Agenda packet — Patterson City Council, December 5, 2023 (part 2 of 2)

7.3.c
Packet Pg. 336 Attachment: Parks MP Addendum (Parks and Recreation Master Plan) Parks and Recreation Master Plan
Initial Study/Addendum
Environmental Issue
Area
Conclusion in
EIR
Do the Proposed
Changes Involve
New or More
Severe Impacts?
New
Circumstances
Involving New or
More Severe
Impacts?
New Information
Requiring New
Analysis or
Verification?
Mitigation
Measures
5024.1, the lead agency
shall consider the
significance of the
resource to a California
Native American tribe.

Discussion
Cultural Resources
a) The EIR found that buildout of the General Plan had the potential to disturb historic resources. The EIR concluded that impacts would be less than significant if the following conditions are placed on all discretionary projects:

The Planning Department shall be notified immediately if any prehistoric, archaeological, or fossil artifact or resource is uncovered during construction. All construction must stop and an archaeologist that meets the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualifications Standards in prehistoric or historical archaeology shall be retained to evaluate the finds and recommend appropriate action.

All construction must stop if any human remains are uncovered, and the County Coroner must be notified according to Section 7050.5 of California’s Health and Safety Code. If the remains are determined to be Native American, the procedures outlined in CEQA Section 15064.5 (d) and (e) shall be followed.

The proposed project does not include development at this time and reviews have found no records of known historic resources within the project boundaries. As such, the proposed project would not introduce new environmental impacts or create more severe environmental impacts than those analyzed in the EIR.
b) The EIR found that buildout of the General Plan had the potential to disturb archaeological resources. The EIR concluded that impacts would be less than significant if the previously listed conditions are placed on all discretionary projects.

The proposed project does not include development at this time and reviews have found no records of known archaeological resources within the project boundaries. As such, the proposed project would not introduce new environmental impacts or create more severe environmental impacts than those analyzed in the EIR.

7.3.c
Packet Pg. 337 Attachment: Parks MP Addendum (Parks and Recreation Master Plan) Parks and Recreation Master Plan
Initial Study/Addendum
c) The EIR found that buildout of the General Plan had the potential to disturb human remains. The EIR concluded that impacts would be less than significant if the previously listed conditions are placed on all discretionary projects.

The proposed project does not include development at this time and reviews have found no records of known burial sites within the project boundaries. As such, the proposed project would not introduce new environmental impacts or create more severe environmental impacts than those analyzed in the EIR.

Tribal Cultural Resources
d–e) The EIR determined that buildout of the General Plan would not impact tribal cultural resources.

Mitigation Measures
PR-8 The City shall impose the following conditions on all discretionary projects which may cause ground disturbance:

Conclusion
The conclusions from the EIR remain unchanged.

7.3.c
Packet Pg. 338 Attachment: Parks MP Addendum (Parks and Recreation Master Plan) Parks and Recreation Master Plan
Initial Study/Addendum
Environmental Issue
Area
Conclusion in
EIR
Do the Proposed
Changes Involve
New or More
Severe Impacts?
New
Circumstances
Involving New or
More Severe
Impacts?
New Information
Requiring New
Analysis or
Verification?
Mitigation
Measures
VI. Energy
Would the project:
a) Result in potentially
significant
environmental impact
due to wasteful,
inefficient, or
unnecessary
consumption of energy
resources, during
project construction or
operation?
N/A No No No None
b) Conflict with or obstruct
a state or local plan for
renewable energy or
energy efficiency?
N/A No No No None
Discussion
a–b) The EIR did not evaluate impacts on energy. The proposed project includes no development activities at this time. Development projects would be considered on a case by case basis for energy use. The proposed project has the potential to generate additional vehicle trips, but not to a level of significance beyond that previously contemplated by the General Plan EIR. Thus, energy consumption would not be wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary. Impacts would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures
None.

Conclusion
The conclusions from the EIR remain unchanged.

7.3.c
Packet Pg. 339 Attachment: Parks MP Addendum (Parks and Recreation Master Plan) Parks and Recreation Master Plan
Initial Study/Addendum
Environmental Issue
Area
Conclusion in
EIR
Do the Proposed
Changes Involve
New or More
Severe Impacts?
New
Circumstances
Involving New or
More Severe
Impacts?
New Information
Requiring New
Analysis or
Verification?
Mitigation
Measures
VII. Geology, Seismicity, and Soils
Would the project:
a) Directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving:
i) Rupture of a known
earthquake fault, as
delineated on the
most recent AlquistPriolo Earthquake
Fault Zoning Map
issued by the State
Geologist for the
area or based on
other substantial
evidence of a known
fault? Refer to
Division of Mines
and Geology Special
Publication 42.

Less than
significant
impact
No No No None
ii) Strong seismic
ground shaking?
Less than
significant
impact
No No No None
iii) Seismic-related
ground failure,
including
liquefaction?
Less than
significant
impact
No No No None
iv) Landslides? Less than
significant
impact
No No No None
b) Result in substantial soil
erosion or the loss of
topsoil?
Less than
significant
impact
No No No None
c) Be located on a geologic
unit or soil that is
unstable, or that would
become unstable as a
result of the project,
and potentially result in
on- or off-site landslide,
lateral spreading,
subsidence, liquefaction
or collapse?
Less than
significant
impact
No No No None

7.3.c
Packet Pg. 340 Attachment: Parks MP Addendum (Parks and Recreation Master Plan) Parks and Recreation Master Plan
Initial Study/Addendum
Environmental Issue
Area
Conclusion in
EIR
Do the Proposed
Changes Involve
New or More
Severe Impacts?
New
Circumstances
Involving New or
More Severe
Impacts?
New Information
Requiring New
Analysis or
Verification?
Mitigation
Measures
d) Be located on expansive
soil, as defined in Table
18-1-B of the Uniform
Building Code (1994),
creating substantial
direct or indirect risks to
life or property?
N/A No No No None
e) Have soils incapable of
adequately supporting
the use of septic tanks
or alternative
wastewater disposal
systems where sewers
are not available for the
disposal of wastewater?
N/A No No No None
f) Directly or indirectly
destroy a unique
paleontological resource
or site or unique
geologic feature?
N/A No No No None
Discussion
a) The EIR found that buildout of the General Plan may result in exposure to seismic hazards such as fault rupture, ground shaking, liquefaction, and land sliding. The EIR noted that compliance with Building Standards Code seismic safety requirements would ensure that new development is not exposed to geologic hazards. The EIR concluded that impacts would be less than significant.

The General Plan area is not within a designated Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone. Standard earthwork, soil engineering, and construction practices (e.g., grading, placement of engineered fill, pouring of slab foundations, etc.) would serve to abate any strong ground shaking hazards. As such, the Master Plan would not introduce new environmental impacts or create more severe environmental impacts than those analyzed in the EIR.
b) The EIR found that buildout of the General Plan may result in erosion and sedimentation. The EIR noted that implementation of State requirements, such as Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plans, would ensure that new development does not create erosion or sedimentation. The EIR concluded that impacts would be less than significant
Any development contemplated by the Master Plan would be required to comply with Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan requirements during construction to prevent erosion into downstream

7.3.c
Packet Pg. 341 Attachment: Parks MP Addendum (Parks and Recreation Master Plan) Parks and Recreation Master Plan
Initial Study/Addendum
waterways. As such, the Master Plan would not introduce new environmental impacts or create more severe environmental impacts than those analyzed in the EIR. c) The EIR found that buildout of the General Plan may result in exposure to unstable soils and geologic units. The EIR noted that compliance with Building Standards Code seismic safety requirements would ensure that new development would not be exposed to geologic hazards. The EIR concluded that impacts would be less than significant.

Any project contemplated by the Master Plan would be subject to applicable building codes. No new or additional impacts are anticipated. As such, the proposed project would not introduce new environmental impacts or create more severe environmental impacts than those analyzed in the EIR.
d) The EIR did not evaluate impacts on expansive soils. The project site is underlain by Capay clay and Stomar clay loam soils, which contain clay and, thus, would be considered expansive.

