CEQA FINDINGS
6 CEQA Findings – Riverwalk Specific Plan
The comments received after the release of the Draft EIR did not provide evidence of any “significant new information” that would require recirculation of the Draft EIR pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5.
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AND CUSTODIAN OF RECORD
For purposes of CEQA and the findings set forth herein, the record of proceedings for the City’s findings and determinations consists of the following documents and testimony, at a minimum:
• The NOP, comments received on the NOP, and all other public notices issued by the City in relation to the Project (e.g., NOA).
• The Draft EIR and Final EIR, including comment letters, and technical materials cited in the documents.
• All non-draft and/or non-confidential reports and memoranda prepared by the City and consultants in relation to the EIR.
• Minutes and/or transcripts of the discussions regarding the Project and/or Project components at public hearings held by the City.
• Staff reports associated with Planning Commission and City Council meetings on the Project. • All other materials, in addition to those described above, must be included in a CEQA record of proceedings as set forth in PRC § 21167.6(e).
The City Clerk is the custodian of the administrative record. The documents and materials that constitute the administrative record are available for review at the City of Riverbank Planning Division, 6617 3rd St, Riverbank, CA 95367. Some of these materials may also be viewed online at:
https://www.riverbank.org/609/River-Walk-Project
Public Resources Code Section 21002 provides that “public agencies should not approve projects as proposed if there are feasible alternatives or feasible mitigation measures available which would substantially lessen the significant environmental effects of such projects[.]” Further, the procedures required by CEQA “are intended to assist public agencies in systematically identifying both the significant effects of proposed projects and the feasible alternatives or feasible mitigation measures which will avoid or substantially lessen such significant effects.” (Id.) Section 21002 also provides that “in the event specific economic, social, or other conditions make infeasible such project alternatives or such mitigation measures, individual projects may be approved in spite of one or more significant effects thereof.”
The mandate and principles established by the Legislature in PRC § 21002 are implemented, in part, through the requirement in PRC Section 21081 that agencies must adopt findings before approving projects for which an EIR is required. This same requirement is also set forth in CEQA Guidelines Section 15091. Subdivision (a) of the latter provides the following direction regarding findings:
(a) No public agency shall approve or carry out a project for which an EIR has been certified which identifies one or more significant environmental effects of the project unless the public agency makes one or more written findings for each of those significant effects,
CEQA FINDINGS
CEQA Findings – Riverwalk Specific Plan 7
accompanied by a brief explanation of the rationale for each finding. The possible findings are:
(1) Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the final EIR.
(2) Such changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency and not the agency making the finding. Such changes have been adopted by such other agencies or can and should be adopted by such other agency.
(3) Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers, make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the final EIR.
(See also PRC, § 21081, subd. (a)(1)-(3).)
As defined by CEQA, “feasible” means capable of being accomplished in a successful manner within a reasonable period of time, taking into account economic, environmental, social, legal, and technological factors. (PRC, § 21061.1; see also CEQA Guidelines, § 15126.6(f)(1) [determining the feasibility of alternatives] and § 15364.)
Regarding project alternatives, “[t]he issue of feasibility arises at two different junctures: (1) in the assessment of alternatives in the EIR and (2) during the agency’s later consideration of whether to approve the project.” (California Native Plant Society v. City of Santa Cruz (2009) 177 Cal. App. 4th 957, 981 (CNPS), citing Mira Mar Mobile Community v. City of Oceanside (2004) 119 Cal.App.4th 477, 489 (Mira Mar).) “But ‘differing factors come into play at each stage.’” (CNPS, supra, 177 Cal.App.4th at p. 981.) “For the first phase—inclusion in the EIR—the standard is whether the alternative is potentially feasible.” (CNPS, supra, 177 Cal.App.4th at p. 981, citing Mira Mar, supra, 119 Cal.App.4th at p. 489 [italics original]; CEQA Guidelines, § 15126.6, subd. (a).) “By contrast, at the second phase—the final decision on project approval—the decision-making body evaluates whether the alternatives are actually feasible.” (CNPS, supra, 177 Cal.App.4th at p. 981 [italics original], citing CEQA Guidelines, § 15091, subd. (a)(3).) “At that juncture, the decisionmakers may reject as infeasible alternatives that were identified in the EIR as potentially feasible.” (CNPS, supra, 177 Cal.App.4th at p. 981, citing Mira Mar, supra, 119 Cal.App.4th at p. 489.) “While it is up to the EIR preparer to identify alternatives as potentially feasible, the decision making body ‘may or may not reject those alternatives as being infeasible’ when it comes to project approval.” (CNPS, supra, 177 Cal.App.4th at p. 999, quoting Sierra Club v. County of Napa (2004) 121 Cal.App.4th 1490, 1504 (Sierra Club.) “Rejection by the decision makers does not undermine the validity of the EIR’s alternatives analysis.” (CNPS, supra, 177 Cal.App.4th at p. 999, citing Mira Mar, supra, 119 Cal.App.4th at p. 489.) “Like mitigation measures, potentially feasible alternatives ‘are suggestions which may or may not be adopted by the decisionmakers.’” (CNPS, supra, 177
CEQA FINDINGS
8 CEQA Findings – Riverwalk Specific Plan
Cal.App.4th at p. 999, quoting No Slo Transit, Inc. v. City of Long Beach (1987) 197 Cal.App.3d 241, 256.)
“When it comes time to decide on project approval, the public agency’s decision making body evaluates whether the alternatives are actually feasible.” (CNPS, supra, 177 Cal.App.4th at p. 999, citing Mira Mar, supra, 119 Cal.App.4th at p. 489, and CEQA Guidelines, § 15091, subd. (a)(3) [original italics].) “While staff may draft the necessary findings, the decision making body is responsible for the ultimate determination of feasibility, which cannot be delegated.” (CNPS, supra, 177 Cal.App.4th at p. 999, citing CEQA Guidelines, §§ 15025, subd. (b)(2), § 15091, subd. (a)(3).) “At this final stage of project approval, the agency considers whether ‘[s]pecific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations ... make infeasible the mitigation measures or alternatives identified in the environmental impact report.’” (CNPS, supra, 177 Cal.App.4th at p. 1000, citing Pub.
Resources Code, § 21081, subd. (a)(3).) “Broader considerations of policy thus come into play when the decision-making body is considering actual feasibility than when the EIR preparer is assessing potential feasibility of the alternatives.” (CNPS, supra, 177 Cal.App.4th at p. 1000.) Thus, “it does not subvert the CEQA environmental review process for the ultimate decision maker to reject as infeasible alternatives identified in the EIR.” (Ibid.) At the decision-making stage, “‘feasibility’ under CEQA encompasses ‘desirability’ to the extent that desirability is based on a reasonable balancing of the relevant economic, environmental, social, and technological factors." (City of Del Mar v. City of San Diego, supra, 133 Cal.App.3d at p. 417; CNPS, supra, 177 Cal.App.4th at p. 1001; San Diego Citizenry Group v. County of San Diego, supra, 219 Cal.App.4th at p. 17.) The concept of “feasibility” also encompasses the question of whether a particular alternative promotes the underlying goals and objectives of a project or does so well as a proposed project does. (See Sierra Club, supra, 121 Cal.App.4th at pp. 1506-1509 [upholding CEQA findings rejecting alternatives in reliance on applicant’s project objectives]; CNPS, supra, 177 Cal.App.4th at p. 1001 [“an alternative ‘may be found infeasible on the ground it is inconsistent with the project objectives as long as the finding is supported by substantial evidence in the record’”], quoting Kostka & Zischke, Practice Under the Cal. Environmental Quality Act [Cont.Ed.Bar 2d ed. 2009], § 17.30, p. 825); Citizens for Open Government v. City of Lodi (2012) 205 Cal.App.4th 296, 314-315 [court upholds lead agency decision not to select the “reduced project size alternative” because “it would not ‘entirely fulfill’ the project objective of developing a project site with a regional shopping center, [and] it would be ‘substantially less effective’ than the proposed project in fulfilling unmet retail demands, enhancing the city's fiscal resources through sales and property taxes, creating new jobs, or reversing retail sales leakage”]; In re Bay-Delta Programmatic Environmental Impact Report Coordinated Proceedings (2008) 43 Cal.4th 1143, 1165, 1166 (BayDelta) [“a lead agency may structure its EIR alternative analysis around a reasonable definition of underlying purpose and need not study alternatives that cannot achieve that basic goal”]; and Sequoyah Hills Homeowners Assn. v. City of Oakland (1993) 23 Cal.App.4th 704, 715 (Sequoyah Hills) [court upholds finding rejecting lower density housing alternative as infeasible, citing city council’s conclusion that the fact that “‘the houses would be necessarily more expensive than those of the proposed project’ and would defeat the project objective of providing the ‘the least expensive single-family housing for the vicinity’”].)
CEQA FINDINGS
CEQA Findings – Riverwalk Specific Plan 9
In addition, a proposed alternative may also be found to be legally infeasible. (Sequoyah Hills, supra, 23 Cal.App.4th at p. 715 [proposed reduced housing alternative would have violated Government Code Section 65589.5, the Housing Accountability Act].) Moreover, an alternative may also be determined to be economically infeasible. To demonstrate this kind of infeasibility, lead agency decisionmakers must identify substantial evidence showing that “the marginal costs of the alternative as compared to the cost of the proposed project are so great that a reasonably prudent property owner would not proceed with the [alternative].” (Uphold Our Heritage v. Town of Woodside (2007) 147 Cal.App.4th 587, 600; see also San Franciscans Upholding the Downtown Plan v. City and County of San Francisco (2002) 102 Cal.App.4th 656, 693-694.) With respect to a project for which significant impacts cannot be feasibly avoided or substantially lessened, a public agency decision-making body may nevertheless approve the project if the body first adopts a statement of overriding considerations setting forth the specific reasons why the body believes that the project’s benefits outweigh its significant unavoidable adverse environmental effects. (Pub. Resources Code, §§ 21001, 21002.1(c), 21081(b).) CEQA Guidelines Section 15093 provides the following direction regarding a statement of overriding considerations:
(a) CEQA requires the decision-making agency to balance, as applicable, the economic, legal, social, technological, or other benefits, including region-wide or statewide environmental benefits, of a proposed project against its unavoidable environmental risks when determining whether to approve the project. If the specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other benefits, including region-wide or statewide environmental benefits, of a proposed project outweigh the unavoidable adverse environmental effects, the adverse environmental effects may be considered “acceptable.”
(b) When the lead agency approves a project which will result in the occurrence of significant effects which are identified in the final EIR but are not avoided or substantially lessened, the agency shall state in writing the specific reasons to support its action based on the final EIR and/or other information in the record. The statement of overriding considerations shall be supported by substantial evidence in the record. (c) If an agency makes a statement of overriding considerations, the statement should be included in the record of the project approval and should be mentioned in the notice of determination. This statement does not substitute for, and shall be in addition to, findings required pursuant to Section 15091.
MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM
A Mitigation Monitoring Program has been prepared for the Project and, if the Project is approved, will be adopted concurrently with these Findings. (See PRC, § 21081.6, subd. (a)(1).) The City will use the Mitigation Monitoring Program to track compliance with Project mitigation measures.
FINDINGS’ RELIANCE ON ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT AS SUPPORTING EVIDENCE
CEQA FINDINGS
10 CEQA Findings – Riverwalk Specific Plan
In adopting these Findings, the City Council finds that the Final EIR was presented to the City Council, the decision-making body of the lead agency, which reviewed and considered the information in the Final EIR prior to approving the Project. By these findings, the City Council ratifies, adopts, and incorporates the analysis, explanation, findings, responses to comments, and conclusions of the Final EIR. The City Council finds that the Final EIR was completed in compliance with CEQA. The Final EIR represents the independent judgment of the City.
SEVERABILITY
If any term, provision, or portion of these Findings or the application of these Findings to a particular situation is held by a court to be invalid, void, or unenforceable, the remaining provisions of these Findings, or their application to other actions related to the Project, shall continue in full force and effect unless amended or modified by the City, unless determined otherwise by the court.
ORGANIZATION OF FINDINGS BELOW
The findings below are organized as follows. The first set of impacts presented are those that would be significant and unavoidable for the project. Though feasible mitigation measures are adopted for many of these impacts, the measures do not reduce the impacts to less than significant levels. The second set of impacts are those that, in the absence of mitigation, would be significant, but with adopted mitigation measures can be reduced to less than significant levels. The third and final set of impacts presented are those that are less than significant even in the absence of mitigation measures. Under CEQA, findings need not identify those impacts. The City Council has included them, however, for informational purposes.
III. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS REGARDING SIGNIFICANT
AND UNAVOIDABLE IMPACTS
A. AESTHETICS
1. IMPACT 3.1-1:PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION MAY RESULT IN SUBSTANTIAL ADVERSE EFFECTS ON SCENIC VISTAS AND RESOURCES OR SUBSTANTIAL DEGRADATION OF VISUAL CHARACTER. (a) Potential Impact. The potential for the Project to result in substantial adverse effects on scenic vistas and resources or substantial degradation of visual character is discussed on pages 3.1-7 through 3.1-9 of the Draft EIR.
(b) Mitigation Measure. No feasible mitigation measures were identified. (c) Findings. Based upon the EIR and the entire record before the City Council, the City Council finds that:
(1) Remaining Impacts. Development of the proposed Project would result in new developments adjacent to the Stanislaus River and its riparian habitat but would not result in any direct disturbance to the river or habitat. Development of the proposed Project would eliminate most of the orchard/agricultural areas within the Specific
CEQA FINDINGS
CEQA Findings – Riverwalk Specific Plan 11
Plan area, but all other areas in the Project Area would remain unchanged. Much of the Specific Plan Area is in the lower area (i.e., Berghill property), which is not visible from the main public roadways fronting the Project Area (i.e., Patterson Road and McHenry Avenue). The residents who live within the Project Area predominately along the top of the bluff and outside the Specific Plan Area would have the most notable visual changes because of their proximity to the new development and their views of the existing uses in the Berghill Property.
The proposed Project would result in the conversion of land in the Specific Plan Area from agricultural uses to a developed use. There are no designated scenic vistas or resources that would be impacted. Nevertheless, the “attractive” aesthetics of the agricultural areas in the Specific Plan Area would be visually changed in perpetuity.
There are a variety of design elements, such as open space, park, landscaping, and natural features in the Specific Plan area that will provide “attractive” elements to the human environment. However, the proposed Project would permanently convert the agricultural and undeveloped uses to a developed use and would create a change in the visual characteristics of the site that is generally considered less “attractive” than the existing condition. This is considered a significant and unavoidable impact. There is no feasible mitigation available that would lessen the severity of this impact or reduce it to a less than significant level.
Based on the above, the impact would remain significant and unavoidable. (2) Given the nature of this impact, which cannot be avoided with the development of the Project area, specific economic, social, legal, technological, or other considerations make infeasible the imposition of any mitigation measures that could avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental impact. These considerations include the City Council’s policy decision to pursue and achieve the underlying purpose of the project and the specific project objectives described earlier. Because the significant adverse impact cannot feasibly be substantially lessened or avoided, the City Council finds that specific economic, social, policybased, and other considerations identified in the Statement of Overriding Considerations support approval of the Project.
(3) Overriding Considerations. The environmental, economic, social, and other benefits of the Project override any remaining significant adverse impact of the Project associated with impacts related to substantial adverse effects on scenic vistas and resources or substantial degradation of visual character, as more fully stated in the Statement of Overriding Considerations in Section VII, below.
2. IMPACT 4.2: CUMULATIVE DEGRADATION OF THE EXISTING VISUAL CHARACTER OF THE REGION.
(a) Potential Impact. The potential for the Project to result in a cumulative impact on the existing visual character of the region is discussed on page 4.0-4 of the Draft EIR.
CEQA FINDINGS
12 CEQA Findings – Riverwalk Specific Plan
(b) Mitigation Measure. No feasible mitigation measures were identified. (c) Findings. Based upon the EIR and the entire record before the City Council, the City Council finds that:
(1) Remaining Impacts. Under cumulative conditions, buildout of the General Plan for Riverbank and the surrounding jurisdictions could result in changes to the visual character and quality of the City of Riverbank through development of undeveloped areas and/or changes to the character of existing communities. Development of the proposed Project, in addition to other future projects in the area, would change the existing visual and scenic qualities of the City. There are no mitigation measures that could reduce this impact while also achieving the Project purpose and objectives.
For these reasons, cumulative impacts on the visual character of the region are significant, and the proposed Project’s contribution thereto is a cumulatively considerable and significant and unavoidable impact.
(2) Given the nature of this impact, which cannot be avoided with the development of the Project area, specific economic, social, legal, technological, or other considerations make infeasible the imposition of any mitigation measures that could avoid or substantially lessen the cumulatively considerable, and thus significant, environmental impact. These considerations include the City Council’s policy decision to pursue and achieve the underlying purpose of the project and the specific project objectives described earlier. Because the cumulatively considerable (i.e., significant) adverse impact cannot feasibly be substantially lessened or avoided, the City Council finds that specific economic, social, policy-based, and other considerations identified in the Statement of Overriding Considerations support approval of the Project.
(3) Overriding Considerations. The environmental, economic, social, and other benefits of the Project override any remaining significant adverse impact of the Project associated with cumulative impacts on the existing visual character of the region, as more fully stated in the Statement of Overriding Considerations in Section VII, below.
B. AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES
1. IMPACT 3.2-1: THE PROPOSED SPECIFIC PLAN HAS THE POTENTIAL TO RESULT IN THE
CONVERSION OF FARMLANDS, INCLUDING PRIME FARMLAND, UNIQUE FARMLAND, AND
FARMLAND OF STATEWIDE IMPORTANCE, AS SHOWN ON THE MAPS PREPARED PURSUANT TO
THE FARMLAND MAPPING AND MONITORING PROGRAM OF THE CALIFORNIA RESOURCES AGENCY, TO NON-AGRICULTURAL USES.
(a) Potential Impact. The potential for the Project to result in the conversion of Farmlands, including Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, and Farmland of Statewide Importance, as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring
CEQA FINDINGS
CEQA Findings – Riverwalk Specific Plan 13
Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural uses is discussed on pages 3.2-18 through 3.2-22 of the Draft EIR.
(b) Mitigation Measure. Mitigation Measures 3.2-1 and 3.2-2. (c) Findings. Based upon the EIR and the entire record before the City Council, the City Council finds that:
(1) Effects of Mitigation and Remaining Impacts. Development of the proposed Project would result in the permanent conversion of approximately 661.33 acres of Prime Farmland, 165.80 acres of Farmland of Statewide Importance, and 27.16 acres of Unique Farmland, as shown on Figure 3.2-1, to non-agricultural use. The loss of the 854.29 acres of Important Farmland would have a potentially significant environmental impact.
Mitigation Measure 3.2-1 requires the Project applicant to conserve farmland in accordance with the City of Riverbank’s Sustainable Agricultural Strategy. This requires conservation of equal value to the land that will be converted at a 1:1 ratio, in perpetuity, or pay in-lieu fees that would functionally achieve the conservation intent. Mitigation Measure 3.2-2 requires consistency with the Stanislaus LAFCo Agricultural Preservation policy, consistent with the City’s Sustainable Agricultural Strategy. While the implementation of these mitigation measures would assist in offsetting some impacts from farmland conversion by preserving farmland, the proposed Project would still result in the permanent conversion and loss of 854.29 acres of Important Farmland within Stanislaus County. Based on the above, the impact would remain significant and unavoidable.
(2) Given the nature of this impact, which cannot be fully avoided with the development of the Project area even with the use of agricultural conservation easements (see V Lyons Farming LLC v. County of Kern (2024) 100 Cal.App.5th 412, 421-437), specific economic, social, legal, technological, or other considerations make infeasible the imposition of any additional mitigation measures beyond those identified in the Final EIR and described above. These considerations include the City Council’s policy decision to pursue and achieve the underlying purpose of the project and the specific project objectives described earlier. Mitigation Measures
3.2-1 and 3.2-2 are feasible and are hereby adopted, rendering them enforceable.
To the extent that this significant adverse impact cannot feasibly be mitigated to a less than significant level, the City Council finds that specific economic, social, policybased, and other considerations identified in the Statement of Overriding Considerations support approval of the Project.
(3) Overriding Considerations. The environmental, economic, social and other benefits of the Project override any remaining significant adverse impact of the Project associated with impacts related to conversion of Farmlands, including Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, and Farmland of Statewide Importance, as shown on
CEQA FINDINGS
14 CEQA Findings – Riverwalk Specific Plan
the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural uses, as more fully stated in the Statement of Overriding Considerations in Section VII, below.
2. IMPACT 4.4: CUMULATIVE IMPACT ON AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES. (a) Potential Impact. The potential for the Project to result in a cumulative impact on agricultural resources is discussed on pages 4.0-5 and 4.0-6 of the Draft EIR. (b) Mitigation Measures. Mitigation Measures 3.2-1 and 3.2-2. (c) Findings. Based upon the EIR and the entire record before the City Council, the City Council finds that:
(1) Remaining Impacts. As described in Section 3.2, Agricultural Resources, development of the proposed Project would result in a conversion of 661.33 acres of Prime Farmland, 165.80 acres of Farmland of Statewide Importance, and 27.16 acres of Unique Farmland as shown on the map prepared under the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program (FMMP), to nonagricultural uses. The loss of Important Farmland as classified under the FMMP is considered a potentially significant environmental impact. Development under the Specific Plan inherently involves the conversion of high-quality agricultural land. Mitigation Measure 3.2-1 requires the Project applicant to conserve farmland of equal value to the land that will be converted at a 1:1 ratio, in perpetuity, or pay in-lieu fees that would functionally achieve the conservation intent. Mitigation Measure 3.2-2 requires participation in the City’s Sustainable Agricultural Strategy. While the implementation of these mitigation measures would assist in preserving farmland, the proposed Project would still result in the permanent conversion and loss of 854.29 acres of Important Farmland within Stanislaus County.
For the reasons discussed above, cumulative impacts related to agricultural resources would be significant, and the proposed Project’s contribution to those impacts would be cumulatively considerable and significant and unavoidable. (2) Given the nature of this impact, which cannot be fully avoided with the development of the Project area even with the use of agricultural conservation easements (see V Lyons Farming LLC v. County of Kern (2024) 100 Cal.App.5th 412, 421-437), specific economic, social, legal, technological, or other considerations make infeasible the imposition of any additional mitigation measures beyond those identified in the Final EIR and described above. These considerations include the City Council’s policy decision to pursue and achieve the underlying purpose of the project and the specific project objectives described earlier. Mitigation Measures
3.2-1 and 3.2-2 are feasible and are hereby adopted, rendering them enforceable.
To the extent that this cumulatively considerable (i.e., significant) adverse impact cannot feasibly be mitigated to a less than cumulatively considerable (i.e., less than
CEQA FINDINGS
CEQA Findings – Riverwalk Specific Plan 15
significant) level, the City Council finds that specific economic, social, policy-based, and other considerations identified in the Statement of Overriding Considerations support approval of the Project.
(3) Overriding Considerations. The environmental, economic, social, and other benefits of the Project override any remaining significant adverse impact of the Project associated with cumulative impacts on agricultural resources, as more fully stated in the Statement of Overriding Considerations in Section VII, below.
C. GREENHOUSE GASES, CLIMATE CHANGE AND ENERGY
1. IMPACT 3.7-1: PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION COULD GENERATE GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS,
EITHER DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY, THAT MAY HAVE A SIGNIFICANT IMPACT ON THE ENVIRONMENT.
(a) Potential Impact. The potential for the Project to generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment is discussed on pages 3.7-26 through 3.7-31 of the Draft EIR. (b) Mitigation Measure. Mitigation Measure 3.7-1.
(c) Findings. Based upon the EIR and the entire record before the City Council, the City Council finds that:
(1) Effects of Mitigation and Remaining Impacts. Estimated maximum GHG emissions associated with construction of the proposed Project are summarized in Table 3.7- 1 in Section 3.7 of the Draft EIR.1 As presented in the table, short-term construction emissions of GHGs are estimated at a maximum of approximately 3,546 metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent (MTCO2e) per year.
Estimated operational GHG emissions associated with the proposed Project are summarized in Table 3.7-2. As shown, a conservative estimate for the unmitigated annual GHG emissions associated with the proposed Project would be approximately 34,364 MT CO2e. Additionally, Table 3.7-3 provides the annual emissions associated with the proposed Project after accounting for these Project design features that would further reduce Project emissions, as well as the mitigation included in Mitigation Measure 3.7-1, where quantification was possible.
As shown in the above tables, the Project with design features (including those required by Title 24) and mitigation measures incorporated (where quantification 1 Emissions in Table 3.7-1 account for the required construction-related control measures required by the SJVAPCD, including watering exposed surfaces, watering unpaved construction roads, limiting vehicle speeds on unpaved roads, and sweeping paved roads.
CEQA FINDINGS
16 CEQA Findings – Riverwalk Specific Plan
was possible) would reduce total operational GHG emissions by approximately 1,762 MT CO2e per year.
Mitigation Measure 3.7-1 provides GHG reduction measures to reduce Project emissions to the maximum extent feasible. However, even with implementation of Mitigation Measures 3.7-1, it cannot be guaranteed that the proposed Project would reduce GHG emissions to the full extent needed to ensure that the State GHG reduction targets (such as those under AB 1279) are met. Mitigation Measure 3.7-1 includes two distinct categories of measures as described in CalEEMod User Guide. “Quantitative” measures include those measures that when implemented have a measurable reduction in emissions as reflected in the model outputs, or with separate outside the model calculations. Examples would be the usage of energyefficiency appliances. “Qualitative or Supporting Measures” include those measures that are not currently quantified by CalEEMod. The CalEEMod User Guide notes that methods for quantifying these measures have not yet been developed, are not fully supported by available research, or require specific details that are difficult to address under a methodology with general applicability. Although not quantitatively evaluated, qualitative or supporting measures may achieve emissions reductions and co-benefits on their own or may enhance the ability of quantified measures to attain expanded reductions and co-benefits. User-selected qualitative or supporting measures are noted in the CalEEMod output report but are not quantified. The quantified measures, in conjunction with Project features discussed above, are anticipated to reduce GHG emissions. It is anticipated that the Qualitative or Supporting Measures would provide additional, or co-benefits toward reducing GHG emissions.
However, there are no additional, feasible mitigation measures to reduce Project VMT (beyond what is already required by Mitigation Measure 3.13-2, as provided in Section 3.13: Transportation and Circulation), which is the main contributor to the Project’s carbon emissions. Based on the above, the impact would remain significant and unavoidable.
(2) Specific economic, social, legal, technological, or other considerations make infeasible any additional mitigation measures beyond the measure identified in the Final EIR and described above. Mitigation Measure 3.7-1 is feasible and is hereby adopted, rendering it enforceable. These considerations include (i) the City’s inability to guarantee that the proposed Project will reduce GHG emissions to the full extent needed to ensure that the State GHG reduction targets are met and (ii) the City Council’s policy decision to pursue and achieve the underlying purpose of the project and the specific project objectives described earlier. To the extent that this significant adverse impact cannot feasibly be mitigated to a less than significant level, the City Council finds that specific economic, social, policy-based, and other considerations identified in the Statement of Overriding Considerations support approval of the Project.
CEQA FINDINGS
CEQA Findings – Riverwalk Specific Plan 17
(3) Overriding Considerations. The environmental, economic, social and other benefits of the Project override any remaining significant adverse impact of the Project associated with impacts related to generation of greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment, as more fully stated in the Statement of Overriding Considerations in Section VII, below.
2. IMPACT 3.7-2: PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION COULD CONFLICT WITH AN APPLICABLE PLAN,
POLICY, OR REGULATION ADOPTED FOR THE PURPOSE OF REDUCING THE EMISSIONS OF GREENHOUSE GASES.
(a) Potential Impact. The potential for the Project to conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases is discussed on pages 3.7-31 through 3.7-39 of the Draft EIR. (b) Mitigation Measure. Implement Mitigation Measure 3.7-1. (c) Findings. Based upon the EIR and the entire record before the City Council, the City Council finds that:
(1) Remaining Impacts. As shown in Table 3.7-4 in Section 3.7, based on proposed Project attributes, many of the key project attributes identified by the CARB cannot be guaranteed to be implemented due to the Project’s location in a growing (rather than built out) City. Appendix D notes that for projects that do not meet the criteria shown in Table 3.7-4, they can nevertheless be consistent with the Scoping Plan if they would either be net zero or would comply with an air district threshold addressing SB 32. With the requirement for all electricity supplied by utilities such as PG&E or other providers such as the Modesto Irrigation District to be carbon neutral by 2045, the residential units would support the State’s goal of carbon neutrality. Nevertheless, due to the uncertainty of the level of electric vehicle penetration, the Project would not necessarily be net zero, even with mitigation, by 2045.
