Waterford City Council
September 3, 2026

15183 CONSISTENCY CHECKLIST

FOR THE

HIGHLAND POINTE RESIDENTIAL PROJECT
MARCH 27, 2026
Prepared for:

City of Waterford Planning Department
P.O. Box 199
Waterford, CA 95386
(209) 402-0196
Prepared by:

De Novo Planning Group
1020 Suncast Lane, Suite 106
El Dorado Hills, CA 95762
(916) 580-9818
D e N o v o P l a n n i n g G r o u p
A L a n d U s e P l a n n i n g , D e s i g n , a n d E n v i r o n m e n t a l F i r m

15183 CONSISTENCY CHECKLIST

FOR THE

HIGHLAND POINTE RESIDENTIAL PROJECT
MARCH 27, 2026
Prepared for:

City of Waterford Planning Department
P.O. Box 199
Waterford, CA 95386
(209) 402-0196
Prepared by:

De Novo Planning Group
1020 Suncast Lane, Suite 106
El Dorado Hills, CA 95762
(916) 580-9818

City of Waterford PAGE 1

HIGHLAND POINTE RESIDENTIAL PROJECT

ENVIRONMENTAL

CHECKLIST

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Environmental Checklist ..............................................................................................................................3 Project Title ..............................................................................................................................................3 Lead Agency Name and Address.............................................................................................................3 Contact Person and Phone Number..........................................................................................................3 Introduction ..............................................................................................................................................3 Project Location .......................................................................................................................................3 Existing Site Uses.................................................................................................................................4 Surrounding Uses .................................................................................................................................4 General Plan Designation .....................................................................................................................4 Lake Pointe Master Development Plan (MDP)....................................................................................5 Zoning Designation ..............................................................................................................................5 Project Description...................................................................................................................................6 Off Site Improvements (Roads and Utilities) .......................................................................................6 Lake Pointe MDP .................................................................................................................................6 Requested Discretionary and Ministerial Entitlements and Other Approvals..........................................7 Previous Environmental Analyses of the proposed Project....................................................................14 CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 Exemption.....................................................................................14 Project-Specific Environmental Review ................................................................................................16 Conclusion..............................................................................................................................................17 Environmental Checklist ............................................................................................................................18 I. AESTHETICS...................................................................................................................................18 II. AGRICULTURE AND FOREST RESOURCES ..................................................................................22 III. AIR QUALITY ...............................................................................................................................26 IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ...........................................................................................................34 V. CULTURAL RESOURCES ...............................................................................................................41 VI. ENERGY ........................................................................................................................................44 VII. GEOLOGY AND SOILS.................................................................................................................47 XIII. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS...............................................................................................54 IX. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS.................................................................................60 X. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY...........................................................................................66 City of Waterford PAGE 2

HIGHLAND POINT RESIDENTIAL PROJECT

ENVIRONMENTAL

CHECKLIST
XI. LAND USE AND PLANNING.........................................................................................................73 XII. MINERAL RESOURCES...............................................................................................................76 XIII. NOISE .........................................................................................................................................77 XIV. POPULATION AND HOUSING...................................................................................................84 XV. PUBLIC SERVICES.......................................................................................................................87 XVI. RECREATION.............................................................................................................................93 XVII. TRANSPORTATION..................................................................................................................96 XVIII. TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES.........................................................................................100 XIX. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS.......................................................................................102 XX. WILDFIRE..................................................................................................................................107 XXI. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE .........................................................................111 References................................................................................................................................................113 Appendix A Tentative Subdivision Map..................................................................................................115 Appendix B Air Quality & Greenhouse Gas Modeling ...........................................................................116 Appendix C Noise Analysis.....................................................................................................................117 Appendix D Traffic Impact Analysis.......................................................................................................118 City of Waterford PAGE 3

HIGHLAND POINTE RESIDENTIAL PROJECT

ENVIRONMENTAL

CHECKLIST

ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST

PROJECT TITLE
Highland Pointe Residential Project - TMAP 2025-0001

LEAD AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS
Mark Niskanen
City of Waterford Planning Department
101 E Street
Waterford, CA 95386
(209) 402-0196

CONTACT PERSON AND PHONE NUMBER
Steve Miller

DGS LAND GROUP
3675 Mt. Diablos Blvd., Suite 350
Lafayette, CA 94549
(925) 580-7672

INTRODUCTION
The following pages provide an analysis of the proposed Highland Pointe Residential Project (proposed Project) with respect to the project’s consistency with the City of Waterford General Plan, as well as consistency to the Lake Pointe Master Development Plan (hereafter MDP). The Project site makes up a portion of the Lake Pointe MDP, which envisioned a variety of residential neighborhoods as well as mixeduse development incorporating residential, school site and commercial uses.

As explained in the following pages, the proposed Project is consistent with the City’s General Plan, as amended, and the Lake Pointe ,MDP for which a CEQA document has been certified (SCH 2007092067), and there are no site-specific or cumulative impacts associated with the proposed Project that have not been fully addressed in a previous environmental document, or that cannot be mitigated to a less than significant level through the application of uniformly applied development policies and/or standards. The findings presented below demonstrate that no additional environmental analysis is required under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) prior to approval of the proposed Project.

PROJECT LOCATION
The 73.69-acre Project site is in the city of Waterford, within Stanislaus County, California. The Project Area is situated in the northeast area of the city, north of the Modesto Irrigation District (MID) Lower Main Canal. The MID Lower Main Canal extends along Project Area’s southern boundary; Vineyard Road extends along the Project’s northern boundary; Tim Bell Road is located to the north; and agricultural land and a north-south extension of the MID Lower Main Canal are located along the Project Area’s eastern boundary. (See Figure 1 - Regional Location Map, and Figure 2 - Project Vicinity Map). Table 1 below summarizes the APNs and phases.

HIGHLAND POINTE RESIDENTIAL PROJECT

ENVIRONMENTAL

CHECKLIST
City of Waterford PAGE 4
Table 1: Highland Pointe Assessor’s Parcels and Phases

APN ACREAGE CORRESPONDING PHASE
080-02-018 31.3 ACRES PHASE 1
080-015-001 7.8 ACRES PHASE 1
080-022-017 34.5 ACRES PHASE 2
SOURCES: APPLICANT PROVIDED (2025)

EXISTING SITE USES
The Project Area makes up a portion of the Lake Pointe MDP which was adopted in November 2007 and subsequently amended in November 2015 and provided for the planning framework for the development of 1,606 dwelling units at build out. The Plan envisioned a variety of residential neighborhoods as well as mixed-use development incorporating residential, school site and commercial uses.

The Project site is currently being used as almond orchard. Structures on the Project site include two residential farm complexes. The first is located along Vineyard Road along the northern boundary of the Project site. This complex is approximately 0.7 acres and contains a small farmhouse, ornamental shade trees, and grassy yard. The second complex is approximately 7.5 acres located in the center of the Project site and is composed of a residence, several accessory farm structures, and a yard for farm operations. (see Figure 3 - Aerial Photo).

SURROUNDING USES
Uses surrounding the Project site are mostly farmland, and almond orchard. There is various farm residences associated with the surrounding farmland. To the southwest, across the MID canal, is a transitional area toward single family detaching housing.

GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION
The Waterford Vision 2025 General Plan designates the Project site Low Density Residential (see Figure 4 - Existing General Plan Land Use Map). The Waterford General Plan defines this use as follows:

LD (Low Density Residential)
Purpose and Intent: To provide single family residential dwellings served by City services throughout the City of Waterford. This designation consists primarily of single-family detached housing, but a diversity of single-family housing types, such as condominium and zero lot-line residential units can be developed.

Locational Criteria: LD areas may be designated throughout the City with lower densities typically toward the edges of the City’s growth, adjacent urban “buffer” areas. This residential classification can also be applied along special planning areas such as scenic corridors and open space areas.

Density and Intensity: The residential density within the LD land use classification is a MINIMUM of 4.0 and up to 6.0 dwelling units per gross acre. Maximum population density is 18 people per acre. A maximum of 9 units (27-people) per acre is allowed where Neo-Traditional development policies are applied.

The proposed Project is consistent with the General Plan land use designation.

