.2.b
Packet Pg. 229 Attachment: Admin Draft TIMP Addendum current (Approve the Initial Study / EIR Addendum to the 2010 General Plan EIR for the 103
higher. Similar observations can be made for the use of chlorinated secondary effluent and the reclaimed water from contact filtration with chlorine doses of below 5 mg/L.
Therefore, as long as the recycled water meets the SWTR and the water remains away from human contact, the microbial risk associated with use for crop or landscape irrigation would be no greater than the risk associated with domestic potable water supplies that meet the SWTR.
The human health risk associated with expanded use of recycled water was therefore determined to be less than significant.
Master Plan Impact
The TIMP would not provide infrastructure or facilities beyond those anticipated in the EIR and would require the use of recycled water for landscape irrigation. Therefore, this is an impact for which the General Plan EIR adequately addresses potential impacts of the proposed Master Plan; no additional analysis or mitigation measures are required.
Impact 5.13-4Degradation of groundwater quality resulting from construction and operation of future land uses
Applicable General Plan Policies and Implementation Measures Policies: NR-1.2, NR-1.3, NR-1.4, NR-1.5, NR-1.7, NR-1.8, NR-2.11, NR-6.1, HS-2.9, HS-2.14, HS-6.5, PS-2.5, HS-3.13, and PS-3.14
Implementation Measures: HS-1, PS-5, NR-1, PS-6, and PS-7 General Plan EIR Mitigation Measures
None required.
Previously Identified Impacts
The EIR identified that development accommodated by the General Plan could generate runoff containing oils, grease, fuel, antifreeze, byproducts of combustion (such as lead, cadmium, nickel, and other metals), household pollutants, nutrients (e.g., fertilizers and pet waste), and other chemicals from landscaped areas. In addition, the City has an extensive system of basins to manage runoff and would continue to employ retention and detention basins to manage runoff associated with buildout of the General Plan. Stormwater collected in these basins would likely contain some of the pollutants described above, originating on area streets and developed sites.
These pollutants could potentially contaminate groundwater (if not properly treated with water quality controls) as runoff percolates into the soil. However, as noted above, the statewide NPDES permits for construction runoff, dewatering, and other low-threat releases to surface water, and discharges from municipal storm drain systems (MS4s) require the provision of water quality control measures that would protect groundwater quality from future development activities.
The California Storm Water Best Management Practices Handbook prepared by the California Stormwater Quality Association concludes that water quality control features such as infiltration basins have been successful in controlling water quality and avoiding groundwater quality impacts. As runoff infiltrates into the ground, particulates and attached contaminants such as metals and nutrients are removed as they become attached to soil particles. Dissolved constituents are also absorbed by soil particles. Depth to groundwater in the Study Area varies
7.2.b
Packet Pg. 230 Attachment: Admin Draft TIMP Addendum current (Approve the Initial Study / EIR Addendum to the 2010 General Plan EIR for the 104
but is generally greater than 50 feet below ground surface, providing more than sufficient depth for infiltration. Therefore, any remaining pollutants in runoff would not significantly contaminate groundwater supplies. In addition, policies and implementation measures are included in the General Plan to ensure the protection of groundwater quality. Therefore, this was determined to be a less than significant impact.
Master Plan Impact
General Plan policies and implementation measures and the City’s Municipal Code would reduce environmental impacts associated with any physical improvements deemed necessary per the Master Plan. Therefore, this is an impact for which the General Plan EIR adequately addresses potential impacts of the proposed Master Plan; no additional analysis or mitigation measures are required.
Impact 5.13-5 Impacts relating to the construction of drainage infrastructure Applicable General Plan Policies and Implementation Measures Policies: AR-1.3, AR-1.4, AR-5.1, NR-1.3, and HS-2.9
Implementation Measures: AR-1, AR-2, HS-6, PS-6, and PS-7 General Plan EIR Mitigation Measures
Recommended mitigation measures AR-6 and HS-10 as summarized above under Impact 5.3-11 Previously Identified Impacts
According to the EIR, the City does not currently supply stormwater drainage to areas outside the city limits. Supplying drainage to expansion areas will require the construction of stormwater collection, storage/retention, and conveyance infrastructure. Construction of stormwater infrastructure would be subject to project-specific environmental review.
The City would implement General Plan policies and implementation measures to address the range of potential environmental impacts that may be associated with the construction and operation of stormwater facilities. Nonetheless, the ability to mitigate certain potential impacts, such as the permanent loss of agricultural land and habitat for sensitive species, would be contingent on a number of factors including the severity of the impact, existing land use conditions, and the technical feasibility of implementation of the proposed mitigation measures. Due to these contingencies, the potential impacts of construction of new stormwater infrastructure were determined to be significant. Since no additional measures are available to reduce impacts to a less than significant level, this impact is considered significant and unavoidable.
Master Plan Impact
The EIR assumed construction of drainage facilities to accommodate the growth assumed for the General Plan. There would be no new or more severe impacts related to the Master Plan.
Therefore, this is an impact for which the General Plan EIR adequately addresses potential impacts of the proposed Master Plan; no additional analysis or mitigation measures are required.