Over time, as EV penetration increases and transit improves, VMT will be reduced.
Here, there is substantial evidence to support the finding that emissions from mobile sources will decrease by 2045, consistent with the Scoping Plan. First, the Project would have EV-ready parking spaces, making it easy for future owners to charge EV vehicles, encouraging the purchase of such vehicles. Second, the state is committed to improving EV infrastructure and the sale of gas-powered vehicles must cease in 2035, suggesting that by 2045 most state residents would own EVs.
Therefore, even though the Project is not consistent with all the local guidance in the Scoping Plan, sufficient evidence exists to conclude that the Project would not impede the State from reaching its climate goals.
CEQA FINDINGS
18 CEQA Findings – Riverwalk Specific Plan
Nevertheless, out of an abundance of caution, this EIR concludes that because the Project is inconsistent with several attributes that the CARB suggests projects should include, impacts would be significant and unavoidable as related to the Scoping Plan.
(2) Specific economic, social, legal, technological, or other considerations make infeasible the imposition of any mitigation measures that could avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental impact. These considerations include (i) the suburban nature of the Project, (ii) its location in the Central Valley as opposed to within a denser, more urban metropolitan area, and (iii) the City Council’s policy decision to pursue and achieve the underlying purpose of the project and the specific project objectives described earlier. To the extent that this significant adverse impact cannot feasibly be mitigated to a less than significant level, the City Council finds that specific economic, social, policy-based, and other considerations identified in the Statement of Overriding Considerations support approval of the Project.
(3) Overriding Considerations. The environmental, economic, social and other benefits of the Project override any remaining significant adverse impact of the Project associated with impacts related to conflicts with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases, as more fully stated in the Statement of Overriding Considerations in Section VII, below.
3. IMPACT 4.9:CUMULATIVE IMPACT ON CLIMATE CHANGE FROM INCREASED PROJECT-RELATED GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS.
(a) Potential Impact. The potential for the Project to result in cumulative impacts on climate change from increased project-related greenhouse gas emissions is discussed on pages
4.0-11 and 4.0-12 of the Draft EIR.
(b) Mitigation Measure: Mitigation Measure 3.7-1.
(c) Findings. Based upon the EIR and the entire record before the City Council, the City Council finds that:
(1) Remaining Impacts. As described in Impact 3.7-1 in Section 3.7, to reduce GHG emissions, mitigation strategies have been developed either for the Project as a whole, or for the individual components of the overall Project. Mitigation Measure
3.7-1 provides GHG reduction measures to reduce Project emissions to the maximum extent feasible. However, even with implementation of Mitigation Measures 3.7-1, it cannot be guaranteed that the proposed Project would reduce GHG emissions to the full extent needed to ensure that the State GHG reduction targets (such as those under AB 1279) are met.
CEQA FINDINGS
CEQA Findings – Riverwalk Specific Plan 19
However, there are no additional, feasible mitigation measures to reduce Project VMT, which is the main contributor to the Project’s carbon emissions. Therefore, the impact related to whether the Project generates greenhouse gas emissions either directly or indirectly that may have a significant impact on the environment would remain cumulatively considerable and significant and unavoidable.
Overall, the proposed Project generally does not conflict with, and is consistent with, applicable plans, policies, and regulations adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases. Specifically, the Project is generally consistent with the State’s long-term climate goals and strategies except for reducing VMT.
The analysis includes an assessment of the Project’s consistency with the CARB’s 2022 Scoping Plan, Air District requirements, and the latest applicable RTP/SCS. This assessment includes a consistency analysis with regulations or requirements adopted to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and evaluates Project specific GHG emissions and the extent to which they can be reduced by effective mitigation strategies including Project design features and mitigation measures.
For the reasons discussed above, this EIR concludes out of an abundance of caution that the impact related to consistency with the Scoping Plan is cumulatively considerable and significant and unavoidable.
(2) Specific economic, social, legal, technological, or other considerations make infeasible any additional mitigation measures beyond the measure identified in the Final EIR and described above. Mitigation Measure 3.7-1 is feasible and is hereby adopted, rendering it enforceable. These considerations include (i) the suburban nature of the Project, (ii) its location in the Central Valley as opposed to within a denser, more urban metropolitan area, and (iii) the City Council’s policy decision to pursue and achieve the underlying purpose of the project and the specific project objectives described earlier. To the extent that this cumulatively considerable (i.e., significant) adverse impact cannot feasibly be mitigated to a less than cumulatively considerable (i.e., less than significant) level, the City Council finds that specific economic, social, policy-based, and other considerations identified in the Statement of Overriding Considerations support approval of the Project. (3) Overriding Considerations. The environmental, economic, social, and other benefits of the Project override any remaining significant adverse impact of the Project associated with cumulative impacts on climate change from increased projectrelated greenhouse gas emissions, as more fully stated in the Statement of Overriding Considerations in Section VII, below.
CEQA FINDINGS
20 CEQA Findings – Riverwalk Specific Plan
D. NOISE
1. IMPACT 3.11-1: CONSTRUCTION OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT MAY GENERATE SIGNIFICANT NOISE.
(a) Potential Impact. The potential for the Project to generate significant noise during construction is discussed on pages 3.11-15 through 3.11-17 of the Draft EIR. (b) Mitigation Measure. Mitigation Measures 3.11-1 and 3.11-2. (c) Findings. Based upon the EIR and the entire record before the City Council, the City Council finds that:
(1) Effects of Mitigation and Remaining Impacts. As indicated in Table 3.11-11 in Section
3.11, activities involved in construction would generate maximum noise levels ranging from 82 to 96 dB Lmax at 50 feet. Noise would also be generated during the construction phase by increased truck traffic on area roadways. A significant Project-generated noise source would be truck traffic associated with transport of heavy materials and equipment to and from construction sites. This noise increase would be of short duration and would likely occur primarily during daytime hours, consistent with the City’s Noise Ordinance.
Per the Table 3.11-6 standards, daytime construction noise would be limited to 70 dBA Lmax under the City’s General Plan standards. With construction noise levels ranging between 82 to 96 dBA Lmax at 50 feet, construction noise control measures achieving a reduction of 12 to 26 dBA would be required when construction activity occurs within 50 feet of an existing residential use. This would primarily occur during construction of Village B, which borders existing single-family homes to the east.
Use of a temporary construction barrier 8-foot in height would typically reduce construction noise by up to 5-6 dBA, resulting in maximum noise levels of 77-91dBA Lmax. This would still result in construction noise levels exceeding the City’s Table
3.11-6 standard of 70 dBA Lmax. Therefore, with implementation of Mitigation Measures 3.11-1 and 3.11-2, temporary construction noise impacts would be significant and unavoidable.
(2) Specific economic, social, legal, technological, or other considerations make infeasible any additional mitigation measures beyond the measures identified in the Final EIR and described above. Mitigation Measures 3.11-1 and 3.11-2 are feasible and are hereby adopted, rendering them enforceable. These considerations include (i) the technical infeasibility of reducing temporary construction-related noise impacts to less than significant levels and (ii) the City Council’s policy decision to pursue and achieve the underlying purpose of the project and the specific project objectives described earlier. To the extent that this significant adverse impact cannot feasibly be mitigated to a less than significant level, the City Council finds
CEQA FINDINGS
CEQA Findings – Riverwalk Specific Plan 21
that specific economic, social, policy-based, and other considerations identified in the Statement of Overriding Considerations support approval of the Project. (3) Overriding Considerations. The environmental, economic, social, and other benefits of the Project override any remaining significant adverse impact of the Project associated with construction noise, as more fully stated in the Statement of Overriding Considerations in Section VII, below.
2. IMPACT 3.11-3: THE PROPOSED PROJECT MAY GENERATE UNACCEPTABLE TRAFFIC NOISE LEVELS AT EXISTING RECEPTORS.
(a) Potential Impact. The potential for the Project to generate unacceptable traffic noise levels at existing receptors is discussed on pages 3.11-18 through 3.11-21 of the Draft EIR.
(b) Mitigation Measure. No feasible mitigation measures were identified. (c) Findings. Based upon the EIR and the entire record before the City Council, the City Council finds that:
(1) Remaining Impacts. Tables 3.11‐13 and 3.11‐14 in Section 3.11 indicate where increases in traffic noise levels due to the Project exceed the FICON criteria for increases in traffic noise. Table 3.11‐15 indicates where significant traffic noise increases will occur, and the segments which the Project would result in an exceedance of the City of Riverbank exterior noise levels standard, under the Cumulative Plus RWSP condition. Based upon Tables 3.11‐13, and 3.11‐14, the Project would cause increased noise levels exceeding the FICON substantial increase criteria shown in Table 3.11-10, which would be a potentially significant impact.
Potential mitigation measures would require increasing the height of existing sound walls, building new off‐site sound walls, including traffic calming measures to reduce vehicle speeds, and/or using quieter pavement technologies. Generally, construction of new sound walls is not practical due to the openings for driveway accesses which would compromise any barrier effectiveness. Increasing the heights of existing sound walls requires additional engineering of footings and is also not practical. Additionally, City General Plan Policy NOI 1.5 states that “[s]ound walls are prohibited as a method for reducing noise exposure that could be addressed through other means.” Sound walls are not feasible or recommended in this case.
Traffic calming measures generally have not been found to reduce overall traffic noise levels by a significant amount.
With the use of quiet pavement on Coffee Road, noise level increases are expected to be in the range of 0.0 to 1.3 dBA. Approximately 6,600 feet (approximately 1.25 miles) of quiet pavement would be required. See Figure 3.11-3 for approximate required pavement locations. However, the implementation of quiet pavement on Coffee Road may not be considered practical or feasible due to overall costs and
CEQA FINDINGS
22 CEQA Findings – Riverwalk Specific Plan
long-term maintenance coordination and requirements. Therefore, these traffic noise impacts would remain significant and unavoidable. (2) Specific economic, social, legal, technological, or other considerations make infeasible the imposition of any mitigation measures that could avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental impact. These considerations include (i) the undesirability of sound walls, (ii) the long-term costs of quiet pavement, and (iii) the City Council’s policy decision to pursue and achieve the underlying purpose of the project and the specific project objectives described earlier. To the extent that this significant adverse impact cannot feasibly be mitigated to a less than significant level, the City Council finds that specific economic, social, policy-based, and other considerations identified in the Statement of Overriding Considerations support approval of the Project. (3) Overriding Considerations. The environmental, economic, social, and other benefits of the Project override any remaining significant adverse impact of the Project associated with unacceptable traffic noise levels at existing receptors, as more fully stated in the Statement of Overriding Considerations in Section VII, below.
3. IMPACT 3.11-4:THE PROPOSED PROJECT MAY BE SUBJECT TO SHOOTING RANGE NOISE AT NEW SENSITIVE RECEPTORS.
(a) Potential Impact. The potential for the Project to be subject to shooting range noise at new sensitive receptors is discussed on pages 3.11-21 through 3.11-24 of the Draft EIR. (b) Mitigation Measures. Mitigation Measures 3.11-4 through 3.11-5. (c) Findings. Based upon the EIR and the entire record before the City Council, the City Council finds that:
(1) Effects of Mitigation and Remaining Impacts. As shown in Figure 3.11-2 in Section
3.11, the maximum noise levels emanating from the shooting range are predicted to exceed the City of Riverbank 70 dBA Lmax standard on Villages D, E, F, H, I, J, P, and Q without mitigation. Saxelby Acoustics developed noise control solutions to reduce the maximum noise level to below 70 dBA at as many of the Specific Plan residential Villages as possible.
Shooting range noise control may be achieved by the addition of an acoustically absorptive sound wall, partial enclosure of the shooting area, and acoustical panels in the pistol range area. The noise control measures, the first four of which, as well as the sixth, would have to be implemented at the shooting range, although they would be funded by the Specific Plan applicants. As shown on Figure 3.11-5, implementation of these five noise control measures would reduce maximum noise levels to below 70 dB on Villages D, F, H, I, J, and Q as well as a partial section of Village E. Shooting range noise control may be further improved by enclosing the back (south side) of the rifle range firing line.
CEQA FINDINGS
CEQA Findings – Riverwalk Specific Plan 23
Successful implementation of Mitigation Measures 3.11-4 through 3.11-5 would ensure that potential rifle range noise impacts are reduced to a less-than-significant level. Measure 3.11-4 is assured of success if the Project is implemented, as the obligations therein are under the sole control of the applicant. Measure 3.11-5, however, is not assured of ultimate success. Although it creates obligations for the applicant, the measure will only be fully effective if the shooting range operator agrees to make certain on-site improvements at the applicant’s request. Although Measure 3.11-5 would require the applicant to fund the proposed improvements, neither the applicant nor the City has any way to ensure the cooperation of the shooting range operator. For that reason, the EIR conservatively assumes that the impact will be significant and unavoidable due to a lack of cooperation by the shooting range operator.
Figure 3.11-8 shows the resulting noise levels on the project site with implementation of Mitigation Measure 3.11-4, which requires the construction of 8- to 10-foot-tall sound walls on the project site. Based upon this Figure, which assumes that the construction of the improvements called for in Mitigation Measure 3.11-5 does not occur, noise levels from shooting range operations are predicted to range from 71 to 79 dBA Lmax, after construction of on-site sound walls.
This would exceed the City of Riverbank 70 dBA Lmax noise standard by up to 9 dBA for daytime shooting events. Therefore, this would remain a significant and unavoidable impact.
(2) Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the proposed Project that will reduce the severity of the significant environmental effect, as identified in the Final EIR, but may not reduce the effect to a less than significant level. Mitigation Measures 3.11-4 and 3.11-5 are feasible and are hereby adopted, rendering them enforceable. If successfully implemented, these measures will reduce the significant effect to a less significant level. Mitigation Measure 3.11-5, however, is not certain to achieve a reduction of noise emanating from the abovedescribed shooting range, as the success of the measure will depend on cooperation from the shooting range operator, which cannot be assured. Specific economic, social, legal, technological, or other considerations make infeasible any additional mitigation measures beyond those described in this paragraph. These considerations include (i) the inability of the applicant or the City to force the shooting range operator to make the improvements set forth in that measure and (ii) City Council’s policy decision to pursue and achieve the underlying purpose of the project and the specific project objectives described earlier. To the extent that this significant adverse impact may not be mitigated to a less than significant level, the City Council finds that specific economic, social, policy-based, and other considerations identified in the Statement of Overriding Considerations support approval of the Project.
CEQA FINDINGS
24 CEQA Findings – Riverwalk Specific Plan
(3) Overriding Considerations. The environmental, economic, social and other benefits of the Project override any remaining significant adverse impact of the Project associated with the potential for the Project to be subject to shooting range noise at new sensitive receptors, as more fully stated in the Statement of Overriding Considerations in Section VII, below.
4. IMPACT 4.17: CUMULATIVE EXPOSURE OF EXISTING AND FUTURE NOISE-SENSITIVE LAND USES TO INCREASED NOISE RESULTING FROM CUMULATIVE DEVELOPMENT. (a) Potential Impact. The potential for the Project to result in cumulative exposure of existing and future noise-sensitive land uses to increased noise resulting from cumulative development is discussed on pages 4.0-23 through 4.0-25 of the Draft EIR. (b) Mitigation Measures. Mitigation Measures 3.11-1, 3.11-2, 3.11-4, and 3.11-5. (c) Findings. Based upon the EIR and the entire record before the City Council, the City Council finds that:
(1) Remaining Impacts. As discussed in Section 3.11, under cumulative conditions, sensitive receptors located adjacent to Coffee Road exceed the City's 60 dB Ldn exterior noise level standard for transportation noise sources. Under Cumulative Plus RWSP conditions, these roadways will continue to exceed the City standards.
The Project's contributions range between 1.6 dB and 4.3 dB Ldn. These increases exceed the FICON criteria. Table 3.11‐15 indicates where significant traffic noise increases will occur, and the segments which the Project would result in an exceedance of the City of Riverbank exterior noise levels standard, under the Cumulative Plus RWSP condition.
Potential mitigation measures would require increasing the height of existing sound walls, building new off‐site sound walls, including traffic calming measures to reduce vehicle speeds, and/or using quieter pavement technologies. Under the Cumulative scenario shown in Table 3.11‐15, each roadway segment which shows a significant impact could include future overlays of alternative quiet pavement.
However, the implementation of these types of measures along this 2.3-mile roadway segment, which is located within the jurisdiction of Stanislaus County, may not be considered practical due to overall costs and benefits at all locations, as well as jurisdictional considerations. Therefore, this would have a cumulatively significant unavoidable impact.
Additionally, noise generated by construction would be temporary, and would not add to the permanent noise environment or be considered as part of the cumulative context. Activities involved in construction would generate maximum noise levels ranging from 82 to 96 dB Lmax at 50 feet. Noise would also be generated during the construction phase by increased truck traffic on area roadways. A significant Project-generated noise source would be truck traffic associated with transport of
CEQA FINDINGS
CEQA Findings – Riverwalk Specific Plan 25
heavy materials and equipment to and from construction sites. This noise increase would be of short duration and would occur primarily during daytime hours, consistent with the City’s Noise Ordinance.
The proposed project, when considered alongside all past, present, and probable future projects (inclusive of buildout of the various General Plans within Stanislaus County), would be expected to cause significant and unavoidable cumulative construction noise impacts. The proposed Project would have a cumulatively considerable contribution to this cumulatively considerable impact associated with construction noise.
(2) Specific economic, social, legal, technological, or other considerations make infeasible any additional mitigation measures beyond the measures identified in the Final EIR and described above. Mitigation Measures 3.11-1, 3.11-2, 3.11-4, and 3.11- 5 are feasible and are hereby adopted, rendering them enforceable. These considerations include (i) the technical infeasibility of reducing temporary construction-related noise impacts to less than significant levels, (ii) the long-term costs of quiet pavement, (iii) the inability of the applicant or the City to force the shooting range operator to make the improvements set forth in Mitigation Measure
3.11-5, and (iv) the City Council’s policy decision to pursue and achieve the underlying purpose of the project and the specific project objectives described earlier. To the extent that this cumulatively considerable (i.e., significant) adverse impact cannot feasibly be mitigated to a less than cumulatively considerable (i.e., less than significant) level, the City Council finds that specific economic, social, policy-based, and other considerations identified in the Statement of Overriding Considerations support approval of the Project.
(3) Overriding Considerations. The environmental, economic, social, and other benefits of the Project override any remaining significant adverse impact of the Project associated with cumulative impacts related to noise, as more fully stated in the Statement of Overriding Considerations in Section VII, below.
E. PUBLIC SERVICES AND RECREATION
1. IMPACT 3.12-3: THE PROPOSED PROJECT HAS THE POTENTIAL TO 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, AND IT WILL REQUIRE THE CONSTRUCTION OF PARK AND RECREATIONAL FACILITIES WHICH MAY CAUSE SUBSTANTIAL ADVERSE PHYSICAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS. (a) Potential Impact. The potential for the Project to require the construction of park and recreational facilities which may cause substantial adverse physical environmental impacts is discussed on pages 3.12-23 through 3.12-24 of the Draft EIR.
CEQA FINDINGS
26 CEQA Findings – Riverwalk Specific Plan
(b) Mitigation Measures. No feasible mitigation measures were identified specifically for this impact, but all measures addressing the direct physical impact of development of the overall Project are indirectly applicable here.
(c) Findings. Based upon the EIR and the entire record before the City Council, the City Council finds that:
(1) Remaining Impacts. While the proposed project would increase the demand for parks and other recreational facilities based on the population growth, the amount of parkland and open space provided within the Specific Plan Area sufficiently meets the City’s General Plan parkland requirements. Furthermore, the Crossroads West Specific Plan, located within the City of Riverbank and in proximity to the Project site, will provide an opportunity to expand the Regional Sports Park with an additional 11 acres upon development to a total of 22 acres. No additional need for park space is required, and it is not anticipated that any substantial physical deterioration of existing facilities would occur or be accelerated.
Project implementation would require the construction of park facilities, which may cause substantial adverse physical environmental impact. Potential environmental impacts associated with the future construction of park and other recreational facilities within the Specific Plan Area are addressed throughout this EIR. This EIR analyzes the physical environmental effects that may occur because of development and introduction of new urban land uses within the Specific Plan Area.
Each future park, if constructed, would fall within the range of environmental impacts disclosed in this EIR, and would be subject to relevant mitigation measures included in this EIR.
It is noted, however, that development of park land within the Specific Plan Area would contribute to significant and unavoidable impacts as discussed in this EIR.
Therefore, consistent with the analysis included in this Draft EIR, impacts related to constructing new park facilities to serve the proposed project are considered significant and unavoidable.
(2) Specific economic, social, legal, technological, or other considerations make infeasible any additional mitigation measures beyond the measures identified in the Final EIR and throughout these findings. Those measures do not specifically relate to the impacts of developing parks but rather relate to the impacts of development of the overall Project, of which new parks will be a part. These considerations include, among other things referenced elsewhere in these findings, the City Council’s policy decision to pursue and achieve the underlying purpose of the project and the specific project objectives described earlier. To the extent that this significant adverse impact cannot feasibly be mitigated to less than significant levels, the City Council finds that specific economic, social, policy-based, and other considerations identified in the Statement of Overriding Considerations support approval of the Project.
CEQA FINDINGS
CEQA Findings – Riverwalk Specific Plan 27
(3) Overriding Considerations. The environmental, economic, social, and other benefits of the Project override any remaining significant adverse impact of the Project associated with requiring the construction of park and recreational facilities which may cause substantial adverse physical environmental impacts, as more fully stated in the Statement of Overriding Considerations in Section VII, below.
2. IMPACT 4.18: CUMULATIVE IMPACT ON PUBLIC SERVICES AND RECREATION. (b) Potential Impact. The potential for the Project to result in cumulative impacts related to public services and recreation is discussed on pages 4.0-25 through 4.0-27 of the Draft EIR.
(b) Mitigation Measures. No feasible mitigation measures were identified specifically for this impact, but all measures addressing the direct physical impact of development of the overall Project are indirectly applicable here.
(c) Findings. Based upon the EIR and the entire record before the City Council, the City Council finds that:
(1) Remaining Impacts. Under cumulative conditions, past, present, and probable future projects would result in increased demand for public services and recreational facilities. The impact fees developed and reviewed by the City will recover future development’s proportionate share of City-related capital asset costs. Fees, as applied only to new developments, represent future development’s proportionate share of public services and facilities capital costs. It is important to note that impact fees may not be used to correct existing deficiencies, but may be used to pay for increased demand for public facilities or increased demand upon existing capital facilities provided that those facilities are needed to serve additional development and have the capacity to do so, given relevant level-of-service standards. The construction of public facilities to serve past, present, and probably future projects may be required, which could cause substantial adverse physical environmental impacts. The construction and operation of future public facilities required to serve cumulative development could potentially cause cumulatively significant impacts, but such physical impacts cannot be fully defined at this time because the exact facilities are not proposed or known. Any future public facility would undergo its own environmental review to determine physical environmental impacts once it is contemplated and proposed for construction.
Nevertheless, the proposed Project, when considered alongside all past, present, and probable future projects (inclusive of buildout of the various General Plans within Stanislaus County), would be expected to cause significant cumulative public services or recreation impacts. As such, cumulative impacts on public services and recreation would be significant and unavoidable. This impact is associated with the development of the parks within the footprint of the Specific Plan Area. These physical impacts associated with development in the Specific Plan, such as
CEQA FINDINGS
28 CEQA Findings – Riverwalk Specific Plan
agricultural conversion, etc., have been analyzed throughout this EIR. For some environmental topics it was determined that the Specific Plan would have a significant and unavoidable impact (i.e., loss of prime farmland). The development of parks would contribute to physical impacts, including those that have been determined to be cumulatively significant and unavoidable. The project will be required to implement mitigation measures under each physical environmental impact identified. The topic does not require separate mitigation. (2) Specific economic, social, legal, technological, or other considerations make infeasible any additional mitigation measures beyond the measures identified in the Final EIR and throughout these findings. Those measures do not specifically relate to the impacts of developing parks but rather relate to the impacts of development of the overall Project, of which new parks will be a part. These considerations include, among other things referenced elsewhere in these findings, the City Council’s policy decision to pursue and achieve the underlying purpose of the project and the specific project objectives described earlier. To the extent that this cumulatively considerable (i.e., significant) adverse impact cannot feasibly be reduced to a less than cumulatively considerable (i.e., less than significant) level, the City Council finds that specific economic, social, policy-based, and other considerations identified in the Statement of Overriding Considerations support approval of the Project.
(3) Overriding Considerations. The environmental, economic, social, and other benefits of the Project override any remaining significant adverse impact of the Project associated with cumulative impacts related to public services and recreation, as more fully stated in the Statement of Overriding Considerations in Section VII, below.
F. TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION
1. IMPACT 3.13-1:IMPLEMENTATION OF THE SPECIFIC PLAN COULD CONFLICT WITH A PROGRAM,
PLAN, ORDINANCE OR POLICY ADDRESSING THE CIRCULATION SYSTEM, INCLUDING TRANSIT, ROADWAY, BICYCLE, AND PEDESTRIAN FACILITIES.
(a) Potential Impact. The potential for the Project to conflict with a program, plan, ordinance, or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities is discussed on pages 3.13-16 through 3.13-18 of the Draft EIR.
(b) Mitigation Measure. Mitigation Measure 3.13-1.
(c) Findings. Based upon the EIR and the entire record before the City Council, the City Council finds that:
(1) Effects of Mitigation and Remaining Impacts. The Specific Plan includes sidewalks on proposed streets, and a comprehensive on-site trail system to be provided.
CEQA FINDINGS
CEQA Findings – Riverwalk Specific Plan 29
Proposed improvements to SR 108 (Patterson Road) will include sidewalks. The Specific Plan does not physically disrupt an existing pedestrian facility. It is highly likely that some residents will travel on foot to reach destinations that are relatively close to their residences, such as commercial areas, parks, clubhouse, and trails. The extent to which safety issues could occur on these pedestrian facilities has been considered.
With implementation of planned improvements on SR 108 (Patterson Road), a 400- foot gap will remain between the Specific Plan’s sidewalk on Patterson Road and the existing sidewalk that ends west of Oakdale Road. Increased pedestrian volume in this area represents a potential safety concern. This has a potentially significant impact.
As the previously approved Crossroads West Specific Plan proceeds, the MID Main Canal trail will become a likely pedestrian route between the Specific Plan Area, the Riverbank Sports Complex and Crossroads Shopping Center. Increased pedestrian activity across SR 108 is a safety issue due to the speed of vehicles in this area. This has a potentially significant impact.
Implementation of Mitigation Measure 3.13-1 would require the Project applicant to design and fund improvements to create an all-weather route to the MID trail and to address the gap in facilities east of the Project Area on SR 108. Because improvements to State facilities are subject to Caltrans approval, there is no assurance that Caltrans would approve the improvements included under Mitigation Measure 3.13-1. Because the City of Riverbank cannot ensure installation, Impact 3.13-1 may not be fully mitigated, and this impact is significant and unavoidable.
(2) Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the proposed Project that will reduce the severity of the significant environmental effect, as identified in the Final EIR, but may not reduce the effect to a less than significant level. Mitigation Measure 3.13-1 is feasible and is hereby adopted, rendering it enforceable. If successfully implemented, it will reduce the significant effect to a less than significant level. Mitigation Measure 3.13-1, however, is not certain of implementation, in that it will require approval of Caltrans, which cannot be assured. Specific economic, social, legal, technological, or other considerations make infeasible any additional mitigation measures beyond Mitigation Measure
3.13-1. These considerations include (i) the inability of the applicant or the City to force Caltrans to approve the improvements contemplated in Mitigation Measure
3.13-1 and (ii) the City Council’s policy decision to pursue and achieve the underlying purpose of the project and the specific project objectives described earlier. To the extent that this significant adverse impact may not be mitigated to a less than significant level, the City Council finds that specific economic, social, policy-based, and other considerations identified in the Statement of Overriding Considerations support approval of the Project.