City of Waterford PAGE 5

HIGHLAND POINTE RESIDENTIAL PROJECT

ENVIRONMENTAL

CHECKLIST

LAKE POINTE MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN (MDP)
The Lake Pointe MDP was approved by the City of Waterford in 2007. The MDP was designed to incorporate the latest thinking in community design: diverse land uses, a pedestrian scale, ample open space for gathering and recreation, and well-articulated neighborhood boundaries. The MDP was also designed to accommodate a school site, if required. The Lake Pointe MDP defines the 425-acre site as having the following components:
• The 364-acre Lake Pointe Associates property.
• The 26-acre Church Planned Development.
• Approximately 35 acres of adjacent property included in order to establish a cohesive planning boundary (the “Added Planning Area”).

The MDP is further designed as a master-planned, mixed-use, residential community featuring a wide range of housing types, generous pedestrian-friendly features, downtown connectivity, a large recreation lake, parks and the public facilities necessary to serve the master planned community. The maximum build out of the MDP was projected to comprise up to 1,606 residential units. Additionally, the MDP includes over four acres of neighborhood commercial land, a Church Planned Development (proposing new church facilities and commercial land uses), along with a recreation lake, a recreational club and acres of additional open space.

The MDP indicates that it is expected to include a combination of gated and non-gated neighborhoods, with large and small lot single family detached homes and attached units. The MDP also cites that it will provide a comprehensive open space system including a network of parks, pathways and recreational areas.

The MDP was approved in 2007 by the Waterford City Council, who also approved a CEQA document for the MDP (SCH 2007092067),

ZONING DESIGNATION
The Project site is within the city limits and has a zoning designation of RS Residential Single, which is consistent with the General Plan Designation of Low Density Residential (see Figure 5 - Existing Zoning).

The RS Zoning District is described below:

RS Residential Single
RS Single-Family Residential District. The purpose of the RS district is to provide single-family residential dwellings served by city services throughout the city of Waterford. This designation consists primarily of single-family detached housing, but a diversity of other single-family housing types, such as condominium and zero-lot-line residential units can be developed subject to new urbanism development standards. RS areas may be designated throughout the city with lower densities typically toward the edges of the city's growth, adjacent urban "buffer" areas. This residential classification can also be applied along special planning areas such as scenic corridors and open space areas. (Ord. 2011-02 §1)

HIGHLAND POINTE RESIDENTIAL PROJECT

ENVIRONMENTAL

CHECKLIST
City of Waterford PAGE 6

PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The proposed Highland Pointe Residential Project is a Tentative Subdivision Map with 412 single family detached residential lots that will be developed in two (2) phases in an approved MDP. Each phase will include development of a portion of the centrally located park surrounded by a variety of single family small and medium lot sizes. Part of the open space acreage will come from a series of streets with an enhanced right of way to accommodate a pedestrian “wellness walk.” Other uses to support and complement the proposed residential development include underground wet and dry utility infrastructure, roadways, storm drainage facilities, curb/gutters/sidewalks, bicycle/pedestrian facilities, street lighting, and street signage.

The Lot Layout for Phases 1 & 2 identifies the phasing areas and proposed lot sizes (See Figure 6 - Site Plan). The full Tentative Subdivision Map with lot dimensions and utility plans is provided in Appendix A.

Table 2 below summarizes the number of units and acreage anticipated for each phase of development.

The table also identifies the amount of park area anticipated for each phase of development as well as the additional area planned for wellness walks/green space area throughout the two phases.

Table 2: Highland Pointe Acreages and Unit Count
PHASE 1 PHASE 2 PROJECT TOTALS
GROSS ACRES (ACRES) 39.12 34.57 73.69
RESIDENTIAL UNITS (TOTALS) 217 195 412
Lot Size: 45 x 77 104
Lot Size: 50 x 85 113
Lot Size: 45 x 80 86
Lot Size: 50 x 100 109
WELLNESS WALKS / OPEN SPACE (ACRES) 1.7 0.5 2.2
PARK AREA (ACRES) 1.9 3.0 4.9
SOURCES: APPLICANT PROVIDED (2025)
Primary access to Phase 1 and Phase 2 will be from Vineyard Road. Phase 1 contains Lot “D” located at the northwestern tip of the phase, which is 3.2 acres in size. It is not part of the project and will remain an equestrian use. Lot 6 will be an Emergency Vehicle Access (EVA) until Phase 2 roadways are constructed and emergency vehicles are allowed to utilize the second access point on Vineyard Road and the internal streets within Phase 2. The centrally located park will be positioned adjacent to the detention basin which will function as a dual use basin, storm water detention and active park use.

OFF SITE IMPROVEMENTS (ROADS AND UTILITIES)
The Tim Bell Road bridge deck will be improved with an 8-foot-wide pedestrian path (sidewalk) on the east side of the roadway. The southern frontage of Vineyard Road will be improved with a 6-foot-wide sidewalk, 6-foot-wide landscaping strip, 7-foot bike path, two 11-foot travel lanes and 4-foot shoulder on the north side of the roadway.

LAKE POINTE MDP
The overall 425-acre Lake Pointe MDP contemplated 1,606 units. The 73.69-acre Highland Pointe Residential Project lot count of 412 represents an approximately 25% utilization of the those lots contemplated in the Lake Pointe MDP and related entitlements.

City of Waterford PAGE 7

HIGHLAND POINTE RESIDENTIAL PROJECT

ENVIRONMENTAL

CHECKLIST
The Highland Pointe Residential Tentative Map is largely consistent with and implements the intent of the MDP at a more detailed level of design. The more detailed design in the Tentative Maps excludes one conceptual component of the MDP, the “conceptual” 20-acre lake. The conceptual lake was an amenity that requires excessive water, water treatment, and maintenance, all of which are not currently desirable to the City of Waterford. The Tentative Map still contains a stormwater basin component needed for the subdivision, and also includes a 4.5-acre park area defined as Lot B. The remaining 15.5 acres of the areas that were labeled in the MDP as a conceptual 20-acre lake area is designed to accommodate 86 of the 412 residential lots shown in the Tentative Map. These 86 lots represent 5.3% of the approved 1,606 units.

This proposal remains consistent with the General Plan, and implements the MDP’s vision for diverse land uses, a pedestrian scale, ample open space for gathering and recreation, and well-articulated neighborhood boundaries.

Pursuant to the MDP, the most prominent land use within the MDP area is residential, including varying single-family lot configurations. Consistent with the Waterford Vision 2025 General Plan (the “General Plan”), residential uses will occur in a range of lot sizes and housing configurations to address a broad range of household needs. Flexibility in the MDP implementation will allow for build-out of the plan area based on the City’s needs and what the future market may bear, while at the same time providing an overall development framework.

REQUESTED DISCRETIONARY AND MINISTERIAL ENTITLEMENTS AND OTHER APPROVALS The City of Waterford is the Lead Agency for the proposed Project, pursuant to the State Guidelines for Implementation of CEQA (Guidelines Section 15050) and is also serving as the local land use agency.

This document will be used by the City of Waterford to take the following actions:
• Adoption of the CEQA Exemption (Guidelines Section 15183). • Approval of the Tentative Map.

The following agencies may be required to issue permits or approve certain aspects of the proposed Project:
• Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board (CVRWQCB) - Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) approval prior to construction activities. • San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (SJVAPCD) – Confirmation of compliance with applicable Air District rules.

HIGHLAND POINTE RESIDENTIAL PROJECT

ENVIRONMENTAL

CHECKLIST
City of Waterford PAGE 8
City of Waterford PAGE 9

HIGHLAND POINTE RESIDENTIAL PROJECT

ENVIRONMENTAL

CHECKLIST

HIGHLAND POINTE RESIDENTIAL PROJECT

ENVIRONMENTAL

CHECKLIST
City of Waterford PAGE 10
City of Waterford PAGE 11

HIGHLAND POINTE RESIDENTIAL PROJECT

ENVIRONMENTAL

CHECKLIST

HIGHLAND POINTE RESIDENTIAL PROJECT

ENVIRONMENTAL

CHECKLIST
City of Waterford PAGE 12
City of Waterford PAGE 13

HIGHLAND POINTE RESIDENTIAL PROJECT

ENVIRONMENTAL

CHECKLIST

HIGHLAND POINTE RESIDENTIAL PROJECT

ENVIRONMENTAL

CHECKLIST
City of Waterford PAGE 14

PREVIOUS ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSES OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT Two previous environmental analysis have been prepared and certified which are applicable to the proposed Project. The proposed Project is consistent with the land use designation and related development density established by the Waterford General Plan, for which an EIR was certified on November 27, 2006 (SCH# 2005072029) (General Plan EIR). Additionally, the proposed Project is consistent with the land use designation and related development density established by the Lake Pointe Development, for which a Negative Declaration was certified on November 7, 2007 (SCH# 2007092067).