7.2.b
Packet Pg. 231 Attachment: Admin Draft TIMP Addendum current (Approve the Initial Study / EIR Addendum to the 2010 General Plan EIR for the 105
Impact 5.13-6Development accommodated by the General Plan would increase impervious surfaces and alter drainage conditions and rates within the Study Area, which in turn could result in increased runoff and potential flooding impacts.
Applicable General Plan Policies and Implementation Measures Policies: HS-2.1, HS-2.2, HS-2.3, HS-2.4, HS-2.5, HS-2.6, HS-2.7, HS-2.8, HS-2.9, HS-2.10, HS-2.11, HS-2.12, HS-2.13, HS-2.14, HS-2.15, and HS-4.4 General Plan EIR Mitigation Measures
Recommended additional implementation measures:
PS-5 The City shall prepare, adopt, review, and periodically update Drainage Master Plan for all new development and annexation areas.
PS-9 The City shall periodically update its long-term Capital Improvements Programs (CIPs), including sewer, water, drainage, police and fire protection, and other facility improvements.
PS-11 The City establish and collect development impact fees as needed for public services in accordance with Government Code §66000, et seq.
HS-13 New development shall be required to implement (through installation or the payment of in-lieu fees) relevant portions of the March 2010 City of Patterson General Plan Storm Drainage Study.
Previously Identified Impacts
According to the EIR, development accommodated by the General Plan could result in a significant increase in the amount of impervious surfaces in the Study Area, with a corresponding increase in the volume and velocity of stormwater runoff. Portions of the General Plan Study Area are currently subject to flooding during severe storm events.
The City has undertaken an ongoing program of storm drainage improvements in order to minimize the threat of flooding on urban development. To address potential drainage impacts, in June 2010 Boyle Engineering/AECOM prepared the City of Patterson General Plan Storm Drainage Study (Appendix 5.13 of the Draft EIR), which discusses the collection, detention, and disposal of runoff.
The EIR identified the need for a Storm Drain Master Plan that sets forth a program for the construction of storm drainage collection, detention, and disposal facilities to convey urban runoff to the San Joaquin River. No runoff will be conveyed to Salado Creek or Del Puerto Creek since the runoff capacity of these creeks is periodically exceeded. As development proceeds, new development would be required to install the applicable portions of the Storm Drain Master Plan necessary to serve proposed development and/or to pay development impact fees to fund improvements to serve the community as a whole. The EIR found that the improvements described in the Storm Drain Master Plan, as well as continued compliance with the City’s flood hazard regulations, would minimize impacts related to flooding. Therefore, this was determined to be a less than significant impact.
7.2.b
Packet Pg. 232 Attachment: Admin Draft TIMP Addendum current (Approve the Initial Study / EIR Addendum to the 2010 General Plan EIR for the 106
Master Plan Impact
The TIMP would not provide for facilities beyond those anticipated in the EIR and thus would not create new impervious surface area or alter drainage patterns or rates that would be considered to be new or more severe impacts. Therefore, this is an impact for which the General Plan EIR adequately addresses potential impacts of the proposed Master Plan; no additional analysis or mitigation measures are required.
Impact 5.13-7 Development in areas subject to flooding
Applicable General Plan Policies and Implementation Measures Policies: HS-2.1, HS-2.2, HS-2.3, HS-2.4, HS-2.5, HS-2.6, HS-2.7, HS-2.8, HS-2.9, HS-2.10, HS-2.11, HS-2.12, HS-2.13, HS-2.14, HS-2.15, and HS-4.4 Implementation Measure: PS-5
General Plan EIR Mitigation Measures
Recommended additional policies as follows:
HS-2.16 Flood hazard mitigation prior to development. The City shall not approve new development in areas subject to a 100-year flood event, based on Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) or on other updated mapping acceptable to the City, unless and until the flood hazard has been mitigated. Such mitigation may be accomplished by one, or a combination of, the following:
• Compliance with Title 17 of the City’s Municipal Code, Flood Hazard areas. • Installation of flood control improvements along Del Puerto Creek and/or Salado Creek.
• Avoidance of flood prone areas.
HS-2.17 Flood hazard mitigation prior to development. The City shall require any development on land subject to a 100- year flood event, based on Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) or on other updated mapping acceptable to the City, to conform to National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) standards.
HS-2.18 Low Impact Development. New development shall incorporate provisions for low impact development as defined by as minimizing or eliminating pollutants in storm water through natural processes and maintaining pre-development hydrologic characteristics, such as flow patterns, surface retention, and recharge rates.
Recommended additional implementation measures as follows:
PS-11 The City shall establish and collect development impact fees in accordance with Government Code section 66000, et seq. as needed for flood control improvements outlined in the City’s 2010 Master Drainage Plan as it may be amended from time to time.