CEQA FINDINGS
30 CEQA Findings – Riverwalk Specific Plan
(3) Overriding Considerations. The environmental, economic, social and other benefits of the Project override any remaining significant adverse impact of the Project associated with impacts related to conflicts with a program, plan, ordinance or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities, as more fully stated in the Statement of Overriding Considerations in Section VII, below.
2. IMPACT 3.13-2: IMPLEMENTATION OF THE SPECIFIC PLAN COULD CONFLICT WITH OR BE INCONSISTENT WITH CEQA GUIDELINE SECTION 15064.3, SUBDIVISION (B). (a) Potential Impact. The potential for the Project to conflict with or be inconsistent with CEQA Guideline section 15064.3, subdivision (b), is discussed on pages 3.13-18 through
3.13-23 of the Draft EIR.
(b) Mitigation Measure. Mitigation Measure 3.13-2.
(c) Findings. Based upon the EIR and the entire record before the City Council, the City Council finds that:
(1) Effects of Mitigation and Remaining Impacts. Table 3.13-5 in Section 3.13 compares total model area VMT under base year and 2042 conditions with and without the proposed Specific Plan. As shown, the residential uses within the proposed Specific Plan generate 76,730 VMT under the base condition, while non-residential uses generate 168,900 VMT. The Specific Plan generates a total of 245,630 VMT. NCC model Year 2042 total regional VMT is also presented for comparison. Under year 2042 conditions, the change caused by the proposed Specific Plan is less, (i.e., 163,195 VMT). This reduction would be expected to result as additional development occurs in the Modesto-Riverbank areas of northern Stanislaus County.
The Specific Plan’s mixed-use retail areas would provide additional options for future residential development and incrementally reduce the length of shopping trips made in this area.
With regards to residential development, because no relatable forecasts for the City of Riverbank or Stanislaus County are available, it is not possible to determine whether the Specific Plan’s residences will generate VMT per capita rate that is 15 percent below the current area average (based on the geographic area covered by the regional travel demand model), as required under the OPR recommendation.
Thus, it must be presumed that the VMT impact of the proposed residences is potentially significant.
With regards to non-residential uses, the net increase in regional VMT caused by the Specific Plan’s non-residential uses is the difference between the overall difference in total regional VMT (195,682 VMT) and the VMT caused by residential uses (76,730 VMT) is 118,952 VMT. Because this increase exceeds the OPR
CEQA FINDINGS
CEQA Findings – Riverwalk Specific Plan 31
directive’s threshold of no net increase in regional VMT, the impact of the Specific Plan’s non-residential uses on regional VMT is also potentially significant.
Though not all individual VMT reduction measures may be applicable, Mitigation Measure 3.13-2 is considered generally feasible because it is within the applicant’s purview to implement and has been found to be effective in peer-reviewed academic studies. However, the precise effectiveness of a given VMT reduction strategy is difficult to accurately measure. Because there is no assurance that Mitigation Measure 3.13-2 would fully mitigate these VMT impacts, these impacts are significant and unavoidable.
(2) Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the proposed Project that will reduce the severity of the significant environmental effect, as identified in the Final EIR, but may not reduce the effect to a less than significant level. Mitigation Measure 3.13-2 is feasible and is hereby adopted, rendering it enforceable. Mitigation Measure 3.13-2, however, is not certain to mitigate impacts to less than significant levels. Specific economic, social, legal, technological, or other considerations make infeasible any additional mitigation measures beyond Mitigation Measure 3.13-2. These considerations include the City Council’s policy decision to pursue and achieve the underlying purpose of the project and the specific project objectives described earlier. To the extent that this significant adverse impact may not be mitigated to a less than significant level, the City Council finds that specific economic, social, policy-based, and other considerations identified in the Statement of Overriding Considerations support approval of the Project.
(3) Overriding Considerations. The environmental, economic, social, and other benefits of the Project override any remaining significant adverse impact of the Project associated with conflicts with or inconsistencies with CEQA Guideline section 15064.3, subdivision (b), as more fully stated in the Statement of Overriding Considerations in Section VII, below.
3. IMPACT 3.13-3: IMPLEMENTATION OF THE SPECIFIC PLAN COULD SUBSTANTIALLY INCREASE HAZARDS DUE TO A GEOMETRIC DESIGN FEATURE (E.G., SHARP CURVES OR DANGEROUS INTERSECTIONS) OR INCOMPATIBLE USES (E.G., FARM EQUIPMENT). (a) Potential Impact. The potential for the Project to substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment) is discussed on pages 3.13-24 and 3.13-25 of the Draft EIR.
(b) Mitigation Measure. Mitigation Measures 3.13-3 and 3.13-4. (c) Findings. Based upon the EIR and the entire record before the City Council, the City Council finds that:
CEQA FINDINGS
32 CEQA Findings – Riverwalk Specific Plan
(1) Effects of Mitigation and Remaining Impacts. As indicated in the traffic operations analysis presented in Appendix G, there are two locations where development would result in significant safety impacts on State facilities. At the McHenry Avenue / Ladd Road / Patterson Road intersection, the Specific Plan would cause the queue of peak hour traffic to exceed the available storage length in the southbound left turn lane and in the eastbound left turn lane. This is a potentially significant safety impact.
Implementation of Mitigation Measure 3.13-3 requires the applicant to contribute its pro rata fair share to the cost of improvement to the McHenry Avenue / Ladd Road / Patterson Road intersection. While this improvement would eliminate the identified safety impact, there is no guarantee that funding would be available for the balance of construction cost. In addition, these improvements would be subject to the design requirements and approval of Caltrans, and there is no guarantee that Caltrans will permit their construction. Because the City of Riverbank cannot ensure installation, Impact 3.13-3 may not be fully mitigated, and this impact is significant and unavoidable.
Implementation of Mitigation Measure 3.13-4 requires the applicant to construct a westbound left turn lane on SR 108 at the Skittone Road intersection. While this improvement would fully mitigate the identified safety impact, this improvement would be subject to the design requirements and approval of Caltrans, and there is no guarantee that Caltrans will permit its construction. Because the City of Riverbank cannot ensure installation, Impact 3.13-3 may not be fully mitigated, and this impact is significant and unavoidable.
(2) Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the proposed Project that will reduce the severity of the significant environmental effect, as identified in the Final EIR, but may not reduce the effect to a less than significant level. Mitigation Measures 3.13-3 and 3.13-4 are feasible and are hereby adopted, rendering them enforceable. If successfully implemented, they will reduce the significant effect to a less than significant level. These measures, however, are not certain of implementation, in that they will require approval from Caltrans, which cannot be assured. Specific economic, social, legal, technological, or other considerations make infeasible any additional mitigation measures beyond Mitigation Measures 3.13-3 and 3.13-4. These considerations include (i) the inability of the applicant or the City to force Caltrans to approve the improvements contemplated in these measures and (ii) the City Council’s policy decision to pursue and achieve the underlying purpose of the project and the specific project objectives described earlier. To the extent that this significant adverse impact may not be mitigated to a less than significant level, the City Council finds that specific economic, social, policy-based, and other considerations identified in the Statement of Overriding Considerations support approval of the Project.
CEQA FINDINGS
CEQA Findings – Riverwalk Specific Plan 33
(3) Overriding Considerations. The environmental, economic, social and other benefits of the Project override any remaining significant adverse impact of the Project associated with impacts related to substantially increased hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment), as more fully stated in the Statement of Overriding Considerations in Section VII, below.
4. IMPACT 4.19: UNDER CUMULATIVE CONDITIONS, THE PROPOSED PROJECT WOULD CONFLICT WITH OR BE INCONSISTENT WITH CEQA GUIDELINES SECTION 15064.3, SUBDIVISION (B). (a) Potential Impact. The potential for the Project to conflict with or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3, subdivision (b), under cumulative conditions is discussed on pages 4.0-27 and 4.0-28 of the Draft EIR.
(b) Mitigation Measure. Mitigation Measure 3.13-2.
(c) Findings. Based upon the EIR and the entire record before the City Council, the City Council finds that:
(1) Remaining Impacts. As noted previously, with regards to residential development, because no relatable forecasts for the City of Riverbank or Stanislaus County are available, it is not possible to determine whether the Specific Plan’s residences will generate VMT per capita rate that is 15 percent below the current area average, as required under the OPR directive.
With regards to non-residential uses, the net increase in regional VMT caused by the Specific Plan’s non-residential uses is the difference between the overall difference in total regional VMT (195,160 VMT) and the VMT caused by residential uses (74,640 VMT) is 120,520 VMT. This increase exceeds the OPR directive’s threshold of no net increase in regional VMT.
Mitigation Measure 3.13-2 in Section 3.13 requires the Project Applicant to implement feasible VMT related mitigation measures / strategies which could reduce the VMT generated by the proposed land uses. Though not all individual VMT reduction measures may be applicable, Mitigation Measure 3.13-2 is considered generally feasible because it is within the applicant’s purview to implement and has been found to be effective in peer-reviewed academic studies.
However, the precise effectiveness of a given VMT reduction strategy is difficult to accurately measure.
For a specific project to have a less than significant impact related to VMT, the project must demonstrate that per capita VMT would be 15 percent below the regional average. Because future development would be equal to the regional average, or above average (or less than average but not fully 15 percent less than average), impacts related to VMT would be cumulatively significant. Exceptions to this would be infill projects, or small projects which include VMT reducing strategies.
CEQA FINDINGS
34 CEQA Findings – Riverwalk Specific Plan
Due to the size of the Project, the incremental contribution to this cumulative VMT impact would be cumulatively considerable.
(2) Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the proposed Project that will reduce the severity of the significant environmental effect, as identified in the Final EIR, but may not reduce the effect to a less than significant level. Mitigation Measure 3.13-2 is feasible and is hereby adopted, rendering it enforceable. Mitigation Measure 3.13-2, however, is not certain to mitigate impacts to less than significant levels. Specific economic, social, legal, technological, or other considerations make infeasible any additional mitigation measures beyond Mitigation Measure 3.13-2. These considerations include the City Council’s policy decision to pursue and achieve the underlying purpose of the project and the specific project objectives described earlier. To the extent that this cumulatively considerable (i.e., significant) adverse impact may not be mitigated to a less than cumulatively considerable (i.e., less than significant) level, the City Council finds that specific economic, social, policy-based, and other considerations identified in the Statement of Overriding Considerations support approval of the Project. (3) Overriding Considerations. The environmental, economic, social, and other benefits of the Project override any remaining significant adverse impact of the Project associated with conflicts with or inconsistencies with CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3, subdivision (b), under cumulative conditions, as more fully stated in the Statement of Overriding Considerations in Section VII, below.
G. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
1. IMPACT 3.14-1: THE PROPOSED PROJECT HAS THE POTENTIAL TO REQUIRE OR RESULT IN THE
CONSTRUCTION OF NEW WASTEWATER TREATMENT OR COLLECTION FACILITIES OR EXPANSION
OF EXISTING FACILITIES, THE CONSTRUCTION OF WHICH COULD CAUSE SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS.
(a) Potential Impact. The potential for the Project to require or result in the construction of new wastewater treatment or collection facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects, is discussed on pages 3.14-15 through 3.14-17 of the Draft EIR.
(b) Mitigation Measure. No feasible mitigation measures were identified specifically for this impact, but all measures addressing the direct physical impact of development of the overall Project are indirectly applicable here.
(c) Findings. Based upon the EIR and the entire record before the City Council, the City Council finds that:
(1) Remaining Impacts. Sanitary sewer will be provided to the Specific Plan Area through the installation of force mains, pump stations, and a network of gravity flow sewer mains.
CEQA FINDINGS
CEQA Findings – Riverwalk Specific Plan 35
The installation of the conveyance system improvements will be within the footprint of the Specific Plan Area, as well as the offsite improvement area. The impacts associated with development in the Specific Plan, including the offsite improvement area, have been analyzed throughout this EIR. For some environmental topics it was determined that the Specific Plan would have a less significant impact, while in other cases it was determined that development would have a significant and unavoidable impact (i.e., loss of prime farmland). Consistent with the conclusions made throughout this EIR, installation of the wastewater collection and conveyance system infrastructure to serve the proposed Project would have a significant and unavoidable impact.
(2) Specific economic, social, legal, technological, or other considerations make infeasible any additional mitigation measures beyond the measures identified in the Final EIR and throughout these findings. Those measures do not specifically relate to the impacts of installing wastewater collection and conveyance system infrastructure but rather relate to the impacts of development of the overall Project, of which wastewater infrastructure will be a part. These considerations include, among other things referenced elsewhere in these findings, the City Council’s policy decision to pursue and achieve the underlying purpose of the project and the specific project objectives described earlier. To the extent that this significant adverse impact cannot feasibly be mitigated to a less than significant level, the City Council finds that specific economic, social, policy-based, and other considerations identified in the Statement of Overriding Considerations support approval of the Project.
(3) Overriding Considerations. The environmental, economic, social and other benefits of the Project override any remaining significant adverse impact of the Project associated with impacts related to the construction of new wastewater treatment or collection facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects, as more fully stated in the Statement of Overriding Considerations in Section VII, below.
2. IMPACT 3.14-3: THE PROPOSED PROJECT HAS THE POTENTIAL TO REQUIRE OR RESULT IN THE
RELOCATION OR CONSTRUCTION OF NEW OR EXPANDED WATER FACILITIES, THE CONSTRUCTION OR RELOCATION OF WHICH COULD CAUSE SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS. (a) Potential Impact. The potential for the Project to require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects is discussed on pages 3.14-33 and 3.14-34 of the Draft EIR.
(b) Mitigation Measure. No feasible mitigation measures were identified specifically for this impact, but all measures addressing the direct physical impact of development of the overall Project are indirectly applicable here.
CEQA FINDINGS
36 CEQA Findings – Riverwalk Specific Plan
(c) Findings. Based upon the EIR and the entire record before the City Council, the City Council finds that:
(1) Remaining Impacts. Domestic water service will be provided to the Specific Plan Area through the installation of a pressurized water system made up of onsite wells, water tanks, water mains, and a pressure regulating station.
The installation of the improvements will be within the footprint of the Specific Plan Area. The impacts associated with development in the Specific Plan have been analyzed throughout this EIR. For some environmental topics it was determined that the Specific Plan would have a less significant impact, while in other cases it was determined that development would have a significant and unavoidable impact (i.e., loss of prime farmland). Consistent with the conclusions made throughout this EIR, installation of the water distribution system infrastructure to serve the proposed Project would have a significant and unavoidable impact. (2) Specific economic, social, legal, technological, or other considerations make infeasible any additional mitigation measures beyond the measures identified in the Final EIR and throughout these findings. Those measures do not specifically relate to the impacts of installing water distribution system infrastructure but rather relate to the impacts of development of the overall Project, of which water distribution infrastructure will be a part. These considerations include, among other things referenced elsewhere in these findings, the City Council’s policy decision to pursue and achieve the underlying purpose of the project and the specific project objectives described earlier. To the extent that this significant adverse impact cannot feasibly be mitigated to a less than significant level, the City Council finds that specific economic, social, policy-based, and other considerations identified in the Statement of Overriding Considerations support approval of the Project. (3) Overriding Considerations. The environmental, economic, social and other benefits of the Project override any remaining significant adverse impact of the Project associated with impacts related to the relocation or construction of new or expanded water facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects, as more fully stated in the Statement of Overriding Considerations in Section VII, below.
3. IMPACT 3.14-5: THE PROPOSED PROJECT HAS THE POTENTIAL TO REQUIRE OR RESULT IN THE
RELOCATION OR CONSTRUCTION OF NEW OR EXPANDED STORMWATER DRAINAGE FACILITIES,
THE CONSTRUCTION OR RELOCATION OF WHICH COULD CAUSE SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS.
(a) Potential Impact. The potential for the Project to require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded stormwater drainage facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects, is discussed on pages
3.14-50 through 3.14-55 of the Draft EIR.
CEQA FINDINGS
CEQA Findings – Riverwalk Specific Plan 37
(b) Mitigation Measure. Mitigation Measures 3.14-2 and all measures addressing the direct physical impact of development of the overall Project.
(c) Findings. Based upon the EIR and the entire record before the City Council, the City Council finds that:
(1) Effects of Mitigation and Remaining Impacts. Stormwater will be collected through a network of gutters, inlets, and storm drains that will direct storm water to storm water basins constructed within the Specific Plan Area. All stormwaters would be pre-treated in accordance with current NPDES requirements and would be detained prior to discharge into the MID canals or the Stanislaus River. Basins would be capable of storing the 50-year storm volume in accordance with City of Riverbank standards.
The installation of the improvements will be within the footprint of the Specific Plan Area. Some physical impacts associated with development in the Specific Plan, such as agricultural conversion, etc., have been analyzed throughout this EIR. For some environmental topics it was determined that the Specific Plan would have a significant and unavoidable impact (i.e., loss of prime farmland). The installation of improvements would contribute to physical impacts, including those that have been determined to be significant and unavoidable.
Mitigation Measure 3.14-2 requires the Project applicant to submit a drainage plan to the City of Riverbank for review and approval. Nevertheless, consistent with the conclusions made throughout this EIR, installation of the stormwater drainage system infrastructure to serve the proposed Project would have a significant and unavoidable impact.
(2) Specific economic, social, legal, technological, or other considerations make infeasible any additional mitigation measures beyond the measures identified in the Final EIR and throughout these findings. Mitigation Measure 3.14-2 is feasible and is hereby adopted, rendering it enforceable. The measure requires that, “[p]rior to the issuance of a grading permit, the Project applicant shall submit a drainage plan to the City of Riverbank for review and approval. The plan shall include an engineered storm drainage plan that demonstrates attainment of pre-Project runoff requirements prior to release and describes the volume reduction measures and treatment controls used to reach attainment consistent with the Riverbank Low Impact Development Design and Specifications Manual and the Riverbank Storm Drain System Master Plan.” The other mitigation measures relevant to the construction of stormwater drainage infrastructure do not specifically relate to the impacts of installing such infrastructure but rather relate to the impacts of development of the overall Project, of which stormwater drainage infrastructure will be a part. These considerations include, among other things referenced elsewhere in these findings, the City Council’s policy decision to pursue and achieve the underlying purpose of the project and the specific project objectives described
CEQA FINDINGS
38 CEQA Findings – Riverwalk Specific Plan
earlier. To the extent that this significant adverse impact cannot feasibly be mitigated to less than significant levels, the City Council finds that specific economic, social, policy-based, and other considerations identified in the Statement of Overriding Considerations support approval of the Project. (3) Overriding Considerations. The environmental, economic, social and other benefits of the Project override any remaining significant adverse impact of the Project associated with impacts related to the relocation or construction of new or expanded stormwater drainage facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects, as more fully stated in the Statement of Overriding Considerations in Section VII, below.
4. IMPACT 4.21: CUMULATIVE IMPACT ON WASTEWATER UTILITIES. (a) Potential Impact. The potential for the Project to result in cumulative impacts on wastewater utilities is discussed on pages 4.0-29 through 4.0-32 of the Draft EIR. (b) Mitigation Measure. No feasible mitigation measures were identified specifically for this impact, but all measures addressing the direct physical impact of development of the overall Project are indirectly applicable here.
(c) Findings. Based upon the EIR and the entire record before the City Council, the City Council finds that:
(1) Remaining Impacts. Sanitary sewer will be provided to the Specific Plan Area through the installation of force mains, pump stations, and a network of gravity flow sewer mains. Figure 2.0-15 illustrates the preliminary sanitary sewer plan.
The City of Riverbank Public Works Department will be responsible for the operation and maintenance of the proposed sanitary sewer system upon installation of the improvements. The installation of the improvements will be within the footprint of the Specific Plan Area, as well as the offsite improvement area. The impacts associated with development in the Specific Plan, including the offsite improvement area, have been analyzed throughout the EIR. For some environmental topics it was determined that the Specific Plan would have a less than significant impact, while in other cases it was determined that development would have a significant and unavoidable impact (i.e., loss of prime farmland). This is a physical impact for which the installation of wastewater infrastructure will contribute. Consistent with the conclusions made throughout the EIR, installation of the wastewater collection and conveyance system infrastructure to serve the proposed Project would have a cumulatively significant and significant and unavoidable impact. (2) Specific economic, social, legal, technological, or other considerations make infeasible any additional mitigation measures beyond the measures identified in the Final EIR and throughout these findings. Those measures do not specifically relate to the impacts of installing wastewater collection and conveyance infrastructure but
CEQA FINDINGS
CEQA Findings – Riverwalk Specific Plan 39
rather relate to the impacts of development of the overall Project, of which wastewater infrastructure will be a part. These considerations include, among other things referenced elsewhere in these findings, the City Council’s policy decision to pursue and achieve the underlying purpose of the project and the specific project objectives described earlier. To the extent that this significant adverse impact cannot feasibly be mitigated to less than cumulatively considerable (i.e., less than significant) level, the City Council finds that specific economic, social, policy-based, and other considerations identified in the Statement of Overriding Considerations support approval of the Project.
(3) Overriding Considerations. The environmental, economic, social, and other benefits of the Project override any remaining significant adverse impact of the Project associated with cumulative impacts on wastewater utilities, as more fully stated in the Statement of Overriding Considerations in Section VII, below.
5. IMPACT 4.22: CUMULATIVE IMPACT ON WATER UTILITIES.
(a) Potential Impact. The potential for the Project to result in cumulative impacts on water utilities is discussed on pages 4.0-32 through 4.0-35 of the Draft EIR. (b) Mitigation Measure. No feasible mitigation measures were identified specifically for this impact, but all measures addressing the direct physical impact of development of the overall Project are indirectly applicable here.
(c) Findings. Based upon the EIR and the entire record before the City Council, the City Council finds that:
(1) Remaining Impacts. Domestic water service will be provided to the Specific Plan Area through the installation of a pressurized water system made up of onsite wells, water tanks, water mains, and a pressure regulating station. The City of Riverbank Public Works Department will be responsible for the operation and maintenance of the proposed water system upon installation of the improvements. The installation of the improvements will be within the footprint of the Specific Plan Area, as well as the offsite improvement area. The impacts associated with development in the Specific Plan, including the offsite improvement area, have been analyzed throughout the EIR. For some environmental topics it was determined that the Specific Plan would have a less than significant impact, while in other cases it was determined that development would have a significant and unavoidable impact (i.e., loss of prime farmland). This is a physical impact for which the installation of water infrastructure will contribute. Consistent with the conclusions made throughout the EIR, installation of the water conveyance system infrastructure to serve the proposed Project would have a cumulatively significant and significant and unavoidable impact.
CEQA FINDINGS
40 CEQA Findings – Riverwalk Specific Plan
(2) Specific economic, social, legal, technological, or other considerations make infeasible any additional mitigation measures beyond the measures identified in the Final EIR and throughout these findings. Those measures do not specifically relate to the impacts of installing water conveyance infrastructure but rather relate to the impacts of development of the overall Project, of which water infrastructure will be a part. These considerations include, among other things referenced elsewhere in these findings, the City Council’s policy decision to pursue and achieve the underlying purpose of the project and the specific project objectives described earlier. To the extent that this significant adverse impact cannot feasibly be mitigated to a less than cumulatively considerable (i.e., less than significant) level, the City Council finds that specific economic, social, policy-based, and other considerations identified in the Statement of Overriding Considerations support approval of the Project.
(3) Overriding Considerations. The environmental, economic, social, and other benefits of the Project override any remaining significant adverse impact of the Project associated with cumulative impacts on water utilities, as more fully stated in the Statement of Overriding Considerations in Section VII, below.
6. IMPACT 4.23: CUMULATIVE IMPACT ON STORMWATER FACILITIES. (a) Potential Impact. The potential for the Project to result in cumulative impacts on stormwater facilities is discussed on pages 4.0-35 through 4.0-39 of the Draft EIR. (b) Mitigation Measure. No feasible mitigation measures were identified specifically for this impact, but all measures addressing the direct physical impact of development of the overall Project are indirectly applicable here.
(c) Findings. Based upon the EIR and the entire record before the City Council, the City Council finds that:
(1) Remaining Impacts. Stormwater will be collected through a network of gutters, inlets, and storm drains that will direct storm water to storm water basins constructed within the Specific Plan Area. The City of Riverbank Public Works Department will be responsible for the operation and maintenance of the proposed stormwater system upon installation of the improvements. The installation of the improvements will be within the footprint of the Specific Plan Area, as well as the offsite improvement area. The impacts associated with development in the Specific Plan, including the offsite improvement area, have been analyzed throughout the EIR. For some environmental topics it was determined that the Specific Plan would have a less than significant impact, while in other cases it was determined that development would have a significant and unavoidable impact (i.e., loss of prime farmland). This is a physical impact for which the installation of stormwater infrastructure will contribute. Consistent with the conclusions made throughout the EIR, installation of the stormwater collection system infrastructure to serve the
CEQA FINDINGS
CEQA Findings – Riverwalk Specific Plan 41
proposed Project would have a cumulatively significant and significant and unavoidable impact.
(2) Specific economic, social, legal, technological, or other considerations make infeasible any additional mitigation measures beyond the measures identified in the Final EIR and throughout these findings. Those measures do not specifically relate to the impacts of installing stormwater collection system infrastructure but rather relate to the impacts of development of the overall Project, of which stormwater infrastructure will be a part. These considerations include, among other things referenced elsewhere in these findings, the City Council’s policy decision to pursue and achieve the underlying purpose of the project and the specific project objectives described earlier. To the extent that this significant adverse impact cannot feasibly be reduced to a less than cumulatively considerable (i.e., less than significant) level, the City Council finds that specific economic, social, policy-based, and other considerations identified in the Statement of Overriding Considerations support approval of the Project.
(3) Overriding Considerations. The environmental, economic, social, and other benefits of the Project override any remaining significant adverse impact of the Project associated with cumulative impacts on stormwater facilities, as more fully stated in the Statement of Overriding Considerations in Section VII, below.
IV. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS REGARDING POTENTIALLY
SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS WHICH ARE MITIGATED TO A LESS THAN
SIGNIFICANT LEVEL
A. AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES
1. IMPACT 3.2-3: THE PROPOSED PROJECT HAS THE POTENTIAL TO RESULT IN CONFLICTS WITH
ADJACENT AGRICULTURAL LANDS OR INDIRECTLY CAUSE CONVERSION OF AGRICULTURAL LANDS.
(a) Potential Impact. The potential for the Project to result in conflicts with adjacent agricultural lands or indirectly cause conversion of agricultural lands is discussed on pages 3.2-24 through 3.2-26 of the Draft EIR.
(b) Mitigation Measures. Mitigation Measure 3.2-3.
(c) Findings. Existing agricultural operations that are located adjacent to the Specific Plan Area may be adversely impacted by the increased human presence in the Specific Plan Area. Additionally, future residents within the Specific Plan Area may be adversely affected by active agricultural operations associated with managing these lands. The General Plan addresses transitional areas between urban uses and ongoing agricultural operations with several land use designations that can serve as a buffer, including use of the Multi-Use Recreation/Resource Management (MUR/R), Agricultural resource
CEQA FINDINGS
42 CEQA Findings – Riverwalk Specific Plan
Conservation Area (AG), and Reserve (R). For the proposed Project, the City has utilized the Reserve (R) designation as a buffer land use for all areas proximate to the proposed developed within the Plan Area. The areas with a Reserve designation would not be converted to non-agricultural uses under the proposed Project, instead they would be reserved under their agricultural use. If and when development is eventually proposed in the Reserve Area, land planners will have to consider whether to include buffers within the Reserve Area to avoid conflicts with land uses occurring within the Specific Plan area.
Patterson Road provides a buffer between the southern portion of the Plan Area and existing agricultural operations located to the south. The Stanislaus River provides a buffer between the northern portion of the Plan Area and existing agricultural operations located to the north. There are no agricultural uses requiring buffer to the east.
Riverbank General Plan Policy CONS-3.2 includes provisions for protecting agricultural operations from encroachment of urban use using buffers. The buffers protect residential development from the effects of existing agricultural operations, and they are designed to protect the feasibility of ongoing agricultural activities on nearby lands (reduction in the effects of noise, dust, and the application of agricultural chemicals on residential development). This existing policy requires the width of the buffer to be 300 feet, except that the width of the buffer may be reduced where a project applicant demonstrates that a narrower buffer would protect the feasibility of ongoing agricultural activities on nearby lands and reduce the effects of noise, dust and the application of agricultural chemicals on residential development. Buffer areas may remain as open space or may be used for stormwater management; renewable energy production; community recreation amenities; or any other allowed use consistent with this policy. This existing policy provides mitigating effects on this potential impact, ensuring that the impact is less than significant. Mitigation Measure 3.2-3 requires Right to Farm language be incorporated into the Final Map for approval and recordation against the affected property. With the implementation of Mitigation Measures 3.2-3, the proposed Project would not result in conflicts with adjacent agricultural lands would result in a less than significant impact regarding this topic.