Implementation of Standard earthwork and soil engineering practices (e.g., excavation of native soils and replacement with engineered fill) during construction would serve to abate any expansive soils hazards. Impacts would be less than significant.
e) The EIR did not evaluate impacts associated with septic tanks. Any new development would be served with wastewater collection and treatment service provided by the City of Patterson. No septic or alternative wastewater disposal systems would be employed. No impact would occur. f) The EIR did not evaluate impacts on paleontological resources. Patterson is underlain by Pleistocene alluvium, which has a high sensitivity for paleontological deposits. The proposed project’s grading activities are expected to be limited to the upper soil layers, which avoids disturbance of native soils that may contain paleontological resources. Nonetheless, the City will apply the following standard condition of approval to the project:

All soil disturbance in excess of 10 feet in depth should be monitored by a qualified paleontological monitor. In the event that fossils or fossil-bearing deposits are discovered during construction activities, excavations within a 100-foot radius of the find shall be temporarily halted or diverted. The project contractor shall notify a qualified paleontologist to examine the discovery. The applicant shall include a standard inadvertent discovery clause in every construction contract to inform contractors of this requirement. The paleontologist shall document the discovery as needed in accordance with Society of Vertebrate Paleontology standards and assess the significance of the find under the criteria set forth in CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5. The paleontologist shall notify the appropriate agencies to determine procedures that would be followed before construction activities are allowed to resume at the location of the find. If the applicant determines that avoidance is not feasible, the paleontologist shall prepare an excavation plan for mitigating the effect of construction activities on the discovery. The plan shall be submitted to the City of Patterson for review and approval prior to implementation, and the applicant shall adhere to the recommendations in the plan.

7.3.c
Packet Pg. 342 Attachment: Parks MP Addendum (Parks and Recreation Master Plan) Parks and Recreation Master Plan
Initial Study/Addendum
With the implementation of this condition of approval, impacts would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures
None.

Conclusion
The conclusions from the EIR remain unchanged.

7.3.c
Packet Pg. 343 Attachment: Parks MP Addendum (Parks and Recreation Master Plan) Parks and Recreation Master Plan
Initial Study/Addendum
Environmental Issue
Area
Conclusion in
EIR
Do the Proposed
Changes Involve
New or More
Severe Impacts?
New
Circumstances
Involving New or
More Severe
Impacts?
New Information
Requiring New
Analysis or
Verification?
Mitigation
Measures
VIII.Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Would the project:
a) Generate greenhouse
gas emissions, either
directly or indirectly,
that may have a
significant impact on the
environment?
N/A No No No None
b) Conflict with any
applicable plan, policy
or regulation adopted
for the purpose of
reducing the emissions
of greenhouse gases?
N/A No No No None
Discussion
a–b) The EIR did not evaluate greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. No development is contemplated at this time, so no impact to GHG emissions is anticipated. Development projects associated with implementation of the Master Plan would be designed in accordance with the latest adopted edition of the Title 24 building energy efficiency standards, which are regarded as the most stringent in the United States. Impacts would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures
None.

Conclusion
The conclusions from the EIR remain unchanged.

7.3.c
Packet Pg. 344 Attachment: Parks MP Addendum (Parks and Recreation Master Plan) Parks and Recreation Master Plan
Initial Study/Addendum
Environmental Issue
Area
Conclusion in
EIR
Do the Proposed
Changes Involve
New or More
Severe Impacts?
New
Circumstances
Involving New or
More Severe
Impacts?
New Information
Requiring New
Analysis or
Verification?
Mitigation
Measures
IX. Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Would the project:
a) Create a significant
hazard to the public or
the environment
through the routine
transport, use, or
disposal of hazardous
materials?
Less than
significant
impact
No No No None
b) Create a significant
hazard to the public or
the environment
through reasonably
foreseeable upset and
accident conditions
involving the release of
hazardous materials into
the environment?
Less than
significant
impact
No No No None
c) Emit hazardous
emissions or handle
hazardous or acutely
hazardous materials,
substances, or waste
within one-quarter mile
of an existing or
proposed school?
Less than
significant
impact
No No No None
d) Be located on a site
which is included on a
list of hazardous
materials sites compiled
pursuant to
Government Code
Section 65962.5 and, as
a result, would it create
a significant hazard to
the public or the
environment?
Less than
significant
impact
No No No None
e) For a project located
within an airport land
use plan or, where such
a plan has not been
adopted, within two
miles of a public airport
or public use airport,
Less than
significant
impact
No No No None

7.3.c
Packet Pg. 345 Attachment: Parks MP Addendum (Parks and Recreation Master Plan) Parks and Recreation Master Plan
Initial Study/Addendum
Environmental Issue
Area
Conclusion in
EIR
Do the Proposed
Changes Involve
New or More
Severe Impacts?
New
Circumstances
Involving New or
More Severe
Impacts?
New Information
Requiring New
Analysis or
Verification?
Mitigation
Measures
would the project result
in a safety hazard or
excessive noise for
people residing or
working in the project
area?
f) Impair implementation
of or physically interfere
with an adopted
emergency response
plan or emergency
evacuation plan?
Less than
significant
impact
No No No None
g) Expose people or
structures, either
directly or indirectly to a
significant risk of loss,
injury or death involving
wildland fires?
Less than
significant
impact
No No No None
Discussion
a–b) The EIR found that buildout of the General Plan would not result in significant exposure to hazardous materials due to management policies under the direction of the Federal and State Governments. With compliance with these requirements, the EIR concluded that impacts would be less than significant.

No development is considered, at this time. The Master Plan does not contemplate development that would create new or expanded exposure to hazardous materials. As such, the Master Plan would not introduce new environmental impacts or create more severe environmental impacts than those analyzed in the EIR.
c–d) The EIR found that area uses would not result in exposure to hazardous materials at schools or near other sites. The EIR concluded that impacts would be less than significant.

The Master Plan does not contemplate development that would result in new or additional sources of hazardous materials near schools or other sensitive locations. The Master Plan would not introduce new environmental impacts or create more severe environmental impacts than those analyzed in the EIR.
e) The EIR found that buildout of the General Plan would not be significantly impacted by airport uses.

7.3.c
Packet Pg. 346 Attachment: Parks MP Addendum (Parks and Recreation Master Plan) Parks and Recreation Master Plan
Initial Study/Addendum
The proposed project would not introduce new environmental impacts or create more severe environmental impacts than those analyzed in the EIR.
f) The EIR found that buildout of the General Plan would not conflict with established emergency response plans or evacuation plans. The EIR reviewed potential issues related to disruption of emergency services due to impediments at rail crossings but determined that such impacts were less than significant.

The proposed project would not significantly alter the approach to emergency response plans or evacuation plans. As such, the Master Plan would not introduce new environmental impacts or create more severe environmental impacts than those analyzed in the EIR. g) The EIR found that any potential for impacts related to wildfire would be located on the west side of Interstate 5. The EIR found these impacts to be less than significant.

No new development projects associated with the Master Plan are contemplated at this time.

Specific development projects that may be located in areas at risk for wildfires would be subject to additional review. The Master Plan would not expose the public to significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving wildland fire. Impacts would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures
None
Conclusion
The conclusions from the EIR remain unchanged.

7.3.c
Packet Pg. 347 Attachment: Parks MP Addendum (Parks and Recreation Master Plan) Parks and Recreation Master Plan
Initial Study/Addendum
Environmental Issue
Area
Conclusion in
EIR
Do the Proposed
Changes Involve
New or More
Severe Impacts?
New
Circumstances
Involving New or
More Severe
Impacts?
New Information
Requiring New
Analysis or
Verification?
Mitigation
Measures
X. Hydrology and Water Quality
Would the project:
a) Violate any water
quality standards or
waste discharge
requirements or
otherwise substantially
degrade surface or
ground water quality?
Less than
significant
impact with
mitigation
No No No HS-1, PS-5,
NR-1, PS-6,
PS-7
b) Substantially decrease
groundwater supplies
or interfere
substantially with
groundwater recharge
such that the project
may impede sustainable
groundwater
management of the
basin?
Significant
and
Unavoidable
and
cumulatively
considerable
No No No NR-2, PS-1,
PS-2, PS-6,
PS-7, AR-1,
AR-2, HS-6,
c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river or through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner which would:
(i) result in substantial
erosion or siltation
on- or off-site;
Less than
significant
impact with
mitigation
No No No HS-1, PS-5,
NR-1, PS-6,
PS-7
(ii) substantially
increase the rate or
amount of surface
runoff in a manner
which would result
in flooding on- or
offsite;
Less than
significant
impact with
mitigation
No No No HS-15
(iii) create or contribute
runoff water which
would exceed the
capacity of existing
or planned
stormwater drainage
systems or provide
substantial
additional sources of
polluted runoff; or
Significant
and
Unavoidable
and
cumulatively
considerable
No No No HS-1, PS-5,
NR-1, PS-6,
PS-7