7.2.b
Packet Pg. 233 Attachment: Admin Draft TIMP Addendum current (Approve the Initial Study / EIR Addendum to the 2010 General Plan EIR for the 107
HS-16 Flood mitigation derived by the City’s Drainage Master Plan shall address the following objectives:
a. Compliance with relevant flood protection regulations, including:
1. Those adopted by the City of Patterson;
2. The National Flood Insurance Program;
3. The Central Valley Flood Protection Plan;
b. Protection of the biological integrity of natural drainage courses; c. The incorporation of low impact development requirements for new development; d. The prevention of downstream flooding impacts;
e. The protection of surface and groundwater quality;
f. Economic feasibility
Previously Identified Impacts
The EIR identified that portions of the General Plan Study Area are subject to flooding during a 100-year storm event. Development areas in the northerly portion of the Study Area, between the Delta-Mendota Canal (DMC) and State Route (SR) 33, are at risk of flooding to a depth of 1 to 3 feet from a 100-year flood event. Other areas north of Zacharias Road are also prone to flooding at a depth of less than 1 foot from a 100-year flood event. This flood-prone area extends from Del Puerto Creek at the DMC southeasterly toward the northern boundary of the city and covers approximately 883 acres of the Study Area. This flood zone is contiguous between Del Puerto Creek near Rogers Road and Salado Creek in downtown Patterson. Another smaller area that is identified as at risk for flooding to a depth of greater than 1 foot lies adjacent to SR 33 and south of Del Puerto Creek, and comprises approximately 29 acres in the northern portion of the Study Area. Another major contiguous area at risk for flooding to a depth of 1 to 3 feet from a 100-year flood event is located adjacent to the north side of the DMC on both sides of Salado Creek and comprises approximately 162 acres of the Study Area. Most of the area adjacent to Salado Creek may be at risk for flooding during a 100-year event to depths of less than 1 foot.
The drainage system proposed to serve development accommodated by the General Plan does not convey runoff from new urban development to Del Puerto Creek or Salado Creek. Instead, stormwater will be collected in detention basins and piped to the San Joaquin River. However, the areas described above would be subject to flood hazards associated with flood events on Del Puerto Creek and Salado Creek.
General Plan policies and implementation measures help reduce the risk associated with development that may occur in areas subject to flooding. However, the potential impacts associated with floodplain modifications necessary to mitigate potential flooding impacts would not be known until the nature and extent of urban development has been identified through adoption of the General Plan. In addition, approvals necessary from various regulatory agencies, such as the Regional Water Quality Control Board, California Department of Fish and Game, and US Army Corps of Engineers cannot be guaranteed. For these reasons, potential impacts associated with development in areas subject to flooding were considered significant and unavoidable.
7.2.b
Packet Pg. 234 Attachment: Admin Draft TIMP Addendum current (Approve the Initial Study / EIR Addendum to the 2010 General Plan EIR for the 108
Master Plan Impact
The TIMP would not result in additional development in areas subject to flooding beyond that assumed in the General Plan. The Master Plan would not place housing or other structures within a 100-year flood zone that would expose people or structures to flood-related risks. Therefore, this is an impact for which the General Plan EIR adequately addresses potential impacts of the proposed Master Plan; no additional analysis or mitigation measures are required.
Impact 5.13-8 Cumulative degradation of water quality
Applicable General Plan Policies and Implementation Measures Policies: NR-1.2, NR-1.3, NR-1.4, NR-1.7, NR-2.11, NR-6.1, HS-2.9, HS-2.14, HS-6.5, PS-2.5, HS-3.13, and PS-3.14
Implementation Measures: HS-1, PS-5, NR-1, PS-6, and PS-7 Recommended additional policy NR-1.4.
General Plan EIR Mitigation Measures
None available.
Previously Identified Impacts
According to the EIR, development accommodated by the General Plan along with foreseeable development in the region would contribute to a cumulative degradation of water quality from construction activities and increased urban runoff. Urban development accommodated by the General Plan would increase the amount of sediments and pollutants in surface waters in the Study Area and downstream.
However, the EIR found that General Plan policies and implementation measures mitigate regional impacts relating to hydrology and water quality. Continued compliance with existing water quality regulations, including the NPDES program and implementation of the policies and programs recommended for Impact 5.13-1, help reduce cumulative impacts to water quality.
However, given the scale of development anticipated in Patterson and in the general plans of surrounding jurisdictions, the potential for the cumulative degradation of water quality was identified. Moreover, the City cannot guarantee compliance with water quality regulations in the region. For these reasons, the cumulative impact to water quality was considered cumulatively considerable and significant and unavoidable.
Master Plan Impact
Development in the city, including that associated with the TIMP, would be required to comply with the requirements of the Clean Water Act, the City’s Small MS4 General Permit best management practices (BMPs), the State NPDES General Construction Permit, and a stormwater pollution prevention plan, which would minimize the City’s contribution to cumulative degradation of water quality. General Plan policies and implementation measures and the City’s Municipal Code would further reduce impacts associated with any physical improvements deemed necessary per the Master Plan. The Master Plan would not contribute to the degradation of water quality beyond that assumed in the General Plan EIR. Therefore, this is an impact for which the
7.2.b
Packet Pg. 235 Attachment: Admin Draft TIMP Addendum current (Approve the Initial Study / EIR Addendum to the 2010 General Plan EIR for the 109
General Plan EIR adequately addresses potential impacts of the proposed Master Plan; no additional analysis or mitigation measures are required.