In accordance with PRC § 21081(a)(1), Mitigation Measure 3.2-3 is an appropriate change or alteration that has been required in, or incorporated into, the Project which avoids or substantially lessens the significant environmental effect as identified in the EIR. The City Council hereby adopts the measure, rendering it enforceable. Based upon the EIR and the entire record before the City Council, the City Council finds that the potential to conflict with adjacent agricultural lands or indirectly cause conversion of agricultural lands will be mitigated to a less than significant level.
CEQA FINDINGS
CEQA Findings – Riverwalk Specific Plan 43
B. AIR QUALITY
1. IMPACT 3.3-1: PROJECT OPERATIONS COULD RESULT IN A CUMULATIVELY CONSIDERABLE NET INCREASE OF ANY CRITERIA POLLUTANT FOR WHICH THE PROJECT REGION IS IN NONATTAINMENT, AND COULD CONFLICT OR OBSTRUCT IMPLEMENTATION OF THE DISTRICT’S AIR QUALITY PLAN.
(a) Potential Impact. The potential for the Project to result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the Project region is in nonattainment and could conflict or obstruct implementation of the District’s air quality plan is discussed on page 3.3-24 through 3.3-25 of the Draft EIR. (b) Mitigation Measures. Mitigation Measures 3.3-1 through 3.3-3. (c) Findings. Table 3.3-8 in Section 3.3 of the Draft EIR shows the proposed Project unmitigated emissions, and Table 3.3-9 shows the proposed Project mitigated emissions. As shown in Table 3.3-8 and Table 3.3-9, operational emissions would exceed the SJVAPCD thresholds of significance for ROG, and PM10, even after considering a variety of proposed Project characteristics within the modeling. Therefore, the proposed Project is required to implement all feasible mitigation to reduce criteria pollutant emissions to below the applicable SJVAPCD thresholds of significance. The proposed Project would be required to implement Mitigation Measure 3.3-1, which would ensure that individual Projects within the footprint of the proposed Project would reduce emissions to less than the applicable SJVAPCD thresholds of significance for criteria pollutants.
Additionally, Table 3.3-10 provides the proposed Project’s mitigated emissions in comparison to this screening threshold. As shown in Table 3.3-10, even after accounting for a variety of proposed Project characteristics that would reduce proposed Project emissions, the overall proposed Project would generate greater than 100 pounds per day of emissions for CO, ROG, and PM10. Therefore, the proposed Project is required to implement Mitigation Measure 3.3-2, which requires the project applicant(s) for individual development projects to develop an AAQA to determine if increase from an individual development project would cause or contribute to a violation of State or National Air Quality Standards. If the individual development project is shown to cause or contribute to a violation of State or National Air Quality Standards, additional mitigation is required to be implemented (such as those identified under Mitigation Measure 3.3-1), in consultation with the SJVAPCD, to reduce such emissions sufficiently to ensure that the individual development project would not cause or contribute to a violation of State or National Air Quality Standards.
Further, the proposed Project is required to implement Mitigation Measure 3.3-3, which requires each individual development Project to prepare and submit a Rule 9510 Indirect Source Review application that meets all SJVAPCD requirements, as applicable.
It should be noted that many of the mitigation measures that may be utilized within the
CEQA FINDINGS
44 CEQA Findings – Riverwalk Specific Plan
Rule 9510 Indirect Source Review application may also overlap with the mitigation measures utilized to comply with Mitigation Measure 3.3-1 and Mitigation Measure 3.3- 2, as applicable. Therefore, with implementation of Mitigation Measures 3.3-1, 3.3-2, and 3.3-3, the SJVAPCD Indirect Source Review process will result in significant reductions in air emissions, which will ensure that the Project will not conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan, would be considered to have a less than significant impact.
In accordance with PRC § 21081(a)(1), Mitigation Measures 3.3-1 through 3.3-3 are appropriate changes or alterations that have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the EIR. The City Council hereby adopts these measures, rendering them enforceable. Based upon the EIR and the entire record before the City Council, the City Council finds that the potential to result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the Project region is in non-attainment, and could conflict or obstruct implementation of the District’s air quality plan will be mitigated to a less than significant level.
2. IMPACT 3.3-4: THE PROPOSED PROJECT HAS THE POTENTIAL FOR PUBLIC EXPOSURE TO TOXIC AIR CONTAMINANTS.
(a) Potential Impact. The potential for the Project to result in public exposure to toxic air contaminants is discussed on page 3.3-37 through 33-41 of the Draft EIR. (b) Mitigation Measures. Mitigation Measure 3.3-4.
(c) Findings. While implementation of the proposed Project, including the Specific Plan, would not result in an increased exposure of sensitive receptors to localized concentrations of TACs, there is a potential for future commercial business activity, as permitted under the Specific Plan, to result in increased exposure of sensitive receptors to localized concentrations of TACs. The emission sources could be stationary sources and/or mobile sources (i.e., diesel truck traffic). Because, at the early stage of land use planning for the Mixed Use areas, the City does not yet know the precise locations, configurations, and sizes of any future business/facility that may generate sufficient levels of TACs to create the possibility of adverse health effects, it is premature, at the Specific Plan stage, to undertake an overall health risk assessment for the Specific Plan.
Future health risk assessments will be performed where warranted, as required by Mitigation Measure 3.3-4. After implementation of Mitigation Measure 3.3-4, the individual development projects within the Plan Area that have the potential to generate significant health risks would be mitigated to below the applicable SJVAPCD health risk thresholds.
In accordance with PRC § 21081(a)(1), Mitigation Measure 3.3-4 is an appropriate change or alteration that has been required in, or incorporated into, the Project which avoids or substantially lessens the significant environmental effect as identified in the
CEQA FINDINGS
CEQA Findings – Riverwalk Specific Plan 45
EIR. The City Council hereby adopts the measure, rendering it enforceable. Based upon the EIR and the entire record before the City Council, the City Council finds that the potential to result in public exposure to toxic air contaminants will be mitigated to a less than significant level.
C. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
1. IMPACT 3.4-1: THE POTENTIAL TO HAVE A SUBSTANTIAL DIRECT OR INDIRECT EFFECT ON
SPECIAL-STATUS INVERTEBRATE SPECIES, INCLUDING THROUGH SUBSTANTIAL REDUCTION OF
HABITAT, SUBSTANTIAL REDUCTION OF THE NUMBER OR RESTRICTION IN THE RANGE OF A
LISTED SPECIES, ELIMINATION OF AN ANIMAL COMMUNITY, OR A DROP IN POPULATION LEVELS BELOW SELF-SUSTAINING LEVELS.
(a) Potential Impact. The potential for the Project to have a substantial direct or indirect effect on special-status invertebrate species, including through substantial reduction of habitat, substantial reduction of the number or restriction in the range of a listed species, elimination of an animal community, or a drop in population levels below selfsustaining levels is discussed on page 3.4-34 through 3.4-38 of the Draft EIR. (b) Mitigation Measures. Mitigation Measures 3.4-1 and 3.4-2. (c) Findings. Habitat for California linderiella (Linderiella occidentalis), midvalley fairy shrimp (Branchinecta mesovallensis), Molestan blister beetle (Lytta molesta), Vernal pool fairy shrimp (Branchinecta lynchi), and Vernal pool tadpole shrimp (Lepidurus packardi), is not found on-site. In its comments on the Notice of Preparation, the California Department of Fish and Wildlife did not identify any of these species as ones that might occur in the Project area.
Potential habitat for obscure bumble bee (Bombus caliginosus), crotch bumble bee (Bombus crotchii), and western bumble bee (Bombus occidentalis) is found on-site.
Additionally, three occurrences of VELB have been documented within one mile of the Project Area: 0.1 miles west, 0.75 miles west, and 0.5 miles east. The Specific Plan is designed to place new development in areas that are previously disturbed by agricultural activity, and to conserve those areas that are undisturbed (i.e., riparian corridor along the Stanislaus River and bluff area). There is no elderberry plants located within the agricultural fields that are planned for development. Elderberry plants are located within the Stanislaus River riparian corridor but will remain in open space and will not be disturbed. The Offsite Sewer Line will not directly disturb elderberry plants.
VELB will not be affected by the proposed Project.
Mitigation Measure 3.4-1 requires a preconstruction survey for VELB habitat and avoidance, and compensatory mitigation measures should habitat be found. Mitigation Measure 3.4-2 requires preconstruction survey for special-status bumble bees and avoidance and mitigation measures should bumble bees be found. With implementation of the above mitigation measures, the proposed Project would have a
CEQA FINDINGS
46 CEQA Findings – Riverwalk Specific Plan
less than significant impact on special-status invertebrate species, including through substantial reduction of habitat, substantial reduction of the number or restriction in the range of a listed species, elimination of an invertebrate community, or a drop in population levels below self-sustaining levels.
In accordance with PRC § 21081(a)(1), Mitigation Measures 3.4-1 and 3.4-2 are appropriate changes or alterations that have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project which avoids or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the EIR. The City Council hereby adopts these measures, rendering them enforceable. Based upon the EIR and the entire record before the City Council, the City Council finds that the potential for the Project to have a substantial direct or indirect effect on special-status invertebrate species, including through substantial reduction of habitat, substantial reduction of the number or restriction in the range of a listed species, elimination of an animal community, or a drop in population levels below selfsustaining levels will be mitigated to a less than significant level.
2. IMPACT 3.4-2: THE POTENTIAL TO HAVE SUBSTANTIAL DIRECT OR INDIRECT EFFECTS ON
SPECIAL-STATUS REPTILE AND AMPHIBIAN SPECIES, INCLUDING THROUGH SUBSTANTIAL
REDUCTION OF HABITAT, SUBSTANTIAL REDUCTION OF THE NUMBER OR RESTRICTION IN THE
RANGE OF A LISTED SPECIES, ELIMINATION OF A REPTILE OR AMPHIBIAN COMMUNITY, OR A DROP IN POPULATION LEVELS BELOW SELF-SUSTAINING LEVELS. (a) Potential Impact. The potential to have substantial direct or indirect effects on specialstatus reptile and amphibian species, including through substantial reduction of habitat, substantial reduction of the number or restriction in the range of a listed species, elimination of a reptile or amphibian community, or a drop in population levels below self-sustaining levels is discussed on pages 3.4-38 through 3.4-43 of the Draft EIR. (b) Mitigation Measures. Mitigation Measures 3.4-3 and 3.4-4. (c) Findings. The proposed Project is not anticipated to affect California red-legged frog, California tiger salamander, Northern California legless lizards, or western spadefoot because appropriate habitat is not present. The Stanislaus River, riparian area, and irrigation ditches provide both aquatic and upland habitat for two special status species:
giant garter snake and western pond turtle. The Stanislaus River and riparian area will remain open space and will not be disturbed. The western pond turtle is a relatively common species in the region and the potential for presence is relatively high. On the other hand, giant garter snakes are an uncommon species in Stanislaus County and is not expected to be present regardless of aquatic or upland habitat in the Project Area and Offsite Sewer Line. These species have not been observed in the Project Area, or in the immediate vicinity.
Filling the irrigation ditches and the land immediately adjacent to the irrigation ditches would present a potential impact on western pond turtles if they were present at the time of construction. Preconstruction surveys would be necessary to ensure that no
CEQA FINDINGS
CEQA Findings – Riverwalk Specific Plan 47
individuals are present in the construction zone during construction. Mitigation Measure 3.4-3 requires a survey of the area for western pond turtles, and if present, the Project applicant would implement measures to avoid or minimize impacts on individuals of that species. Mitigation Measure 3.4-4 requires avoidance and mitigation measures for giant garter snakes.
In accordance with PRC § 21081(a)(1), Mitigation Measures 3.4-3 and 3.4-4 are appropriate changes or alterations that have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the EIR. The City Council hereby adopts these measures, rendering them enforceable. Based upon the EIR and the entire record before the City Council, the City Council finds that the potential to have substantial direct or indirect effects on specialstatus reptile and amphibian species, including through substantial reduction of habitat, substantial reduction of the number or restriction in the range of a listed species, elimination of a reptile or amphibian community, or a drop in population levels below self-sustaining levels will be mitigated to a less than significant level.
3. IMPACT 3.4-3: THE POTENTIAL TO HAVE SUBSTANTIAL DIRECT OR INDIRECT EFFECTS ON
SPECIAL-STATUS BIRD SPECIES, INCLUDING THROUGH SUBSTANTIAL REDUCTION OF HABITAT,
SUBSTANTIAL REDUCTION OR RESTRICTION IN THE RANGE OF A LISTED SPECIES, ELIMINATION OF A BIRD COMMUNITY, OR A DROP IN POPULATION LEVELS BELOW SELF-SUSTAINING LEVELS. (a) Potential Impact. The potential for the Project to have substantial direct or indirect effects on special-status bird species, including through substantial reduction of habitat, substantial reduction of the number or restriction in the range of a listed species, elimination of a bird community, or a drop in population levels below self-sustaining levels is discussed on pages 3.4-43 and 3.4-51 of the Draft EIR. (b) Mitigation Measures. Mitigation Measures 3.4-5 through 3.4-7. (c) Findings. The Project Area is largely undeveloped, and most of the area has been previously used for agricultural uses. The exception is the riparian area, levee, buffer area, and Stanislaus River, which contain mostly undisturbed habitat. Field surveys did not reveal the presence of any special-status species. However, the powerlines throughout the Project Area, and trees found in the riparian and buffer areas can provide nesting opportunities for a variety of birds. During field surveys there was no evidence of nesting; however, new nests can be constructed in future breeding cycles.
Suitable foraging habitat is located on and around the Project Area, and the Offsite Sewer Line. This includes foraging habitat for burrowing owls and Swainson’s hawk, among other species of birds. The proposed project would require permanent disturbance to the foraging habitat to develop the Project Area. The Offsite Sewer Line would have a temporary impact given that the sewer line would be undergrounded and the surface area would be restored/revegetated. As such, Mitigation Measures 3.4-5 through 3.4-7 would be required.
CEQA FINDINGS
48 CEQA Findings – Riverwalk Specific Plan
Mitigation Measure 3.4-5 requires avoidance surveys for burrowing owl and, if needed, avoidance and minimization approaches would be developed in consultation with CDFW. Implementation of the above mitigation measures would ensure that potential impacts to burrowing owl are reduced to a less than significant level.
Mitigation Measure 3.4-6 requires preconstruction surveys for nesting Swainson’s hawk and other raptors during the nesting season (February 1 through August 31). Nesting buffers may be required if found. This measure also requires the Project Applicant to conserve foraging habitat of equal value to the land that will be converted at a 0.5:1,
0.75:1, or 1:1 ratio based on the distance of the portion of the project relative to the closest nest tree. Here, the use of conservation easements at a 0.5:1, 0.75:1, or 1:1 ratio is a legitimate expression of state and local police powers given it is presented in the CDFW Staff Report regarding Mitigation for Impacts to Swainson's Hawks (Buteo swainsoni) in the Central Valley of California (1994). It also follows the conservation strategies used locally in the City’s Sustainable Agricultural Strategy, which functions as a dual-purpose agricultural conservation program, while also functionally conserving the habitat qualities of agricultural land for species like the Swainson’s hawk, among others. Although the developed farmland/Swainson’s hawk foraging habitat is not replaced and does not necessarily reduce the impact to an insignificant level, an equivalent area of comparable farmland is permanently protected from a similar fate providing mitigation benefits. Further, the requirement of rough proportionality between the mitigation measure and the impact of the development project is met. For every acre of farmland/Swainson’s hawk foraging habitat permanently lost to development within a usable proximity for foraging, another acre of farmland is permanently protected from development. Here, it is intended that Mitigation Measure
3.4-6 mitigates for the loss of foraging habitat following CDFW’s recommendation.
CDFW concludes in their Staff Report regarding Mitigation for Impacts on Swainson's Hawks (Buteo swainsoni) in the Central Valley of California (1994) that incorporation of these mitigation measures into a CEQA document would reduce a project's impact to a Swainson's hawk(s) to less than significant levels. As such, this impact would be reduced to a less than significant level with the implementation of mitigation.
Mitigation Measure 3.4-7 requires preconstruction surveys for active nests of specialstatus birds in all areas of suitable habitat within 500 feet of project disturbance. If active nests or behaviors indicating that active nests are present, are observed, appropriate buffers around the nest sites would be determined by a qualified biologist to avoid nest failure resulting from project activities. Implementation of the above mitigation measures would ensure that potential impacts to nesting special status birds are reduced to a less than significant level.
In accordance with PRC § 21081(a)(1), Mitigation Measures 3.4-5 through 3.4-7 are appropriate changes or alterations that have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the EIR. The City Council hereby adopts these measures, rendering them
CEQA FINDINGS
CEQA Findings – Riverwalk Specific Plan 49
enforceable. Based upon the EIR and the entire record before the City Council, the City Council finds that the potential for the Project to have substantial direct or indirect effects on special-status bird species, including through substantial reduction of habitat, substantial reduction of the number or restriction in the range of a listed species, elimination of a bird community, or a drop in population levels below self-sustaining levels will be mitigated to a less than significant level.
4. IMPACT 3.4-4: THE POTENTIAL FOR SUBSTANTIAL DIRECT OR INDIRECT EFFECTS ON SPECIALSTATUS MAMMAL SPECIES, INCLUDING THROUGH SUBSTANTIAL REDUCTION OF HABITAT,
SUBSTANTIAL REDUCTION OF THE NUMBER OR RESTRICTION OF THE RANGE OF A LISTED
SPECIES, ELIMINATION OF A MAMMAL COMMUNITY, OR A DROP IN POPULATION LEVELS BELOW SELF-SUSTAINING LEVELS.
(a) Potential Impact. The potential for substantial direct or indirect effects on special-status mammal species, including through substantial reduction of habitat, substantial reduction of the number or restriction of the range of a listed species, elimination of a mammal community, or a drop in population levels below self-sustaining levels, is discussed on pages 3.4-51 through 3.4-53 of the Draft EIR. (b) Mitigation Measures. Mitigation Measure 3.4-8.
(c) Findings. Development of the Project Area would eliminate foraging habitat for specialstatus bats by removing the agricultural areas. This has an indirect effect on bat species in the region. Development would not directly affect these bat species because it is not expected to result in injury or death to individual bats or roosts. Nevertheless, mitigation would be required. Mitigation Measure 3.4-8 requires a survey for bat roosts, as well as buffers, if needed, around the roost sites.
In accordance with PRC § 21081(a)(1), Mitigation Measure 3.4-8 is an appropriate change or alteration that has been required in, or incorporated into, the Project which avoids or substantially lessens the significant environmental effect as identified in the EIR. The City Council hereby adopts the measure, rendering it enforceable. Based upon the EIR and the entire record before the City Council, the City Council finds that the potential for substantial direct or indirect effects on special-status mammal species, including through substantial reduction of habitat, substantial reduction of the number or restriction of the range of a listed species, elimination of a mammal community, or a drop in population levels below self-sustaining levels will be mitigated to a less than significant level.
5. IMPACT 3.4-6: THE POTENTIAL TO CAUSE A SUBSTANTIAL ADVERSE EFFECT ON PROTECTED WETLANDS AND JURISDICTIONAL WATERS.
(a) Potential Impact. The potential for the Project to cause a substantial adverse effect on protected wetlands and jurisdictional waters is discussed on pages 3.4-55 through 3.4- 57 of the Draft EIR.
CEQA FINDINGS
50 CEQA Findings – Riverwalk Specific Plan
(b) Mitigation Measures. Mitigation Measure 3.4-9.
(c) Findings. The Stanislaus River, riparian area, and MID facilities will not be directly affected, and do not require permitting. The network of agricultural ditches is all anticipated to be deemed non-jurisdictional, although the final jurisdictional determination is made by the regulatory agencies during a consultation and/or permit process. The Project applicant for parcels that contain any of these agricultural ditches must consult with the USACE, CDFW, and RWQCB to ensure that the regulatory agency does not claim jurisdiction and require a permit for construction activities. If the regulatory agencies take jurisdiction over these facilities, the Project applicant for the parcels with the facilities would be required to obtain a permit and provide compensatory mitigation in accordance with the regulatory agency’s requirements.
There are no other wetlands that are proposed for disturbance. Nevertheless, mitigation is proposed that ensures proper mitigation of any wetlands that might unexpectedly be encountered during the planning and development process.
Mitigation Measure 3.4-9 requires that, if construction activities would disturb the agricultural ditch within the Project Area, the property owner/applicant proposing the activity shall verify with federal and state regulators that the facility is non-jurisdictional or qualifies under the agricultural ditch exemption. If the facilities do not qualify for the exemption and are determined to be jurisdictional by the regulatory agencies, any fill activity would require authorization for fill from the regulatory agencies (USACE-404 permit, RWQCB-401 certification, 1600 Streambed Alteration Agreement). These agencies, pursuant to the laws governing their activities, will impose any mitigation requirements necessary to account for the loss of, or adverse impacts to, biologically key features. For example, the Clean Water Act typically requires that there be no net loss of wetland values and functions. And Fish and Game Code 1602 authorize CDFW to impose reasonable measures necessary to protect affected fish and wildlife resources.
With implementation of the above mitigation measure, the proposed Project would have a less than significant impact on protected wetlands and jurisdictional waters.
There would be no substantial adverse effect on state or federally protected wetlands.
In accordance with PRC § 21081(a)(1), Mitigation Measure 3.4-9 is an appropriate change or alteration that has been required in, or incorporated into, the Project which avoids or substantially lessens the significant environmental effect as identified in the EIR. The City Council hereby adopts the measure, rendering it enforceable. Based upon the EIR and the entire record before the City Council, the City Council finds that the potential to cause a substantial adverse effect on protected wetlands and jurisdictional waters will be mitigated to a less than significant level.
6. IMPACT 3.4-9: THE POTENTIAL TO CONFLICT WITH AN ADOPTED HABITAT CONSERVATION PLAN.
(a) Potential Impact. The potential for the Project to conflict with an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan is discussed on pages 3.4-60 and 3.4-61 of the Draft EIR.
CEQA FINDINGS
CEQA Findings – Riverwalk Specific Plan 51
(b) Mitigation Measures. Mitigation Measure 3.4-10.
(c) Findings. The Project Area is not subject to an HCP or NCCP. However, the Offsite Sewer Line is in San Joaquin County, which has an HCP/NCCP in effect. The San Joaquin County Multi-Species Habitat Conservation and Open Space Plan (SJMSCP), in accordance with ESA Section 10(a)(1)(B) and CESA Section 2081(b) Incidental Take Permits, provides compensation for the Conversion of Open Space to non-Open Space uses which affect the plant, fish and wildlife species covered by the Plan, hereinafter referred to as "SJMSCP Covered Species". In addition, the SJMSCP provides some compensation to offset the impacts of open space land conversions on non-wildlife related resources such as recreation, agriculture, scenic values, and other beneficial Open Space uses.
The Offsite Sewer Line is subject to the SJMSCP given that it is in San Joaquin County.
The proposed Project does not conflict with the SJMSCP. Therefore, the proposed Project would have a less than significant impact relative to this topic. Mitigation Measure 3.4-10 requires participation in the SJMSCP for installation of the Offsite Sewer Line.
In accordance with PRC § 21081(a)(1), Mitigation Measure 3.4-10 is an appropriate change or alteration that has been required in, or incorporated into, the Project which avoids or substantially lessens the significant environmental effect as identified in the EIR. The City Council hereby adopts the measure, rendering it enforceable. Based upon the EIR and the entire record before the City Council, the City Council finds that the potential to conflict with an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan will be mitigated to a less than significant level.
7. IMPACT 3.4-10: THE POTENTIAL TO CONFLICT WITH LOCAL POLICIES OR ORDINANCES PROTECTING BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES, SUCH AS A TREE PRESERVATION POLICY OR ORDINANCE. (a) Potential Impact. The potential to conflict with local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance is discussed on pages 3.4-59 and 3.4-68 of the Draft EIR.
(b) Mitigation Measures. Mitigation Measure 3.4-11.
(c) Findings. The proposed Project is substantially consistent with the local policies and ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance. The Project has been designed with ample open space, park, and trail areas to maintain open space linkages to the extent feasible. The Project would be required to comply with applicable policies to minimize impacts to special-status species and their associated habitat. Where impacts are identified, mitigation measures are presented to minimize, avoid, or compensate to the extent practicable. Therefore, this impact would be considered less than significant. Mitigation Measure 3.4-11 requires compliance with the City’s Oak and Landmark Tree Preservation Ordinance.
CEQA FINDINGS
52 CEQA Findings – Riverwalk Specific Plan
In accordance with PRC § 21081(a)(1), Mitigation Measure 3.4-11 is an appropriate change or alteration that has been required in, or incorporated into, the Project which avoids or substantially lessens the significant environmental effect as identified in the EIR. The City Council hereby adopts the measure, rendering it enforceable. Based upon the EIR and the entire record before the City Council, the City Council finds that the potential to conflict with local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance will be mitigated to a less than significant level.
D. CULTURAL AND TRIBAL RESOURCES
1. IMPACT 3.5-1: PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION HAS THE POTENTIAL TO CAUSE A SUBSTANTIAL ADVERSE CHANGE TO AN HISTORICAL RESOURCE AS DEFINED IN CEQAGUIDELINES §15064.5,
A UNIQUE ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCE AS DEFINED IN PUBLIC RESOURCES CODE SECTION 21083.2, OR A TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCE, AS DEFINED IN PUBLIC RESOURCES CODE §21074.
(a) Potential Impact. The potential to cause a substantial adverse change to an historical resource as defined in CEQA Guidelines §15064.5, a unique archaeological resource as defined in Public Resources Code section 21083.2, or a tribal cultural resource, as defined in Public Resources Code §21074, is discussed on pages 3.5-19 through 3.5-25 of the Draft EIR.
(b) Mitigation Measures. Mitigation Measures 3.5-1 and 3.5-2. (c) Findings. From the preliminary efforts made in the survey and shovel testing as part of the cultural resources assessment, it can be concluded that there are two significant prehistoric period resources within the Berghill Boundary area: ML-20-02 and ML-20- 03, that may contain information related to the prehistoric use and occupancy of the sites. Mitigation Measure 3.5-1 addresses the potential impacts to these two significant prehistoric period resources. They appear to qualify as “historical resources” within the meaning of CEQA and are treated as such for purposes of mitigation. Although confidentiality laws prevent the City from disclosing the location of these two sites, they can be avoided and preserved. Because Mitigation Measure 3.5-1 will require such avoidance and preservation, potential impacts to Resources ML-20-02 and ML-20-03 would be less than significant with the implementation of mitigation.
The portions of the Specific Plan Area that have not been field surveyed will warrant complete coverage surveys if those property owners seek development entitlements beyond the long-range planning effort provided by the Specific Plan. Additionally, all areas outside the Specific Plan Area, but within the Project Area, will warrant complete coverage surveys if those property owners seek development entitlements beyond the long-range planning effort provided by the proposed SOI Expansion. As such, no development or other physical change would occur in areas that have not been subject to a survey. Should these areas be planned for development in the future, a separate
CEQA FINDINGS
CEQA Findings – Riverwalk Specific Plan 53
environmental review would occur to evaluate the physical environmental changes that they propose and the potential impacts to cultural resources (via field surveys, building evaluations, etc., as applicable) would be analyzed. As with most projects in the region that involve ground-disturbing activities, there is the potential for discovery of previously unknown unique archaeological resources, historical resources of an archaeological nature, or tribal cultural resources. The locations of any such resources are not yet known, however, it is anticipated that if resources are discovered they will be avoided.
Mitigation Measure 3.5-1 addresses the potential impacts to Resources ML-20-2 and ML-20-3, which are the only two significant prehistoric period resources known to exist within areas that have been surveyed. Mitigation Measure 3.5-2 provides methods by which any such future discovered subsurface resources can be analyzed before they are potentially destroyed. In some circumstances, such resources could be preserved in place, thereby ensuring that there are no substantial adverse changes in the attributes that make those resources qualify as unique archaeological resources, historical resources of an archaeological nature, or tribal cultural resources.