The proposed Project is consistent with all relevant provisions of the Waterford General Plan and Lake Pointe Development. These documents assumed development and buildout of the Project site with the development density allowed under the Low-Density Residential land use designation; the proposed Project has been designed to comply with the contemplated residential land use and the development density established thereunder, as detailed more fully in the current Project application materials. The impacts associated with buildout of the General Plan, including those that are relevant to development of the Project site, which include, without limitation, off-site and cumulative impacts, were fully addressed in the General Plan EIR, as addressed more fully below.

CEQA GUIDELINES SECTION 15183 EXEMPTION
CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 mandates a streamlined environmental review process for projects that are consistent with the densities established by existing zoning, community plan or general plan policies for which an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) was certified. As noted above, the proposed Project is consistent with the land use designation and densities established by the Waterford General Plan, for which an EIR was certified. The provisions contained in Section 15183 of the CEQA Guidelines are presented below.
15183. Projects Consistent with a Community Plan, General Plan, or Zoning (a) CEQA mandates that projects which are consistent with the development density established by existing zoning, community plan, or general plan policies for which an EIR was certified shall not require additional environmental review, except as might be necessary to examine whether there are project-specific significant effects which are peculiar to the project or its site. This streamlines the review of such projects and reduces the need to prepare repetitive environmental studies. (b) In approving a project meeting the requirements of this section, a public agency shall limit its examination of environmental effects to those which the agency determines, in an initial study or other analysis:
(1) Are peculiar to the project or the parcel on which the project would be located, (2) Were not analyzed as significant effects in a prior EIR on the zoning action, general plan, or community plan, with which the project is consistent,
(3) Are potentially significant off-site impacts and cumulative impacts which were not discussed in the prior EIR prepared for the general plan, community plan or zoning action, or (4) Are previously identified significant effects which, as a result of substantial new information which was not known at the time the EIR was certified, are determined to have a more severe adverse impact than discussed in the prior EIR.

City of Waterford PAGE 15

HIGHLAND POINTE RESIDENTIAL PROJECT

ENVIRONMENTAL

CHECKLIST
(c) If an impact is not peculiar to the parcel or to the project, has been addressed as a significant effect in the prior EIR, or can be substantially mitigated by the imposition of uniformly applied development policies or standards, as contemplated by subdivision (e) below, then an additional EIR need not be prepared for the project solely on the basis of that impact.
(d) This section shall apply only to projects which meet the following conditions:
(1) The project is consistent with:
(A) A community plan adopted as part of a general plan, (B) A zoning action which zoned or designated the parcel on which the project would be located to accommodate a particular density of development, or (C) A general plan of a local agency, and
(2) An EIR was certified by the lead agency for the zoning action, the community plan, or the general plan.
(e) This section shall limit the analysis of only those significant environmental effects for which:
(1) Each public agency with authority to mitigate any of the significant effects on the environment identified in the planning or zoning action undertakes or requires others to undertake mitigation measures specified in the EIR which the lead agency found to be feasible, and (2) The lead agency makes a finding at a public hearing as to whether the feasible mitigation measures will be undertaken.
(f) An effect of a project on the environment shall not be considered peculiar to the project or the parcel for the purposes of this section if uniformly applied development policies or standards have been previously adopted by the city or county with a finding that the development policies or standards will substantially mitigate that environmental effect when applied to future projects, unless substantial new information shows that the policies or standards will not substantially mitigate the environmental effect. The finding shall be based on substantial evidence which need not include an EIR. Such development policies or standards need not apply throughout the entire city or county, but can apply only within the zoning district in which the project is located, or within the area subject to the community plan on which the lead agency is relying.

Moreover, such policies or standards need not be part of the general plan or any community plan, but can be found within another pertinent planning document such as a zoning ordinance. Where a city or county, in previously adopting uniformly applied development policies or standards for imposition on future projects, failed to make a finding as to whether such policies or standards would substantially mitigate the effects of future projects, the decision-making body of the city or county, prior to approving such a future project pursuant to this section, may hold a public hearing for the purpose of considering whether, as applied to the project, such standards or policies would substantially mitigate the effects of the project. Such a public hearing need only be held if the city or county decides to apply the standards or policies as permitted in this section.
(g) Examples of uniformly applied development policies or standards include, but are not limited to:
(1) Parking ordinances.
(2) Public access requirements.

HIGHLAND POINTE RESIDENTIAL PROJECT

ENVIRONMENTAL

CHECKLIST
City of Waterford PAGE 16
(3) Grading ordinances.
(4) Hillside development ordinances.
(5) Flood plain ordinances.
(6) Habitat protection or conservation ordinances.
(7) View protection ordinances.
(8) Requirements for reducing greenhouse gas emissions, as set forth in adopted land use plans, policies, or regulations.
(h) An environmental effect shall not be considered peculiar to the project or parcel solely because no uniformly applied development policy or standard is applicable to it. (i) Where the prior EIR relied upon by the lead agency was prepared for a general plan or community plan that meets the requirements of this section, any rezoning action consistent with the general plan or community plan shall be treated as a project subject to this section. (1) “Community plan” is defined as a part of the general plan of a City or county which applies to a defined geographic portion of the total area included in the general plan, includes or references each of the mandatory elements specified in Section 65302 of the Government Code, and contains specific development policies and implementation measures which will apply those policies to each involved parcel.
(2) For purposes of this section, “consistent” means that the density of the proposed Project is the same or less than the standard expressed for the involved parcel in the general plan, community plan or zoning action for which an EIR has been certified, and that the project complies with the densityrelated standards contained in that plan or zoning. Where the zoning ordinance refers to the general plan or community plan for its density standard, the project shall be consistent with the applicable plan.
(j) This section does not affect any requirement to analyze potentially significant offsite or cumulative impacts if those impacts were not adequately discussed in the prior EIR. If a significant offsite or cumulative impact was adequately discussed in the prior EIR, then this section may be used as a basis for excluding further analysis of that offsite or cumulative impact.

PROJECT-SPECIFIC ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The attached Environmental Checklist includes a discussion and analysis of any peculiar project- or sitespecific environmental impacts associated with construction and operation of the proposed Project, as well as any off-site or cumulative impacts, such that the previously certified General Plan EIR and Lake Pointe Development Negative Declaration would be inadequate for purposes of consideration and approval of the proposed Project. The Environmental Checklist identifies the applicable City of Waterford development standards and policies as well as other relevant standards and requirements that would apply to the proposed Project during both the construction and operational phases, and explains how the application of these uniformly applied standards and policies would ensure that no peculiar project- or site-specific environmental impacts would occur.

City of Waterford PAGE 17

HIGHLAND POINTE RESIDENTIAL PROJECT

ENVIRONMENTAL

CHECKLIST

CONCLUSION
As described above, the proposed Project is consistent with the Waterford General Plan, for which an EIR was certified on November 27, 2006 (SCH# 2005072029) (General Plan EIR), and the Lake Pointe Development, for which a Negative Declaration was certified on November 7, 2007 (SCH# 2007092067).

All impacts associated with development of the Project site with the contemplated uses and related development density, as well as off-site and cumulative impacts associated therewith, as proposed, were fully addressed in the previous environmental analysis, as detailed further herein. Since the proposed Project is consistent with the land use designation and development density established in the currently adopted General Plan, implementation of the proposed Project would not result in any new significant environmental impacts or any increase in severity of previously identified significant impacts beyond those addressed in the previous environmental analysis.