Impact 5.13-9 Cumulative increase in runoff and potential flooding Applicable General Plan Policies and Implementation Measures Policies: HS-2.1, HS-2.2, HS-2.3, HS-2.4, HS-2.5, HS-2.6, HS-2.7, HS-2.8, HS-2.9, HS-2.10, HS-2.11, HS-2.12, HS-2.13, HS-2.14, HS-2.15, and HS-4.4 Implementation Measures: PS-5 and PS-11
General Plan EIR Mitigation Measures
None available.
Previously Identified Impacts
The EIR identified that development accommodated by the General Plan would increase impervious surfaces along with a corresponding increase in the volume and velocity of runoff.
This increase in runoff, along with the increase associated with other urban development in the region, could contribute to cumulative flood conditions in the region.
Improvements recommended by the 2010 Storm Drain Master Plan were designed to ensure that the contribution of runoff from development of the Study Area do not worsen downstream flooding or exceed the capacity of receiving waters. Thus, implementation of the Master Plan, together with compliance with existing flood hazard mitigation, would help mitigate potential impacts related to regional flooding and water quality. However, the City cannot guarantee the installation of flood control improvements and continued compliance with water quality protection regulations.
For these reasons, cumulative impacts relating to flooding and water quality were considered cumulatively considerable and significant and unavoidable.
Master Plan Impact
The TIMP is a conceptual plan for master plan–level transportation infrastructure needed to serve new development and correct existing deficiencies. The General Plan EIR assumes development of infrastructure to support the city’s growth consistent with the General Plan, and implementation of the SDMP would reduce the effects of increased runoff created by development of the General Plan and reduce potential flooding risks. Therefore, this is an impact for which the General Plan EIR adequately addresses potential impacts of the proposed Master Plan; no additional analysis or mitigation measures are required.
5.14 VISUAL AND AESTHETIC RESOURCE IMPACTS
Impact 5.14-1 Scenic qualities of the Study Area
Applicable General Plan Policies and Implementation Measures Policies: LU-1.1, LU-1.4, LU-1.6, CD-1.5, CD-1.6, CD-1.7, CD-2.1, CD-3.1, CD-3.2, CD-3.3, CD-4.1, CD-4.2, CD-4.3, CD-4.4, CD-5.1, NR-1.1, NR-2.1, NR-2.2, NR-2.3, NR-2.4, NR-2.5, NR-2.6, NR-2.9, NR-3.8, NR-3.9, and NR-3.11
7.2.b
Packet Pg. 236 Attachment: Admin Draft TIMP Addendum current (Approve the Initial Study / EIR Addendum to the 2010 General Plan EIR for the 110
Implementation Measures: CD-1, NR-C, and NR-F
General Plan EIR Mitigation Measures
None feasible.
Previously Identified Impacts
According to the EIR, the General Plan would accommodate additional urban development that would permanently and substantially alter the visual character and scenic qualities of the Study Area. Development accommodated by the General Plan will significantly alter the scenic qualities of views from Interstate 5, which is a designated scenic highway between the Merced County line and the San Joaquin County line. The General Plan designates land for urban development in the foothills of the Diablo Range west of Interstate 5. The foothills serve as the visual backdrop to the city and are visible from a number of vantage points throughout the city, including frequently traveled corridors such as Sperry Avenue.
General Plan policies and implementation measures help minimize impacts relating to visual and aesthetic resources. However, implementation of the General Plan would nonetheless result in the permanent and significant alteration of the area’s scenic qualities, including views from a State-designated scenic highway. No feasible mitigation measures were available to mitigate this change. Accordingly, this impact was considered significant and unavoidable.
Master Plan Impact
The TIMP would not result in additional development beyond that assumed in the General Plan.
Most physical improvements associated with the Master Plan would be installed at grade and would have minimal visual or aesthetic impacts. General Plan policies and implementation measures would minimize visual and aesthetic impacts associated with implementation of the Master Plan. Therefore, this is an impact for which the General Plan EIR adequately addresses potential impacts of the proposed Master Plan; no additional analysis or mitigation measures are required.
Impact 5.14-2Introduction of additional light and glare from expanded urban development Applicable General Plan Policies and Implementation Measures Policies: LU-1.1 and NR-2.3
Implementation Measures: CD-1
Mitigation Provided by Existing Regulations
City of Patterson Zoning Regulations
Development accommodated by the existing General Plan is subject to discretionary review in accordance with the City’s Zoning Ordinance (Title 18 of the Patterson Municipal Code). New development is subject to site plan and architectural review. Impacts associated with light and glare are addressed as part of discretionary review, which is also subject to the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act.