In accordance with PRC § 21081(a)(1), Mitigation Measures 3.5-1 and 3.5-2 are appropriate changes or alterations that have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the EIR. The City Council hereby adopts these measures, rendering them enforceable. Based upon the EIR and the entire record before the City Council, the City Council finds that the potential to cause a substantial adverse change to an historical resource as defined in CEQA Guidelines §15064.5, a unique archaeological resource as defined in Public Resources Code section 21083.2, or a tribal cultural resource, as defined in Public Resources Code §21074, will be mitigated to a less than significant level.
2. IMPACT 3.5-2: PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION HAS THE POTENTIAL TO DISTURB HUMAN REMAINS, INCLUDING THOSE INTERRED OUTSIDE OF FORMAL CEMETERIES.
(a) Potential Impact. The potential to disturb human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries, is discussed on pages 3.5-24 and 3.5-25 of the Draft EIR. (b) Mitigation Measures. Mitigation Measure 3.5-3.
(c) Findings. While no human remains were found during field surveys of the Berghill Property, and there are no records or literature documenting a previous find in the Project Area, implementation of the following mitigation measure would ensure that all construction activities which inadvertently discover human remains implement staterequired consultation methods to determine the disposition and historical significance of any discovered human remains. Mitigation Measure 3.5-3 provides the appropriate procedures if subsurface deposits believed to be human in origin are discovered during construction and/or ground disturbance. This would include all work being halted within
CEQA FINDINGS
54 CEQA Findings – Riverwalk Specific Plan
a 100-foot radius of the discovery for the appropriately qualified professionals to evaluate the find and provide recommendations on how to proceed. If the appropriately qualified professional determines that the find is not human remains, work may resume immediately and no agency notifications are required. However, if the appropriately qualified professional determines that the find is human remains, procedures are outlined in Mitigation Measure 3.5-3 on how to proceed to ensure that the County Coroner is contacted for an evaluation, and appropriate mitigation or treatment measures are developed based on the findings of the coroner. The intent of this requirement is to ensure that any human remains found is evaluated and protected from significant adverse impacts. Implementation of Mitigation Measure 3.5-3 as previously stated, would ensure that the potential to disturb human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries, would be reduced to a less than significant level.
In accordance with PRC § 21081(a)(1), Mitigation Measure 3.5-3 is an appropriate change or alteration that has been required in, or incorporated into, the Project which avoids or substantially lessens the significant environmental effect as identified in the EIR. The City Council hereby adopts the measure, rendering it enforceable. Based upon the EIR and the entire record before the City Council, the City Council finds that the potential to disturb human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries, will be mitigated to a less than significant level.
E. GEOLOGY AND SOILS
1. IMPACT 3.6-2:IMPLEMENTATION AND CONSTRUCTION OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT MAY RESULT IN SUBSTANTIAL SOIL EROSION OR THE LOSS OF TOPSOIL.
(a) Potential Impact. The potential for the Project to result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil is discussed on pages 3.6-21 through 3.6-24 of the Draft EIR. (b) Mitigation Measures. Mitigation Measure 3.6-1.
(c) Findings. Erosion factor K indicates the susceptibility of soil to sheet and rill erosion by water. Values of K range from 0.02 to 0.69. Other factors being equal, the higher the value, the more susceptible the soil is to sheet and rill erosion by water. Within the Project Area, the erosion factor Kf varies from 0.02 to 0.37, which is considered a low to moderate potential for erosion. Furthermore, because the Project Area is essentially flat, the erosion potential is considered slight. Regardless of the potential for erosion, there is always the potential for human-caused erosion associated with construction activities or through the operational phase of a project. Grading, excavation, removal of vegetation cover, and loading activities associated with construction activities temporarily expose soils and increase the potential for soil erosion and sedimentation during rain events. Construction activities can also result in soil compaction and wind erosion effects that can adversely affect soils and reduce the revegetation potential at construction sites and staging areas.
CEQA FINDINGS
CEQA Findings – Riverwalk Specific Plan 55
In accordance with the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Stormwater Program, Mitigation Measure 3.6-1 requires an approved Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) designed to control erosion and the loss of topsoil to the extent practicable using Best Management Practices (BMPs) that the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) has deemed effective in controlling erosion, sedimentation, runoff during construction activities. The RWQCB has stated that these erosion control measures are only examples of what should be considered and should not preclude new or innovative approaches currently available or being developed. The specific controls are subject to review and approval by the RWQCB and are existing regulatory requirements. Implementation of Mitigation Measures 3.6-1 would ensure that the proposed Project would have a less than significant impact relative to this topic.
In accordance with PRC § 21081(a)(1), Mitigation Measure 3.6-1 is an appropriate change or alteration that has been required in, or incorporated into, the Project which avoids or substantially lessens the significant environmental effect as identified in the EIR. The City Council hereby adopts the measure, rendering it enforceable. Based upon the EIR and the entire record before the City Council, the City Council finds that the potential for the Project to result in substantial erosion or the loss of topsoil will be mitigated to a less than significant level.
2. IMPACT 3.6-5: THE PROPOSED PROJECT HAS THE POTENTIAL TO DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY DESTROY A UNIQUE PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCE OR SITE OR UNIQUE GEOLOGIC FEATURE. (a) Potential Impact. The potential for the Project to directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature is discussed on pages 3.6-26 through 3.6-28 of the Draft EIR.
(b) Mitigation Measures. Mitigation Measure 3.6-2.
(c) Findings. The field surveys have not revealed any surface evidence of paleontological resources. Regardless, it is always possible that undiscovered paleontological resources could be encountered during ground-disturbing activities. Damage to or destruction of a paleontological resource would be considered a potentially significant impact under local, state, or federal criteria. Implementation of Mitigation Measure 3.6-2 would ensure steps would be taken to reduce impacts to paleontological resources in the event that they are discovered during construction, including stopping work in the event potential resources are found, evaluation of the resource by a qualified paleontologist and appropriate handling and disposition of any potential resource. To the extent that any unique paleontological resources that might be found cannot be preserved in place, they will be made available for study by experts at the University of California Museum of Paleontology, who will be able to obtain from them any scientific information that they can contribute to ongoing advances in the field of paleontology. This mitigation measure would reduce this impact to a less than significant level.
CEQA FINDINGS
56 CEQA Findings – Riverwalk Specific Plan
In accordance with PRC § 21081(a)(1), Mitigation Measure 3.6-2 is an appropriate change or alteration that has been required in, or incorporated into, the Project which avoids or substantially lessens the significant environmental effect as identified in the EIR. The City Council hereby adopts the measure, rendering it enforceable. Based upon the EIR and the entire record before the City Council, the City Council finds that the potential for the Project to directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature will be mitigated to a less than significant level.
F. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
1. IMPACT 3.8-1: POTENTIAL TO CREATE A SIGNIFICANT HAZARD TO THE PUBLIC OR THE
ENVIRONMENT THROUGH THE ROUTINE TRANSPORT, USE, OR DISPOSAL OF HAZARDOUS
MATERIALS OR THROUGH REASONABLY FORESEEABLE UPSET AND ACCIDENT CONDITIONS INVOLVING THE RELEASE OF HAZARDOUS MATERIALS INTO THE ENVIRONMENT. (a) Potential Impact. The potential to create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials or through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment is discussed on pages 3.8-23 through 3.8-28 of the Draft EIR.
(b) Mitigation Measures. Mitigation Measures 3.8-1 through 3.8-4. (c) Findings. The Phase I ESA for the Berghill Property has revealed evidence of a historical recognized environmental condition and environmental issues in connection with the Project Area. Based on the conclusions of the Phase I ESA, an Operations and Maintenance (O&M) Program should be implemented to safely manage the suspect ACMs and LBP located at the subject property. Additionally, existing areas containing above ground storage tanks and storage of farm equipment would require soil sampling to assess the soil in these areas. Further, according to the Phase I ESA, the key site manager indicated there are four onsite agricultural water wells and one domestic well for the onsite residence. Should other groundwater wells be present onsite, the proper well abandonment permit would be obtained.
Areas within the Specific Plan Area, but outside the Berghill property, were part of a CEQA Hazards Assessment, which is limited to database searches, aerial reconnaissance, and literature and map review. While there has been no evidence of an environmental concern in these areas based on the Hazards Assessment, these areas did not include a site investigation or property owner questionnaires/interviews. It is anticipated that there are wells, storage tanks, buildings, and agricultural activities that present environmental concerns that warrant additional site investigation and potentially soil and groundwater testing. A Phase I ESA prepared for these areas would provide the additional site-specific information needed to determine if, and where, soil and groundwater testing may be warranted.
CEQA FINDINGS
CEQA Findings – Riverwalk Specific Plan 57
There is no evidence of a REC within the Specific Plan Area. Nevertheless, the Phase I ESA and Hazards Assessment has identified potential environmental concerns that should be evaluated further prior to ground disturbance. Implementation of the following mitigation measures will be required.
Mitigation Measure 3.6-1, contained in Section 3.6, Geology and Soils, ensures compliance with existing regulatory requirements to prepare a SWPPP designed to control erosion and the loss of topsoil to the extent practicable using best management practices (BMPs) that the RWQCB has deemed effective in controlling erosion, sedimentation, and runoff during construction activities.
Mitigation Measure 3.8-1 requires the Project applicant for any property in the Specific Plan Area, except for the Berghill property, to submit a Phase I ESA for the property. The purpose of the Phase I ESA is to supplement the research and analysis that has already been prepared for this area as part of the CEQA Hazards Assessment which is limited to database searches, aerial reconnaissance, and literature and map reviews. The Berghill property is excluded from this mitigation measure because a Phase I ESA has already been prepared for this property.
Mitigation Measure 3.8-2 requires the Project Applicant to hire a qualified consultant to perform additional soil and site testing. There may be additional areas identified in the Phase I ESAs prepared for areas outside the Berghill Property in accordance with Mitigation Measure 3.8-1; however, the following areas of the Berghill Property have already been deemed to have potentially hazardous conditions present:
• The residential units and adjoining structures.
• The remnant construction and/or farming materials (i.e., remnant pipes, etc.). • The soils in the area where farming equipment and above ground tanks have been stored.
A soil sampling and analysis workplan is also required to be submitted for approval by the Stanislaus County Department of Environmental Resources prior to the work. The measure also includes steps to take if the sampling results indicate the presence of agrichemicals that exceed commercial screening levels, or if asbestos-containing materials and/or lead are found in buildings.
Further, Mitigation Measure 3.8-3 requires the applicant to submit a Hazardous Materials Business Plan (HMBP) to the Stanislaus County Division of Environmental Resources (CUPA) for review and approval.
Lastly, Mitigation Measure 3.8-4 requires any ground disturbance activities within 50 feet of a well to obtain a well abandonment permit from Stanislaus County Department of Environmental Resources, and properly abandon the onsite wells, pursuant to review
CEQA FINDINGS
58 CEQA Findings – Riverwalk Specific Plan
and approval of the City Engineer and the Stanislaus County Department of Environmental Resources.
In accordance with PRC § 21081(a)(1), Mitigation Measures 3.8-1 through 3.8-4 are appropriate changes or alterations that have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the EIR. The City Council hereby adopts these measures, rendering them enforceable. Based upon the EIR and the entire record before the City Council, the City Council finds that the potential to create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials or through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment will be mitigated to a less than significant level.
G. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
1. IMPACT 3.9-1: THE PROPOSED PROJECT HAS THE POTENTIAL TO VIOLATE WATER QUALITY
STANDARDS OR WASTE DISCHARGE REQUIREMENTS OR OTHERWISE SUBSTANTIALLY DEGRADE SURFACE OR GROUND WATER QUALITY.
(a) Potential Impact. The potential to violate water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or ground water quality is discussed on pages 3.9-27 through 3.9-31 of the Draft EIR. (b) Mitigation Measures. Mitigation Measures 3.9-1 and 3.9-2. (c) Findings. The ongoing operational phase of the proposed Project requires the final discharge of stormwater into the on-site detention basins. The discharge of stormwater must be treated through BMPs prior to its discharge. The City of Riverbank implements best management practices to the extent they are technologically achievable to prevent and reduce pollutants.
Additionally, there are various non-structural and structural stormwater BMPs that can be implemented to reduce water pollution. Non-structural BMPs are typically aimed at prevention of pollution through public education and outreach. Non-structural BMPs include: school educational programs, newsletters, website information, commercial, billboards/advertisements, river cleanups, and storm drain stenciling. Structural BMPS are aimed at the physical collection, filtering, and detaining of stormwater. Structural BMPs include items such as drop inlet filters, vault filters, hydrodynamic separators, surface detention basins, and underground detention facilities.
The mitigation measures would ensure that BMPs are implemented during construction and operation to reduce the amount of pollution in stormwater discharged from the Project Area into the on-site MID facilities. The management of water quality through obtaining a General Industrial Stormwater Permit and implementing BMPs is intended to ensure that water quality does not degrade to levels that would violate water quality
CEQA FINDINGS
CEQA Findings – Riverwalk Specific Plan 59
standards. With implementation of the mitigation measures, the implementation of the proposed Project would have a less than significant impact relative to this topic.
In accordance with PRC § 21081(a)(1), Mitigation Measures 3.9-1 and 3.9-2 are appropriate changes or alterations that have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the EIR. The City Council hereby adopts these measures, rendering them enforceable. Based upon the EIR and the entire record before the City Council, the City Council finds that the potential to violate water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or ground water quality will be mitigated to a less than significant level.
H. NOISE
1. IMPACT 3.11-2: CONSTRUCTION OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT MAY RESULT IN VIBRATION IMPACTS.
(a) Potential Impact. The potential to result in construction vibration is discussed on pages
3.11-17 and 3.11-18 of the Draft EIR.
(b) Mitigation Measures. Mitigation Measure 3.11-3.
(c) Findings. Except for vibratory compactors, the Table 3.11-12 data indicates that construction vibration levels anticipated for the Project are less than the 0.2 in/sec threshold at 25 feet. Use of vibratory compactors within 26 feet of the adjacent buildings could cause vibrations more than 0.2 in/sec. Sensitive receptors which could be impacted by construction-related vibrations, especially vibratory compactors/rollers, are potentially located within 26 feet, or less, from future development. It is noted that, due to the size and location of the Specific Plan Area, most construction activities would occur at distances further than 26 feet.
Mitigation Measure 3.11-3 requires that compaction less than 26 feet from the adjacent residential structures be accomplished by using static drum rollers which use weight instead of vibrations to achieve soil compaction. As an alternative to this requirement, pre-construction crack documentation and construction vibration monitoring could be conducted to ensure that construction vibrations do not cause damage to any adjacent structures. Implementation of the Mitigation Measure 3.11-3 will ensure that these potential impacts are reduced to a less-than-significant level. Sensitive receptors will not be subjected to vibrations more than 0.2 in/sec.
In accordance with PRC § 21081(a)(1), Mitigation Measure 3.11-3 is an appropriate change or alteration that has been required in, or incorporated into, the Project which avoids or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the EIR. The City Council hereby adopts the measure, rendering it enforceable. Based upon the EIR and the entire record before the City Council, the City Council finds that the
CEQA FINDINGS
60 CEQA Findings – Riverwalk Specific Plan
potential to generate construction vibration will be mitigated to a less than significant level.
I. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
1. IMPACT 3.14-2: THE PROPOSED PROJECT HAS THE POTENTIAL TO RESULT IN A
DETERMINATION BY THE WASTEWATER TREATMENT AND/OR COLLECTION PROVIDER WHICH
SERVES THE PROJECT THAT THE PROVIDER DOES NOT HAVE ADEQUATE CAPACITY TO SERVE THE PROJECT’S PROJECTED DEMAND IN ADDITION TO THE PROVIDER’S EXISTING COMMITMENTS. (a) Potential Impact. The potential to result in a determination by the wastewater treatment and/or collection provider which serves the project that the provider does not have adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments is discussed on pages 3.14-14 through 3.14-19 of the Draft EIR. (b) Mitigation Measures. Mitigation Measure 3.14-1.
(c) Findings. The proposed Specific Plan would require sewer allocation for each phase of development as the phase is constructed through 2040. Allocation of available sewer capacity would be made at the time payment of the appropriate connection fees is made to the City to cover a pro-rata fair share of the capital cost for the sewer capacity.
The WWTP upgrades, if built, are anticipated to increase capacity of the plant by 0.69 mgd once funding is secured, of which the proposed Specific Plan will require 0.64 mgd at buildout. The first 5-10 years of construction phases may be adequately served by the WWTP upgrades that add 0.69 mgd; however, it may be necessary for additional WWTP upgrades based on other development that occurs throughout the City. Overall, the Specific Plan’s capacity needs may exceed the wastewater discharge requirements from the wastewater treatment provider, which will depend on future project demands and WWTP upgrade implementation. WWTP upgrades are dependent on financing, as well, as design, engineering, and construction schedule that is not yet secure. This is a potentially significant impact, however, mitigation that limits construction to only those units that have secured capacity would ensure that there is no exceedance of sewer capacity. With implementation of the following mitigation measure the proposed project would have a less than significant impact relative to this topic.
In accordance with PRC § 21081(a)(1), Mitigation Measure 3.14-1 is an appropriate change or alteration that has been required in, or incorporated into, the Project which avoids or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the EIR. The City Council hereby adopts the measure, rendering it enforceable. Based upon the EIR and the entire record before the City Council, the City Council finds that the potential to result in a determination by the wastewater treatment and/or collection provider which serves the project that the provider does not have adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments will be mitigated to a less than significant level.
CEQA FINDINGS
CEQA Findings – Riverwalk Specific Plan 61
V. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS REGARDING THOSE IMPACTS
WHICH ARE LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT OR LESS THAN
CUMULATIVELY CONSIDERABLE
Specific impacts within the following categories of environmental effects were found to be less than significant even in the absence of mitigation, as set forth in more detail in the Draft EIR.
Aesthetics and Visual Resources: The following specific impacts were found to be less than significant: 3.1-2 and 3.1-3.
Agricultural Resources: The following specific impact was found to be less than significant:
3.2-2.
Air Quality: The following specific impacts were found to be less than significant: 3.3-2, 3.3- 3, and 3.3-5.
Biological Resources: The following specific impacts were found to be less than significant:
3.4-5, 3.4-7, and 3.4-8.
Geology and Soils: The following specific impacts were found to be less than significant: 3.6- 1, 3.6-3, and 3.6-4.
Greenhouse Gases, Climate Change, and Energy: The following specific impacts were found to be less than significant: 3.7-3, and 3.7-4.
Hazards and Hazardous Materials: The following specific impacts were found to be less than significant: 3.8-2, 3.8-3, 3.8-4, 3.8-5, and 3.8-6.
Hydrology and Water Quality: The following specific impacts were found to be less than significant: 3.9-2, 3.9-3, 3.9-4, and 3.9-5.
Land Use, Population, and Housing: The following specific impacts were found to be less than significant: 3.10-1, 3.10-2, and 3.10-3.
Public Services and Recreation: The following specific impacts were found to be less than significant: 3.12-2, 3.12-4, and 3.12-5.
Transportation and Circulation: The following specific impact was found to be less than significant: 3.13-4.
Utilities: The following specific impacts were found to be less than significant: 3.14-4 and
3.14-6.
The Project was found to have a less than cumulatively considerable contribution to specific impacts within the following categories of environmental effects as set forth in more detail in the Draft EIR.
CEQA FINDINGS
62 CEQA Findings – Riverwalk Specific Plan
Aesthetics and Visual Resources: The following specific impacts were found to be less than cumulatively considerable: 4.1 and 4.3.
Land Use and Population: The following specific impact was found to be less than cumulatively considerable: 4.15 and 4.16.
Utilities: The following specific impact was found to be less than cumulatively considerable:
4.24. The above impacts are less than significant or less than cumulatively considerable for one of the following reasons:
• The EIR determined that the impact is less than significant for the Project; • The EIR determined that the Project would have a less than cumulatively considerable contribution to the cumulative impact; or
• The EIR determined that the impact is beneficial (would be reduced) for the Project.
VI. PROJECT ALTERNATIVES
A. IDENTIFICATION OF PROJECT OBJECTIVES
An EIR is required to identify a range of reasonable alternatives to the project. The “range of potential alternatives to the proposed project shall include those that could feasibly accomplish most of the basic objectives of the project and could avoid or substantially lessen one or more of the significant effects.” (CEQA Guidelines § 15126.6(c).) “Among the factors that may be taken into account when addressing the feasibility of alternatives are site suitability, economic viability, availability of infrastructure, general plan consistency, other plans or regulatory limitations, jurisdictional boundaries (projects with a regionally significant impact should consider the regional context), and whether the proponent can reasonably acquire, control or otherwise have access to the alternative site (or the site is already owned by the proponent).” (CEQA Guidelines § 15126.6(f)(1).)
The underlying purpose of the proposed Project is the expansion of the City of Riverbank Sphere of Influence, and approval and subsequent implementation of the Specific Plan as a means of increasing the housing supply in Stanislaus County and the State of California.
The underlying project purpose of providing housing for the county and state is in part a response to, and is driven by, strong policy direction from the Legislature, which has declared that “California has a housing supply and affordability crisis of historic proportions. The consequences of failing to effectively and aggressively confront this crisis are hurting millions of Californians, robbing future generations of the chance to call California home, stifling economic opportunities for workers and businesses, worsening poverty and homelessness, and undermining the state's environmental and climate objectives.” (Gov. Code Section 65589.5[a][2][A].) “California housing has become the most expensive in the nation. The excessive cost of the state's housing supply is partially caused by activities and policies of many local governments that limit the approval of housing, increase the
CEQA FINDINGS
CEQA Findings – Riverwalk Specific Plan 63
cost of land for housing, and require that high fees and exactions be paid by producers of housing.” (Id., Section 65589.5[a][1][C].) “Among the consequences of those actions are discrimination against low-income and minority households, lack of housing to support employment growth, imbalance in jobs and housing, reduced mobility, urban sprawl, excessive commuting, and air quality deterioration.” (Id., Section 65589.5[a][1][B].) “An additional consequence of the state's cumulative housing shortage is a significant increase in greenhouse gas emissions caused by the displacement and redirection of populations to states with greater housing opportunities, particularly workingand middle-class households. California's cumulative housing shortfall therefore has not only national but international environmental consequences.” (Id., Section 65589.5[a][2][I].) The Project is intended to directly address these legislative concerns.
Consistent with the above-described underlying purpose and state policy considerations, the primary objectives of the Specific Plan are to establish the framework for a new mixed-use community, allowing residents to live in a community where they can enjoy a high quality of life with abundant opportunities for outdoor recreation and social activities. The following goals have been established as a framework to achieving the primary objectives for the Specific Plan and for purposes of satisfying the requirement, in CEQA Guidelines section 15124[b], to identify a “statement of objectives” for the Project:
• Goal 1: Develop a mix of residential housing products to accommodate a variety of desires in the market.
• Goal 2: Prioritize the age-restricted development as a vibrant community with diverse housing types and densities allowing residents to age-in-place by remaining in the River Walk community as their housing needs may change.
• Goal 3: Develop a community core area that serves as a central community gathering place for social interaction, recreation, retail, services, and living space. • Goal 4: Promote health and wellness through extensive pedestrian and bicycle trails, outdoor recreation areas, and opportunities for social interaction. • Goal 5: Respect the natural resources (i.e., Stanislaus River), terrain, and character of land by designing a residential community that highlights the scenic views of the Plan Area. • Goal 6: Achieve a safe and efficient circulation system for all users and modes of transportation.
• Goal 7: Highlight village identity while promoting community amenities.
The Project goals and objectives, presented above, were developed by the City in response to the Legislature’s repeated determinations in recent years that California is facing a statewide housing crisis, and the City’s desire to facilitate the construction of new housing in the face of the housing crisis. The City staff has responded with adequate attention to the economic, environmental, and social costs of reduced housing density by establishing a quantified target density that provided the City with significant flexibility to evaluate different scenarios for residential projects on the Project site.
CEQA FINDINGS
64 CEQA Findings – Riverwalk Specific Plan
B. ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS IN EIR
The alternatives analysis provides a summary of the relative impact levels of significance associated with each alternative for each of the environmental issue areas analyzed in the Draft EIR. The environmental analysis for each of the alternatives is included in Chapter 5.0.
1. NO PROJECT (NO BUILD) ALTERNATIVE:
The No Project (No Build) Alternative is discussed on pages 5.0-6, 5.0-7, and 5.0-8 through 5.0-17 of the Draft EIR. Under the No Project (No Build) Alternative development of the Plan Area would not occur, and the Plan Area would remain in its current existing condition. The current uses in the Project Area are predominantly agricultural operations, including almond and walnut orchards in the eastern/southeastern portion of the Project Area and cherry orchards and agricultural land in the western/central portion of the Project Area. Under this alternative, the Plan Area would not be annexed to the City and would remain subject to County planning indefinitely. The Stanislaus County General Plan designates most of the Project Area as Agriculture (AG), and a small portion (5 acres including APNs 074-005-012, 074-005-013, 074-005-010, 074-005-011) of the eastern Project Area as Urban Transition (UT). The Stanislaus County Zoning Ordinance currently designates the majority of the Project Area for General Agriculture 40 Acre (A-2-40) uses, and a limited portion (APNs 074- 005-012, 074-005-013, 074-005-010, 074-005-011) as General Agriculture 10 Acre (A-2-10). It is noted that the No Project (No Build) Alternative would fail to meet the Project objectives. See Figure
5.0-1, No Project (No Build) Alternative, in Chapter 5.0 of the Draft EIR which shows the existing site conditions.
Environmental Findings: Environmental benefits of this alternative over the proposed Project include the reduction of impacts to all impacts and environmental topics, including: Aesthetics, Agricultural Resources, Air Quality, Biological Resources, Cultural and Tribal Resources, Geology and Soils, Greenhouse Gases, Climate Change and Energy, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, Hydrology and Water Quality, Land Use, Population, and Housing, Noise, Public Services and Recreation, Transportation and Circulation, and Utilities.
Feasibility Considerations: While the City recognizes the environmental benefits of the No Project (No Build) Alternative, this alternative would not achieve the underlying purpose of the Project or any of the Project objectives. Specifically, this alternative would not: expand the City of Riverbank Sphere of Influence or approve and implement the River Walk Specific Plan as a means of increasing the housing supply in Stanislaus County and the State of California; develop a mix of residential housing products to accommodate a variety of desires in the market; prioritize the age-restricted development as a vibrant community with diverse housing types and densities allowing residents to age-in-place; develop a community core area that serves as a central community gathering place for social interaction, recreation, retail, services, and living space; promote health and wellness through extensive pedestrian and bicycle trails, outdoor recreation areas, and opportunities for social interaction; respect the natural resources (i.e., Stanislaus River), terrain, and character of land by designing a residential community that highlights the scenic views of the Plan Area; achieve a safe and efficient circulation system for all users and modes of transportation; or highlight village identity while promoting community amenities.
