Parks MP Addendum — Patterson City Council, December 5, 2023

City of Patterson—Parks and Recreation Master Plan
Initial Study/Addendum Introduction
Introduction
This Addendum, checklist, and attached supporting documents have been prepared to determine whether and to what extent the 2010 City of Patterson General Plan Environmental Impact Report (EIR) (State Clearinghouse [SCH] No. 2010022035) prepared for the City of Patterson remains sufficient to address the potential impacts of the proposed Parks and Recreation Master Plan (Master Plan), or whether additional documentation is required under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (Public Resources Code [PRC] § 21000, et seq.).

Initial Study/Environmental Checklist
Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21166, and CEQA Guidelines Sections 15162 and 15164, subd. (a), the attached initial study/checklist has been prepared to evaluate the proposed project.

The attached initial study/checklist uses the standard environmental checklist categories provided in the 2019 Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines but provides answer columns for evaluation consistent with the considerations listed under CEQA Guidelines Section 15162, subd. (a).

Environmental Analysis and Conclusions
CEQA Guidelines Section 15164, subd. (a) provides that the lead agency or a responsible agency shall prepare an addendum to a previously certified Environmental Impact Report, Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) or Negative Declaration (ND) if some changes or additions are necessary but none of the conditions described in CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 calling for preparation of a subsequent EIR or ND have occurred (CEQA Guidelines § 15164, subd. (a)).

An addendum need not be circulated for public review but can be included in or attached to the Final EIR or ND (CEQA Guidelines § 15164, subd. (c)). The decision-making body shall consider the addendum with the Final EIR and MND prior to making a decision on the project (CEQA Guidelines § 15164, subd. (d)). An agency must also include a brief explanation of the decision not to prepare a subsequent EIR or ND pursuant to Section 15162 (CEQA Guidelines § 15164, subd. (e)).

Consequently, once an EIR has been certified or ND has been adopted for a project, no subsequent EIR or ND is required under CEQA unless, based on substantial evidence:
1) Substantial changes are proposed in the project which will require major revisions of the previous EIR or ND . . . due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects; 1 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 ND . . . 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 ND was adopted. . . shows any of the following:
1 CEQA Guidelines Section 15382 defines “significant effect on the environment” as “ . . . a substantial, or potentially substantial adverse change in any of the physical conditions within the area affected by the project, including land, air, water, minerals, flora, fauna, ambient noise, and objects of historic or aesthetic significance . . .” (see also PRC § 21068).

City of Patterson—Parks and Recreation Master Plan
Initial Study/Addendum Introduction
a. The project will have one or more significant effects not discussed in the previous EIR or ND or negative declaration;
b. Significant effects previously examined will be substantially more severe than shown in the previous EIR or ND;
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 or ND would substantially reduce one or more significant effects on the environment, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative (CEQA Guidelines § 15162, subd. (a); see also PRC § 21166).

This addendum, checklist, and attached documents constitute substantial evidence supporting the conclusion that preparation of a supplemental or subsequent EIR or ND is not required prior to approval of the above-referenced permits by responsible and trustee agencies and provides the required documentation under CEQA.

This addendum addresses the conclusions of the General Plan EIR.

Background and Issues 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 location and recreational priorities for parks and recreation 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 Parks and Recreation Master Plan (Master Plan) to address parks and recreation considerations as the city grows as envisioned in the General Plan. Specifically, the Master Plan builds on the goals and objectives contained in the Parks, Recreation and Cultural Resources Element of the 2010 General Plan and directly implements the General Plan policies and implementation measures cited below. 2010 Patterson General Plan
Parks, Recreation and Cultural Resources – Implementation Measures PR-1 The City shall maintain and update a Park and Recreation Facility Master Plan that establishes goals, policies, and standards for the location, size and level of development of all existing and proposed parks.

The Master Plan includes locational standards for parks, preferred sites, improvement and equipment standards, development priorities, financing mechanisms, consideration of community activity centers, sports facilities, and joint use facilities. The Plan also includes opinions of probable cost for new and upgraded facilities and documentation regarding existing conditions, facilities, studies, and regulations. The Master Plan includes a comprehensive review of the City’s parks and recreation facilities to identify improvements and expansions that are required to accommodate future growth anticipated by the General Plan and analyzed in the General Plan EIR.

City of Patterson—Parks and Recreation Master Plan
Initial Study/Addendum Introduction
Findings
There are no substantial changes proposed by the Master Plan or in the circumstances in which the project will be undertaken that require major revisions of the City of Patterson General Plan EIR. The proposed revisions do not require preparation of a new subsequent or supplemental EIR or MND, due to either the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects. As illustrated herein, the project is consistent with the previous EIR and would involve only minor changes; therefore, an Addendum is appropriate CEQA compliance for the proposed project.