7.3.c
Packet Pg. 348 Attachment: Parks MP Addendum (Parks and Recreation Master Plan) Parks and Recreation Master Plan
Initial Study/Addendum
Environmental Issue
Area
Conclusion in
EIR
Do the Proposed
Changes Involve
New or More
Severe Impacts?
New
Circumstances
Involving New or
More Severe
Impacts?
New Information
Requiring New
Analysis or
Verification?
Mitigation
Measures
(iv) impede or redirect
flood flows?
Significant
and
Unavoidable
No No No HS-1, PS-5,
NR-1, PS-6,
PS-7
d) In flood hazard,
tsunami, or seiche
zones, risk release of
pollutants due to
project inundation?
Less than
significant
No No No PS-5, PS-11
e) Conflict with or obstruct
implementation of a
water quality control
plan or sustainable
groundwater
management plan?
Less than
significant
impact with
mitigation
No No No HS-15
Discussion
a) The EIR found that buildout of the General Plan may result in the discharge of polluted runoff from the construction of future urban development, potentially causing harm to waterways, violating water quality standards, or otherwise substantially degrading surface water quality. The EIR set in place mitigation measures that require implementation of stormwater pollution prevention measures. The EIR concluded that impacts would be less than significant.

Development projects contemplated by the Master Plan could create new impervious surfaces, which have the potential to generate polluted runoff. Any development would be subject to Storm Water Pollution Prevent Plan (SWPPP) requirements during construction. No new or additional impacts are anticipated As such, the proposed project would not introduce new environmental impacts or create more severe environmental impacts than those analyzed in the EIR. b) The EIR found that buildout of the General Plan would increase demand for water, requiring additional water supplies beyond what was available to the City, would require the extension of water conveyance infrastructure, and could create one or more “cones of depression” beneath City wells, all deemed to be significant and unavoidable impacts.

Since the time of the General Plan review, the City has completed a more thorough review of the area’s groundwater capacity and determined that the safe yield of groundwater extracted from the aquifer is adequate to serve the buildout of the General Plan area, when combined with conservation and other measures. While no development is contemplated at this time, new parks and recreation facilities will likely generate new sources of water use. Individual projects will be subject to further review as they are proposed and would be reviewed by the City to ensure that

7.3.c
Packet Pg. 349 Attachment: Parks MP Addendum (Parks and Recreation Master Plan) Parks and Recreation Master Plan
Initial Study/Addendum
the City’s water infrastructure is adequate. The Master Plan would not introduce new environmental impacts or create more severe environmental impacts than those analyzed in the EIR.
c) The EIR found that buildout of the General Plan may place housing or other structures into 100- year flood hazard areas and create new impervious surfaces that would alter drainage conditions that could result in increased runoff and potential flooding impacts. In sum, the EIR concluded that these impacts would be significant and unavoidable.

The Master Plan does not include development at this time. Individual projects will be subject to additional reviewed to ensure that adequate storm drain infrastructure is in place to limit runoff and potential flooding impacts. As such, the proposed project would not introduce new environmental impacts or create more severe environmental impacts than those analyzed in the EIR.
d) The EIR found that buildout of the General Plan may place housing or other structures into 100- year flood hazard areas. The EIR set forth mitigation measures to ensure that new buildings be elevated to 1-foot above the flood elevation. The EIR concluded that impacts would be less than significant.

The Master Plan does not contemplate development inconsistent with the General Plan and would be subject to the mitigation measures discussed above. As such, the proposed project would not introduce new environmental impacts or create more severe environmental impacts than those analyzed in the EIR.

Mitigation Measures
NR-1 The City shall continue its program of routinely monitoring groundwater quality.

NR-2 The 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 a 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.

The City has adopted a Water Master Plan. This mitigation measure does not apply to this project and will be reevaluated at the development stage.

7.3.c
Packet Pg. 350 Attachment: Parks MP Addendum (Parks and Recreation Master Plan) Parks and Recreation Master Plan
Initial Study/Addendum
PS-1 The City shall review and periodically update the City’s Water Master Plan and Urban Water Management Plan consistent with the land use patterns and densities/intensities specified in the General Plan.

This mitigation measure does not apply to this project.

PS-2 The City shall develop and implement a water pipeline replacement and water meter replacement program.

This mitigation measure does not apply to this project at the development stage infrastructure conditions will be triggered and evaluated.

PS-5 The City shall prepare, adopt, review, and periodically update Drainage Master Plans for all new development and annexation areas.

This mitigation measure does not apply to this project.

PS-6 New development shall prepare and implement a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) designed to reduce potential impacts to surface water quality through the construction and life of the project whether or not the development site is over one acre. The SWPPP shall include practices to minimize the contact of construction materials, equipment, and maintenance supplies (e.g., fuels, lubricants, paints, solvents, adhesives) with storm water.

The SWPPP shall specify properly designed centralized storage areas that keep these materials out of the rain.

The SWPPP shall specify a monitoring program to be implemented by the construction site supervisor and must include both dry and wet weather inspections. In addition, in accordance with State Water Resources Control Board Resolution No. 2001-046 monitoring would be required during the construction period for pollutants that may be present in the runoff that are “not visually detectable in runoff.”
Best Management Practices (BMPs) designed to reduce erosion of exposed soil may include, but are not limited to, soil stabilization controls, watering for dust control, perimeter silt fences, placement of hay bales, and sediment basins.

If grading must be conducted during the rainy season, the primary BMPs selected shall focus on erosion control, that is, keeping sediment on the site. End-of-pipe sediment control measures (e.g., basins and traps) shall be used only as secondary measures. Entry and egress from the construction site shall be carefully controlled to minimize off-site tracking of sediment. Vehicle and equipment washdown facilities shall be designed to be accessible and functional during both dry and wet conditions.

All development projects are subject to SWPPP requirements.

PS-7 The City shall require the preparation of Project Stormwater Management Plans (SMP) to be reviewed and approved by the City Engineer for development projects as required by State law.

7.3.c
Packet Pg. 351 Attachment: Parks MP Addendum (Parks and Recreation Master Plan) Parks and Recreation Master Plan
Initial Study/Addendum
or the consultant retained by the sponsor to prepare the SMP shall thoroughly review and comply with the requirements of the most current municipal Phase II General Permit for storm water discharges (Order No. 2003-0005-DWQ). In general, passive, low-maintenance BMPs are preferred.

The City of Patterson Department of Public Works shall ensure that the Project Stormwater Management Plan is prepared prior to approval of any grading plans. The City of Patterson Department of Public Works shall review and ensure that the SWPPP for each development project within the Plan Area complies with or updates the Project Stormwater Management Plan.

All development is subject to this requirement.

PS-11 The City shall establish and collect development impact fees as needed for public services in accordance with Government Code '66000, et seq.

Development would be subject to this mitigation measure.

AR-1 Ensure that development projects are submitted to the District for CEQA comments and review of air quality analysis.

Development projects are subject to this mitigation measure.

AR-2 Train staff planners preparing CEQA documents on how to use the Guide for Assessing and Mitigating Air Quality Impacts guidance manual.

This mitigation measure does not apply to the project.

HS-1 The City shall adopt the most current editions of the California Building Code, California Fire Code, Uniform Plumbing, Mechanical, and National Electric Codes.

HS-6 Prior to approval of a noise-sensitive use exposed to existing or projected noise exceeding the standards of the General Plan, an acoustical analysis shall be required. The acoustical analysis shall comply with the requirements set out in Table HS-2 of the Policy Document.

This mitigation measure does not apply to this project.

HS-15 New development shall be required to implement (through installation or the payment of inlieu fees) relevant portions of the March 2010 City of Patterson General Plan Storm Drainage Study.

Conclusion
The conclusions from the EIR remain unchanged.