CEQA FINDINGS
CEQA Findings – Riverwalk Specific Plan 65
In short, the No Project (No Build) Alternative represents a lost opportunity to build housing and therefore to make progress towards ameliorating the statewide housing crisis. In the City Council’s judgment, this would be an undesirable outcome from a public policy standpoint. The City Council notes that in 2017, in amending a law known as the Housing Accountability Act (Stats. 2017, ch. 368), the Legislature found that, “[a]ccording to reports and data, California has accumulated an unmet housing backlog of nearly 2,000,000 units and must provide for at least 180,000 new units annually to keep pace with growth through 2025.” (Gov. Code, § 65589.5(a).) “California’s overall homeownership rate is at its lowest level since the 1940s. The state ranks 49th out of the 50 states in homeownership rates as well as in the supply of housing per capita. Only one-half of California’s households are able to afford the cost of housing in their local regions.” (Ibid.) This housing crisis “threatens the economic, environmental, and social quality of life in California.” (Ibid.) “The consequences of failing to effectively and aggressively confront this crisis are hurting millions of Californians, robbing future generations of the chance to call California home, stifling economic opportunities for workers and businesses, worsening poverty and homelessness, and undermining the state’s environmental and climate objectives.” (Ibid.) “An additional consequence of the state’s cumulative housing shortage is a significant increase in greenhouse gas emissions caused by the displacement and redirection of populations to states with greater housing opportunities, particularly working- and middle-class households. California’s cumulative housing shortfall therefore has not only national but international environmental consequences.” (Ibid.) Two years later, the Legislature enacted the Housing Crisis Act of 2019 (Stats. 2019, ch. 654), the centerpiece of which is Government Code section 66300. In passing this legislation, the Legislature found that “[t]he housing crisis harms families across California and has resulted in all the following:
(A) Increased poverty and homelessness, especially first-time homelessness. (B) Forced lower income residents into crowded and unsafe housing in urban areas. (C) Forced families into lower cost new housing in greenfields at the urban-rural interface with longer commute times and a higher exposure to fire hazard. (D) Forced public employees, health care providers, teachers, and others, including critical safety personnel, into more affordable housing farther from the communities they serve, which will exacerbate future disaster response challenges in high-cost, highcongestion areas and increase risk to life. (E) Driven families out of the state or into communities away from good schools and services, making the ZIP Code where one grew up the largest determinate of later access to opportunities and social mobility, disrupting family life, and increasing health problems due to long commutes that may exceed three hours per day.” (2019 Cal. Legis. Serv. Ch. 654 (S.B. 330), § 2(a)(6).) CEQA takes concerns of these kinds into account. The Legislature intends that public agencies, in regulating private activities affecting the environment, “shall regulate such activities so that major consideration is given to preventing environmental damage, while providing a decent home and satisfying living environment for every Californian.” (PRC § 21000(g), italics added.) Public Resources
CEQA FINDINGS
66 CEQA Findings – Riverwalk Specific Plan
Code Section 21159.26 states that “[w]ith respect to a project that includes a housing development, a public agency may not reduce the proposed number of housing units as a mitigation measure or project alternative for a particular significant effect on the environment if it determines that there is another feasible specific mitigation measure or project alternative that would provide a comparable level of mitigation. This section does not affect any other requirement regarding the residential density of that project.”
The No Project (No Build) Alternative would not provide any new housing, and thus would not meet, to any degree, the above-described project purpose, project objectives, or statewide policies favoring the production of new housing. The No Project (No Build) Alternative would lead to an undesirable policy outcome. The City Council therefore rejects the No Project (No Build) Alternative infeasible. (See Public Resources Code Section 21081, subdivision [a][3].)
2. INCREASED DENSITY ALTERNATIVE:
The Increased Density Alternative is discussed on pages 5.0-7, and 5.0-17 through 5.0-27 of the Draft EIR. Under the Increased Density Alternative, the proposed Project would be developed with the same amenities as described in the Project Description, but the density of the residential uses would be increased, and the total development footprint would be equal to the proposed Specific Plan. This alternative would include development of more apartments and auto court multi-family units than under the proposed Project. Under the Increased Density Alternative, the same number of residential units as the proposed Project (2,432 to 2,682 units) would be constructed. However, this alternative would include development of 50 percent medium- and high-density units, and 50 percent low density units. The residential and mixed-use areas would be clustered in the central and southern portions of the Project site at increased densities to allow for an increase in park areas in the northwestern portion of the Plan Area. This alternative would also plan for parks, trails, circulation improvements, and utility improvements in a similar way as the proposed Project.
Additionally, the Mixed-Use areas would provide an estimated 341,000 to 836,000 sf of commercial/retail uses, identical to the proposed Project. Under this alternative, the proposed Mixed Use areas near the northwestern Plan Area entry point would be relocated along Patterson Road where the other proposed Mixed Use areas are proposed. See Figure 5.0-2, Increased Density Alternative, which shows a conceptual site plan for this alternative.
Environmental Findings: The Increased Density Alternative would reduce impacts related to 24 impact statements, increase impacts related to one impact statement, and equal impacts related to 38 impact statements. Impacts related to Aesthetics, Air Quality, Biological Resources, Hydrology and Water Quality, and Transportation and Circulation would be reduced compared to the Project.
The remaining resources areas (Agricultural Resources, Cultural and Tribal Resources, Geology and Soils, Greenhouse Gases, Climate Change, and Energy, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, Land Use, Population and Housing, Noise, Public Services, and Utilities) would have equal or greater impacts to the Project.
In general, the physical environmental footprint of the Increased Density Alternative, in terms of areas to be graded and developed, would be approximately the same as that of the Project. As the Draft EIR stated, “the total disturbance area would be equal to the Project.” (DEIR, p. 5.0-20.) The
CEQA FINDINGS
CEQA Findings – Riverwalk Specific Plan 67
primary reason for impact reductions under the Increased Density Alternative is the more compact form of development it embodies, in which many single-family homes would be replaced with medium-density and high-density residential units. As described on page 5.0-7, “[u]nder the Increased Density Alternative, the same number of residential units as the proposed Project (2,432 to 2,682 units) would be constructed. However, this alternative would include development of 50 percent medium and high density units, and 50 percent low density units. The residential and mixed use areas would be clustered in the central and southern portions of the Project site at increased densities to allow for an increase in park areas in the northwestern portion of the Plan Area.” In contrast, assuming a total of up to 2,432 residential dwelling units within its residential designations, the Specific Plan component of the proposed Project would include 1,550 low density units, 702 medium density units, and 180 high density units. (DEIR, p. 2.0-8.) Thus, low density units would make up approximately 64 percent of total residential units.
The discussion of the Increased Density Alternative’s impacts relating to vehicle miles traveled (VMT), as found on DEIR page 5.0-24, reveals the main environmental benefit of the more compact form of development that would occur under this alternative. This benefit comes from the facts that “the trip rate[s] for medium and high density residential units are less than for low density residential units,” and that, as a result, total VMT would be reduced under this alternative. On pages
5.0-19 and 5.0-20, the Draft EIR explains that, because of diminished VMT, “[o]verall, the Increased Density Alternative would result in reduced air emissions when compared to the proposed Project.” Feasibility Considerations: Although the alternative would provide the same overall number of housing units as the Project would produce, the mix would be different. As noted above, this alternative includes development of 50% medium and high density units, and 50% low density units, while the proposed Project, in contrast, would result in a greater mix and variety of housing types, with a greater emphasis on lower density units. As noted above, low density units would make up approximately 64 percent of total residential units under the Project.
The Draft EIR explains that, compared with the proposed Project, the Increased Density Alternative would be less effective than the Project in meeting the project objective to “[d]evelop a mix of housing products to accommodate a variety of desires in the market.” The Draft EIR also concludes that the alternative would also be less effective than the Project in meeting the objective to “[p]rioritize the age-restricted development as a vibrant community with diverse housing types and densities allowing residents to age-in-place by remaining in the River Walk community as their housing needs may change.” (See DEIR, p. 5.0-50.) Importantly, for residents to be able to age in place, the community in which they live will need to include a variety of housing types and densities consistent with the needs of individuals, couples, and families as they grow older. For example, people often live in multi-family or other high-density housing in their younger years before they can afford to purchase single family homes. At that point in their lives, they are starting their careers, and their purchasing power is limited. Later, as they make a better living, these people opt to purchase, and live in, single family homes in which they can raise children if they choose to do so.
When these people get older (e.g., after their children have grown up), they may lose interest in continuing to bear the burdens of maintaining such homes; or they may find the burdens of home maintenance to be too taxing physically. Older people may want to move into condominiums or
CEQA FINDINGS
68 CEQA Findings – Riverwalk Specific Plan
town homes with smaller yards requiring less upkeep (or no yards at all). Ultimately, even older people may choose to move into facilities offering options such as “independent living,” “assisted living,” “skilled nursing care,” “memory care,” and “hospice.” They may seek out facilities that are physically close to where their adult children live. The proposed project has been carefully designed to embody a land use mix that can accommodate all these housing types and options, thereby allowing individuals to live in the same community over the course of several decades. The Increased Density Alternative, in contrast, has not been designed with this approach in mind. Its overabundance of higher density uses would allow younger people to live in apartments but would provide far fewer options for the purchase of single-family homes.
Importantly, the Project site is located within a geographic area in which nearby residential use consists of rural residences and traditional one- and two-story single-family homes. As the Draft EIR states on page 3.10-3, “[t]he Project Area is bounded on the north by the Stanislaus River and Stanislaus County Limits, on the south by Patterson Road, on the west by McHenry Avenue, and on the east by single-family residential subdivisions, one of which is within the city limits and the other is to the north within the unincorporated county. Uses immediately adjacent to the south and southwest of the Project Area include agricultural uses and residential uses, including ranchettes and large estates lots. Uses directly southeast of the Project Area include agricultural uses and a single-family residential subdivision. Other existing uses east of the southerly portion of the Project Area include a single-family residential subdivision and a commercial center. Uses immediately west of the Project Area include active agricultural land and the Del Rio Country Club, including a golf course and associated single-family residential subdivision. Other nearby uses include agricultural uses and residential uses, including ranchettes and large estates lots to the north, northeast, and northwest across the Stanislaus River.
Given the low density character of existing development in the areas close to the Project site, the City Council is concerned that the comparatively larger amount of land planned for higher land use densities in the Increased Density Alternative would make the alternative, in comparison to the Project, less compatible with surrounding uses, which have relatively low densities. For this reason, the City Council considers the policy outcome embodied in the Increased Density Alternative to be undesirable in comparison to the policy outcome embodied in the Project. Although the Project would include 702 medium density units and 180 high density units, these higher density uses would make up only about 36 percent of the total residential units rather than 50 percent. The Project will provide substantial amounts of higher density housing but will predominately be a single-family community. The Project, the City Council believes, is a better “fit” for the general area in which it would be located.
Although the City Council appreciates the environmental benefits associated with a reduction in overall VMT, the City Council notes that the air quality effects of the Project can be rendered less than significant with mitigation. (DEIR, pp. 3.3-24 – 3.3-41 [air quality impacts], 4.0-7 [cumulative air quality effects], 5.0-47 [Table 5.0-4].) In the Council’s legislative judgment, foregoing the reductions in VMT that could be achieved through the alternative are an acceptable tradeoff for the benefits of improved compatibility that would occur under the Project. The Council has engaged in a reasonable
CEQA FINDINGS
CEQA Findings – Riverwalk Specific Plan 69
balancing of these competing environmental, economic, and social considerations and has found in favor of land use compatibility concerns.
The City Council notes, too, that the Project applicant is seeking approval of the Specific Plan as found in the proposed Project, and is not seeking approval of the Increased Density Alternative. The applicant’s proposal presumably reflects its own expert assessment of market conditions and financial considerations such as the cost of infrastructure and the need, at the end of the day, to realize a reasonable rate of return on investment. The Specific Plan also reflects the professional input from the applicant’s engineers, consultants, attorneys, and other development experts. If the City Council were to approve the Increased Density Alternative, there would be no certainty that the applicant would pursue that alternative with the same vigor with which it would pursue the Project, or that the applicant would pursue the alternative at all.
Under the circumstances, the City Council is inclined to give weight to the Project applicant’s professional expert judgment regarding the precise housing mix to propose on the subject properties. Approval of a Specific Plan substantially different than the one proposed seems less likely to result in the actual construction of housing, which is a policy imperative for both the City Council and the Legislature. Considering the importance of housing construction, the City Council sees no reason to impose on the applicant a development mix and configuration at odds with what the applicant has proposed. As the courts have said, a local agency decision-making body “may approve a developer’s choice of a project once its significant adverse environmental effects have been reduced to an acceptable level that is, all avoidable significant damage to the environment has been eliminated and that which remains is otherwise acceptable.” (Laurel Hills v. City Council (1978) 83 Cal.App.3d 515, 521, italics added.) Importantly, the applicant has agreed to all mitigation measures proposed in the EIR, and all of them have been adopted and will be implemented. As set forth in the Statement of Overriding Considerations attached to these findings, the City Council finds the remaining significant unavoidable impacts to be acceptable tradeoffs for the benefit of the Project.
For all of these reasons, including (i) the failure of the Increased Density Alternative to meet two key project objectives to the same extent that the Project would, (ii) concerns about the comparative compatibility of the Increased Density Alternative with surrounding land uses, and (iii) the Council’s perception that the Project is more economically viable than the Alternative, the City Council considers the policy outcome embodied in the Increased Density Alternative to be undesirable in comparison to the policy outcome embodied in the Project and to be infeasible within the meaning of CEQA. (See Public Resources Code Section 21081, subdivision [a][3].)
3. LOWER DENSITY ALTERNATIVE:
The Lower Density Alternative is discussed on pages 5.0-7, and 5.0-27 through 5.0-35 of the Draft EIR. Under the Lower Density Alternative, the proposed Project would be developed in such a way to promote larger lot sizes and to reduce the overall footprint of the developed areas. This alternative would include development of custom homes on approximately 8,000 sf lots, as compared to the 5,000 sf or larger lot sizes for the low density residential units proposed by the Project. Under the Lower Density Alternative, the number of residential units constructed in the Plan Area would be reduced by 25 percent compared to the proposed Project. Under the proposed
CEQA FINDINGS
70 CEQA Findings – Riverwalk Specific Plan
Project, 2,432 to 2,682 residential units would be constructed; this alternative would result in construction of 1,824 to 2,011 units. This alternative would also plan for parks, trails, circulation improvements, and utility improvements. Additionally, the Mixed Use areas would provide an estimated 341,000 to 836,000 sf of commercial/retail uses, identical to the proposed Project. See Figure 5.0-3, Lower Density Alternative, which shows a conceptual site plan for this alternative.
Environmental Findings: The Lower Density Alternative would reduce impacts related to 30 impact statements and would have equal impacts related to 33 impact statements. Environmental benefits of this alternative over the proposed Project include the reduction or slight reduction of impacts related to Aesthetics, Air Quality, Biological Resources, Hydrology and Water Quality, Transportation and Circulation, and Utilities. The remaining resources areas (Agricultural Resources, Cultural and Tribal Resources, Geology and Soils, Greenhouse Gases, Climate Change and Energy, Hazardous and Hazardous Materials, Land Use, Population and Housing, Public Services and Recreation, and Utilities) would have equal or similar impacts to the Project.
Feasibility Considerations: While the City Council recognizes the environmental benefits of the Lower Density Alternative, this alternative would not achieve the Project’s underlying purpose as well as the Project would and would not meet all the Project objectives. The underlying project purpose includes the approval and subsequent implementation of the Specific Plan as a means of increasing the housing supply in Stanislaus County and the State of California. Under the Lower Density Alternative, the number of residential units constructed in the Plan Area would be reduced by 25 percent compared to the proposed Project. Whereas the proposed Project would yield between 2,432 and 2,682 residential units, the alternative would result in construction of only 1,824 to 2,011 units. This substantial reduction in the number of housing units makes the Lower Density Alternative a substantially less effective vehicle for addressing the statewide housing crisis.
Relatedly, the Lower Density Alternative would fail to meet the project objective to “[d]evelop a mix of housing products to accommodate a variety of desires in the market” because only low density residential units would be provided. For the same reason, the alternative would be less effective than the Project in meeting the project objective to “[p]rioritize the age-restricted development as a vibrant community with diverse housing types and densities allowing residents to age-in-place by remaining in the River Walk community as their housing needs may change.” (DEIR, p. 5.0-50.) Large lots would be inappropriate for many people 55 years and older who will not want the maintenance responsibilities that go with large lots.
Considering the Legislature’s repeated determinations in recent years that California is facing a statewide housing crisis, the City Council has good reason to exercise its legislative discretion to facilitate the construction of as much new housing as is economically feasible consistent with sound land use planning. As noted earlier, Government Code Section 65889.5, subdivision (a)(1)(A), states that “[t]he lack of housing, including emergency shelters, is a critical problem that threatens the economic, environmental, and social quality of life in California.” Subdivision (a)(1)(D) of that section adds that “[m]any local governments do not give adequate attention to the economic, environmental, and social costs of decisions that result in disapproval of housing development
CEQA FINDINGS
CEQA Findings – Riverwalk Specific Plan 71
projects, reduction in density of housing projects, and excessive standards for housing development projects.”
The applicant has proposed a Specific Plan that would yield between 2,432 to 2,682 residential units, and presumably has concluded that it is economically feasible to pursue all of them. That being the case, the City Council sees no need to reduce the yield by 25 percent. The applicant’s proposal presumably reflects its own expert assessment of market conditions and financial considerations such as the cost of infrastructure and the need, at the end of the day, to realize a reasonable rate of return on investment. The Specific Plan also reflects the professional input from the applicant’s engineers, consultants, attorneys, and other development experts. If the City Council were to approve the Lower Density Alternative, there would be no certainty that the applicant would pursue that alternative with the same vigor with which it would pursue the Project, or that the applicant would pursue the alternative at all.
Under the circumstances, the City Council is inclined to give weight to the Project applicant’s professional expert judgment regarding the housing numbers to propose on the subject properties.
Approval of a Specific Plan substantially different than the one proposed would be certain to yield fewer housing units, contrary to state policy strongly encouraging housing construction. Considering the clear social benefits of new housing, the City Council sees no reason to force the applicant to reduce the proposed housing yield. As the courts have said, a local agency decision-making body “may approve a developer’s choice of a project once its significant adverse environmental effects have been reduced to an acceptable level that is, all avoidable significant damage to the environment has been eliminated and that which remains is otherwise acceptable.” (Laurel Hills v.
City Council (1978) 83 Cal.App.3d 515, 521, italics added.) Importantly, the applicant has agreed to all mitigation measures proposed in the EIR, and all of them have been adopted and will be implemented. As set forth in the Statement of Overriding Considerations attached to these findings, the City Council finds the remaining significant unavoidable impacts to be acceptable tradeoffs for the benefits of the Project.
For all of these reasons, including (i) the failure of the Lower Density Alternative to meet the underlying project purpose as well as the Project would, (ii) the alternative’s failure to meet the project objective to “[d]evelop a mix of housing products to accommodate a variety of desires in the market,” (iii) the alternative’s comparative ineffectiveness in meeting the project objective to “[p]rioritize the age-restricted development as a vibrant community with diverse housing types and densities allowing residents to age-in-place,” and (iv) the Council’s perception that the Project is more economically viable than the Alternative, the City Council considers the policy outcome embodied in the Lower Density Alternative to be undesirable in comparison to the policy outcome embodied in the Project and to be infeasible within the meaning of CEQA. (See Public Resources Code Section 21081, subdivision [a][3].)
4. NO RESERVE ALTERNATIVE:
The No Reserve Alternative is discussed on pages 5.0-7, 5.0-8, and 5.0-35 through 5.0-46 of the Draft EIR. Under the No Reserve Alternative, the proposed Project would be developed with the same amenities as described in the Project Description, but the Reserve Area located outside the
CEQA FINDINGS
72 CEQA Findings – Riverwalk Specific Plan
Specific Plan Area would be removed from the Project Area. The same number of residential units as the proposed Project (2,432 to 2,682 units) would be constructed. This alternative would also plan for parks, trails, circulation improvements, and utility improvements in a similar way as the proposed Project. Additionally, the Mixed Use areas would provide an estimated 341,000 to 836,000 square feet of commercial/retail uses, identical to the proposed Project. However, the Reserve Area would be removed from the Project area. As such, the Project Area would be reduced from 1,522 acres under the proposed Project to 997 acres. The SOI expansion would include all 997 acres. See Figure 5.0-4, No Reserve Alternative, which shows a conceptual site plan for this alternative.
Environmental Findings: The No Reserve Alternative would result in equal impacts in all areas and for all impacts, except for one Land Use related impact statement (Impact 3.10-3: Potential to Induce Substantial Population Growth). (See DEIR, pp. 3.10-33 – 3.10-36, 5.0-48 [Table 5.0-4].) Notably, the effect is less than significant for the proposed project, despite the inclusion of the Reserve area within the overall Project area. (Id. at p. 3-10-36.) The reasons for this conclusion were expanded on page 2.0-161 of the Final EIR (Response G-63):
• On page 3.10-34, the Draft EIR states that “[g]rowth inducement may constitute an adverse impact if the growth is not consistent with or accommodated by the land use plans and growth management plans and policies for the area affected. Local land use planstypically provide for land use development patterns and growth policies that allow for the orderly expansion of urban development supported by adequate urban public services, such as water supply, roadway infrastructure, sewer service, and solid waste service.” Under this description of how growth inducement may result in adverse impacts, the City stands by its conclusion, set forth on page 3.10-36, that the Project’s growth-inducing impacts will be less than significant.
• The expansion of the SOI, by itself, does not per se result in significant growth-inducing impacts, as land within an SOI cannot be developed by the City unless and until, at some future date, the City prezones the property and Stanislaus LAFCo approves the annexation of that territory into the City – an outcome that will have to be preceded by substantial planning efforts and additional environmental review. Such planning and environmental review will ensure that any expansion of the City’s boundaries and the areas in which urban services will be provided will occur on an orderly basis. • Similarly, the assignment of the Reserve (R) designation to additional property does not per se result in significant growth-inducing impacts. The R designation is a City of Riverbank General Plan land use designation that does not denote any specific land use but rather is an overlay designation that specifies additional requirements related to timing of development, analysis required by the City, infrastructure and service standards, and related topics. Before making Reserve areas eligible for consideration for urban development, the City will hold a public hearing and make required findings. The establishment of this as a use is not growth inducing, as it does not propose any growth or guarantee that any growth would occur. The General Plan speaks to this fact on page
CEQA FINDINGS
CEQA Findings – Riverwalk Specific Plan 73
Land-11 when it states, “This designation does not necessarily imply urban development, but rather could be areas to preserve in natural open space or for agricultural use, for example.” It is speculative to draw a conclusion that the Reserve areas will be urban development before any consideration or evaluation has been performed. It is also considered speculative to draw a conclusion that the Reserve area will not be ultimately become urban development. The only definitive conclusion that can be drawn is that the Reserve areas will undergo more evaluation and consideration. Any environmental analysis conducted in the present would be so general as to not be meaningful, and thus is not required by CEQA. (See, e.g., East Oakland Stadium Alliance v. City of Oakland (2023) 89 Cal.App.5th 1226, 1250 [“[w]hen the environmental impact from a particular project feature cannot be reliably ascertained and estimated, it is properly characterized as speculative”]; Rodeo Citizens Assn. v. County of Contra Costa (2018) 22 Cal.App.5th 214, 226 [“[a]n EIR is required to evaluate a particular environmental impact only to the extent it is ‘reasonably feasible’ to do so”]; Santa Rita Union School District v. City of Salinas (2023) 94 Cal.App.5th 298, 350 [EIR “was not required to engage in ‘“‘sheer speculation’”’ based on non-specific and uncertain information about events or development that might occur in the future”], quoting Marin Municipal Water District v. KG Land California Corporation (1991) 235 Cal.App.3d 1652, 1662.) Here, the City has the right to exercise its legislative discretion to establish land uses in its General Plan, which includes the establishment of a Reserve designation. If there is a proposal for development in the Reserve areas, then it would become a ripe time to perform an analysis of that proposal. There is currently no proposal for development the Reserve area.
Despite the strength and persuasiveness of this reasoning, the City acknowledges that the inclusion of a Reserve area within an expanded SOI would have some limited practical real-world consequences, in that it represents the first step in a possible scenario that could ultimately – with many planning and environmental steps remaining to do – result in additional development such as new housing. As the Draft EIR explains on page 5.0-43, under the No Reserve Alternative “[t]he land in the Reserve Area and outside the Specific Plan Area would not be available for future City land use planning without future entitlements (such as SOI expansion and annexation). As such, the No Reserve Alternative would result in a reduction in indirect environmental impacts related to land use. Therefore, impacts relating to land use would be reduced under this alternative.” In other words, the No Reserve Alternative would leave an additional governmental/political barrier to development in place. From a physical environmental impact standpoint, there is no physical change to the Reserve area under the proposed Project or this alternative, regardless of the SOI boundary, so there are no physical environmental impacts under either alternative.
The main difference between these alternatives is that land within an SOI boundary is less restricted from future land development, whereas land outside of an SOI boundary would be more restricted, and would require more governmental approvals that lead to land development. This is a political impact, not an environmental impact. While the property owners of the Reserve area have not
CEQA FINDINGS
74 CEQA Findings – Riverwalk Specific Plan
expressed any desire to annex into the City or develop their property, and there is no imminent expectation for development of this area in the foreseeable future, leaving additional governmental/political impediments makes it more likely that the Reserve area would remain undeveloped in the future, or at least for a more extended time frame. This impediment to development, which results in a diminished likelihood of ultimate future development of the Reserve area, would be considered a reduced long-term environmental consequence for essentially all environmental topics.
It is noted that the City staff (personal communication with Donna Kenny) has expressed a desire to establish an SOI that extends to McHenry Avenue as a logical boundary for the City’s SOI, regardless of whether the Reserve area is developed or maintained as open space or agricultural uses in the future. The exclusion of the Reserve area under this alternative would conflict with the City’s desire that has been expressed.
Feasibility Considerations: Because the Alternative does not reduce the severity of any of the significant unavoidable effects of the Project, the City Council need not assess the feasibility of the No Reserve Alternative, as adopting the alternative would do nothing to serve the “substantive mandate” of CEQA, by which agencies should reduce the severity of significant environmental effects where feasible. (See Pub. Resource Code Section 21002; Mountain Lion Foundation v. Fish & Game Com. (1997) 16 Cal.4th 105, 134.) Even so, the City Council has determined that the alternative is less desirable than the Project from a public policy standpoint and does not provide the same level of benefits as the proposed Project. In the City Council’s judgment, the alternative is less effective than the proposed Project in meeting the fundamental purpose of expanding the City’s SOI and approving and implementing the Specific Plan as a means of increasing the housing supply in Stanislaus County and the State of California. As noted above, the City Council views McHenry Road as a logical boundary line for the SOI. The proposed Project would accomplish that objective, while the No Reserve Alternative would not. While the City Council recognizes the potential long-term environmental benefits of this alternative, this alternative would not achieve the fundamental project purpose as well as the proposed Project. Thus, though nothing in CEQA requires the City Council to address the feasibility of the No Reserve Alternative, the City Council has determined that the alternative is infeasible insofar as it represents a public policy outcome less desirable than what would occur under the proposed Project. (See Public Resources Code Section 21081, subdivision [a][3].)
5. ENVIRONMENTALLY SUPERIOR ALTERNATIVE:
CEQA requires that an environmentally superior alternative be identified among the alternatives that are analyzed in the EIR. If the No Project Alternative is the environmentally superior alternative, an EIR must also identify an environmentally superior alternative among the other alternatives (CEQA Guidelines § 15126.6(e)(2)). The environmentally superior alternative is that alternative with the least adverse environmental impacts when compared to the proposed Project.
As shown on Table 5.0-4 of the Draft EIR (on pages 5.0-47 through 5.0-49), a comparison of alternatives is presented. As shown in the table, the No Project (No Build) Alternative is the
CEQA FINDINGS
CEQA Findings – Riverwalk Specific Plan 75
environmentally superior alternative. As indicated above, however, the City Council has rejected that alternative as infeasible.
As required by CEQA, when the No Project (No Build) Alternative is the environmentally superior alternative, the environmentally superior alternative among the others must be identified. The Increased Density Alternative would reduce impacts related to 24 impact statements, increase impacts related to one impact statement, and equal impacts related to 38 impact statements. The Lower Density Alternative would reduce impacts related to 30 impact statements and would have equal impacts related to 33 impact statements. The No Reserve Alternative would result in equal impacts in all areas and for all impacts, except for one Land Use related impact statement. Therefore, the Lower Density Alternative would be the next environmentally superior alternative. As indicated above, however, the City Council has rejected that alternative as infeasible.
VII. STATEMENTS OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS
As described in detail in Section III of these Findings, the following significant and unavoidable impacts could occur with implementation of the Project:
• Impact 3.1-1: Project implementation may result in substantial adverse effects on scenic vistas and resources or substantial degradation of visual character. • Impact 3.2-1: The proposed Specific Plan has the potential to result in the conversion of Farmlands, including Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, and Farmland of Statewide Importance, as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural uses. • Impact 3.7-1: Project implementation could generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment. • Impact 3.7-2: Project implementation could conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases. • Impact 3.11-1: Construction of the proposed Project may generate significant noise. • Impact 3.11-3: The proposed Project may generate unacceptable traffic noise levels at existing receptors.
• Impact 3.11-4: The proposed Project may be subject to shooting range noise at new sensitive receptors.
• Impact 3.12-3: The proposed Project has the potential to 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, and it will require the construction of park and recreational facilities which may cause substantial adverse physical environmental impacts.
• Impact 3.13-1: Implementation of the Specific Plan would conflict with a program, plan, ordinance, or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities.
• Impact 3.13-2: Implementation of the Specific Plan would conflict with or be inconsistent with CEQA Guideline section 15064.3, subdivision (b).