The analysis in this CEQA Environmental Checklist (and attached supporting materials) demonstrates that there is no peculiar project- or site-specific impacts associated with the proposed Project, and identifies uniformly applied standards and policies that would be applied as well as other Project Requirements to the proposed Project to ensure that no new significant impacts or an increase in previously identified significant impacts would occur. All Project Requirements identified in the attached Environmental Checklist shall be made enforceable conditions of project approval and shall be implemented within the timeframes identified.

HIGHLAND POINTE RESIDENTIAL PROJECT

ENVIRONMENTAL

CHECKLIST
City of Waterford PAGE 18

ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
I. AESTHETICS
Significant
Impact
Peculiar to the
Project or the
Project Site
Significant
Impact due to
New
Information
Impact
Adequately
Addressed in
the General
Plan EIR
Impact not
Previously
Addressed in
General Plan
EIR
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? X b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including,
but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and
historic buildings within a state scenic highway?
X
c) In non-urbanized areas, substantially degrade the
existing visual character or quality of public views of the site and its surroundings? (Public views are those
that are experienced from publicly accessible vantage
point). If the project is in an urbanized area, would the project conflict with the applicable zoning and other
regulations governing scenic quality?
X
d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare
which would adversely affect day or nighttime views
in the area?
X
Project Impacts:

As discussed further below, the development of a 412 single-family lot residential subdivision and related improvements would change the existing visual nature / character of the Project site from agricultural uses to a low-density residential neighborhood. The Project site is not designated as a scenic vista or scenic highway. The development of the Project site would create new sources of light and glare that are typical of a low-density residential development. The proposed Project is allowed under the existing General Plan land use designation. As analyzed further below, there is nothing peculiar about the proposed Project or Project site that presents impacts greater than was anticipated under the General Plan and evaluated in the General Plan EIR. For instance, the Project site is not topographically elevated from the surrounding lands and is not highly visible from areas beyond the immediate vicinity of the Project site. There are no prominent features on the Project site, such as rock outcroppings, or other visually distinctive features that contribute to the scenic quality of the Project site. Significant impacts on scenic vistas or viewsheds would not occur.

For the reasons set forth herein, the proposed Project is consistent with the development density established in the General Plan and evaluated in the certified General Plan EIR, and would not result in any peculiar new project- or site-specific impacts such that the prior environmental document would be inadequate. Therefore, no further environmental review with respect to visual and aesthetic resources is necessary.

City of Waterford PAGE 19

HIGHLAND POINTE RESIDENTIAL PROJECT

ENVIRONMENTAL

CHECKLIST
Prior Environmental Analysis:

General Plan
Chapter 3.2 of the Waterford General Plan EIR (City of Waterford General Plan Draft EIR, pages 48 through 56) evaluated the potential impacts to visual and aesthetic resources that could occur because of development contemplated under the General Plan, including the low-density residential uses established for the Project site. The General Plan EIR determined that visual and aesthetic impacts were less than significant. These impacts were adequately addressed in Chapter 3.2 of the General Plan EIR. The General Plan EIR did not identify any significant impacts in this regard and thus no mitigation measures were necessary, but instead relied on compliance with various General Plan policies and other standards and requirements (i.e., the City’s Municipal Code) that would serve to minimize potential impacts to the visual character of the City.

MDP
The MDP implements the land use framework evaluated in the City of Waterford General Plan and its associated Program EIR and remains within the scope of impacts previously analyzed. The MDP area is designated primarily for Low Density Residential with a Neighborhood Center and potential school site consistent with the General Plan (MDP, §§2.1–2.2, pp. 7–9), and Chapter 8 demonstrates consistency with General Plan goals and policies related to land use, urban design, open space, conservation, and public services (MDP, ch. 8, pp. 66–76). The MDP does not increase development intensity beyond that contemplated at the program level, but instead establishes detailed development standards and design guidelines to implement the General Plan (MDP, ch. 2–3, pp. 14–35, 28–33). Section 1.7 confirms that project-specific review will tier from the General Plan Program EIR through preparation of an expanded Initial Study addressing any site-specific issues not previously covered (MDP, §1.7, pp. 6–7). Accordingly, the impact determinations made in the previously adopted General Plan Program EIR remain applicable to the MDP, and no new or substantially more severe impacts beyond those previously evaluated are anticipated1.

Mitigation Measures/Uniformly Applied Development Policies and Standards:

General Plan
The General Plan EIR determined that future development under the General Plan would be required to be consistent with all relevant General Plan and Municipal Code provisions. The Waterford General Plan has been developed to preserve expansive areas of open space and to ensure that new development is in and around existing urbanized areas, thus ensuring that new development is primarily an extension of the existing urban landscape, and minimizes interruption of views of nearby visual features.

All applicable policies, standards and requirements identified in the General Plan EIR, including, among others, the goals, and policies in the General Plan, will be applied to the proposed Project. These serve as uniformly applied development policies and standards that would be imposed on the proposed Project to 1 Lake Pointe Master Development Plan. City of Waterford, 4 Nov. 2015. Sections 1.6–1.7, 2.1–2.4, 3, 4–8.

HIGHLAND POINTE RESIDENTIAL PROJECT

ENVIRONMENTAL

CHECKLIST
City of Waterford PAGE 20
ensure consistency with the General Plan and compliance with all applicable City requirements and standards.

MDP
As identified in Section 3.1, Aesthetics, of the Lake Pointe Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND), the project would result in less than significant impacts related to scenic vistas, scenic highways, visual character, and light and glare, and is consistent with the Waterford Vision 2025 General Plan policies and applicable design standards. The analysis concludes that the project site is not located near designated scenic resources such as the Tuolumne River or Dry Creek, is not adjacent to a state scenic highway, does not contain unique view corridors that would be adversely affected, and will be subject to the City’s architectural guidelines and lighting standards to ensure compatibility with the urban setting.

Accordingly, the Initial Study determined that there are no significant adverse impacts to Aesthetic Resources beyond those identified in the Waterford Vision 2025 General Plan Program EIR, and implementation of the Lake Pointe Master Development Plan, Pre-Zone, and Annexation does not require additional mitigation2.

Responses to Checklist Questions
Response a): Less than Significant. The proposed Project is not located along or near a scenic vista. The proposed Project involves uses that are consistent with the General Plan land use designation and the established development density, and would be compatible with the surrounding land uses, given that the proposed Project contemplates low-density residential uses that incorporate housing product that would adhere to all applicable City development standards, similar to the surrounding residential uses and would otherwise be consistent with all applicable General Plan policies and Municipal Code requirements, as contemplated in the General Plan EIR. Accordingly, the proposed Project would not result in new significant impacts or more severe significant impacts than what was previously disclosed in the General Plan EIR. No additional analysis is required. Therefore, this impact is considered less than significant, consistent with the impact conclusions set forth in the General Plan EIR.

Response b): Less than Significant. The General Plan EIR determined that implementation of the General Plan would have a less than significant impact relative to this topic. The proposed Project would not result in new significant impacts or increase the severity of previously identified significant impacts than what was previously disclosed in the General Plan EIR. No additional analysis is required. Therefore, this impact is considered less than significant, consistent with the impact conclusions set forth in the General Plan EIR.

Response c): Less than Significant. CEQA Guidelines Section 15387 defines an urbanized area as a central city or a group of contiguous cities with a population of 50,000 or more, together with adjacent densely populated areas having a population density of at least 1,000 people per square mile. The Project site is located along the boundary of the City of Waterford, which is defined as an urbanized area, and therefore is treated as an “urbanized area” for purposes of this environmental topic. The proposed residential uses are in an area that the General Plan envisions to be developed with residential uses, and 2 City of Waterford Planning Department. City of Waterford – Lake Pointe: Master Development Plan (MDP 2007-01), Pre-Zone (Rezone 2007-01), and Annexation (ANX 2007-01) Initial Study. Sept. 2007 City of Waterford PAGE 21

HIGHLAND POINTE RESIDENTIAL PROJECT

ENVIRONMENTAL

CHECKLIST
the proposed Project is consistent with the development density established by the General Plan.

Additionally, the surrounding area currently contains numerous residential uses like those proposed, and the proposed low-density uses are scaled to be visually compatible with the surrounding land uses. The proposed Project would be zoned for low density residential uses that is consistent with the General Plan land use designation.