7.3.c
Packet Pg. 352 Attachment: Parks MP Addendum (Parks and Recreation Master Plan) Parks and Recreation Master Plan
Initial Study/Addendum
Environmental Issue
Area
Conclusion in
EIR
Do the Proposed
Changes Involve
New or More
Severe Impacts?
New
Circumstances
Involving New or
More Severe
Impacts?
New Information
Requiring New
Analysis or
Verification?
Mitigation
Measures
XI. Land Use and Planning
Would the project:
a) Physically divide an
established community?
Less than
significant
impact
No No No None
b) Cause a significant
environmental impact
due to a conflict with
any land use plan, policy,
or regulation adopted
for the purpose of
avoiding or mitigating an
environmental effect?
Less than
significant
impact
No No No None
Discussion
a) The EIR found that buildout of the General Plan has the potential to disrupt established communities, but that any impacts would be mitigated through existing regulations. The EIR concluded that impacts would be less than significant.

The Master Plan considers parks and recreational facilities within the General Plan area. General Plan and Zoning policies aim to create “complete neighborhoods.” Park and recreational facilities are anticipated to tie communities together rather than disrupt established communities. As such, the proposed project would not introduce new environmental impacts or create more severe environmental impacts than those analyzed in the EIR.
b) The EIR found that buildout of the General Plan had the potential to create conflicts between current and future land uses, as well as new development and agricultural uses. The EIR determined that these impacts are mitigated through existing regulations. The EIR also noted that the proposed project would amend the General Plan and would pre-zone the affected properties to reflect their proposed use, thereby achieving consistency with the respective plans. The EIR concluded that impacts would be less than significant.

7.3.c
Packet Pg. 353 Attachment: Parks MP Addendum (Parks and Recreation Master Plan) Parks and Recreation Master Plan
Initial Study/Addendum
Mitigation Measures
None.

Conclusion
The conclusions from the EIR remain unchanged.

7.3.c
Packet Pg. 354 Attachment: Parks MP Addendum (Parks and Recreation Master Plan) Parks and Recreation Master Plan
Initial Study/Addendum
Environmental Issue
Area
Conclusion in
EIR
Do the Proposed
Changes Involve
New or More
Severe Impacts?
New
Circumstances
Involving New or
More Severe
Impacts?
New Information
Requiring New
Analysis or
Verification?
Mitigation
Measures
XII. Mineral Resources
Would the project:
a) Result in the loss of
availability of a known
mineral resource that
would be of value to the
region and the residents
of the State?
N/A No No No None
b) Result in the loss of
availability of a locallyimportant mineral
resource recovery site
delineated on a local
general plan, specific
plan or other land use
plan?
N/A No No No None
Discussion
a–b) The EIR did not evaluate loss of mineral resources. No extraction activities of minerals of value occur are contemplated as part of the Master Plan. As such, the proposed project would not introduce new environmental impacts or create more severe environmental impacts than those analyzed in the EIR.

Mitigation Measures
None.

Conclusion
The conclusions from the EIR remain unchanged.

7.3.c
Packet Pg. 355 Attachment: Parks MP Addendum (Parks and Recreation Master Plan) Parks and Recreation Master Plan
Initial Study/Addendum
Environmental Issue
Area
Conclusion in
EIR
Do the Proposed
Changes Involve
New or More
Severe Impacts?
New
Circumstances
Involving New or
More Severe
Impacts?
New Information
Requiring New
Analysis or
Verification?
Mitigation
Measures
XIII. Noise
Would the project:
a) Generation of a
substantial temporary
or permanent increase
in ambient noise levels
in the vicinity of the
project in excess of
standards established in
the local general plan or
noise ordinance, or
applicable standards of
other agencies?
Significant
and
unavoidable
and
cumulatively
considerable
No No No HS-5, HS-6,
HS-7, HS-8,
HS-10
b) Generation of excessive
ground borne vibration
or ground borne noise
levels?
Less than
significant
impact
No No No None
c) For a project located
within the vicinity of a
private airstrip or an
airport land use plan or,
where such a plan has
not been adopted,
within two miles of a
public airport or public
use airport, would the
project expose people
residing or working in
the project area to
excessive noise levels?
Less than
significant
impact
No No No None
Discussion
a) The EIR found that buildout of the General Plan may expose sensitive receptors to elevated noise levels. Areas of interest included construction activities, which were mitigatable to a less than significant level with implementation measures HS-5, HS-6, and HS-7, and traffic noise levels, which were deemed to be significant and unavoidable, even with implementation measures HS-5, HS-6, HS-7, HS-8. The potential for noise-sensitive land uses to encroach upon existing or proposed noise sources was also deemed to be significant and unavoidable. Other noise impacts were deemed to be less than significant.

7.3.c
Packet Pg. 356 Attachment: Parks MP Addendum (Parks and Recreation Master Plan) Parks and Recreation Master Plan
Initial Study/Addendum
No new development is contemplated at this time. However, existing City policies and the zoning code, require additional review when land use interface conditions occur to mitigate potential conflicts for projects or land uses expected to generate higher than typical noise levels. As such, the proposed project would not introduce new environmental impacts or create more severe environmental impacts than those analyzed in the EIR.
b) The EIR found that impacts related to land uses exposed to ground borne vibration impacts were considered less than significant. No information at this time would indicate that land uses would be exposed to ground borne vibration impacts greater than those reviewed in the EIR as a result of implementation of the Master Plan. As such, the Master Plan would not introduce new environmental impacts or create more severe environmental impacts than those analyzed in the EIR.
c) The EIR found that buildout of the General Plan would not expose persons working or residing in the General Plan area to excessive aviation noise levels. Although the Crows Landing Airfield is in close proximity to the City of Patterson, impacts were not considered to reach a level of significance. The EIR concluded that impacts would be less than significant.

The Master Plan does not contemplate impacts different or additional to those considered in the EIR. As such, the proposed project would not introduce new environmental impacts or create more severe environmental impacts than those analyzed in the EIR.

Mitigation Measures
HS-5 The City shall review and revise as necessary its noise control ordinance to regulate existing noise sources. (The City of Patterson has updated it’s zoning code to regulate noise sources. This mitigation measure does not apply to this project.)
HS-6 Prior to approval of a noise-sensitive use exposed to existing or projected noise exceeding the standards of the General Plan, an acoustical analysis shall be required. The acoustical analysis shall comply with the requirements set out in Table HS-2 of the Policy Document. (This mitigation measure does not apply to this project.)
HS-7 The City shall enforce state noise insulation standards (California Administrative Code, Title 24) and Chapter 35 of the Uniform Building Code (UBC). Title 24 requires that an acoustical analysis be prepared for all new developments of multi-family dwellings, condominiums, hotels and motels proposed for areas within the 60 Db Ld], contour of a major noise source for the purpose of documenting that an acceptable interior noise level of 45 Db L~ or below will be achieved. UBC Chapter 35 requires that common wall and floor/ceiling assemblies within multifamily dwellings comply with minimum standards for the transmission of airborne sound and structure-borne impact noise.

HS-8 The City shall develop and employ procedures to monitor compliance with noise mitigation standards after projects are completed. (This mitigation measure applies to development, so does not apply to this project.)
HS-10 The City shall require the following as a condition of project approval to mitigate the adverse noise effects of construction-related activities:

7.3.c
Packet Pg. 357 Attachment: Parks MP Addendum (Parks and Recreation Master Plan) Parks and Recreation Master Plan
Initial Study/Addendum
• 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. • 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 noisereducing engine enclosures (with the goal of achieving approximately 10 dBA of reduction compared to uncontrolled engines).
• Air compressors and pneumatic equipment shall be equipped with mufflers, and impact tools shall 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 shall be erected between the equipment and the sensitive receptor. The fence shall 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 shall 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. (Any development projects within the project area would be subject to this mitigation measure.)
Conclusion
The conclusions from the EIR remain unchanged.

7.3.c
Packet Pg. 358 Attachment: Parks MP Addendum (Parks and Recreation Master Plan) Parks and Recreation Master Plan
Initial Study/Addendum
Environmental Issue
Area
Conclusion in
EIR
Do the Proposed
Changes Involve
New or More
Severe Impacts?
New
Circumstances
Involving New or
More Severe
Impacts?
New Information
Requiring New
Analysis or
Verification?
Mitigation
Measures
XIV. Population and Housing
Would the project:
a) Induce substantial
unplanned population
growth in an area,
either directly (for
example, by proposing
new homes and
businesses) or indirectly
(for example, through
extension of roads or
other infrastructure)?
Significant
and
unavoidable
and
cumulatively
considerable
No No No None
b) Displace substantial
numbers of existing
people or housing,
necessitating the
construction of
replacement housing
elsewhere?
Less than
significant
impact
No No No None
Discussion
a) The EIR found that buildout of the General Plan would result in a significant increase in population, housing, and employment. As a matter of course, the General Plan is aimed at continued growth of the City of Patterson for at least a 40-year period. While growth is needed and inevitable the EIR never-the-less determined this impact to be significant and unavoidable.