CEQA FINDINGS
76 CEQA Findings – Riverwalk Specific Plan
• Impact 3.13-3: Implementation of the Specific Plan could substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment).
• Impact 3.14-1: The proposed Project has the potential to require or result in the construction of new wastewater treatment or collection facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects. • Impact 3.14-3: The proposed Project has the potential to require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects.
• Impact 3.14-5: The proposed Project has the potential to require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded stormwater drainage facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects. • Impact 4.2: Cumulative Degradation of the Existing Visual Character of the Region. • Impact 4.4: Cumulative Impact on Agricultural Resources. • Impact 4.9: Cumulative Impact on Climate Change from Increased Project-Related Greenhouse Gas Emissions
• Impact 4.17: Cumulative Exposure of Existing and Future Noise-Sensitive Land Uses to Increased Noise Resulting from Cumulative Development.
• Impact 4.18: Cumulative Impact on Public Services and Recreation (Significant and Unavoidable and Less than Cumulatively Considerable)
• Impact 4.19: Under Cumulative conditions, the proposed Project would conflict with or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3, subdivision (b). • Impact 4.21: Cumulative Impact on Wastewater Utilities. • Impact 4.22: Cumulative Impact on Water Utilities.
• Impact 4.23: Cumulative Impact on Stormwater Facilities.
The following statements identify the reasons why, in the City Council's judgment, the benefits of the Project outweigh its significant and unavoidable effects. The substantial evidence supporting the enumerated benefits of the Project can be found in the preceding findings, in the Project itself, and in the record of proceedings as defined in Section II. Each of the overriding considerations set forth below constitutes a separate and independent ground for finding that the benefits of the Project outweigh its significant adverse environmental effects and is an overriding consideration warranting approval. Thus, if a court were to find that any particular benefit is not supported by substantial evidence, the City Council would rely on whatever benefit(s) that the court did find were supported by substantial evidence.
The City finds that the Project would have the following economic, social, technological, and environmental benefits:
1. Expansion of the City's Housing Stock. One objective of the Project references developing a mix of residential housing products to accommodate a variety of desires in the market.
Considering the Legislature’s repeated determinations in recent years that California is facing a statewide housing crisis, State has provided the City with good reason to exercise its legislative discretion to facilitate the construction of new housing. Government Code
CEQA FINDINGS
CEQA Findings – Riverwalk Specific Plan 77
Section 65889.5, subdivision (a)(1)(A), states that “[t]he lack of housing, including emergency shelters, is a critical problem that threatens the economic, environmental, and social quality of life in California.” Subdivision (a)(1)(D) of that section adds that “[m]any local governments do not give adequate attention to the economic, environmental, and social costs of decisions that result in disapproval of housing development projects, reduction in density of housing projects, and excessive standards for housing development projects.” The Project will provide housing resources to meet the demands of a growing population of the region, thereby helping to lessen upward pressure on housing costs. By adding new residential units in the City, the Project directly addresses the crisis, thereby furthering state housing policy while providing additional places for Riverbank residents to live.
Another objective of the Project references prioritizing age-restricted development as a vibrant community with diverse housing types and densities allowing residents to age-inplace. According to the California Department of Housing and Community Development, “[i]t is critical that individuals have access to housing that suits their needs during each stage of their lives. As people age, they often find themselves facing new or additional housing challenges. Senior households often have special housing needs related to physical disabilities/limitations, fixed incomes, and healthcare costs.” Additionally, Government Code Section 65583(a)(7)) requires “[a]n analysis of any special housing needs, such as those of the elderly, persons with disabilities, including a developmental disability, as defined in Section 4512 of the Welfare and Institutions Code; large families, farmworkers, families with female heads of households, and families and persons in need of emergency shelter…”2 The Project would provide age-restricted housing for seniors, which is an identified special housing need in California.
2. Create Employment Opportunities for Local Residents. The Project will have a positive impact on employment levels in the City by generating diversity in employment opportunities, including near-term construction, home sales, and materials sales jobs. In the longer term, employment opportunities will include maintenance, contracting/renovation, landscaping, home resales, retail and food services, and other services. The Project population will also generate demand for local goods and services, increasing economic activity in the City. Consequently, it is reasonably expected that the City and its residents will enjoy the economic and social benefits from added employment opportunities and economic activity created by the Project. The River Walk Specific Plan Fiscal Impact Analysis (EPS #252024, Economic & Planning Systems, Inc., November 2025) (“FIA”) quantifies these employment and economic activity benefits. At full Project buildout, the Project is estimated to add over 5,000 new residents and over 1,100 new permanent employees in the commercial mixed-use areas, for a total of over 6,100 “persons served” (defined as 100% of 2 See: https://www.hcd.ca.gov/planning-and-community-development/housing-elements/buildingblocks/seniors
CEQA FINDINGS
78 CEQA Findings – Riverwalk Specific Plan
residents plus 50% of employees). The residential population will generate approximately $72.1 million in annual retail expenditures within the region, of which approximately 70% is estimated to be captured within the City of Riverbank. The commercial component of the Project alone is projected to generate approximately $95.4 million in annual taxable retail sales from onsite retail activity at full buildout, supporting jobs in food and beverage, food services, general merchandise, clothing and apparel, and other retail and service categories.
These figures represent a substantial and sustained addition to the City’s economic base.
3. Contribute to and Fund Needed Infrastructure Improvements. The Project consists of new development that will be required to contribute to needed infrastructure improvements by paying its fair share towards infrastructure improvements. The Project will also construct or contribute to funding other infrastructure improvements that will benefit additional development projects and City residents and visitors. Such infrastructure improvements include, without limitation: (i) extension and improvement of water supply, wastewater collection, and stormwater drainage systems needed to serve the Project and surrounding development; (ii) roadway improvements and new street connections, including improvements to Patterson Road and McHenry Avenue, that will benefit existing and future residents and businesses; (iii) a new pedestrian and bicycle trail system providing connectivity along the Stanislaus River bluff and through the Project Area; (iv) a Modesto Irrigation District trail and multi-use path crossing; (v) new and expanded parks and recreational facilities, including neighborhood parks, a regional trail system, and a community clubhouse; and (vi) regional utility infrastructure, including offsite sewer lines designed to serve capacity beyond the Project itself. These improvements advance the City’s General Plan goals and provide lasting public benefit.
4. Increase Customer Base for Retail Activity. The Project will provide additional residents to the City who will have disposable income to support the City's retailers and increase retail activity.
5. Generate Economic Benefits from Taxes. The Project will provide increased property tax revenue to the City, local schools, and other agencies. Additionally, residents will purchase items that will generate additional sales tax revenue. The Project also includes 76.76 acres of mixed uses, which would generate sales tax revenue. These revenues will benefit the City and other local governmental agencies, and their residents and constituencies, by providing needed revenue for the provision of required services and amenities. Specific to the City of Riverbank, these revenues will go to the City's General Fund, which is the primary source of funding for the construction, operation and maintenance of a number of essential City services, programs and facilities, including fire and police services, recreation programs, transit operations and administrative functions, among other things. These economic benefits are quantified in the River Walk Specific Plan Fiscal Impact Analysis (EPS #252024, Economic & Planning Systems, Inc., November 2025) (“FIA”), which was prepared using the City’s FY 2024–25 Adopted Budget as the base fiscal year. The FIA finds the following at full Project buildout (2,707 residential units and 644,000 square feet of nonresidential commercial space): (a) the Project will generate approximately $4.01 million in annual
CEQA FINDINGS
CEQA Findings – Riverwalk Specific Plan 79
General Fund revenues for the City of Riverbank, against approximately $2.23 million in annual General Fund expenditures attributable to the Project, producing an annual General Fund surplus of approximately $1.78 million (approximately $658 per residential unit) that can be used to fund City services benefiting all residents; (b) the Project will generate approximately $2.09 million per year in additional revenues to the City’s Community Facilities District (CFD) 2016-1, which funds ongoing services and maintenance costs including police services and street, parks, storm drainage, and landscaping maintenance; (c) when General Fund and CFD 2016-1 revenues are combined, the Project is projected to generate a net annual benefit to the City of approximately $1,430 per residential unit at buildout; (d) the Project will generate approximately $1.23 billion in new assessed valuation at buildout, with approximately $1.23 million in annual property tax revenue allocated to the City’s General Fund and an additional $686,000 per year allocated to the Stanislaus Consolidated Fire Protection District; (e) the Project will generate approximately $147.7 million in annual taxable sales at full buildout (combining market-support sales from new residents and employees with onsite retail activity), yielding approximately $1.48 million per year in Bradley-Burns local sales tax revenue to the City at the 1% rate; and (f) the Stanislaus Consolidated Fire Protection District, which currently operates at a deficit relative to Project-generated costs during the residential-only phases of development, is projected to achieve an annual surplus of approximately $210,000 at full buildout once the nonresidential component is developed and special assessment revenues are fully realized.
The FIA is part of the record before the City Council and constitutes substantial evidence supporting these fiscal benefit findings.
6. Positive Long-Term Fiscal Impact on City and Fire District Services. According to the FIA, the Project will produce a positive net fiscal impact for the City of Riverbank at full buildout.
The Project generates more revenue than it requires in City services—producing an annual General Fund surplus of approximately $1.78 million (approximately $658 per residential unit) and a combined General Fund and CFD 2016-1 annual net benefit of approximately $1,430 per residential unit. This means that the Project will contribute to the fiscal health of the City rather than creating a fiscal burden, allowing the City to sustain and improve the quality of services it provides to all residents. The FIA also finds that the Project will generate approximately $2.09 million annually for CFD 2016-1, which funds police services, parks and street maintenance, storm drainage, and landscaping. These are services that directly benefit all City residents. The Project’s fiscal contribution to CFD 2016-1 will help ensure that these services can be maintained at adequate levels as the City’s population grows.
With respect to the Stanislaus Consolidated Fire Protection District, the FIA acknowledges that the Project will create a short-term operating deficit during the residential-only phases of development (approximately $346,000 annually at 50% residential buildout). However, at full buildout—when the Project’s approximately 644,000 square feet of nonresidential commercial space is occupied and special benefit assessment revenues from commercial parcels are fully realized—the Fire District is projected to achieve an annual operating surplus of approximately $210,000. This trajectory reflects the importance of timely nonresidential development and is consistent with the Project’s mixed-use design, which pairs residential growth with commercial development to ensure long-term service funding
CEQA FINDINGS
80 CEQA Findings – Riverwalk Specific Plan
adequacy. The City Council finds that the Project’s overall positive fiscal impact—as documented in the FIA and supported by substantial evidence in the record—constitutes a significant economic benefit that weighs in favor of approving the Project notwithstanding its significant unavoidable environmental effects.
CONCLUSION
The City Council has balanced these benefits and considerations against the significant unavoidable environmental effects of the Project and has concluded that the impacts are outweighed by these benefits. After balancing environmental impacts against Project benefits, the City Council has concluded that the benefits the City will derive from the Project, as compared to existing and planned future conditions, outweigh the risks. The City Council believes the Project benefits outlined above override the significant and unavoidable environmental costs associated with the Project.
In sum, the City Council adopts the mitigation measures in the Final EIR, adopts the final Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan, and approves the Project, after finding that any residual or remaining effects on the environment resulting from the Project, identified as significant and unavoidable in the preceding Findings of Fact, are acceptable due to the benefits set forth in the preceding Statement of Overriding Considerations.
Planning Commission Resolution No. 2026-___
EXHIBIT B
FINAL MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING
PROGRAM
RIVER WALK SPECIFIC PLAN
The Final Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program contained in Chapter 6.0 of the Final EIR is attached separately and incorporated into this Resolution by reference.
FINAL MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM 6.0
Final Environmental Impact Report – River Walk Specific Plan 6.0-1 This document is the Final Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (FMMRP) for the River Walk Specific Plan (Project). This FMMRP has been prepared pursuant to Section 21081.6 of the California Public Resources Code, which requires public agencies to “adopt a reporting and monitoring program for the changes made to the project or conditions of project approval, adopted in order to mitigate or avoid significant effects on the environment.” A FMMRP is required for the proposed Project because the EIR has identified significant adverse impacts, and measures have been identified to mitigate those impacts.
The numbering of the individual mitigation measures follows the numbering sequence as found in the Draft EIR.
6.1 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
The FMMRP, as outlined in the following table, describes mitigation timing, monitoring responsibilities, and compliance verification responsibility for all mitigation measures identified in this Final EIR.
The City of Riverbank will be the primary agency responsible for implementing the mitigation measures and will continue to monitor mitigation measures that are required to be implemented during the operation of the proposed Project.
The FMMRP is presented in tabular form on the following pages. The components of the FMMRP are described briefly below:
• Mitigation Measures: The mitigation measures are taken from the Draft EIR in the same order that they appear in that document.
• Mitigation Timing: Identifies at which stage of the project mitigation must be completed. • Monitoring Responsibility: Identifies the agency that is responsible for mitigation monitoring.
• Compliance Verification: This is a space that is available for the monitor to date and initial when the monitoring or mitigation implementation took place.
6.0 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
6.0-2 Final Environmental Impact Report – River Walk Specific Plan TABLE 6.0-1: MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT MITIGATION MEASURE
MONITORING
RESPONSIBILITY
TIMING
VERIFICATION
(DATE/INITIALS)
AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES
Impact 3.2-1: The proposed
Specific Plan has the potential to
result in the conversion of
Farmlands, including Prime Farm
land, Unique Farmland, and
Farmland of Statewide
Importance, as shown on the
maps prepared pursuant to the
Farmland Mapping and Monitoring
Program of the California
Resources Agency, to nonagricultural uses.
Mitigation Measure 3.2-1: Prior to the issuance of grading permits, the Project applicant shall secure permanent protection of offsite farmland based on a 1:1 ratio to the amount of gross Farmland converted as a result of development, consistent with the requirements of the City’s Sustainable Agricultural Strategy.
The acreage requiring agricultural mitigation shall be equal to the portion of the site dedicated to residential uses which would be subject to the discretionary development entitlement and lands designated as Prime Farmland, Farmland of Statewide Importance, or Unique Farmland. Permanent preservation shall consist of the purchase of agricultural conservation easements granted in perpetuity from willing seller(s), enforceable deed restrictions, purchase of banked mitigation credits, or other conservation mechanisms acceptable to the City. Land set aside for permanent preservation shall: (1) be of equal or better soil quality, have a dependable and sustainable supply of irrigation water, and be located within Stanislaus County; and (2) not be previously encumbered by a conservation easement of any nature.
The permanent protection of farmland shall be accomplished by either: (1) the landowner/developer working directly with an established farmland trust or similar organization, such as the Central Valley Farmland Trust, and providing certification satisfactory to the City that such lands have been permanently preserved at the specified ratio; or (2) working with a qualified land trust or similar organization, such as the Central Valley Farmland Trust, to establish a fee for agricultural land conservation easements.
Mitigation Measure 3.2-2: Prior to the conversion of agricultural lands in the Specific Plan Area, the Project applicant shall participate in the Stanislaus LAFCo’s Agricultural Preservation Policy (as amended on March 27, 2019), consistent with the City’s Sustainable Agricultural Strategy. The Project applicant shall prepare a “Plan for Agricultural Preservation”, which shall include information such as the Project’s direct and indirect impacts to agricultural resources, the availability of other lands in the City of Riverbank’s existing boundaries, and relevant General Plan policies. The Plan shall also specify the method or strategy proposed to minimize the loss of agricultural City of
Riverbank
Planning / Public
Works
Prior to Grading
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM 6.0
Final Environmental Impact Report – River Walk Specific Plan 6.0-3
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT MITIGATION MEASURE
MONITORING
RESPONSIBILITY
TIMING
VERIFICATION
(DATE/INITIALS)
lands. The information provided in the Plan shall be consistent with the environmental documentation prepared by the City.
Impact 3.2-3: The proposed
Project has the potential to result
in conflicts with adjacent
agricultural lands or indirectly
cause conversion of agricultural
lands.
Mitigation Measure 3.2-3: Prior to approval of any Final Maps, “Right to Farm” language shall be incorporated on the Final Map for approval and recordation against the affected property. The proposed language shall contain the following statement: “All persons purchasing lots within the boundaries of this approved map should be prepared to accept the inconveniences associated with agricultural operations, such as noise, odors, flies, dust or fumes. Stanislaus County has determined that such inconveniences shall not be considered to be a nuisance if agricultural operations are consistent with accepted customs and standards.” City of
Riverbank
Planning / Public
Works
Prior to Grading
AIR QUALITY
Impact 3.3-1: Project operations
could result in a cumulatively
considerable net increase of any
criteria pollutant for which the
Project region is in nonattainment, and could conflict or obstruct implementation of the
District’s air quality plan.
Mitigation Measure 3.3-1:
(a) Overall Obligation of River Walk Specific Plan Project. The collective present and future applicants for the development approvals within the overall River Walk Specific Plan Project shall together be required to ensure that criteria pollutant emissions for the overall River Walk Specific Plan Project do not exceed the SJVAPCD criteria pollutant thresholds for a single year. This obligation will be ensured, as described in greater detail below, based on the requirement for each “Site” within the Overall Project to not exceed the proportional share of criteria pollutant emissions allowed by the SJVAPCD under their operational criteria pollutant thresholds. The required reductions can be achieved through a combination of on-site and/or off-site mitigation strategies. (b) Individual Criteria Pollutant Reduction Plans (CPRPs). i. Obligations of Each “Site” Within Overall Project. The obligation to reduce the overall operational criteria pollutant emissions of the River Walk Specific Plan Project may be achieved over time and incrementally in connection the City’s approvals of discrete phases of development that are consistent with, and reflect, differing ownership interests within the overall Project area at the time of overall Project approval. These individual phases consist of each of the 18 individual villages and the San Joaquin
Valley Air
Pollution
Control District
City of
Riverbank
Planning
Prior to Building
Permit
6.0 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
6.0-4 Final Environmental Impact Report – River Walk Specific Plan
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT MITIGATION MEASURE
MONITORING
RESPONSIBILITY
TIMING
VERIFICATION
(DATE/INITIALS)
four mixed use areas (i.e. Sites). Based on the respective levels of development being approved within these respective Sites, each Site’s proportional share of required overall reduction is set forth in the Table below.
ii. Process for Approval of Individual CPRPs. Each applicant for development approvals for each Site, or part of a Site, shall propose a Criteria Pollutant Reduction Plan (CPRP) that would achieve the entire Site’s proportional share of the overall required reduction of operational criteria pollutant emissions (as established by the SJVAPCD operational criteria pollutant thresholds), consistent with the percentages shown in the Table, which correspond with the acreages of each Site as a proportion of all Sites. City approval of the CPRP for a Site shall be required prior to City approval of the first grading permit for any property within the Site. Each individual CPRP shall be approved, with modifications if deemed necessary, by the City’s Community Development Director in consultation with SJVAPCD and/or a specialist Air Quality consultant retained by the Director at the applicant’s expense. Prior to each individual CPRP’s submittal to the City’s Community Development Director, each individual CPRP shall be provided to the SJVAPCD for their review.
Site Acreage Percentage
Contribution (%)
Village A 83.08 12.74%
Village B 25.21 3.87%
Village C 59.76 9.17%
Village D 47.86 7.34%
Village E 34.51 5.29%
Village F 39.39 6.04%
Village G 22.62 3.47%
Village H 20.62 3.16%
Village I 10.02 1.54%
Village J 24.02 3.68%
Village K 37.16 5.70%
Village L 48.08 7.38%
Village M 19.11 2.93%
Village N 10.28 1.58%
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM 6.0
Final Environmental Impact Report – River Walk Specific Plan 6.0-5
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT MITIGATION MEASURE
MONITORING
RESPONSIBILITY
TIMING
VERIFICATION
(DATE/INITIALS)
Village O 24.89 3.82%
Village P 18.09 2.77%
Village Q 25.35 3.89%
Village R 25.21 3.87%
Mixed Use Area 1 44.02 6.75%
Mixed Use Area 2 8.07 1.24%
Mixed Use Area 3 7.28 1.12%
Mixed Use Area 4 8.01 1.23%
Mixed Use Area 5 5.35 0.82%
Mixed Use Area 6 4.04 0.62%
Mixed Use Area 6 4.04 0.62%
ROW 63.37 0%
Community Park 15.42 0%
BGOS, Park, Basin,
Reserve 790.60 0%
Total 1,521.41 100.0%
• Note: Right of way, community park, and bluff acreage were not included as a contribution, since this table is only designed to apportion responsibility for the overall required reduction in criteria pollutant emissions for each site/applicant.
iii. Appeals of CPRPs to Planning Commission and City Council. After the Community Development Director has approved a CPRP, the document shall be posted in a prominent place on the City’s website, along with notice to the public that any interested party may file, within 10 business days of such approval, a written appeal of the Community Development Director’s approval to the City Planning Commission. The CPRP approval and notice of the right to appeal shall be included within that portion of the City’s website devoted to activities of the Planning Division (https://www.riverbank.org/211/Planning-Division). Upon the timely filing of such an appeal, the Planning Commission shall promptly schedule and hold a duly-noticed public hearing on the adequacy of the CPRP. Any decision of the Planning Commission approving, conditioning, or denying a CPRP may be appealed to the City Council within 10 days of the Planning Commission decision. Upon appeal, the City Council shall promptly schedule and hold a duly noticed public hearing on the adequacy of the CPRP. The decision of the City Council shall be final, but may include directives to the Community Development Director regarding changes to be made to the CPRP if deemed necessary.
6.0 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
6.0-6 Final Environmental Impact Report – River Walk Specific Plan
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT MITIGATION MEASURE
MONITORING
RESPONSIBILITY
TIMING
VERIFICATION
(DATE/INITIALS)
iv. Possible Adjustments to Mandatory Emissions Reductions. The level of proportionate criteria pollutant reductions required for the CPRP for a particular Site may be adjusted downward or upward if the applicant seeking development approvals for a Site is proposing a greater or lesser amount of development than was assumed in the EIR. Any such adjustments, however, shall be supported by rigorous technical analysis and/or other substantial evidence deemed sufficient by the Community Development Director. Adjustments may also be made in response to an evidentiary showing, based on substantial evidence persuasive to the Community Development Director, that the calculations of overall required criteria pollutant reductions used in the EIR are no longer accurate, or no longer represent the best available information, in light of improved criteria pollutant emissions modeling methodologies and/or improved energy conservation technologies, more stringent building codes, cleaner electricity sources, or other relevant factors. v. Possible Strategies for Achieving Mandatory Reductions. The following is a non-exhaustive list of potential criteria pollutant mitigation strategies that could be implemented by individual Site applicants in their CPRPs in order to reduce the Sites’ proportional shares of the overall requirement that the River Walk Specific Plan Project’s CPRP emissions:
• Implement cool roofs on project buildings.
• Provide electric vehicle (EV) charging stations.
• Encourage telecommuting and alternative work schedules. • Provide a bus rapid transit system.
• Require that all residential units be constructed to use electric appliances exclusively, including water heaters.
• Except for commercial retail uses, design and orient a minimum of seventy-five percent (75%) of the Site’s total non-residential building footprint such that one axis of the building is at least one-and-onehalf (1.5) times longer than the other, and the other axis is within fifteen (15) degrees of geographical east-west.
• Require that one-hundred percent (100%) of non-residential roof area be constructed with either vegetated (‘green’) roof, or roofing
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM 6.0
Final Environmental Impact Report – River Walk Specific Plan 6.0-7
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT MITIGATION MEASURE
MONITORING
RESPONSIBILITY
TIMING
VERIFICATION
(DATE/INITIALS)
materials with a high solar reflectance value, or a combination of both, provided that nothing in this subsection shall limit the use of roof area for renewable energy generation systems, such as solar thermal collectors or photovoltaics.
• Pre-wire residential structures so that future homeowners or residents can elect to purchase and install electric car charging equipment.
• Provide induction stoves in new residential units.
• Pre-wire parking lots for multi-family, business
professional/commercial, and retail/commercial land uses to allow for more electric vehicle charging facilities than are required by building codes.
• Provide more electric vehicle charging facilities within parking lots for multi-family, business professional/commercial, and
retail/commercial land uses than are required by building codes. • Prepare a Voluntary Emission Reduction Agreement (VERA), in coordination with the SJVAPCD.
• Applicable measures identified in guidance from the SJVAPCD, if any, and/or in guidance provided by CARB, other regional air districts such as the Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District, the Bay Area Air Quality Management District, and the South Coast Air Quality Management District.
vi. Flexibility to Consider Improving Technologies. Due to ever-changing technologies, any other quantifiable criteria pollutant reduction measures shall be allowed under this measure, subject to the approval by the City Community Development Director in consultation with the SJVAPCD and/or an air quality GHG consultant retained by the Director at the applicant’s expense.
Mitigation Measure 3.3-2: The SJVAPCD recommends an Ambient Air Quality Analysis (AAQA) be developed for individual development projects that exceed 100 pounds per day of any pollutant. Prior to the approval of each individual development project (i.e. final maps, improvement plans, site plan review, etc.), each project applicant shall develop an AAQA (including both permitted
6.0 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
6.0-8 Final Environmental Impact Report – River Walk Specific Plan
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT MITIGATION MEASURE
MONITORING
RESPONSIBILITY
TIMING
VERIFICATION
(DATE/INITIALS)
and non-permitted equipment and activities) using dispersion modeling to determine if increases from the individual development project would cause or contribute to violation of State or National Air Quality Standards. The project applicant(s) shall consult with the SJVAPCD to determine the appropriate model and input data to use in the analysis for each individual project.
Mitigation Measure 3.3-3: Prior to the commencement of construction activities for the project each individual development project, the project applicant(s) for each development project shall prepare and submit a Rule 9510 Indirect Source Review application that meets all SJVAPCD requirements, as applicable.
Impact 3.3-4: The proposed
Project has the potential for public
exposure to toxic air
contaminants.
Mitigation Measure 3.3-4: Prior to issuance of building permits or commencing operation of any commercial building/use that would emit toxic air contaminants (such as gas stations or dry cleaning operations), the project applicant(s) for each individual development project shall, at a minimum, perform prioritization screening in accordance the SJVAPCD’s CEQA Guidelines.
The prioritization screening shall also be conducted consistent with the guidance provided by the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (SJVAPCD), which will be responsible for determining which facilities, based on their prioritization screening score, must perform a health risk assessment. In determining the need to prepare a health risk assessment, the SJVAPCD considers the potency, toxicity, quantity, and volume of hazardous materials released from the facility, the proximity of the facility to potential receptors, and any other factors specific to the facility that indicate that it may pose a significant health risk.
• If a health risk assessment is warranted for a facility based on its prioritization score, the project applicant shall assess the facilities for the potential to expose the public to toxic air contaminants in excess of the applicable thresholds (utilizing an air dispersion modelling program such as AERMOD). As of the time of this writing, the commonly accepted threshold for cancer risk is 10 in a million for carcinogens, and the reference exposure level for non-carcinogens (HI = 1). Facilities that exceed the applicable threshold(s) have the potential to expose the public to toxic air contaminants levels that would be considered significant.
San Joaquin
Valley Air
Pollution
Control District
City of
Riverbank
Planning
Prior to Building
Permit
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM 6.0
Final Environmental Impact Report – River Walk Specific Plan 6.0-9
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT MITIGATION MEASURE
MONITORING
RESPONSIBILITY
TIMING
VERIFICATION
(DATE/INITIALS)
Facilities that exceed the applicable threshold(s) must incorporate mitigation to reduce the risks from emission of toxic air contaminants to an acceptable level (i.e., to a level that does not exceed the applicable threshold[s]). Potential mitigation includes: reducing the size of the facility area; rearranging the site to reduce the potential for impacts on the nearest sensitive receptors; and utilizing products that reduce the level of toxic air contaminants, or removal of such products from the operational phase of the project.
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Impact 3.4-1: The potential to
have a substantial direct or
indirect effect on special-status
invertebrate species, including
through substantial reduction of
habitat, substantial reduction of
the number or restriction in the
range of a listed species,
elimination of an animal
community, or a drop in
population levels below selfsustaining levels.