There are/are no substantial changes proposed by the Master Plan or in the circumstances in which the project will be undertaken that require major revisions of the Final EIR, or preparation of a new subsequent or supplemental EIR or MND, due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects. As illustrated herein, the project is consistent with the Final EIR, and would involve only minor changes.

Conclusions
The General Plan contains policies and implementation measures that specifically call out the need for the Master Plan. The Master Plan 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.

The City of Patterson may adopt the Parks and Recreation Master Plan based on this Addendum. The impacts of the proposed project remain within the impacts previously analyzed in the City of Patterson General Plan EIR (CEQA Guidelines § 15164).

Parks and Recreation Master Plan
Initial Study/Addendum
CEQA Checklist
The purpose of the checklist is to evaluate the categories in terms of any changed condition (e.g., changed circumstances, project changes, or new information of substantial importance) that may result in a changed environmental result (e.g., a new significant impact or substantial increase in the severity of a previously identified significant effect) (CEQA Guidelines § 15162).

The questions posed in the checklist come from the 2019 Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines. A “no” answer does not necessarily mean that there are no potential impacts relative to the environmental category, but that there is no change in the condition or status of the impact since it was analyzed and addressed with mitigation measures in the Final EIR or MND. These environmental categories might be answered with a “no” in the checklist, since the proposed project does not introduce changes that would result in a modification to the conclusion of the previously approved CEQA document.

This addendum addresses the conclusions of the City of Patterson General Plan EIR.

Explanation of Checklist Evaluation Categories
(1) Conclusion in City of Patterson General Plan EIR and Related Documents This column summarizes the conclusion of the City of Patterson General Plan EIR relative to the environmental issue listed under each topic.
(2) Do the Proposed Changes Involve New Impacts?
Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15162, subd. (a)(1), this column indicates whether the changes represented by the revised project will result in new significant environmental impacts not previously identified or mitigated by the City of Patterson General Plan EIR or whether the changes will result in a substantial increase in the severity of a previously identified significant impact. (3) New Circumstances Involving New Impacts?
Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15162, subd. (a)(2), this column indicates whether there have been substantial changes with respect to the circumstances under which the project is undertaken that will require major revisions to the City of Patterson General Plan EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects.
(4) New Information Requiring New Analysis or Verification? Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15162, subd. (a)(3)(A–D), this column indicates whether 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 City of Patterson General Plan EIR was certified, shows any of the following:

Parks and Recreation Master Plan
Initial Study/Addendum
(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.

If the additional analysis completed as part of this environmental review were to find that the conclusions of the City of Patterson General Plan EIR remain the same and no new significant impacts are identified, or identified impacts are not found to be substantially more severe, or additional mitigation is not necessary, then the question would be answered “no” and no additional environmental document would be required.
(5) Mitigation Measures Implemented or Address Impacts
Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15162, subd. (a)(3), this column indicates whether the City of Patterson General Plan EIR provides mitigation measures to address effects in the related impact category. Any previously adopted mitigation measures will be identified on the checklist; however, not all identified mitigation measures will be applicable to the proposed project.

Mitigation measures that are not applicable to the proposed project will be identified. The response will also address proposed revisions to previously adopted mitigation measures. These mitigation measures will be implemented with the construction of the project, as applicable. If “NA” is indicated, the Final EIR has concluded that the impact either does not occur with this Project or is not significant, and therefore no additional mitigation measures are needed.

Discussion and Mitigation Sections
(1) Discussion
A discussion of the elements of the checklist is provided under each environmental category in order to clarify the answers. The discussion provides information about the particular environmental issue, how the project relates to the issue, and the status of any mitigation that may be required or that has already been implemented.
(2) Mitigation Measures
Applicable mitigation measures from the General Plan EIR that apply to the project are listed under each environmental category.

Parks and Recreation Master Plan
Initial Study/Addendum
(3) Conclusions
A discussion of the conclusion relating to the analysis is contained in each section.