The Master Plan does not contemplate increases to population, housing or employment beyond what is considered by the General Plan. As such, the proposed project would not introduce new environmental impacts or create more severe environmental impacts than those analyzed in the EIR.
b) The EIR found that buildout of the General Plan had the potential to displace existing dwelling units as the City expands. The EIR determined that although such units would be displaced, they would be replaced by a substantial number of new units in a variety of densities and product types. The EIR determined the project to be less than significant.

The Master Plan does not consider development that is anticipated to displace existing dwelling units. Individual development projects would be subject to further review. As such, the proposed project would not introduce new environmental impacts or create more severe environmental impacts than those analyzed in the EIR.

7.3.c
Packet Pg. 359 Attachment: Parks MP Addendum (Parks and Recreation Master Plan) Parks and Recreation Master Plan
Initial Study/Addendum
Mitigation Measures
None
Conclusion
The conclusions from the EIR remain unchanged.

7.3.c
Packet Pg. 360 Attachment: Parks MP Addendum (Parks and Recreation Master Plan) Parks and Recreation Master Plan
Initial Study/Addendum
Environmental Issue
Area
Conclusion in
EIR
Do the Proposed
Changes Involve
New or More
Severe Impacts?
New
Circumstances
Involving New or
More Severe
Impacts?
New Information
Requiring New
Analysis or
Verification?
Mitigation
Measures
XV. Public Services
Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services:
a) Fire protection? Less than
significant
impact
No No No None
b) Police protection? Less than
significant
impact
No No No None
c) Schools? Less than
significant
impact
No No No None
d) Parks? Less than
significant
impact
No No No None
e) Other public
facilities?
Less than
significant
impact
No No No None
Discussion
a) The EIR found that buildout of the General Plan would increase demand for fire protection, including the need for new fire stations, equipment and personnel. The EIR noted that new development that occurs within the General Plan would provide capital improvement fees to the City of Patterson for the construction of new stations. The EIR concluded that impacts would be less than significant.

While no development is contemplated at this time, future development would contribute incrementally to the demand for fire stations, equipment, and personnel. These impacts are anticipated in the EIR. As such, the Master Plan would not introduce new environmental impacts or create more severe environmental impacts than those analyzed in the EIR. b) The EIR found that buildout of the General Plan would increase demand for police protection. The EIR found that, because police protection is typically provided by patrolling law enforcement personnel, desired response times could be accommodated through an increase to law enforcement personnel and increased or expanded police stations. The EIR determined that these

7.3.c
Packet Pg. 361 Attachment: Parks MP Addendum (Parks and Recreation Master Plan) Parks and Recreation Master Plan
Initial Study/Addendum
impacts could be mitigated through capital improvement fees. The EIR concluded that this impact would be less than significant.

While no development is contemplated at this time, future development would contribute incrementally to the demand for increased police protection. These impacts are anticipated in the EIR. As such, the Master Plan would not introduce new environmental impacts or create more severe environmental impacts than those analyzed in the EIR. c) The EIR found that buildout of the General Plan would generate additional students with a corresponding increase in the demand for school facilities provided by the Patterson Joint Unified School District. Although no mitigation is available to the City, the school district uses school fees to pay for the construction of new school facilities. The EIR found this impact to be less than significant.

Implementation of the Master Plan will not generate additional students. No new or additional impact is anticipated.
d) The EIR found that buildout of the General Plan would increase the demand for parks and recreational facilities. Consistent with the Quincy Act, the General Plan requires that parkland be developed concurrently or in advance of population growth to achieve the desired ratio of 5 acres of parkland per 1,000 population. The EIR concluded that impacts would be less than significant.

The Master Plan responds to impacts anticipated by the General Plan. Implementation of the General Plan would mitigate anticipated issues outlined in the EIR. e) The EIR found that buildout of the General Plan would increase the demand for new health care facilities, landfill capacity, library services, demand for electricity and natural gas, and other utility services. The EIR determined that, while the City could not mitigate these impacts directly, demand for new health care facilities, landfill capacity and library services could be accommodated through local district and county fees. The demand for electricity, natural gas, and other utility services could be accommodated through expansion of existing services. These impacts were determined to be less than significant.

Implementation of the Master Plan is not anticipated to trigger the need for significant expansion to other public services beyond what was contemplated in the EIR. As such, the Master Plan would not introduce new environmental impacts or create more severe environmental impacts than those analyzed in the EIR.

Mitigation Measures
None.

Conclusion
The conclusions from the EIR remain unchanged.

7.3.c
Packet Pg. 362 Attachment: Parks MP Addendum (Parks and Recreation Master Plan) Parks and Recreation Master Plan
Initial Study/Addendum
Environmental Issue
Area
Conclusion in
EIR
Do the Proposed
Changes Involve
New or More
Severe Impacts?
New
Circumstances
Involving New or
More Severe
Impacts?
New Information
Requiring New
Analysis or
Verification?
Mitigation
Measures
XVI.Recreation
Would the project:
a) Would the project
increase the use of
existing neighborhood
and regional parks or
other recreational
facilities such that
substantial physical
deterioration of the
facility would occur or
be accelerated?
Less than
significant
impact
No No No None
b) Does the project include
recreational facilities or
require the construction
or expansion of
recreational facilities,
which might have an
adverse physical effect
on the environment?
Less than
significant
impact
No No No None
Discussion
a–b) The EIR found that buildout of the General Plan would increase the demand for parks and recreational facilities. Consistent with the Quincy Act, the General Plan requires that parkland be developed concurrently or in advance of population growth to achieve the desired ratio of 5 acres of parkland per 1,000 population. The EIR concluded that impacts would be less than significant.

The Master Plan responds to anticipated impacts outlined in the General Plan EIR. Implementation of the Master Plan would implement the General Plan. No new impacts are anticipated.

Mitigation Measures
None.

Conclusion
The conclusions from the EIR remain unchanged.

7.3.c
Packet Pg. 363 Attachment: Parks MP Addendum (Parks and Recreation Master Plan) Parks and Recreation Master Plan
Initial Study/Addendum
Environmental Issue
Area
Conclusion in
EIR
Do the Proposed
Changes Involve
New or More
Severe Impacts?
New
Circumstances
Involving New or
More Severe
Impacts?
New Information
Requiring New
Analysis or
Verification?
Mitigation
Measures
XVII. Transportation
Would the project:
a) Conflict with a program
plan, ordinance or policy
of the circulation
system, including transit,
roadway, bicycle and
pedestrian facilities?
Significant
unavoidable
impact
No No No T-3, T-4, T-5,
T-6, T-7, T11, T-12, T13, T-14
b) Would the project
conflict or be
inconsistent with CEQA
Guidelines Section
15064.3, subdivision (b)?
N/A No No No None
c) Substantially increase
hazards due to a
geometric design
feature (e.g., sharp
curves or dangerous
intersections) or
incompatible uses (e.g.,
farm equipment)?
Significant
and
unavoidable
No No No T-2, T-3, T-4,
T-11, T-12,
T-13, T-14,
HS-5, HS-6,
HS-7, HS-8
d) Result in inadequate
emergency access?
Less than
significant
impact
No No No None
Discussion
a) The EIR found that buildout of the General Plan may impact intersection and roadway segments so that they would not operate at a minimum level of service consistent with City of Patterson or Caltrans standards. Mitigation measures were set in place for intersections and roadway segments within the City of Patterson, however, the City does not have direct control over several intersections and roadway segments outside of the City limits and under the jurisdiction of Stanislaus County or Caltrans. The EIR concluded that impacts would be significant and unavoidable.

The Master Plan has been developed in conjunction with the Transportation Infrastructure Master Plan, which, in turn, was prepared in reference to the General Plan. No new impacts are anticipated not already previously considered by the EIR

7.3.c
Packet Pg. 364 Attachment: Parks MP Addendum (Parks and Recreation Master Plan) Parks and Recreation Master Plan
Initial Study/Addendum
b) The EIR did not evaluate vehicle miles traveled. While implementation of the Master Plan can be anticipated to contribute toward vehicle trips, no development is considered at this time.