Mitigation Measure 3.4-1: Prior to disturbance of each village, the Project applicant shall conduct a survey of the area to be disturbed for VELB habitat (elderberry), and if present, including a stem count and an assessment of VELB use (presence of bore holes);
• All VELB habitat should be avoided within a natural open space area except where such habitat is located either within the Project’s approved development footprint or in an area that must be disturbed in order to facilitate approved development; and • Where elderberry shrubs occupied with VELB cannot be avoided because it is located either within the Project’s approved development footprint or in an area that must be disturbed in order to facilitate approved development, then the applicant shall notify the City and consult with USFWS in order to develop a VELB mitigation plan in accordance with the most current USFWS mitigation guidelines for unavoidable take of VELB habitat pursuant to either Section 7 or Section 10(a) of the Federal Endangered Species Act. At a minimum, the removal of elderberry shrubs found to be occupied with VELB shall be mitigated through the purchase of one (1) VELB mitigation credit from an agency-approved mitigation bank for each occupied shrub removed or through the planting of five (5) elderberry seedlings and five (5) native California trees or shrubs at a USFWS-approved location for each shrub removed. If the City of
Riverbank
Planning / Public
Works
Qualified
Biologist
Prior to Grading
6.0 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
6.0-10 Final Environmental Impact Report – River Walk Specific Plan
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT MITIGATION MEASURE
MONITORING
RESPONSIBILITY
TIMING
VERIFICATION
(DATE/INITIALS)
latter option is selected, then the seedlings and associated natives shall achieve an 80% survival rate measured at the end of a five (5) year monitoring period.
Mitigation Measure 3.4-2: The Project applicant shall implement the following measure to avoid or minimize impacts on special-status bumble bees:
1. A qualified biologist shall conduct a habitat assessment to determine if there is habitat suitable to support CBB. Potential nesting sites, which include all small mammal burrows, perennial bunch grasses, thatched annual grasses, brush piles, old bird nests, dead trees, and hollow logs would need to be documented as part of the assessment.
2. If potentially suitable habitat is identified, a qualified biologist shall conduct focused surveys for CBB, and their requisite habitat features following the methodology outlined in the Survey Considerations for California Endangered Species Act Candidate Bumble Bee Species (CDFW 2023) protocol, during the blooming period immediately prior to ground disturbance activities.
3. If surveys cannot be completed, all small mammal burrows and thatched/bunch grasses be avoided by a minimum of 50 feet to avoid take and potentially significant impacts. If ground-disturbing activities will occur during the overwintering period (October through February), consultation with CDFW is warranted to discuss how to avoid take. Any detection of CBB warrants consultation with CDFW to discuss how to avoid take.
4. If CBB is identified during surveys, and all small mammal burrows and thatched/bunched grasses are unable to be avoided by 50 feet, consultation with CDFW is warranted to obtain take authorization for CBB through issuance of an ITP, pursuant to Fish and Game Code section 2081 subdivision (b).
Impact 3.4-2: The potential to
have substantial direct or indirect
effects on special-status reptile
and amphibian species, including
Mitigation Measure 3.4-3: Prior to grading of each village, the Project applicant shall conduct a survey of the area to be graded for western pond turtle, and if present, the Project applicant shall implement the following City of
Riverbank
Planning / Public
Prior to Grading
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM 6.0
Final Environmental Impact Report – River Walk Specific Plan 6.0-11
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT MITIGATION MEASURE
MONITORING
RESPONSIBILITY
TIMING
VERIFICATION
(DATE/INITIALS)
through substantial reduction of
habitat, substantial reduction of
the number or restriction in the
range of a listed species,
elimination of a reptile or
amphibian community, or a drop
in population levels below selfsustaining levels.
measures to avoid or minimize impacts on western pond turtle:
• A preconstruction survey for western pond turtles within aquatic habitats and adjacent suitable uplands to be disturbed by project activities shall be conducted by a qualified biologist. In aquatic habitats which may be dewatered during project construction, surveys shall be conducted immediately after dewatering and before any subsequent disturbance. Elsewhere, surveys shall be conducted within 24 hours before project disturbance.
• If pond turtles are found during preconstruction surveys, a qualified biologist, in consultation with CDFW, shall move the turtles to the nearest habitat of equivalent or greater value (e.g., upland habitats may include riparian wetlands or riparian woodlands, and aquatic habitats may include irrigation ditches or the Stanislaus River) outside the area subject to project disturbance. The construction area shall be reinspected whenever a lapse in construction activity of 2 weeks or more has occurred.
• Construction personnel performing activities within aquatic habitats and adjacent suitable uplands to be disturbed by project activities shall receive worker environmental awareness training from a qualified biologist to instruct workers to recognize western pond turtle, their habitats, and measures being implemented for its protection.
• Construction personnel shall observe a 15-miles-per-hour speed limit on unpaved roads.
Mitigation Measure 3.4-4: The Project applicant shall implement the following measures to avoid or minimize impacts on giant garter snake (GGS):
• In areas within 200 feet of any irrigation ditch (potential GGS aquatic habitat) construction will occur during the GGS active season of May 1 through October 1.
• Construction personnel shall receive worker environmental Works
Qualified
Biologist
6.0 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
6.0-12 Final Environmental Impact Report – River Walk Specific Plan
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT MITIGATION MEASURE
MONITORING
RESPONSIBILITY
TIMING
VERIFICATION
(DATE/INITIALS)
awareness training to instruct workers to recognize giant garter snake and their habitats.
• Within 24 hours before construction activities, areas within 200 feet of any irrigation ditch (potential GGS aquatic habitat) shall be surveyed by the qualified biologist for giant garter snake. The survey shall be repeated if a lapse in construction activity of 2 weeks or greater has occurred. If a giant garter snake is encountered during construction, activities within 200 feet of the irrigation ditches shall cease until appropriate corrective measures have been completed or it is determined by the qualified biologist and City staff, in coordination with USFWS and CDFW, that the giant garter snake shall not be harmed. Appropriate corrective actions could involve installation of exclusion fencing, a full-time monitor, establishing a “tractor keep out zone”, or other measures specifically designed by the biologist based on the circumstances of the construction site. Any sightings or incidental take shall be reported to USFWS and CDFW immediately by the qualified biologist.
• A biological onsite monitor will be present during initial grounddisturbing activities within 200 feet of any irrigation ditch or potential GGS habitat within the Plan Area
• Construction vehicles would require low-speed limits within such sites to lessen the probability that the species could be run over by vehicles and equipment.
• Any aquatic habitat for the snake that is dewatered shall remain dry for at least 15 consecutive days after April 15 and before excavating or filling of the dewatered habitat. If complete dewatering is not possible, potential snake prey (e.g., fish and tadpoles) will be removed so that snakes and other wildlife are not attracted to the construction area.
• Giant garter snake aquatic habitat to be avoided (i.e., irrigation ditches) within or adjacent to construction areas will be fenced and
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM 6.0
Final Environmental Impact Report – River Walk Specific Plan 6.0-13
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT MITIGATION MEASURE
MONITORING
RESPONSIBILITY
TIMING
VERIFICATION
(DATE/INITIALS)
designated as environmentally sensitive areas. These areas shall be avoided by all construction personnel.
Impact 3.4-3: The potential to
have substantial direct or indirect
effects on special-status bird
species, including through
substantial reduction of habitat,
substantial reduction or restriction
in the range of a listed species,
elimination of a bird community,
or a drop in population levels
below self-sustaining levels.
Mitigation Measure 3.4-5: The Project applicant shall implement the following measure to avoid or minimize impacts on western burrowing owl:
• No less than 14 days before initiating ground disturbance activities, the Project applicant shall complete an initial take avoidance survey.
Implementation of avoidance and minimization measures would be triggered if the initial take avoidance survey results in positive owl presence in the Project Area where project activities shall occur. If needed, the development of avoidance and minimization approaches shall be developed in coordination with CDFW.
• Permanent loss of burrowing owl foraging habitat shall be compensated for by preservation and management of foraging habitat of at least a similar quality and equivalent acreage at a biologically appropriate location. An example of similar quality shall be cropland for cropland, grassland for grassland, etc. An example of an appropriate location would be within the breeding range of burrowing owl in the Central Valley. The mitigation shall be documented in a mitigation plan that identifies the mitigation site, compensation acreage, performance criteria, and monitoring and management requirements to ensure the site provides suitable habitat for the applicable species. Long-term protection of mitigation lands shall be ensured through fee title acquisition, conservation easement, or other suitable mechanisms. Long-term management of mitigation lands shall be ensured by establishing a management endowment or other suitable funding source. It is anticipated that mitigation land would also function to mitigate for other species requiring mitigation land with similar characteristics (i.e. Swainson’s hawk). In other words, the same acreage could function as mitigation for more than one species.
Mitigation Measure 3.4-6: The Project applicant shall implement the following City of
Riverbank
Planning / Public
Works
Qualified
Biologist
Prior to Grading
6.0 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
6.0-14 Final Environmental Impact Report – River Walk Specific Plan
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT MITIGATION MEASURE
MONITORING
RESPONSIBILITY
TIMING
VERIFICATION
(DATE/INITIALS)
measures to avoid or minimize impacts on Swainson’s hawk:
• No more than 30 days before the commencement of construction, a qualified biologist shall perform preconstruction surveys for nesting Swainson’s hawk and other raptors during the nesting season (February 1 through August 31).
• Appropriate buffers shall be established and maintained around active nest sites during construction activities to avoid nest failure as a result of project activities. A ½-mile no-disturbance buffer from active Swainson’s hawk nests. If such a buffer is not feasible, consult with CDFW prior to any ground disturbing activities to determine if an Incidental Take Permit (ITP) pursuant to Fish and Game Code section 2081 subdivision (b) is necessary to avoid an unauthorized take of Swainson’s hawk. The appropriate size and shape of the buffers shall be determined by a qualified biologist in coordination with CDFW, and may vary depending on the nest location, nest stage, and construction activity. In determining the size of the buffers, the qualified biologist shall take into consideration the natural history of the Swainson’s hawk, the proposed activity level adjacent to the nest, the nest occupants’ habituation to existing or ongoing activity, nest concealment (i.e., whether there are visual or acoustic barriers between the proposed activity and the nest), and what (if any) nest monitoring is proposed. The buffers may be adjusted if a qualified biologist determines, based on these same considerations, that a change in the buffer size would not be likely to adversely affect the nest. Monitoring shall be conducted to confirm that project activity is not resulting in detectable adverse effects on nesting birds or their young. No project activity shall commence within the buffer areas until a qualified biologist has determined that the young have fledged or the nest site is otherwise no longer in use. • Before the commencement of construction, the Project applicant shall provide compensatory mitigation for the permanent loss of Swainson's hawk foraging habitat. Loss of Swainson’s hawk foraging habitat shall be compensated for by preservation and management
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM 6.0
Final Environmental Impact Report – River Walk Specific Plan 6.0-15
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT MITIGATION MEASURE
MONITORING
RESPONSIBILITY
TIMING
VERIFICATION
(DATE/INITIALS)
of foraging habitat of at least a similar quality at an appropriate location. An example of similar quality shall be cropland for cropland, grassland for grassland, etc. An example of an appropriate location would be within the breeding range of Swainson’s hawk in the Central Valley. The mitigation shall be documented in a mitigation plan that identifies the mitigation site, compensation acreage, performance criteria, and monitoring and management
requirements to ensure the site provides suitable habitat for the applicable species. Long-term protection of mitigation lands shall be ensured through fee title acquisition, conservation easement, or other suitable mechanisms. Long-term management of mitigation lands shall be ensured by establishing a management endowment or other suitable funding source. It is anticipated that mitigation land would function to mitigate for other species requiring such mitigation land (i.e. burrowing owl).
• To mitigate for the loss of foraging habitat (as specified in this document), the project applicant shall compensate based on the following ratios:
(a) Portions of the project within 1 mile of an active nest tree shall provide: ·
▪ one acre of either lands protected through fee title acquisition or conservation easement (acceptable to the CDFW) on
agricultural lands or other suitable habitats which provide foraging habitat for Swainson's hawk for each acre of
development authorized (1:1 ratio); or ·
▪ One-half acre of either lands protected through fee title acquisition or conservation easement (acceptable to the CDFW) on agricultural lands or other suitable habitats which provide foraging habitat for Swainson's hawk for each acre of development authorized (0.5:1 ratio).
(b) Portions of the project within 5 miles of an active nest tree but greater than 1 mile from the nest tree shall provide 0.75 acres of
6.0 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
6.0-16 Final Environmental Impact Report – River Walk Specific Plan
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT MITIGATION MEASURE
MONITORING
RESPONSIBILITY
TIMING
VERIFICATION
(DATE/INITIALS)
either lands protected through fee title acquisition or conservation easement (acceptable to the CDFW) on agricultural lands or other suitable habitats which provide foraging habitat for Swainson's hawk for each acre of development authorized for each acre of urban development authorized (0-75:1 ratio).
(c) Portions of the project within 10 miles of an active nest tree but greater than 5 miles from an active nest tree shall provide 0.5 acres of either lands protected through fee title acquisition or conservation easement (acceptable to the CDFW) on agricultural lands or other suitable habitats which provide foraging habitat for Swainson's hawk for each acre of development authorized (0.5:1 ratio).
Mitigation Measure 3.4-7: The Project applicant shall implement the following measure to avoid or minimize impacts on other protected bird species that may occur on the site:
• If ground-disturbing activities occur during the nesting bird season (February 1 - September 15), a qualified biologist shall conduct preactivity surveys for active nests no more than one week prior to the start of ground disturbance to maximize the probability that nests that could potentially be impacted are detected. Surveys shall cover a sufficient area around the work site to identify nests and determine their status. A sufficient area means any area potentially affected by a project. In addition to direct impacts (i.e., nest destruction), noise, vibration, odors, and movement of workers or equipment could also affect nests. Prior to initiation of construction activities, a qualified biologist conduct a survey to establish a behavioral baseline of all identified nests.
• Once construction begins, a qualified biologist shall continuously monitor nests to detect behavioral changes resulting from the Project. If behavioral changes occur, the work causing that change shall cease and CDFW shall be consulted for additional avoidance and minimization measures. If continuous monitoring of identified
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM 6.0
Final Environmental Impact Report – River Walk Specific Plan 6.0-17
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT MITIGATION MEASURE
MONITORING
RESPONSIBILITY
TIMING
VERIFICATION
(DATE/INITIALS)
nests by a qualified biologist is not feasible, a minimum nodisturbance buffer of 250 feet around active nests of non-listed bird species and a 500-foot no-disturbance buffer around active nests of non-listed raptors. These buffers are advised to remain in place until the breeding season has ended or until a qualified biologist has determined that the birds have fledged and are no longer reliant upon the nest or parental care for survival. Variance from these nodisturbance buffers is possible when there is a compelling biological or ecological reason to do so, such as when the construction area would be concealed from a nest site by topography. A qualified biologist advise and support any variance from these buffers and notify CDFW in advance of implementing a variance.
Impact 3.4-4: The potential to for
substantial direct or indirect
effects on special-status mammal
species, including through
substantial reduction of habitat,
substantial reduction of the
number or restriction of the range
of a listed species, elimination of a
mammal community, or a drop in
population levels below selfsustaining levels.
Mitigation Measure 3.4-8: Prior to grading of each village, the Project applicant shall conduct a survey of the area to be graded for bat roosts, and if present, the Project applicant shall implement the following measures to avoid or minimize impacts on special-status bats:
• If removal of suitable roosting areas (i.e., buildings, trees, shrubs, bridges, etc.) must occur during the bat pupping season (April 1 through July 31), surveys for active maternity roosts shall be conducted by a qualified biologist. The surveys shall be conducted from dusk until dark.
• If a special-status bat maternity roost is located, appropriate buffers around the roost sites shall be determined by a qualified biologist and implemented to avoid destruction or abandonment of the roost resulting from habitat removal or other project activities. The size of the buffer shall depend on the species, roost location, and specific construction activities to be performed in the vicinity. No project activity shall commence within the buffer areas until the end of the pupping season (August 1) or until a qualified biologist confirms the maternity roost is no longer active.
If a non-maternal roost is located, eviction and exclusion techniques shall be conducted as recommended by the qualified biologist. Methods may include City of
Riverbank
Planning / Public
Works
Qualified
Biologist
Prior to Grading
6.0 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
6.0-18 Final Environmental Impact Report – River Walk Specific Plan
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT MITIGATION MEASURE
MONITORING
RESPONSIBILITY
TIMING
VERIFICATION
(DATE/INITIALS)
opening the roosting area to change the air flow and lighting, installing oneway doors, or other appropriate methods that allow the bats to exit and find a new roost. After eviction is believed to be completed, acoustic monitoring, and an evening emergence survey shall be performed by the qualified biologist to ensure eviction is complete. For tree removal, a two-step tree removal process involving removal of all branches that do not provide roosting habitat on the first day, and then the next day cutting down the remaining portion of the tree.
Impact 3.4-6: The potential to
cause a substantial adverse effect
on protected wetlands and
jurisdictional waters.
Mitigation Measure 3.4-9: If construction activities would disturb the agricultural ditch within the Project Area, the property owner/applicant proposing the activity shall verify with federal and state regulators that the facility is non-jurisdictional or qualifies under the agricultural ditch exemption.
If the facilities do not qualify for the exemption and are determined to be jurisdictional by the regulatory agencies, any fill activity would require authorization for fill from the regulatory agencies (USACE-404 permit, RWQCB401 certification, 1600 Streambed Alteration Agreement). All requirements of a permit shall be adhered to throughout the construction phase. Any compensatory mitigation would be specified by the regulatory agency through the permit process.
City of
Riverbank
Planning / Public
Works
Qualified
Biologist
Prior to Grading
Impact 3.4-9: The potential to
conflict with an adopted Habitat
Conservation Plan.
Mitigation Measure 3.4-10: Prior to commencement of any ground disturbance activities associated with the Offsite Sewer Line, the Project proponent shall obtain coverage under the SJMSCP to mitigate for habitat impacts to covered special status species for the portion of the Offsite Sewer Line within San Joaquin County. Coverage involves compensation for habitat impacts on covered species through implementation of incidental take and minimization Measures (ITMMs) and payment of fees for conversion of lands that may provide habitat for covered special status species. These fees are used to preserve and/or create habitat in preserves to be managed in perpetuity. Obtaining coverage for a Project includes incidental take authorization (permits) under the Endangered Species Act Section 10(a), California Fish and Game Code Section 2081, and the MBTA. Coverage under the SJMSCP would fully mitigate all habitat impacts on covered special-status species.
City of
Riverbank
Planning / Public
Works
Qualified
Biologist
Prior to Grading
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM 6.0
Final Environmental Impact Report – River Walk Specific Plan 6.0-19
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT MITIGATION MEASURE
MONITORING
RESPONSIBILITY
TIMING
VERIFICATION
(DATE/INITIALS)
Impact 3.4-10: The potential to
conflict with local policies or
ordinances protecting biological
resources, such as a tree
preservation policy or ordinance.
Mitigation Measure 3.4-11: Prior to and during construction, the Project applicants shall comply with Chapter 156, Oak and Landmark Tree Preservation, of the Riverbank Municipal Code, which calls for the conservation and protecting of existing landmark trees and oak trees within the City.
Landmark trees are defined under Section 156.02 of the Code as: Trees that are: (1) six inches or greater in diameter at breast height (DBH); and (2) in good health; and (3) of preferred species in order: (a) oak, (b) deciduous and (c) evergreen; (4) other such trees with significant impact (including but not limited to: age, size, location, outstanding habitat value, superior beauty, historical and/or cultural significance) on the surrounding area. Landmark Tree may also mean an “oak tree.” Fruit trees and other trees used for agricultural purposes and production on existing lots created prior to June 8, 2006, are specifically excluded as being landmark trees. Additionally, oak trees are defined as a valley oak tree (Quercus lobata) with a trunk diameter of two inches or greater at a point 4.5 feet above the root crown (also referred to as “two inches diameter breast height [DBH]”). Oak tree may also mean a “landmark tree.”
Pursuant to Section 156.12, prior to submission of an application for development, the applicant is encouraged to meet with the Community Development Director to discuss the tree protection ordinance as it relates to the applicant's property. Should removal of protected trees be required, the permit applicant requirements in Section 156.12 of the Code shall be followed.
Further, pursuant to Section 156.14 of the Code, the following methods and standards for tree protection shall be implemented during construction activities:
(A) Trees identified to be preserved shall have four-foot, orangecolored tree-protection fencing installed at the critical root zones. (B) (1) No person engaged in the construction of any structure(s) or improvement(s) or any activity shall encroach or place solvents, material, construction machinery or temporary soil deposits within six (6) feet of the area outside the critical root zone, as defined herein, of any existing significant tree within a tree save area, City of
Riverbank
Planning / Public
Works
Qualified
Biologist
Prior to Grading
6.0 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
6.0-20 Final Environmental Impact Report – River Walk Specific Plan
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT MITIGATION MEASURE
MONITORING
RESPONSIBILITY
TIMING
VERIFICATION
(DATE/INITIALS)
transitional or undisturbed buffer zone.
(2) When proposed developments encroach into the crown
dripline area of any landmark/oak tree, special construction to allow the roots to breathe and obtain water shall be engineered and implemented, as determined by the Community Development Director.
(C) All tree protection devices must remain in functioning condition until the project is completed or until the certificate of occupancy is issued.
(D) (1) Any tree designated in the plan to be saved, which is negligently damaged during construction or as a result of negligent construction, as determined by the arborist, shall be treated according to accepted National Arborists Association Standards. (2) If fatally damaged, trees shall he replaced with six-inch-caliper trees equal to five times the diameter of the tree removed
CULTURAL AND TRIBAL RESOURCES
Impact 3.5-1: Project
implementation has the potential
to cause a substantial adverse
change to an historical resource as
defined in CEQA Guidelines
§15064.5, a unique archaeological
resource as defined in Public
Resources Code section 21083.2,
or a tribal cultural resource, as
defined in Public Resources Code
§21074.
Mitigation Measure 3.5-1: Resources ML-20-2 and ML-20-3 shall be avoided and protected in some manner either through design, site capping, and/or inclusion in a park. Protection shall be provided prior to initiation of the construction phase, with long term measures designed for permanent preservation. Consultation shall occur with appropriate Native American groups to ensure the selected measures are acceptable to appropriate groups with ethnic ties to the area. Any construction in this area shall require a qualified archaeologist to monitor ground disturbing activities.
Mitigation Measure 3.5-2: All construction workers shall receive a cultural resources sensitivity training session before they begin site work in order to identify any potentially significant cultural or similar resources that may result during construction. The sensitivity training session shall be instructed by a professional archaeologist, and shall include discussion of the statutory criteria for defining unique archaeological resources, historical resources of an City of
Riverbank
Planning
Qualified
Archaeologist
If any cultural
resources,
including
prehistoric or
historic
artifacts, or
other
indications of
archaeological
resources are
found during
grading and
construction
activities
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM 6.0
Final Environmental Impact Report – River Walk Specific Plan 6.0-21
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT MITIGATION MEASURE
MONITORING
RESPONSIBILITY
TIMING
VERIFICATION
(DATE/INITIALS)
archaeological nature, and tribal cultural resources. The sensitivity training shall inform the workers of their responsibility to identify and protect any cultural resources, including prehistoric or historic artifacts, or other indications of archaeological resources, discovered during construction. The sensitivity training shall cover laws pertaining to cultural resources, examples of cultural resources that may be discovered, and what to do if a cultural resource, or anything that may be a cultural resource, is discovered.
If any cultural resources, including prehistoric or historic artifacts, or other indications of archaeological resources, are found during grading and construction activities during any phase of the Project, all work shall be halted immediately within a 200-foot radius of the discovery until an archaeologist meeting the Secretary of the Interior's Professional Qualifications Standards in prehistoric or historical archaeology, as appropriate, has evaluated the find(s).
The following notifications and measures shall apply to potential unique archaeological resources, potential historical resources of an archaeological nature, and potential tribal cultural resources, depending on the nature of the find:
• If the professional archaeologist determines that the find clearly does not represent a cultural resource that might qualify as a unique archaeological resource, an historical resource of an archaeological nature, or a tribal cultural resource, work may resume immediately and no agency notifications are required.
• If the professional archaeologist determines that the find does represent a cultural resource that might qualify as a unique archaeological resource, an historical resource of an archaeological nature, or a tribal cultural resource, he or she shall immediately notify the City’s Community Development Director (CDD) and applicable landowner, and, in the case of a potential tribal cultural resource, a tribal representative from an ethnically appropriate group with Northern Valley Yokuts heritage that is recognized by the NAHC in order to give such a person an opportunity to participate. • With respect to finds that may qualify as a unique archaeological resource or an historical resource of an archaeological nature (but not a tribal cultural resource), the professional archaeologist and a representative from the City CDD shall consult to determine whether any unique archaeological resources or historical resources of an archaeological nature are present, in part based on a finding of
6.0 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
6.0-22 Final Environmental Impact Report – River Walk Specific Plan
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT MITIGATION MEASURE
MONITORING
RESPONSIBILITY
TIMING
VERIFICATION
(DATE/INITIALS)
eligibility for inclusion in the NRHP or CRHR. If it is determined that unique archaeological resources or historical resources of an archaeological nature are present, the qualified archaeologist shall develop mitigation or treatment measures for consideration and approval by the City CDD. Mitigation shall be developed and implemented in accordance with Public Resources Code Section 21083.2 and Section 15126.4 of the CEQA Guidelines, with a preference for preservation in place. Consistent with Section 15126.4(b)(3), preservation in place may be accomplished through planning construction to avoid the resource; incorporating the resource within open space; capping and covering the resource; or deeding the site into a permanent conservation easement. If approved by the City CDD, such measures shall be implemented and completed prior to commencing further work for which grading or building permits were issued, unless otherwise directed by the City CDD. Avoidance or preservation of unique archaeological resources or historical resources of an archaeological nature shall not be required where such avoidance or preservation in place would preclude the construction of important structures or infrastructure or require exorbitant expenditures, as determined by the City CDD. Where avoidance or preservation are not appropriate for these reasons, the professional archaeologist, in consultation with the City CDD, shall prepare a detailed recommended a treatment plan for consideration and approval by the City CDD, which may include data recovery. If employed, data recovery strategies for unique archaeological resources that do not also qualify as historical resources of an archaeological nature shall follow the applicable requirements and limitations set forth in Public Resources Code Section 21083.2. Data recovery will normally consist of (but would not be limited to) sample excavation, artifact collection, site documentation, and historical research, with the aim of recovering important scientific data contained within the unique archaeological resource or historical resource of an archaeological nature. The data recovery plan shall include provisions for analysis of data in a regional context, reporting of results within a timely manner, curation of artifacts and data at an approved facility, and dissemination of reports to local and State repositories, libraries, and interested professionals. If data recovery is determined by the City CDD to not be appropriate, then an equally effective treatment shall be proposed and implemented. Work may
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM 6.0
Final Environmental Impact Report – River Walk Specific Plan 6.0-23
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT MITIGATION MEASURE
MONITORING
RESPONSIBILITY
TIMING
VERIFICATION
(DATE/INITIALS)
not resume within the no-work radius until the City CDD, in consultation with the professional archaeologist, determines that the site either: 1) does not contain unique archaeological resources or historical resources of an archaeological nature; or 2) that the preservation and/or treatment measures have been completed to the satisfaction of the City CDD.
• With respect to finds that may qualify as a tribal cultural resource, the professional archaeologist and a representative from the City CDD shall consult with a tribal representative from an ethnically appropriate group with Northern Valley Yokuts heritage, if one has chosen to participate, to determine whether any tribal cultural resources are present, in part based on the criteria set forth in Public Resources Code section 21074. If it is determined that tribal cultural resources are present, the qualified archaeologist, in consultation with any participating tribal representative, shall develop mitigation or treatment measures for consideration and approval by the City CDD. In doing so, the qualified archaeologist shall give great weight to the wishes of the tribal representative, if one is participating.
Mitigation shall be developed with a preference for preservation in place and with reference to the Guidelines for Monitors/Consultants of Native American Cultural, Religious, and Burial Sites established by the Native American Heritage Commission. Preservation in place may be accomplished through planning construction to avoid the resource; incorporating the resource within open space; capping and covering the resource; or deeding the site into a permanent conservation easement. If approved by the City CDD, measures involving avoidance and/or preservation in place shall be implemented and completed prior to commencing further work for which grading or building permits were issued, unless otherwise directed by the City CDD. Avoidance or preservation of a tribal cultural resource shall not be required where such avoidance or preservation in place would preclude the construction of important structures or infrastructure or require exorbitant expenditures, as determined by the City CDD. Where avoidance or preservation are not appropriate for these reasons, the professional archaeologist, in consultation with the City CDD and any participating tribal