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
I. Aesthetics, Light, and Glare
Except as provided in Public Resources Code Section 21099, would the project:
a) Have a substantial
adverse effect on a
scenic vista?
Significant
and
Unavoidable
No No No CD-1
b) Substantially damage
scenic resources,
including, but not
limited to, trees, rock
outcroppings, and
historic building within a
State Scenic Highway?
Less than
significant
impact
No No No None
c) In non-urbanized areas,
substantially degrade
the existing visual
character or quality of
public views of the site
and its surroundings?
(Public views are those
that are experienced
from publicly accessible
vantage point). If the
project is in an
urbanized area, would
the project conflict with
applicable zoning and
other regulations
governing scenic
quality?
Less than
significant
impact
No No No None
d) Create a new source of
substantial light or glare
which would adversely
affect day or nighttime
views in the area?
Significant
and
Unavoidable
No No No None
Discussion
a) The EIR found that buildout of the City of Patterson General Plan would have a substantial adverse effect on scenic vistas from Interstate 5 (a State Designated Scenic Highway), and will substantially affect scenic resources and degrade the scenic qualities within the Study Area within the growth boundaries. lines. The EIR noted that the impacts would be significant and unavoidable. The EIR Parks and Recreation Master Plan
Initial Study/Addendum
included mitigation measure CD-1 “The City shall implement the Community Design Guidelines and Downtown Physical Design Plan.”
The Master Plan includes guidance for timing, size, and general location of parks and recreation facilities to accommodate growth identified in the General Plan. The Master Plan would not alter assumptions in the EIR regarding the potential for adverse impacts to identified scenic vistas. b) The Master Plan does not contemplate damage to scenic resources. No impact is anticipated as a result of the Master Plan.
c) The project will continue to be subject to the City’s community design guidelines and would not significantly impact scenic quality.
d) The EIR found that buildout of the General Plan area would introduce new sources of lighting but noted that full cutoff fixtures or shielding would prevent light trespass on to adjacent properties.

While development consistent with the Master Plan would introduce new sources of light, these impacts are considered in the General Plan. Development consistent with the Master Plan would be subject to requirements requiring cutoff fixtures or shielding to prevent glare. No additional impacts are anticipated.

Mitigation Measures
None.

Conclusion
The conclusions from the EIR remain unchanged.

The Master Plan identifies several properties currently designated as Prime or Unique Farmland or Farmland of Statewide Importance for development as park space or other recreational uses. Such development is contemplated in the General Plan and would not introduce new environmental impacts or create more severe environmental impacts than those analyzed in the EIR. b) The EIR did not evaluate conflicts with agricultural zoning or Williamson Act contract. Development consistent with the development plan would be consistent with the general plan land use designations and would require that any land under a Williamson Act contract, be removed from such contract prior to development. 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 did not evaluate conflicts with forest zoning. There is no forest zoning in or around the City of Patterson General Plan area. No conflicts would occur. As such, the Master Plan would not introduce new environmental impacts or create more severe environmental impacts than those analyzed in the EIR.
d) The EIR did not evaluate conversion of forestland to non-forest use. No forestland exists in or around the City of Patterson General Plan area. No conflicts would occur. As such, the Master Plan would not introduce new environmental impacts or create more severe environmental impacts than those analyzed in the EIR.
e) The Master Plan does not contemplate changes of use inconsistent with 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.

Parks and Recreation Master Plan
Initial Study/Addendum
Mitigation Measures
None
Conclusion
The conclusions from the EIR remain unchanged.

Would the project:
a) Conflict with or obstruct
implementation of the
applicable air quality
plan?
Less than
significant
No No No None
b) Result in a cumulatively
considerable net
increase of any criteria
pollutant for which the
project region is nonattainment under an
applicable federal or
state ambient air quality
standard?
Significant
and
unavoidable
and
cumulatively
considerable
No No No AR-1 and
AR-2
c) Expose sensitive
receptors to substantial
pollutant
concentrations?
Significant
and
unavoidable
No No No AR-1 and
AR-2
d) Result in other
emissions (such as those
leading to odors or)
adversely affecting a
substantial number of
people?
Less than
significant
No No No None
Discussion
a–b) The EIR found that buildout of the General Plan would generate construction and operation emissions that would exceed San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (Valley Air District) thresholds for ozone precursors and particulate matter. The EIR set forth AR-1 and AR-2 that require review of development projects related to air quality standards. Because the emissions control measures do not reduce project emissions to below Valley Air District thresholds, the EIR concluded that impacts would be significant and unavoidable.

Implementation of the Master Plan would result in construction and operation emissions, but not to an extent that impacts would be generated above that considered in the General Plan. Any projects would be subject to AR-1 and AR-2. The Master Plan would not introduce new Parks and Recreation Master Plan
Initial Study/Addendum
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 result in emissions of Toxic Air Contaminants during construction and operation that may expose nearby sensitive receptors to unhealthful levels of pollution. The EIR set forth AR-1 and AR-2 to review and mitigate potential development issues.

The EIR concluded that these impacts would be significant and unavoidable.

The Master Plan proposes development consistent with the General Plan. While construction and operation may result in emissions of Toxic Air Contaminants that may expose nearby sensitive receptors to unhealthful levels of pollution, such impacts are considered by the EIR. Any proposed development would be reviewed consistent with the mitigation requirements. The 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 would not generate significant new objectionable odors. The Master Plan does not contemplate projects that would be expected to generate new obbjectionable odors. 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
AR-1 The City will ensure that development projects are submitted to the District for CEQA comments and review of air quality analysis.