Individual projects will need to be considered on a case-by-case basis. The Master Plan does include provisions to locate park space as close as possible (in most cases, within easy walking distance) of housing, which will limits vehicle miles travelled. c) The EIR determined that buildout of the General Plan had the potential to increase truck traffic through the City, which, in turn, could adversely impact residential neighborhoods and result in potential traffic impacts on area roadways. Mitigation measures were set in place for intersections and roadway segments within the City of Patterson, however, the City does not have direct control over several intersections and roadway segments outside of the City limits and under the jurisdiction of Stanislaus County or Caltrans. The EIR concluded that impacts would be significant and unavoidable.

The Master Plan is not anticipated to contribute to the conditions outlined that would substantially increase incompatible uses. As such, the proposed project would not introduce new environmental impacts or create more severe environmental impacts than those analyzed in the EIR.
d) The EIR determined that with proper development standards in place, buildout of the General Plan would not result in significant impacts associated with emergency response. The EIR determined that impacts would be less than significant.

The Master Plan is not anticipated to contribute to new or additional impacts to emergency access not already considered by the EIR. As such, the proposed project would not introduce new environmental impacts or create more severe environmental impacts than those analyzed in the EIR.

Mitigation 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 rights-of-way to be acquired or dedicated. The Street Master Plan shall be regularly updated.

This mitigation measure does not apply to this project.

T-3 The City shall prepare, adopt, and periodically update a long-term Capital Improvements Program (CIP) that includes traffic, pedestrian and bikeway improvements.

This mitigation measure does not apply to this project.

T-4 The City shall prepare and adopt a traffic impact development fee program to pay for key improvements necessitated by new development, including transit.

Any development shall be subject to appropriate traffic impact development fees.

T-5 The City shall operate the traffic signal system to maximize traffic flow. The timing of traffic signals shall be updated at least once every four years. (See Implementation Measure NR-7.)

7.3.c
Packet Pg. 365 Attachment: Parks MP Addendum (Parks and Recreation Master Plan) Parks and Recreation Master Plan
Initial Study/Addendum
This mitigation measure does not apply to this project.

T-6 The City shall continue to investigate new technologies to help ensure the transportation system operates at the highest efficiency for the lowest cost.

This mitigation measure does not apply to this project.

T-7 The City shall prepare roadway design standards for new and existing streets, roads and roundabouts. Such standards should include right-of-way width, roadway section design, and dedication requirements for new development to accommodate traffic levels expected at buildout of the General Plan. The roadway design standards should be interpreted with flexibility so that the roadways provided are no wider than required to maintain safe and efficient circulation and access.

This mitigation measure does not apply to this project.

T-11 The City shall work with Caltrans to prepare a Project Study Report (PSR) for a new interchange north of the City in the vicinity of Zacharias Road and Interstate 5.

This mitigation measure does not apply to this project.

T-12 The City shall participate in efforts to establish a South County Corridor to connect East Las Palmas Avenue with Interstate 5.

This mitigation measure does not apply to this project.

T-13 The City shall work with Stanislaus Council of Governments (StanCOG), Caltrans and other agencies to obtain funding for major traffic improvements that serve the region.

This mitigation measure does not apply to this project.

T-14 The City shall vigorously pursue and use state and federal funds earmarked for bicycle and transit improvements.

This mitigation measure does not apply to this project.

HS-5 The City shall review and revise as necessary its noise control ordinance to regulate existing noise sources.

This mitigation measure does not apply to this project.

Individual development projects shall be analyzed on a case by case basis.

HS-7 The City shall enforce state noise insulation standards (California Administrative Code, Title 24) and Chapter 35 of the Uniform Building Code (UB C). Title 24 requires that an acoustical analysis be prepared for all new developments of multi-family dwellings, condominiums, hotels and motels proposed for areas within the 60 Db Ld], contour of a major noise source for the purpose of documenting that an acceptable interior noise level of 45 Db L~ or below will be achieved. TJBC Chapter 35 requires that common wall and floor/ceiling assemblies within multi-family dwellings comply with minimum standards for the transmission of airborne sound and structure-borne impact noise.

Individual development projects shall be analyzed on a case by case basis.

7.3.c
Packet Pg. 366 Attachment: Parks MP Addendum (Parks and Recreation Master Plan) Parks and Recreation Master Plan
Initial Study/Addendum
HS-8 The City shall develop and employ procedures to monitor compliance with noise mitigation standards after projects are completed.

This mitigation measure does not apply to this project.

Conclusion
The conclusions from the EIR remain unchanged.

7.3.c
Packet Pg. 367 Attachment: Parks MP Addendum (Parks and Recreation Master Plan) Parks and Recreation Master Plan
Initial Study/Addendum
Environmental Issue
Area
Conclusion in
EIR
Do the Proposed
Changes Involve
New or More
Severe Impacts?
New
Circumstances
Involving New or
More Severe
Impacts?
New Information
Requiring New
Analysis or
Verification?
Mitigation
Measures
XVIII. Utilities and Service Systems
Would the project:
a) Require or result in the
relocation or
construction of new or
expanded water,
wastewater treatment
or stormwater drainage,
electric power, natural
gas, or
telecommunications
facilities, the
construction or
relocation of which
could cause significant
environmental effects?
Significant
and
Unavoidable
No No No NR-2, PS-1,
PS-2, PS-6,
PS-7, PS-14,
PS-15, AR-1,
AR-2, AR-6,
HS-6, HS-10
b) Have sufficient water
supplies available to
serve the project and
reasonably foreseeable
future development
during normal, dry and
multiple dry years?
Significant
and
unavoidable
No No No NR-2, PS-1,
PS-2, PS-6,
PS-7, AR-1,
AR-2, HS-6,
c) Result in a
determination by the
wastewater treatment
provider which serves
or may serve the project
that it has adequate
capacity to serve the
project’s projected
demand in addition to
the provider’s existing
commitments?
Significant
and
unavoidable
No No No PS-14, PS15, AR-6,
and HS-10
d) Generate solid waste in
excess of State or local
standards, or in excess
of the capacity of local
infrastructure, or
otherwise impair the
attainment of solid
waste reduction goals?
Significant
and
unavoidable
No No No None

7.3.c
Packet Pg. 368 Attachment: Parks MP Addendum (Parks and Recreation Master Plan) Parks and Recreation Master Plan
Initial Study/Addendum
Environmental Issue
Area
Conclusion in
EIR
Do the Proposed
Changes Involve
New or More
Severe Impacts?
New
Circumstances
Involving New or
More Severe
Impacts?
New Information
Requiring New
Analysis or
Verification?
Mitigation
Measures
e) Comply with federal,
State, and local
management and
reduction statutes and
regulations related to
solid waste?
Less than
significant
impact
No No No None
Discussion
a) The EIR found that buildout of the General Plan would require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment or stormwater drainage, electric power, natural gas, or telecommunications facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects. Expansion of the City to the levels outlined would generate the need for new infrastructure in all of the outlined categories. Impacts were concluded to be significant and unavoidable.

The Master Plan would contribute toward the need for new utility system infrastructure, but not to a level beyond that already considered in the EIR. As such, the proposed project would not introduce new environmental impacts or create more severe environmental impacts than those analyzed in the EIR.
b) The EIR found that buildout of the General Plan would increase demand for water, requiring additional water supplies beyond what was available to the City, would require the extension of water conveyance infrastructure, and could create one or more “cones of depression” beneath City wells, all deemed to be significant and unavoidable impacts.

The Master Plan would contribute toward the need for water supplies, but not to a level above what was considered by the EIR. As such, the proposed project would not introduce new environmental impacts or create more severe environmental impacts than those analyzed in the EIR.
c) The EIR found that buildout of General Plan would substantially increase wastewater flows, requiring additional treatment plant capacity above the current waste discharge volume permitted by the Regional Water Quality Control Board and would require the extension of wastewater collection infrastructure, both determined to be significant and unavoidable impacts.

The Master Plan would contribute toward the need for wastewater infrastructure, but not to a level above that considered in the EIR. Any future development would be reviewed to ensure adequate capacity in the City’s wastewater system. As such, the proposed project would not

7.3.c
Packet Pg. 369 Attachment: Parks MP Addendum (Parks and Recreation Master Plan) Parks and Recreation Master Plan
Initial Study/Addendum
introduce new environmental impacts or create more severe environmental impacts than those analyzed in the EIR.
d–e) The EIR found that buildout of the General Plan would generate additional solid waste, which in turn would exceed the capacity of the landfill serving the City, assuming the same per capita rate of solid waste generation. Based on current assumptions, the current landfill would reach its capacity around 2039. The EIR concluded that this impact would be significant and unavoidable.

