Patterson City Council
October 17, 2023

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; 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.
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.
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 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.
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 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 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. 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. 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. 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.
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 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 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.
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 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, 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 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.
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.
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.
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 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;
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)
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:
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. 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.
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. 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. 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 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 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 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. 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.
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.
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.
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. 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. 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.
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.
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 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.
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. 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. 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
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 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 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 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.
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.
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 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;
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 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 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. 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
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 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 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 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 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. 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 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.
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 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 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.
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.
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.
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. 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
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.
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 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. 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
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.
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.
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 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. 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.
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.
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.
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 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. 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
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 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.
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.
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, 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.
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
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.
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
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 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. 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.
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 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 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. 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.
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.
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.
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 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
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.
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 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 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 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.
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 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.