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

Conclusion
The conclusions from the EIR remain unchanged.

Fish and Wildlife
Service?
Significant
and
unavoidable
and
cumulatively
considerable
No No No NR-12
b) Have a substantial
adverse effect on any
riparian habitat or other
sensitive natural
community identified in
local or regional plans,
policies, and regulations
or by the California
Department of Fish and
Game or U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service?
Less than
significant
impact with
mitigation
No No No NR-12
c) Have a substantial
adverse effect on state
or federally protected
wetlands (including, but
not limited to, marsh,
vernal pool, coastal,
etc.) through direct
removal, filling,
hydrological
interruption, or other
means?
Less than
significant
impact with
mitigation
No No No NR-12
d) Interfere substantially
with the movement of
any native resident or
migratory fish or wildlife
species or with
established native
Less than
significant
impact
No No No None
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
resident or migratory
wildlife corridors, or
impede the use of
wildlife nursery sites?
e) Conflict with any local
policies or ordinances
protecting biological
resources, such as a tree
preservation policy or
ordinance?
N/A No No No None
f) Conflict with the
provisions of an
adopted Habitat
Conservation Plan,
Natural Community
Conservation Plan, or
other approved local,
regional, or state habitat
conservation plan?
N/A No No No None
Discussion
a) 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 contemplate development not already considered by the EIR. No new or additional impacts would be created for special-status species that have not already been considered in the EIR. 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 the development of a wastewater treatment facility had the potential to impact riparian habitat. The EIR set forth NR-12, which requires establishment of a 100-foot setback around the riparian habitat. The EIR concluded that impacts would be less than significant.

The Master Plan does not involve the development of a wastewater treatment facility and, therefore, NR-13 does not apply to the project. As such, the proposed project would not introduce new environmental impacts or create more severe environmental impacts than those analyzed in the EIR.

Parks and Recreation Master Plan
Initial Study/Addendum
c) The EIR found that development activities associated with buildout of the general Plan had the potential to impact wetland environments. The EIR set forth NR-12 to reduce impacts to a less than significant level.

The Master Plan contemplates potential for trails near wetland areas, which would be well within impacts 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. d) The EIR found that buildout of the General Plan may impact movement of migratory species, but not to a level of significance. The proposed project does not consider development inconsistent with the General Plan and would not create new impacts to migratory species. The proposed project would not introduce new environmental impacts or create more severe environmental impacts than those analyzed in the EIR.
e) The EIR did not evaluate conflicts with local biological ordinances. The City of Patterson does not have a sensitive naturally occurring tree preservation policy, so no conflict would occur. f) The EIR did not evaluate conflicts with conservation plans. The project site is not located within the boundaries of an adopted habitat conservation plan. No conflicts would occur.

Conclusion
The conclusions from the EIR remain unchanged.

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
V. Cultural and Tribal Cultural Resources
Would the project:
a) Cause a substantial
adverse change in the
significance of a
historical resource as
pursuant to Section
15064.5?
Less than
significant
impact
No No No PR-8
b) Cause a substantial
adverse change in the
significance of an
archaeological resource
pursuant to Section
15064.5?
Less than
significant
impact
No No No PR-8
c) Disturb any human
remains, including those
interred outside of
formal cemeteries?
Less than
significant
impact
No No No PR-8
Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code section 21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and that is:
d) Listed or eligible for
listing in the California
Register of Historical
Resources, or in a local
register of historical
resources as defined in
Public Resources Code
Section 5020.1(k), or
No impact No No No None
e) A resource determined
by the lead agency, in its
discretion and
supported by
substantial evidence, to
be significant pursuant
to criteria set forth in
subdivision (c) of Public
Resources Code Section
5024.1. In applying the
criteria set forth in
subdivision (c) of Public
Resource Code Section
No impact No No No None
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.

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.

Mitigation Measures
None.

Conclusion
The conclusions from the EIR remain unchanged.

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
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 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.

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.

Mitigation Measures
None.

Conclusion
The conclusions from the EIR remain unchanged.

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
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.

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.

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
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 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.

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.

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 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.

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.

Parks and Recreation Master Plan
Initial Study/Addendum
Mitigation Measures
None.

Conclusion
The conclusions from the EIR remain unchanged.

Mitigation Measures
None.

Conclusion
The conclusions from the EIR remain unchanged.

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:

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.

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.

Parks and Recreation Master Plan
Initial Study/Addendum
Mitigation Measures
None
Conclusion
The conclusions from the EIR remain unchanged.

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 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.

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.

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 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.) 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.

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.

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
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 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 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.

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.

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.

Impacts would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures
None.

Conclusion
The conclusions from the EIR remain unchanged.

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
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.

Patterson City CouncilDecember 5, 2023

Patterson City Council
December 5, 2023