As of 2019, the Fink Road Landfill is permitted for 13.3 million cubic yards and has 5.2 million cubic yards of remaining capacity. The facility’s closure date is listed as 2055, at the current rate of solid waste generation. Recent legislation has aimed at diverting solid waste from landfills, which is partially proposed to extend the life of landfills. While no development is considered at this time, future development has the potential to generate additional waste. However, waste generation levels are not anticipated to exceed what is contemplated with buildout of the existing land use designations. As such, the Master Plan would not introduce new environmental impacts or create more severe environmental impacts than those analyzed in the EIR.

Mitigation Measures
NR-2 The 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:
h. Landscape watering timing restrictions;
i. Requirements for water-efficient irrigation equipment for all new private and public development;
j. Enforcement strategies for water waste;
k. Recommendations for water-efficient landscape ordinances; l. Evaluation of and recommendations for water conservation pricing (such as a tiered rates for water users) to encourage efficient use;
m. Strategies for providing individualized water audits for large accounts to identify conservation opportunities;
n. Requirements for water efficiency training and certification for irrigation designers, installers, and property managers operating within the City.

The City has adopted a Water Master Plan. This mitigation measure does not apply to this project.

PS-1 The City shall review and periodically update the City’s Water Master Plan and Urban Water Management Plan consistent with the land use patterns and densities/intensities specified in the General Plan.

This mitigation measure does not apply to this project.

PS-2 The City shall develop and implement a water pipeline replacement and water meter replacement program.

This mitigation measure does not apply to this project.

PS-6 New development shall prepare and implement a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) designed to reduce potential impacts to surface water quality through the

7.3.c
Packet Pg. 370 Attachment: Parks MP Addendum (Parks and Recreation Master Plan) Parks and Recreation Master Plan
Initial Study/Addendum
construction and life of the project whether or not the development site is over one acre. The SWPPP shall include practices to minimize the contact of construction materials, equipment, and maintenance supplies (e.g., fuels, lubricants, paints, solvents, adhesives) with storm water.

The SWPPP shall specify properly designed centralized storage areas that keep these materials out of the rain.

The SWPPP shall specify a monitoring program to be implemented by the construction site supervisor and must include both dry and wet weather inspections. In addition, in accordance with State Water Resources Control Board Resolution No. 2001-046 monitoring would be required during the construction period for pollutants that may be present in the runoff that are “not visually detectable in runoff.”
BMPs designed to reduce erosion of exposed soil may include, but are not limited to, soil stabilization controls, watering for dust control, perimeter silt fences, placement of hay bales, and sediment basins.

All development projects are subject to SWPPP requirements.

PS-7 The City shall require the preparation of Project Stormwater Management Plans (SMP) to be reviewed and approved by the City Engineer for development projects as required by State law.

The SMP shall provide operations and maintenance guidelines for all of the BMPs identified in the SMP, include measures designed to mitigate potential water quality degradation of runoff from all portions of the completed development (including roof and sidewalk runoff), and clearly identify the funding sources for the required ongoing maintenance. The project sponsor or the consultant retained by the sponsor to prepare the SMP shall thoroughly review and comply with the requirements of the most current municipal Phase II General Permit for storm water discharges (Order No. 2003-0005-DWQ). In general, passive, low-maintenance BMPs are preferred.

All development is subject to this requirement.

PS-14 The City shall implement the improvements recommended by the 2010 Wastewater Master Plan as determined by the City Council.

This mitigation measure does not apply to the project.

7.3.c
Packet Pg. 371 Attachment: Parks MP Addendum (Parks and Recreation Master Plan) Parks and Recreation Master Plan
Initial Study/Addendum
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;
iii. The conjunctive management of water resources;
This mitigation measure does not apply to the project.

AR-1 Ensure that development projects are submitted to the District for CEQA comments and review of air quality analysis.

Development projects are subject to this mitigation measure.

AR-2 Train staff planners preparing CEQA documents on how to use the Guide for Assessing and Mitigating Air Quality Impacts guidance manual.

This mitigation measure does not apply to the project.

This mitigation measure does not apply to this project.

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 will be exempted from this restriction. • During construction, mufflers shall be provided for all heavy construction equipment and all stationary noise sources in accordance with the manufacturers’ recommendations.

7.3.c
Packet Pg. 372 Attachment: Parks MP Addendum (Parks and Recreation Master Plan) Parks and Recreation Master Plan
Initial Study/Addendum
• 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 noisereducing engine enclosures (with the goal of achieving approximately 10 dBA of reduction compared to uncontrolled engines).
• Air compressors and pneumatic equipment shall be equipped with mufflers, and impact tools shall 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 shall be erected between the equipment and the sensitive receptor. The fence shall 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.

Development projects are subject to this mitigation measure.

Conclusion
The conclusions from the EIR remain unchanged.

7.3.c
Packet Pg. 373 Attachment: Parks MP Addendum (Parks and Recreation Master Plan) Parks and Recreation Master Plan
Initial Study/Addendum
Environmental Issue
Area
Conclusion in
EIR
Do the Proposed
Changes Involve
New or More
Severe Impacts?
New
Circumstances
Involving New or
More Severe
Impacts?
New Information
Requiring New
Analysis or
Verification?
Mitigation
Measures
XIX. Wildfire
If located in or near State Responsibility Areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones, would the project:
a) Substantially impair an
adopted emergency
response plan or
emergency evacuation
plan?
N/A No No No None
b) Due to slope, prevailing
winds, and other
factors, exacerbate
wildfire risks, and
thereby expose project
occupants to, pollutant
concentrations from a
wildfire or the
uncontrolled spread of a
wildfire?
N/A No No No None
c) Require the installation
or maintenance of
associated
infrastructure (such as
roads, fuel breaks,
emergency water
sources, power lines or
other utilities) that may
exacerbate fire risk or
that may result in
temporary or ongoing
impacts to the
environment?
N/A No No No None
d) Expose people or
structures to significant
risks, including
downslope or
downstream flooding or
landslides, as a result of
runoff, post-fire slope
instability, or drainage
changes?
N/A No No No None

7.3.c
Packet Pg. 374 Attachment: Parks MP Addendum (Parks and Recreation Master Plan) Parks and Recreation Master Plan
Initial Study/Addendum
Discussion
a–d) The EIR did not evaluate wildfire impacts. The Master Plan proposed projects would not be located in an area susceptible to wildfire and, thus, would not require the construction of roads, fuel breaks, emergency water sources, power lines or other utilities for the purpose of fighting fires.

Impacts would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures
None.

Conclusion
The conclusions from the EIR remain unchanged.

7.3.c
Packet Pg. 375 Attachment: Parks MP Addendum (Parks and Recreation Master Plan) Parks and Recreation Master Plan
Initial Study/Addendum
Environmental Issue
Area
Conclusion in
EIR
Do the Proposed
Changes Involve
New or More
Severe Impacts?
New
Circumstances
Involving New or
More Severe
Impacts?
New Information
Requiring New
Analysis or
Verification?
Mitigation
Measures
XX. Mandatory Findings of Significance
Would the project:
a) Does the project have
the potential to
substantially degrade
the quality of the
environment,
substantially reduce the
habitat of a fish or
wildlife species, cause a
fish or wildlife
population to drop
below self-sustaining
levels, threaten to
eliminate a plant or
animal community,
substantially reduce the
number or restrict the
range of a rare or
endangered plant or
animal, or eliminate
important examples of
the major periods of
California history or
prehistory?
Less than
significant
impact with
mitigation
No No No NR-12
b) Does the project have
impacts that are
individually limited, but
cumulatively
considerable?
(“Cumulatively
considerable” means
that the incremental
effects of a project are
considerable when
viewed in connection
with the effects of past
projects, the effects of
other current projects,
and the effects of
probable future
projects)?
Significant
and
unavoidable
No No No None

7.3.c
Packet Pg. 376 Attachment: Parks MP Addendum (Parks and Recreation Master Plan) Parks and Recreation Master Plan
Initial Study/Addendum
Environmental Issue
Area
Conclusion in
EIR
Do the Proposed
Changes Involve
New or More
Severe Impacts?
New
Circumstances
Involving New or
More Severe
Impacts?
New Information
Requiring New
Analysis or
Verification?
Mitigation
Measures
c) Does the project have
environmental effects,
which will cause
substantial adverse
effects on human
beings, either directly or
indirectly?
Less than
significant
impact
No No No None
Discussion
a) As discussed in the Biological Resources section, the EIR found that buildout of the General Plan may result in potentially significant impacts to several special-status species, including Swainson’s hawk, San Joaquin kit fox, western burrowing owl, western pond turtle, and nesting birds. The EIR set forth NR-12 that require pre-construction surveys, in locations that may adversely affect special status species. The EIR concluded that impacts would be significant and unavoidable.