7.2.b
Packet Pg. 237 Attachment: Admin Draft TIMP Addendum current (Approve the Initial Study / EIR Addendum to the 2010 General Plan EIR for the 111
Community Design Guidelines and Downtown Physical Design Plan The City’s adopted Design Guidelines set forth the City’s expectations for the visual and aesthetic qualities desired in new development and are intended to ensure new development complements the visual character of the city. The Design Guidelines include the following recommendations for the placement of lighting to mitigate impacts to surrounding land uses:
5. On-site lighting.
a. Exterior lighting shall be designed to be compatible with the architectural and landscape design of the project.
b. An appropriate hierarchy of lighting fixtures/structures and intensity shall be considered when designing the lighting for the various elements of a project (i.e., building and site entrances, walkways, parking areas, or other areas of the site). c. The use of exterior lighting to accent a building’s architecture is encouraged. All lighting fixtures shall be properly shielded to eliminate light and glare from impacting adjacent properties, and passing vehicles or pedestrians. When neon tubing is used to illuminate portions of a building it shall be concealed from view through the use of parapets, cornices or ledges. Small portions of exposed neon tubing may be used to add a special effect to a building’s architecture but this must be well thought out and integrated into the overall design of the project.
d. To achieve the desired lighting level for parking and pedestrian areas, the use of more short, low intensity fixtures is encouraged over the use of a few tall fixtures that illuminate large areas.
West Patterson Business Park Master Development Plan
The West Patterson Business Park Master Development Plan contains design guidelines that apply to all new development. As with the City’s Community Design Guidelines, the intent is to ensure new development is consistent with the City’s objectives for Patterson’s visual quality and character.
General Plan EIR Mitigation Measures
Recommended additional policy as follows:
CD-3.5 Light and Glare. To reduce the adverse impact of light and glare associated with new development (including street lighting, recreational facilities and parking), the City shall require new development to be designed to prevent artificial lighting from illuminating adjacent residential neighborhoods or natural areas at a level greater than one foot-candle above ambient conditions.
Previously Identified Impacts
The EIR identified that the General Plan will result in the introduction of additional light and glare from expanded urban development into areas currently dominated by agricultural operations.
Expanded urban development accommodated by the General Plan would include new buildings with windows and other reflective materials that will increase the amount of daytime glare. Infill development in the existing urban area would result in a less pronounced change due to additional
7.2.b
Packet Pg. 238 Attachment: Admin Draft TIMP Addendum current (Approve the Initial Study / EIR Addendum to the 2010 General Plan EIR for the 112
glare than the development of areas currently in use by agricultural operations. In addition, expanded urban development would introduce new sources of light in areas that currently have few, if any, light sources. Nighttime light levels would increase significantly in these areas over current conditions. These new light sources could result in impacts to adjacent land uses from the “spill over” of light associated with signage, parking lot lighting, and security lights. Traffic generated by new development will result in an increase in nighttime lighting from on-road motor vehicles.
Development accommodated by the General Plan would be subject to discretionary review in accordance with the City’s Zoning Ordinance (Title 18 of the Patterson Municipal Code). New development would be subject to site plan and architectural review. Impacts associated with light and glare would be addressed as part of discretionary review. In addition, the City’s adopted Design Guidelines set forth the City’s expectations for the visual and aesthetic qualities desired in new development and are intended to ensure new development complements the city’s visual character. Continued compliance with the Design Guidelines would ensure impacts associated with light and glare are minimized. Lastly, General Plan policies and implementation measures are included to reduce the potential impacts associated with new light and glare sources. For the above reasons, the impacts associated with light and glare were determined to be less than significant.
Master Plan Impact
The TIMP would not result in additional development and/or sources of light and/or glare beyond those assumed in the General Plan. Any physical improvements associated with the Master Plan would be subject to the requirements of Title 18 of the Patterson Municipal Code, the City’s Design Guidelines, and General Plan policies and implementation measures, which would minimize potential impacts associated with light and glare. Therefore, this is an impact for which the General Plan EIR adequately addresses potential impacts of the proposed Master Plan; no additional analysis or mitigation measures are required.
Impact 5.14-3 Cumulative impacts to scenic quality and light and glare Applicable General Plan Policies and Implementation Measures Policies: LU-1.1, LU-1.4, LU-1.6, CD-1.5, CD-1.6, CD-1.7, CD-2.1, CD-3.1, CD-3.2, CD-3.3, CD-4.1, CD-4.2, CD-4.3, CD-4.4, CD-5.1, NR-1.1, NR-2.1, NR-2.2, NR-2.3, NR-2.4, NR-2.5, NR-2.6, NR-2.9, NR-3.7, NR-3.8, and NR-3.11
Implementation Measures: CD-1 and NR-14
General Plan EIR Mitigation Measures
None feasible.
Previously Identified Impacts
The EIR identified that implementation of the General Plan together with development in the region would result in the cumulative and permanent alteration of the area’s scenic qualities and would result in a cumulative increase in sources of light and glare. However, General Plan policies and implementation measures and continued enforcement of the City’s Community Design Guidelines would help to mitigate regional impacts relating to scenic and aesthetic resources and
7.2.b
Packet Pg. 239 Attachment: Admin Draft TIMP Addendum current (Approve the Initial Study / EIR Addendum to the 2010 General Plan EIR for the 113
light and glare. However, regional impacts cannot be fully mitigated; therefore, this impact was considered cumulatively considerable and significant and unavoidable.