The General Plan EIR determined that implementation of the General Plan would have a less than significant impact relative to this topic. The proposed Project would not result in new significant impacts or an increase in the severity of previously identified significant impacts than what was previously disclosed in the General Plan EIR. No additional analysis is required. Consistency with the applicable General Plan land use designation and related low-density zoning district, along with the implementation of applicable City standards and requirements, would ensure that any impacts related to visual quality or character are less than significant, consistent with the impact conclusions set forth in the General Plan EIR.

Response d): Less than Significant. As discussed in more detail in the General Plan EIR, during the day, sunlight reflecting from structures and vehicles is a primary source of glare, while nighttime light and glare can be divided into both stationary and mobile sources. Some types of stationary sources of nighttime light include structure illumination, interior lighting, decorative landscape lighting, and streetlights. The principal mobile source of nighttime light and glare is vehicle headlamp illumination.

The surrounding area has existing sources of light and glare created by streetlights, car headlights, and interior and exterior lighting from buildings, including adjacent residential neighborhoods like the proposed Project. The proposed Project would create these same sources of light and glare. Chapter 3.2 of the General Plan EIR notes that the increased background urban lighting is not substantial by normal urban standards. City development review processes contain adequate provisions to ensure that excessive light and glare are not created by individual project developments.

The General Plan EIR determined that implementation of the General Plan would have a less than significant impact relative to this topic. Consistent with the analysis set forth in the General Plan, the proposed Project would be required to be consistent with the applicable General Plan policies and actions, as well as applicable lighting and design requirements in the Waterford Municipal Code. Accordingly, the proposed Project would not result in new significant impacts or an increase in severity of previously identified significant impacts than what was previously disclosed in the General Plan EIR. No additional analysis is required. The implementation of applicable City policies, standards and requirements would ensure that any impacts related to light and glare are less than significant, consistent with the impact conclusions set forth in the General Plan EIR.

HIGHLAND POINTE RESIDENTIAL PROJECT

ENVIRONMENTAL

CHECKLIST
City of Waterford PAGE 22
II. AGRICULTURE AND FOREST RESOURCES
Significant
Impact Peculiar
to the Project
or the Project
Site
Significant
Impact due to
New
Information
Impact
Adequately
Addressed in
the General
Plan EIR
Impact not
Previously
Addressed in
General Plan
EIR
a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or
Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown
on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland
Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California
Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use?
X
b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? X
c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code section 1222(g)) or timberland (as defined in Public Resources
Code section 4526)?
X
d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use? X
e) Involve other changes in the existing environment
which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use or
conversion of forest land to non-forest use?
X
Project Impacts:

The development of a 412 single-family lot residential subdivision and related improvements would change the existing character of the Project site from agricultural uses to a low-density residential neighborhood. The entire Project site contains areas designated as Prime Farmland and Farmland of Statewide Importance under the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program (FMMP). Most of the Project site is currently agricultural land (almond orchard). The Project site includes a farm residence and two residential farm complexes. The Project site is located in an area of the City that includes developed, urbanized areas, residential and some undeveloped lands. The General Plan designates the Project site Low Density Residential. The General Plan designates the Project site for urban land uses. As such and as discussed further below, implementation of the proposed Project would not create new significant impacts over and above those identified in the General Plan EIR, nor significantly change previously identified significant impacts to make them more severe.

The Project site is not under a Williamson Act contract. The proposed Project would not conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract.

For the reasons set forth herein, the proposed Project is consistent with the development density established in the General Plan and evaluated in the certified General Plan EIR, and would not result in any peculiar new project- or site-specific impacts such that the prior environmental document would be inadequate. Therefore, no further environmental review with respect to agricultural and forestry resources is necessary.

City of Waterford PAGE 23

HIGHLAND POINTE RESIDENTIAL PROJECT

ENVIRONMENTAL

CHECKLIST
Prior Environmental Analysis:

General Plan
Chapter 3.3 of the General Plan EIR (City of Waterford General Plan Draft EIR, pages 47 through 71) evaluated the potential impacts to agricultural and forestry resources that could occur because of development contemplated under the General Plan, including the residential uses established for the Project site. The General Plan EIR recognized that the General Plan includes policies and actions, which are intended to reduce the conversion of farmlands, including Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, and Farmland of Statewide Importance, to non-agricultural uses. These include policies that encourage the development of vacant lands within City boundaries prior to conversion of agricultural lands and ensure that urban development near existing agricultural lands will not unnecessarily constrain agricultural practices or adversely affect the economic viability of nearby agricultural operations. Overall, the policies and actions included in the proposed General Plan are intended to support and preserve the agricultural heritage of Waterford as development continues to occur within the Planning Area.

These impacts were adequately addressed in Chapter 3.3 of the General Plan EIR. The proposed Project would not result in a new or substantially more severe significant impact than what was previously analyzed in the General Plan EIR. The General Plan did not identify any mitigation measures but did incorporate the above-referenced policies as part of the CEQA analysis that would serve to minimize potential impacts to agricultural resources of the City to the extent feasible.

MDP
The MDP acknowledges the existing agricultural conditions of the and expressly permits the continuation of agricultural activities as interim uses until urban development occurs, consistent with the annexation and zoning framework (§2.7, p. 14). Agricultural land within the MDP is currently designated Low Density Residential under the City of Waterford General Plan, with implementation of the MDP intended to transition these lands to urban uses in a phased manner (§2.1, p. 7). As described in Chapter 8 (Agricultural Resources), the MDP is designed to ensure consistency with the General Plan while recognizing the conversion of existing agricultural lands to planned residential, mixed-use, and community-serving uses as part of the City’s long-term growth strategy (§8.20, p. 78).

Mitigation Measures/Uniformly Applied Development Policies and Standards:

General Plan
The General Plan EIR determined that future development under the General Plan would be required to be consistent with all relevant General Plan provisions. All applicable policies, standards and requirements identified in the General Plan EIR, including, among others, those identified above, would be applied to the proposed Project. These serve as uniformly applied development policies and standards that would be imposed on the proposed Project to ensure consistency with the General Plan and compliance with all other applicable City requirements and standards.

HIGHLAND POINTE RESIDENTIAL PROJECT

ENVIRONMENTAL

CHECKLIST
City of Waterford PAGE 24
MDP
Based on the analysis and conclusions contained in the MDP Initial Study (see Agricultural Resources discussion, pp. 22–26), implementation of the proposed project would result in the conversion of Prime, Unique, and Farmland of Statewide Importance to urban uses and require cancellation of existing Williamson Act contracts. The Waterford Vision 2025 General Plan EIR previously identified these impacts as significant and unavoidable and the City adopted a Statement of Overriding Considerations at the time of General Plan adoption and EIR certification. Because the project is consistent with the General Plan land use designations, Sphere of Influence planning, and urban expansion policies, and because the EIR determined that no feasible mitigation measures are available to reduce farmland conversion to a lessthan-significant level, no additional project-specific mitigation measures are required or feasible beyond uniform application of existing General Plan policies and development standards. These include compact, contiguous urban growth patterns; designation of planned urban expansion areas adjacent to existing city limits; adherence to the Master Development Plan and Development Agreement; and compliance with Williamson Act cancellation procedures and LAFCO annexation requirements. Implementation of these uniformly applied development policies and standards ensures that agricultural land conversion occurs in a logical, orderly, and policy-consistent manner, thereby minimizing agricultural impacts to the maximum extent feasible under CEQA. Accordingly, agricultural impacts remain significant and unavoidable as previously identified in the General Plan EIR, and no additional mitigation is required beyond compliance with adopted General Plan policies and applicable state and local regulations.

Responses to Checklist Questions
Response a): Less than Significant. The General Plan designates agricultural land for development to non-agricultural, urbanized uses, including the Project site. The General Plan EIR found that buildout of the General Plan, including the proposed low-density residential uses on the Project site, would have a significant and unavoidable impact on the conversion of Important Farmland. However, the proposed Project is subject to the applicable requirements of the Agricultural Conservation and Mitigation Program which will involve a contribution of conservation easement-protected land or payment of in-lieu fees to the Mitigation Program as compensation for the agricultural land conversion impacts of the proposed Project as well as compliance with applicable provisions of the City’s Right to Farm Ordinance, which would mitigate to the extent feasible this impact, consistent with the General Plan EIR’s analysis.