The Master Plan does not include any development at this time. New projects do have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, but no new or additional impacts are anticipated beyond what was addressed by the EIR. Mitigation Measures would be applied as appropriate. The proposed project would not introduce new environmental impacts or create more severe environmental impacts than those analyzed in the EIR. b) Cumulatively considerable impacts have been addressed in the Air Quality, Biological Resources, Hydrology and Water Quality, Population and Housing, and Noise sections.

As discussed, the Master Plan would not result in new or more severe impacts than previously disclosed in the EIR. As such, no new or more severe cumulative impacts would occur. c) Impacts have been addressed in previous sections.

As discussed, the Master Plan would not result in new or more severe impacts than previously disclosed in the EIR. As such, no new or more severe substantial adverse impacts on human beings would occur.

Mitigation Measures
Refer to the Biological Resources section.

Conclusion
The conclusions from the EIR remain unchanged.

7.3.c
Packet Pg. 377 Attachment: Parks MP Addendum (Parks and Recreation Master Plan) City Council Agenda Report
TO: Mayor Clauzel and Members of the City Council
FROM: Ken Irwin, City Manager
BY: Nubia Goldstein, City Attorney
MEETING DATE: December 5, 2023
ITEM NO: 8.1
SUBJECT: Consider adoption of Resolution No. 2023-51 regarding the use of Zoom during City Council meetings, limiting Zoom participation to City of Patterson staff and consultants attending a City Council meeting remotely, but prohibiting public comment via Zoom unless a City Council member is participating in the meeting via Zoom.

RECOMMENDATION
Motion to Consider Adoption of Resolution No. 2023-51 regarding the use of Zoom during City Council meetings, limiting Zoom participation to City of Patterson staff and consultants attending a City Council meeting remotely, but prohibiting public comment via Zoom unless a City Council member is participating in the meeting via Zoom.

BACKGROUND
In recent months there have been instances of members of the public anonymously interrupting city council meetings throughout the region through virtual attendance platforms such as Zoom.

The City Council considered this item at the October 17, 2023 City Council meeting and voted to temporarily suspend the use of zoom for public comments and directed staff to bring this item back for the City Council’s consideration at the December 5, 2023 meeting. Before the temporary suspension, the City of Patterson (“City”) allowed public participation in City Council meetings via Zoom at all City Council meetings, whether a City Council member is attending the City Council meeting remotely or not.

DISCUSSION:

Following the October 17th meeting, staff has researched the approach taken by other

8.1 Packet Pg. 378
municipalities around the state following the “zoom bombing” events. From fifty (50) cities that have considered this matter, more than half have suspended public comments via zoom altogether while other cities have elected to keep their zoom protocols in place. Other cities are still considering all options, and some have modified their public comment protocols to allow remote public comment for items that are public hearings while not allowing non-agenda public comments via zoom.

The Brown Act is California’s statutory “open meetings” requirement, focused on providing transparency at the local government level. The Brown Act requires, among other obligations, that “legislative bodies,” a category that encompasses city councils, include in “[e]very agenda for regular meetings…an opportunity for members of the public to directly address the legislative body on any item of interest to the public, before or during the legislative body’s consideration of the item, that is within the subject matter jurisdiction of the legislative body,” as well as an opportunity to comment during special meetings.

The Brown Act also requires that all regular and special meetings be held in the physical presence of the public, with limited exceptions. During the height of the Covid-19 pandemic, AB 361 allowed for meetings to be held entirely virtually. Under the provisions of AB 361, virtual meetings were required to permit live public comment via the internet. AB 361 became inactive in February of 2023 when the State of Emergency associated with the Covid-19 pandemic expired. Since the expiration of AB 361, City Council members have only been allowed to participate in meetings virtually under certain circumstances,. When a member of the City Council teleconferences into a meeting, the opportunity for public comment must also be available virtually.

At a meeting that all City Council members participate in-person, there is no requirement that members of the public be allowed to comment virtually. The Brown Act requires merely that the public be permitted to directly address the City Council, and notes that the “legislative body…may adopt reasonable regulations” for streamlining public comment.

Gov. Code, § 54954.3.

Gov. Code, § 54953.

Gov. Code, § 54953(e)(1).

Ibid.

Gov. Code, §§ 54953(b), (e).

Gov. Code, §§ 54953(e), (f).

Gov. Code, § 54954.3.

FISCAL IMPACT
N/A
POLICY ALTERNATIVES:

The Council’s Options are:

1. Adopt the Resolution without any changes;

8.1 Packet Pg. 379

2. Adopt the Resolution with changes and revisions ; or

3. Reject the Resolution entirely.

8.1 Packet Pg. 380
{CW133493.1} Page 1 of 2
RESOLUTION NO. 2023-51

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PATTERSON

ESTABLISHING GUIDELINES FOR USE OF ZOOM OR OTHER SIMILAR

REMOTE MEETING ATTENDANCE PLATFORMS AT CITY COUNCIL

MEETINGS
WHEREAS, the City of Patterson (“City”) is committed to ensuring that City Council meetings are conducted in an efficient and impartial manner; and WHEREAS, disruption of City Council meetings using Zoom and other similar remote meeting attendance platforms has been an increasing concern for cities across the state; and WHEREAS, the City Council wishes to establish guidelines regarding the use of Zoom or other similar remote meeting attendance platform during City Council meetings; and WHEREAS, the guidelines would limit use Zoom or similar remote meeting attendance platform to City staff and consultants attending a City Council meeting remotely while limiting public comment being provided remotely to the occasions that a City Council member is attending a meeting remotely; and
WHEREAS, the City Council desires to adopt clear guidelines for the public, City staff and consultants, and the City Council related to the use of Zoom or other similar remote meeting attendance software to ensure that City business can be conducted efficiently and fairly.

NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the City of Patterson City Council does hereby adopts the following procedures related to the use of Zoom or other similar remote meeting attendance platforms:

Section 1. City Staff and Consultant Participation in City Council meetings via Remote Meeting Attendance Platform. City staff and consultants shall be allowed to attend and participate in all City Council meetings via a remote meeting attendance platform such as Zoom, upon approval of such participation by the City Administrator.

Section 2. Public Comment at City Council Meetings via Remote Attendance Platform.

Public comment at City Council meetings shall not be provided via a remote meeting attendance platform such as Zoom, unless a City Council member is attending the City Council meeting via a remote attendance platform such as Zoom in compliance with Government Code section 54953.

In the event a Zoom link or other remote meeting attendance platform such as Zoom is being used during a City Council meeting by City staff or consultants, the public may attend and view the City Council meeting via Zoom or other remote meeting attendance platform the City relies upon.

The foregoing resolution was introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Patterson, held on the 5
th day of December 2023 by , who moved its adoption,
which motion was duly seconded by and the resolution adopted by the following roll call vote:

8.1.a
Packet Pg. 381 Attachment: Resolution No. 2023-51 GUIDELINES FOR TELECONFERENCE USAGE (Discussion regarding use of Zoom for City Council {CW133493.1} Page 2 of 2
AYES:

NOES:

EXCUSED:

APPROVED:
____
Michael Clauzel
Mayor of the City of Patterson
ATTEST:
_______________________________
Aracely Alegre
City Clerk of the City of Patterson
I hereby certify that the foregoing is a full, correct and true copy of a resolution passed by the City Council of the City of Patterson, a Municipal Corporation of the County of Stanislaus, State of California, at a regular meeting held on the 5
th day of December 2023, and I further certify that
said resolution is in full force and effect and has never been rescinded or modified.

DATED:
______________________________________
City Clerk of the City of Patterson

8.1.a
Packet Pg. 382 Attachment: Resolution No. 2023-51 GUIDELINES FOR TELECONFERENCE USAGE (Discussion regarding use of Zoom for City Council

Patterson City CouncilDecember 5, 2023

Patterson City Council
December 5, 2023