Master Plan Impact
As previously discussed, facilities associated with the Master Plan were assumed as part of the General Plan, so there would be no new or more severe impacts beyond that identified in the General Plan. Therefore, this is an impact for which the General Plan EIR adequately addresses potential impacts of the proposed Master Plan; no additional analysis or mitigation measures are required.
5.15 CULTURAL RESOURCE IMPACTS
Impact 5.15-1 Development activities accommodated by the General Plan could result in the potential disturbance of cultural resources (i.e., prehistoric sites, historic sites, and isolated artifacts and features) and human remains.
Applicable General Plan Policies and Implementation Measures:
Policies: PR-5.1, PR-5.2, PR-5.3, PR-5.4, PR-6.1, PR-6.2, PR-6.3, PR-6.4, and PR-6.5 Implementation Measure: PR-8
General Plan EIR Mitigation Measures
None required.
Previously Identified Impacts
The EIR disclosed 5 prehistoric archaeological resources, 4 historic-era archaeological resources, and 25 historic-era built resources (4 with potential historic-era archaeological components) that have been recorded or noted in the Study Area. Three prehistoric resources have been recorded in the Study Area, and two others have been noted but not recorded. Two of the recorded archaeological sites, P-50-000128 (CA-STA-42) and P-50-000256 (CA-STA-171), are not well documented. Site P-50-000128 is known only from a 1950 site record that indicates that the site was not visited, but rather recorded on the report of a local landowner. It is described as an occupation site, which usually connotes a midden deposit and possibly human remains, upstream from the mouth of Del Puerto Canyon. Bell et al. surveyed the reputed location but could not locate it and suggested it has been buried by alluvium, destroyed by erosion, or the location could be inaccurate. Similarly, site P-50-000256 was not visited when it was recorded in 1971.
This site is reported to have been at the location of the Patterson landfill, adjacent to the San Joaquin River, and to have contained human remains and prehistoric artifacts. The site is described as “apparently destroyed” by landfill activities. The third recorded resource (P-50-000007) is an isolate chert flake found along the base of the Diablo Range near the mouth of Black Gulch Canyon. The two resources noted but not formally recorded include an isolated hopper mortar along Del Puerto Creek near the base of the Diablo Range and a quartzite lithic scatter upstream from the mouth of Black Gulch Canyon.
None of the prehistoric resources located in the Study Area have been evaluated for eligibility for the California Register of Historical Resources or the National Register of Historic Places. If
7.2.b
Packet Pg. 240 Attachment: Admin Draft TIMP Addendum current (Approve the Initial Study / EIR Addendum to the 2010 General Plan EIR for the 114
archaeological sites such as the occupation deposits with human remains retain sufficient integrity, they are generally considered eligible under Criterion 4 (CEQA) or Criterion D (Section 106).
The EIR found that because General Plan policies directly address the management of development to minimize the impact of future development on cultural resources, this impact was determined to be less than significant.
Master Plan Impact
The TIMP would not increase development or result in ground disturbance in areas beyond that anticipated in the General Plan EIR. Any improvements associated with the Master Plan would be subject to the General Plan policies and implementation measures and the mitigation measures in the General Plan EIR to reduce impacts on cultural resources. Therefore, this is an impact for which the General Plan EIR adequately addresses the proposed Master Plan. No additional analysis or mitigation measures are required.
Impact 5.15-2 Development activities accommodated by buildout of the General Plan could result in the potential disturbance of existing historic sites and structures.
Applicable General Plan Policies and Implementation Measures Policies: PR-4.1, PR-4.2, PR-4.3, PR-4.4, PR-4.5, PR-4.6, and PR-4.7 Implementation Measure: PR-8
General Plan EIR Mitigation Measures
None required.
Previously Identified Impacts
The EIR identified that a records search performed at the Central California Information Center at California State University, Stanislaus, revealed that three National Register and California Register eligible historic resources have been identified in the General Plan Study Area. Two are listed in the National Register and California Register, and one has been determined eligible for listing in the National Register and is listed in the California Register. In addition, the records search identified one historic-era resource in the Study Area that has been identified in a reconnaissance-level survey.
There were also several resources identified by the City of Patterson as locally significant. This includes the Patterson Historic Overlay Zone, which is identified in Municipal Ordinance Chapter
18.70 and includes the area immediately adjacent to the Plaza: 1 Plaza; 2 Plaza (Center Building); 5 Plaza; 13 Plaza; 17 Plaza; 20 Plaza; North Park; South Park; and 355 W. Las Palmas Avenue (Carnegie Library). In addition, the City of Patterson Community Design Guidelines identify the historic palms of Las Palmas Avenue in Chapter 6 (Special Design Considerations). Future development and redevelopment of properties accommodated by the General Plan could adversely impact existing historic resources. However, the EIR found that General Plan policies directly address the management of development to minimize the impact of future development on existing historic sites and resources. Therefore, this impact was determined to be less than significant.