Accordingly, the proposed Project would not result in new or substantially more severe significant impacts than what was previously disclosed in the General Plan EIR. No additional analysis is required. As such, implementation of the proposed Project would have less than significant impact related to this environmental topic.

Response b): Less than Significant. The Project site is within the city limits and has a zoning designation of RS Residential Single, which is consistent with the General Plan Designation of Low Density Residential (see Figure 5 - Existing Zoning).

The Project site is not under a Williamson Act contract.

The proposed Project would not conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract. For the reasons set forth herein, the proposed Project is consistent with the development density City of Waterford PAGE 25

HIGHLAND POINTE RESIDENTIAL PROJECT

ENVIRONMENTAL

CHECKLIST
established in the General Plan and evaluated in the certified General Plan EIR, and would not result in any peculiar new project- or site-specific impacts such that the prior environmental document would be inadequate. Therefore, no further environmental review with respect to agricultural and forestry resources is necessary.

Responses c) and d): No Impact. Consistent with other lands within the Planning Area considered in the General Plan EIR, the Project site is not forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code section 1222(g)) or timberland (as defined in Public Resources Code section 4526). The proposed Project would not conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land or timberland. The proposed Project would not result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land into non-forest use. There are no forest resources on the Project site or in the immediate vicinity of the Project site. For the foregoing reasons, the proposed Project would not result in new or more severe significant impacts than what was previously disclosed in the General Plan EIR. No additional analysis is required. Therefore, there is no impact, consistent with the impact conclusions set forth in the General Plan EIR.

Response e): Less than Significant. The General Plan EIR noted that the General Plan land use map was developed to arrange new designations to place compatible uses adjacent to existing uses. Nevertheless, the General Plan would allow development that could result in potentially incompatible urban uses next to farms or ranches, creating circumstances that impair the productivity and profitability of agricultural operations, and could eventually lead farmers to take their land out of production. As described in the discussion for Threshold AG-1 of the General Plan EIR, the General Plan includes policies and actions that aim to protect agricultural lands outside of the City from conversion to non-agricultural use, including from incompatible uses. Furthermore, as discussed in the General Plan EIR, Chapter 8.24 of the Waterford Municipal Code contains a “Right-to-Farm Ordinance,” under which the City notifies property buyers to accept inconveniences or discomforts resulting from nearby agricultural activities, thereby protecting agricultural operations from nuisance complaints. With implementation of the relevant General Plan policies and actions, as well as the City’s Right-to-Farm Ordinance, in connection with the development contemplated under the General Plan, including conversion of the Project site to low-density residential uses, the General Plan EIR concluded that the impact relative to this topic would be less than significant.

As discussed above, the Project site has been designated for low-density residential uses and would be developed in accordance with the development density established by the General Plan in a manner that is compatible with the other nearby urbanized areas. Accordingly, the proposed Project would not result in new or more severe significant impacts than what was previously disclosed in the General Plan EIR. No additional analysis is required. As such, implementation of the proposed Project would have Less than Significant impact related to this environmental topic, consistent with the impact conclusions set forth in the General Plan EIR.

HIGHLAND POINTE RESIDENTIAL PROJECT

ENVIRONMENTAL

CHECKLIST
City of Waterford PAGE 26
III. AIR QUALITY
Significant
Impact Peculiar
to the Project
or the Project
Site
Significant
Impact due to
New
Information
Impact
Adequately
Addressed in
the General
Plan EIR
Impact not
Previously
Addressed in
General Plan
EIR
a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the
applicable air quality plan? X
b) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is nonattainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard?
X
c) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant
concentrations? X
d) Result in other emissions (such as those leading to
odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of
people?
X
Project Impacts:

The Project site is located within the boundaries of the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (SJVAPCD). This agency is responsible for monitoring air pollution levels and ensuring compliance with federal and state air quality laws and regulations within the San Joaquin Valley Air Basin (SJVAB) and has jurisdiction over most air quality matters within its borders.

The proposed Project is allowed under the existing General Plan land use designation and is consistent with the growth assumptions of the General Plan, as well as the applicable air quality plan. As discussed further below, the proposed Project is consistent with the development density established in the General Plan and evaluated in the certified General Plan EIR and would not result in any peculiar new project- or site-specific impacts such that the prior environmental document would be inadequate. Therefore, no further environmental review with respect to air quality is necessary.

Prior Environmental Analysis:

General Plan
The General Plan EIR analyzed the anticipated impacts of air quality associated with the future urban development that was contemplated by the General Plan. As discussed below, the General Plan EIR concluded that it can be expected that the growth resulting from the implementation of the Waterford General Plan will contribute to the significant regional air quality problem. The General Plan EIR concluded that the General Plan would contribute to the cumulative deterioration of air quality as an overall consequence of regional growth and this is considered a “significant” adverse impact under CEQA.

In addition, the General Plan EIR determined that development under the General Plan could result in new sources of criteria air pollutant emissions and/or TACs near existing or planned sensitive receptors. Also, the General Plan EIR disclosed that implementation of individual development projects accommodated by the General Plan would have the potential to conflict with the SJVAPCD’s thresholds of significance for criteria pollutants at the project-level. However, with application of applicable State laws and regulations City of Waterford PAGE 27

HIGHLAND POINTE RESIDENTIAL PROJECT

ENVIRONMENTAL

CHECKLIST
and SJVAPCD rules and regulations, as well as implementation of the relevant General Plan policies and actions, this would reduce construction and operation-related criteria air pollutants to the extent feasible.

Additionally, review of individual development projects by SJVAPCD for permitted sources of air toxics (e.g., industrial facilities, dry cleaners, and gasoline dispensing facilities) in addition to compliance with relevant General Plan policies and actions would ensure that health risks are minimized to the extent feasible.

MDP
Implementation of the MDP would result in air quality impacts requiring mitigation, particularly with respect to construction-related emissions and consistency with regional air quality planning efforts. As described in Chapter 1, Section 1.7, CEQA Compliance, the project-specific environmental review included preparation of an expanded initial study and supporting technical analyses, including an air quality assessment. In addition, Chapter 8, Section 8.17 (Air Quality) of the MDP affirms the project’s obligation to remain consistent with the City of Waterford General Plan policies and applicable regional air district requirements. Similar to the conclusions of the General Plan EIR, development under the MDP has the potential to generate criteria air pollutants and contribute to cumulative regional air quality impacts associated with urban growth. However, consistent with the regulatory framework established in Section

1.2 (Plan Purpose and Regulatory Framework), future development within the MDP is required to comply with applicable State regulations and local air district rules at the time of project-level review. Through implementation of required mitigation measures identified in the MND, adherence to General Plan policies, and compliance with applicable air district standards, construction- and operational-related air quality impacts would be reduced to less-than-significant levels, and health risks to sensitive receptors would be minimized consistent with CEQA requirements.

Mitigation Measures/Uniformly Applied Development Policies and Standards General Plan
The General Plan EIR determined that future development under the General Plan would be required to be consistent with all relevant General Plan provisions, as well as all other applicable federal, state and regional laws and regulations governing air quality, which would be applied to the proposed Project. These serve as uniformly applied development policies and standards and/or as conditions of approval for the proposed Project to ensure consistency with the General Plan and compliance with applicable Federal, state, regional and City laws, rules, and regulations.

MDP
Implementation of the MDP would be subject to the uniformly applied development policies and Standards of the City of Waterford and the SJVAPCD, which function as mitigation measures incorporated into the Project and are identified in Section 3.3 (Air Quality) of the Initial Study. Consistent with the Waterford Vision 2025 General Plan EIR, cumulative air quality impacts related to ozone and PM₁₀ in the San Joaquin Valley are significant and unavoidable; however, project-level impacts can be reduced through implementation of adopted policies, development standards, and Air District regulations. Accordingly, Mitigation Measure 3.1 requires compliance with all applicable SJVAPCD rules and regulations, including payment of applicable Indirect Source Review (ISR) fees to offset operational emissions associated with

HIGHLAND POINTE RESIDENTIAL PROJECT

ENVIRONMENTAL

CHECKLIST
City of Waterford PAGE 28
new development. Mitigation Measure 3.2 requires preparation and implementation of dust control measures during construction consistent with SJVAPCD Regulation VIII to minimize PM₁₀ emissions, including watering of exposed surfaces, stabilization of disturbed soils, and control of track-out onto public roadways. Mitigation Measure 3.3 requires incorporation of General Plan policies promoting neotraditional, pedestrian-oriented design, internal circulation connectivity, and mixed-use land planning to reduce vehicle miles traveled and associated criteria pollutant emissions. With implementation of these uniformly applied standards and mitigation measures, project-level air quality impacts would be reduced to the extent feasible; however, as identified in the General Plan EIR and reaffirmed in the Initial Study, cumulative regional impacts remain significant and unavoidable, consistent with the previously adopted Statement of Overriding Considerations.
3 Responses to Checklist Questions
Responses a), b): Less than Significant. As noted above, the General Plan EIR disclosed that all future development and infrastructure projects within the Planning Area, including the low-density residential uses on the Project site, would be subject to the relevant General Plan goals, policies, and actions, as well as various federal, State, and regional laws, rules, and regulations, which are intended to reduce emissions and air quality impacts. However, the General Plan includes higher levels and rates of growth than those that would be facilitated under the prior Waterford General Plan. As such, the General Plan EIR determined this impact to be considered significant and unavoidable.

Consistent with the General Plan EIR’s analysis in this regard, the proposed Project would be both a direct and indirect source of air emissions. Direct sources of air emissions would include area, energy, and water and waste sources, due to development of the on-site buildings and associated infrastructure. Indirect sources of emissions would be due to the generation of trips from vehicles traveling to and from the Project site.

CalEEModTM (v.2022.1) was used to model operational emissions of the proposed Project. Table Air-1 shows proposed Project emissions as provided by CalEEMod. Further detail is provided in Appendix B.

SJVAPCD provides a list of applicable air quality emissions thresholds.

Table AIR-1: Operational Project Generated Emissions (tons per year) POLLUTANT CO NOX ROG SOX PM10 PM2.5
Emissions 22 3 6 <1 5 1
Threshold 100 10 10 27 15 15
Exceeds
Threshold? N N N N N N
SOURCES: CALEEMOD (V.2022.1)
The SJVAPCD has established their thresholds of significance by which the Project emissions are compared against to determine the level of significance. The SJVAPCD has established operations related emissions thresholds of significance as follows: 100 tons per year of carbon monoxide (CO), 10 tons per year of oxides of nitrogen (NOx), 10 tons per year of reactive organic gases (ROG), 27 tons per year of sulfur oxides 3 City of Waterford Planning Department. City of Waterford – Lake Pointe: Master Development Plan (MDP 2007-01), Pre-Zone (Rezone 2007-01), and Annexation (ANX 2007-01) Initial Study. Sept. 2007 City of Waterford PAGE 29

HIGHLAND POINTE RESIDENTIAL PROJECT

ENVIRONMENTAL

CHECKLIST
(SOx), 15 tons per year particulate matter of 10 microns or less in size (PM10), and 15 tons per year particulate matter of 2.5 microns or less in size (PM2.5). Consistent with other development contemplated under the General Plan and evaluated in the General Plan EIR, if the proposed Project’s emissions were to exceed the SJVAPCD’s threshold of significance for operational-generated emissions, the proposed Project would be required to implement all mitigation to reduce emissions to the extent feasible. As shown in Table AIR-1 above, operational emissions would not exceed any of the SJVACPD operational thresholds of significance and therefore no mitigation is triggered.

Separately, as discussed in the General Plan EIR, emissions from construction activities represent temporary impacts that are typically short in duration, depending on the size, phasing, and type of project.

Air quality impacts can nevertheless be acute during construction periods, resulting in significant localized impacts to air quality. Construction-related activities would result in Project-generated emissions from demolition, site preparation, grading, paving, building construction, and architectural coatings. The analysis considers potential air quality concerns for existing nearby sensitive receptors as well as future on-site residents, particularly if occupancy begins before all construction phases are complete. Additionally, construction emissions could vary depending on whether phases are pursued concurrently or sequentially. Concurrent construction activities could lead to higher short-term emissions, while a phased approach might extend the duration of emissions but at lower daily intensities.

CalEEModTM (v.2022.1) was used to estimate construction emissions for the proposed Project. Table AIR2, below, provides the construction criteria pollutant emissions associated with implementation of the proposed Project. Further detail is provided in Appendix B.

Table AIR-2: Maximum Construction Project Generated Emissions (tons per year) POLLUTANT CO NOX ROG SOX PM10 PM2.5
Phase 1

EMISSIONS
3 2 1 <1 <1 <1
Phase 2
Emissions 3 2 1 <1 <1 <1
THRESHOLD 100 10 10 27 15 15

EXCEEDS
THRESHOLD?

N N N N N N
SOURCES: CALEEMOD (V.2022.1)
Consistent with the General Plan EIR’s analysis, if the proposed Project’s emissions were to exceed the SJVAPCD’s threshold of significance for construction-generated emissions, the proposed Project would have a significant impact on air quality and all feasible mitigation would be required to be implemented to reduce emissions. As shown in Table AIR-2, Project maximum construction emissions would not exceed the SJVAPCD thresholds of significance and therefore no mitigation is triggered. Nevertheless, regardless of emission quantities, the SJVAPCD requires construction related control measures in accordance with their rules and regulations. Implementation of these control measures (provided in further detail below) would further reduce proposed Project construction related emissions to the extent feasible.

The first step is to prepare a Dust Control Plan that meets all the applicable requirements of APCD Rule 8021. All construction activities are required to implement dust control measures, as required by APCD Rules 8011-8081, to limit Visible Dust Emissions to 20% opacity or less. Dust control measures include

HIGHLAND POINTE RESIDENTIAL PROJECT

ENVIRONMENTAL

CHECKLIST
City of Waterford PAGE 30
application of water or chemical dust suppressants to unpaved roads and graded areas, covering or stabilization of transported bulk materials, prevention of carryout or trackout of soil materials to public roads, limiting the area subject to soil disturbance, construction of wind barriers, as well as access restrictions to inactive sites as required by the applicable rules. The following dust control practices are identified in Tables 6-2 and 6-3 of the GAMAQI (2002):
a. All disturbed areas, including storage piles, which are not being actively utilized for construction purposes, shall be effectively stabilized of dust emissions using water, chemical stabilizer/suppressant, or vegetative ground cover.
b. All on-site unpaved roads and off-site unpaved access roads shall be effectively stabilized of dust emissions using water or chemical stabilizer/suppressant. c. All land clearing, grubbing, scraping, excavation, land leveling, grading, cut and fill, and demolition activities shall control fugitive dust emissions by application of water or by presoaking. d. When materials are transported off-site, all material shall be covered, effectively wetted to limit visible dust emissions, or at least six inches of freeboard space from the top of the container shall be maintained.
e. All operations shall limit or expeditiously remove the accumulation of mud or dirt from adjacent public streets at least once every 24 hours when operations are occurring. The use of dry rotary brushes is expressly prohibited except where preceded or accompanied by sufficient wetting to limit the visible dust emissions. Use of blower devices is expressly forbidden. f. Following the addition of materials to, or the removal of materials from, the surface of outdoor storage piles, said piles shall be effectively stabilized of fugitive dust emissions utilizing sufficient water or chemical stabilizer/suppressant.
g. Limit traffic speeds on unpaved roads to 15 mph.
h. Install sandbags or other erosion control measures to prevent silt runoff to public roadways from sites with a slope greater than one percent.

The proposed Project would be required to comply with all applicable federal, State, SJVAPCD, and other local laws, regulations, and other requirements, including, without limitation, the above-referenced control measures imposed by the SJVAPCD for construction-related PM10 emissions.