7.2.b
Packet Pg. 241 Attachment: Admin Draft TIMP Addendum current (Approve the Initial Study / EIR Addendum to the 2010 General Plan EIR for the 115
Master Plan Impact
The TIMP would not increase development beyond that anticipated in the General Plan EIR, and any improvements associated with the Master Plan would be subject to General Plan policies and implementation measures to reduce impacts on historic resources. Therefore, this is an impact for which the General Plan EIR adequately addresses the proposed Master Plan. No additional analysis or mitigation measures are required.
Impact 5.15-3 Implementation of any of the Equal-Weight Alternatives could result in the potential disturbance of paleontological resources (i.e., fossils and fossil formations). However, policy provisions of the proposed General Plan would mitigate potential impacts to these resources.
Applicable General Plan Policies and Implementation Measures Implementation Measure: PR-8
General Plan EIR Mitigation Measures
None required.
Previously Identified Impacts
According to the EIR, a search of the University of California, Berkeley, Museum of Paleontology collections database did not identify any paleontological resources within the Patterson city boundaries and the Study Area. The sensitivity of the area for paleontological resources, however, has not been assessed and no formal paleontological investigations were identified for the area.
Consequently, the EIR found that implementation of the General Plan could impact undiscovered paleontological resources. However, General Plan policies and implementation measures ensure impacts to paleontological resources are minimized. Therefore, this was determined to be a less than significant impact.
Master Plan Impact
The TIMP would not increase development or disturb areas beyond that anticipated in the General Plan EIR. Any improvements associated with the Master Plan would be subject to General Plan policies and implementation measures to reduce impacts on paleontological resources.
Therefore, this is an impact for which the General Plan EIR adequately addresses the proposed Master Plan. No additional analysis or mitigation measures are required.
Impact 5.15-4 Development accommodated by the Compact Development, Jobs Emphasis, and PC Environmental Review Plan Alternatives along with foreseeable development in the region could contribute to further
7.2.b
Packet Pg. 242 Attachment: Admin Draft TIMP Addendum current (Approve the Initial Study / EIR Addendum to the 2010 General Plan EIR for the 116
disturbance of cultural resources (i.e., prehistoric sites, historic sites, and isolated artifacts and features) and human remains.
Applicable General Plan Policies and Implementation Measures Policies: PR-4.1, PR-4.2, PR-4.3, PR-4.4, PR-4.5, PR-4.6, PR-4.7, PR-5.1, PR-5.2, PR-5.3, PR-5.4, PR-6.1, PR-6.2, PR-6.3, PR-6.4, and PR-6.5
Implementation Measure: PR-8
General Plan EIR Mitigation Measures
None required.
Previously Identified Impacts
The EIR identified that continued urban development in the region accommodated by the County General Plan and the general plans of other jurisdictions could result in the disturbance of cultural resources. However, General Plan policies and implementation measures reduce the Patterson General Plan’s potential impacts to cultural resources. Therefore, the EIR found that the General Plan’s contribution to cumulative loss of cultural resources would not be substantial and would be less than cumulatively considerable.
Master Plan Impact
The TIMP would not result in development beyond that assumed in the General Plan, so it would not disturb areas beyond those anticipated in the General Plan EIR. Consequently, the Master Plan would not contribute to additional impacts on cultural resources. Therefore, this is an impact for which the General Plan EIR adequately addresses the proposed Master Plan. No additional analysis or mitigation measures are required.
7.2.b
Packet Pg. 243 Attachment: Admin Draft TIMP Addendum current (Approve the Initial Study / EIR Addendum to the 2010 General Plan EIR for the City Council Agenda Report
TO: Mayor Clauzel and Members of the City Council
FROM: Ken Irwin, City Manager
BY: Nubia Goldstein, City Attorney
MEETING DATE: October 17, 2023
ITEM NO: 8.1
SUBJECT: Adopt Resolution No. 2023-51 providing direction to staff regarding the use of Zoom during City Council meetings, limiting Zoom participation to City of Patterson staff and consultants attending a City Council meeting remotely, but prohibiting public comment via Zoom unless a City Council member is participating in the meeting via Zoom.
RECOMMENDATION
Motion to Adopt Resolution No. 2023-51 providing direction to staff regarding the use of Zoom during City Council meetings, limiting Zoom participation to City of Patterson staff and consultants attending a City Council meeting remotely, but prohibiting public comment via Zoom unless a City Council member is participating in the meeting via Zoom.
BACKGROUND
Recently, there has been an increase in instances of members of the public anonymously interrupting city council meetings throughout the region through virtual attendance platforms such as Zoom. Currently, the City of Patterson (“City”) allows public participation in City Council meetings via Zoom at all City Council meetings, whether a City Council member is attending the City Council meeting remotely or not.
Recently, there has been an increase in instances of members of the public anonymously interrupting city council meetings throughout the region through virtual attendance platforms such as Zoom. Currently, the City of Patterson (“City”) allows public participation in City Council meetings via Zoom at all City Council meetings, whether a City Council member is attending the City Council meeting remotely or not.
REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATION:
8.1 Packet Pg. 244
The Brown Act is California’s statutory “open meetings” requirement, focused on providing transparency at the local government level. The Brown Act requires, among other obligations, that “legislative bodies,” a category that encompasses city councils, include in “[e]very agenda for regular meetings…an opportunity for members of the public to directly address the legislative body on any item of interest to the public, before or during the legislative body’s consideration of the item, that is within the subject matter jurisdiction of the legislative body,” as well as an opportunity to comment during special meetings.
The Brown Act also requires that all regular and special meetings be held in the physical presence of the public, with limited exceptions. During the height of the Covid-19 pandemic, AB 361 allowed for meetings to be held entirely virtually. Under the provisions of AB 361, virtual meetings were required to permit live public comment via the internet. AB 361 became inactive in February of 2023 when the State of Emergency associated with the Covid-19 pandemic expired. Since the expiration of AB 361, City Council members have only been allowed to participate in meetings virtually under certain circumstances,. When a member of the City Council teleconferences into a meeting, the opportunity for public comment must also be available virtually.
At a meeting that all City Council members participate in-person, there is no requirement that members of the public be allowed to comment virtually. The Brown Act requires merely that the public be permitted to directly address the City Council, and notes that the “legislative body…may adopt reasonable regulations” for streamlining public comment.
Currently, the City permits public comment in a variety of ways including live comment via Zoom. Because public comment provided via Zoom was not an option for public comment at City Council meetings prior to the Covid-19 pandemic, it would be reasonable regulation to prohibit the public from commenting via Zoom, while allowing participation by City staff and consultants to participate remotely.
Limiting public comment via Zoom helps to ensure that City Council meetings are not disrupted in a manner that prevents the City from conducting its business. Remote participation by City staff and consultants allows the City to have staff participation at City Council meetings where staff may be unable to remain at City offices on evenings when City Council meetings occur, and saves the City money where consultants would otherwise travel to City Council meetings and charge the City for travel. The requirements for virtual public comment are only triggered if a City Council member participates remotely, and do not apply to City staff or consultants.
POLICY ALTERNATIVES:
The Council’s Options are:
1. Adopt Resolution No. 2023-51 without any changes;
2. Adopt Resolution No. 2023-51with changes and revisions ; or
8.1 Packet Pg. 245
3. Reject Resolution No. 2023-51 entirely.
8.1 Packet Pg. 246
{CW133493.1} Page 1 of 2
RESOLUTION NO. 2023-51
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PATTERSON
ESTABLISHING GUIDELINES FOR USE OF ZOOM OR OTHER SIMILAR
REMOTE MEETING ATTENDANCE PLATFORMS AT CITY COUNCIL
MEETINGS
WHEREAS, the City of Patterson (“City”) is committed to ensuring that City Council meetings are conducted in an efficient and impartial manner; and WHEREAS, disruption of City Council meetings using Zoom and other similar remote meeting attendance platforms has been an increasing concern for cities across the state; and WHEREAS, the City Council wishes to establish guidelines regarding the use of Zoom or other similar remote meeting attendance platform during City Council meetings; and WHEREAS, the guidelines would limit use Zoom or similar remote meeting attendance platform to City staff and consultants attending a City Council meeting remotely while limiting public comment being provided remotely to the occasions that a City Council member is attending a meeting remotely; and
WHEREAS, the City Council desires to adopt clear guidelines for the public, City staff and consultants, and the City Council related to the use of Zoom or other similar remote meeting attendance software to ensure that City business can be conducted efficiently and fairly.
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the City of Patterson City Council does hereby adopts the following procedures related to the use of Zoom or other similar remote meeting attendance platforms:
Section 1. City Staff and Consultant Participation in City Council meetings via Remote Meeting Attendance Platform. City staff and consultants shall be allowed to attend and participate in all City Council meetings via a remote meeting attendance platform such as Zoom, upon approval of such participation by the City Administrator.
Section 2. Public Comment at City Council Meetings via Remote Attendance Platform.
Public comment at City Council meetings shall not be provided via a remote meeting attendance platform such as Zoom, unless a City Council member is attending the City Council meeting via a remote attendance platform such as Zoom in compliance with Government Code section 54953.
In the event a Zoom link or other remote meeting attendance platform such as Zoom is being used during a City Council meeting by City staff or consultants, the public may attend and view the City Council meeting via Zoom or other remote meeting attendance platform the City relies upon.
The foregoing resolution was introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Patterson, held on the 17th day of October 2023 by , who moved its adoption, which motion was duly seconded by and the resolution adopted by the following roll call vote:
8.1.a
Packet Pg. 247 Attachment: Resolution No. 2023-51 GUIDELINES FOR TELECONFERENCE USAGE [Revision 1] (Adopting Resolution No. 2023-51 to Adopt {CW133493.1} Page 2 of 2
AYES:
NOES:
EXCUSED:
APPROVED:
____
Michael Clauzel
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 17th day of October 2023, and I further certify that said resolution is in full force and effect and has never been rescinded or modified.
DATED:
______________________________________
City Clerk of the City of Patterson
8.1.a
Packet Pg. 248 Attachment: Resolution No. 2023-51 GUIDELINES FOR TELECONFERENCE USAGE [Revision 1] (Adopting Resolution No. 2023-51 to Adopt