CONCLUSION
The proposed Project would not exceed any construction- or operational-related emissions thresholds and would be required to comply with all applicable federal, State, SJVAPCD, and other local laws, regulations, and requirements, as well as be consistent with applicable General Plan policies and actions, including implementation of the above-referenced control measures provided by the SJVAPCD for construction-related PM10 emissions. Compliance with the foregoing applicable laws, rules and regulations would further ensure that the proposed Project’s criteria pollutant emissions would be considered to have a less than significant impact on a project level. The proposed Project would not result in new or more severe significant impacts than what was previously disclosed in the General Plan EIR. No additional analysis is required. Therefore, the proposed Project would have a less than significant impact in this regard.

City of Waterford PAGE 31

HIGHLAND POINTE RESIDENTIAL PROJECT

ENVIRONMENTAL

CHECKLIST
Response c): Less than Significant. As discussed at length in the General Plan EIR, a toxic air contaminant (TAC) is defined as an air pollutant that may cause or contribute to an increase in mortality or in serious illness, or that may pose a hazard to human health. TACs are usually present in minute quantities in the ambient air. However, their high toxicity or health risk may pose a threat to public health even at very low concentrations. In general, for those TACs that may cause cancer, there is no concentration that does not present some risk. This contrasts with the criteria pollutants for which acceptable levels of exposure can be determined and for which the state and federal governments have set ambient air quality standards.

Controlling air toxic emissions became a national priority with the passage of the Clean Air Act Amendments (CAAA) of 1990, whereby Congress mandated that the U.S. EPA regulate 188 air toxics, also known as hazardous air pollutants. The U.S. EPA has assessed this expansive list in their latest rule on the Control of Hazardous Air Pollutants from Mobile Sources (Federal Register, Vol. 72, No. 37, page 8430, February 26, 2007) and identified a group of 93 compounds emitted from mobile sources. In addition, the U.S. EPA identified seven compounds with significant contributions from mobile sources that are among the national and regional-scale cancer risk drivers from their 1999 National Air Toxics Assessment. These are acrolein, benzene, 1,3-butidiene, diesel particulate matter plus diesel exhaust organic gases (diesel PM), formaldehyde, naphthalene, and polycyclic organic matter.

The 2007 U.S. EPA rule requires controls that will dramatically decrease Mobile Source Air Toxics (MSAT) emissions through cleaner fuels and cleaner engines. According to an FHWA analysis using EPA’s MOBILE6.2 model, even if vehicle activity (VMT) increases by 145 percent, a combined reduction of 72 percent in the total annual emission rate for the priority MSAT is projected from 1999 to 2050. California maintains stricter standards for clean fuels and emissions compared to the national standards, therefore it is expected that MSAT trends in California will decrease consistent with or more than the U.S. EPA's national projections.

The California Air Resources Board (CARB) published the Air Quality and Land Use Handbook: A Community Health Perspective (CARB, 2005) to provide information to local planners and decision-makers about land use compatibility issues associated with emissions from industrial, commercial, and mobile sources of air pollution. The CARB Handbook indicates that mobile sources continue to be the largest overall contributors to the State’s air pollution problems, representing the greatest air pollution health risk to most Californians as well as adversely affecting surrounding land uses, structures, or sensitive receptors to the Project. The most serious pollutants on a statewide basis include diesel exhaust particulate matter (diesel PM), benzene, and 1,3-butadiene, all of which are emitted by motor vehicles.

These mobile source air toxics are associated with freeways and high traffic roads. Non-mobile source air toxics are associated with industrial and commercial uses. Table Air-3 provides the California Air Resources Board minimum separation recommendations on siting sensitive land uses.

HIGHLAND POINTE RESIDENTIAL PROJECT

ENVIRONMENTAL

CHECKLIST
City of Waterford PAGE 32
Table Air-3: CARB Minimum Separation Recommendations on Siting Sensitive Land Uses

SOURCE CATEGORY ADVISORY RECOMMENDATIONS
Freeways and HighTraffic Roads • Avoid siting new sensitive land uses within 500 feet of a freeway, urban roads with 100,000 vehicles/day, or rural roads with 50,000 vehicles/day.

Distribution Centers
• Avoid siting new sensitive land uses within 1,000 feet of a distribution center (that accommodates more than 100 trucks per day, more than 40 trucks with operating transport refrigeration units (TRUs) per day, or where TRU unit operations exceed 300 hours per week).
• Consider the configuration of existing distribution centers and avoid locating residences and other new sensitive land uses near entry and exit points.

Rail Yards
• Avoid siting new sensitive land uses within 1,000 feet of a major service and maintenance rail yard.
• Within one mile of a rail yard, consider possible siting limitations and mitigation approaches.

Ports
• Avoid siting of new sensitive land uses immediately downwind of ports in the most heavily impacted zones. Consult local air districts or the CARB on the status of pending analyses of health risks.

Refineries
• Avoid siting new sensitive land uses immediately downwind of petroleum refineries.

Consult with local air districts and other local agencies to determine an appropriate separation.

Chrome Platers • Avoid siting new sensitive land uses within 1,000 feet of a chrome plater.

Dry Cleaners Using
Perchloro- ethylene
• Avoid siting new sensitive land uses within 300 feet of any dry-cleaning operation. For operations with two or more machines, provide 500 feet. For operations with 3 or more machines, consult with the local air district.
• Do not site new sensitive land uses in the same building with perc dry cleaning operations.

Gasoline Dispensing
Facilities
• Avoid siting new sensitive land uses within 300 feet of a large gas station (defined as a facility with a throughput of 3.6 million gallons per year or greater). A 50-foot separation is recommended for typical gas dispensing facilities.

SOURCES: AIR QUALITY AND LAND USE HANDBOOK: A COMMUNITY HEALTH PERSPECTIVE” (CARB 2005) The proposed Project does not involve any land uses that generate notable sources of TACs. Since the proposed Project would not generate a significant risk of public exposure to TACs or otherwise have a substantially greater impact than that evaluated in the General Plan EIR, the proposed Project would have a less than significant impact relative to exposure of sensitive receptors to toxic air contaminants.

Response d): Less than Significant. Operation of the proposed Project would not generate notable odors.

The low-density residential land use that would be developed by the proposed Project is compatible with the surrounding existing and proposed land uses and is not the type of land use that typically generates odors. People in the immediate vicinity of construction activities, including residential sensitive receptors 250-750 ft. from the Project site, may be subject to temporary odors typically associated with construction activities (diesel exhaust, hot asphalt, etc.). However, any odors generated by construction activities would be minor and would be short and temporary in duration and typically are contained to a significant degree within the building envelope and with proper ventilation in any event.

Examples of facilities that are known producers of operational odors include: Wastewater Treatment Facilities, Chemical Manufacturing, Sanitary Landfill, Fiberglass Manufacturing, Transfer Station, Painting/Coating Operations (e.g. auto body shops), Composting Facility, Food Processing Facility, Petroleum Refinery, Feed Lot/Dairy, Asphalt Batch Plant, and Rendering Plant. If a project would locate City of Waterford PAGE 33

HIGHLAND POINTE RESIDENTIAL PROJECT

ENVIRONMENTAL

CHECKLIST
receptors and known odor sources in proximity to each other further analysis may be warranted; however, if a project would not locate receptors and known odor sources in proximity to each other, then further analysis is not warranted. The proposed Project does not involve locating sensitive receptors near these types of stationary sources, nor would it result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) that would adversely affect a substantial number of people. The proposed Project would not result in new or more severe significant impacts than what was previously disclosed in the General Plan EIR. No additional analysis is required. This is a less than significant impact.

HIGHLAND POINTE RESIDENTIAL PROJECT

ENVIRONMENTAL

CHECKLIST
City of Waterford PAGE 34
IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Significant
Impact Peculiar
to the Project
or the Project
Site
Significant
Impact due to
New
Information
Impact
Adequately
Addressed in
the General
Plan EIR
Impact not
Previously
Addressed in
General Plan
EIR
a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the
California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
X
b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian
habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or US Fish and
Wildlife Service?
X
c) Have a substantial adverse effect on state or federally protected wetlands (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means?
X
d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any
native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife
corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites?
X
e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances
protecting biological resources, such as a tree
preservation policy or ordinance?
X
f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat
Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation
Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan?
X
Project Impacts:

As discussed more fully below, the proposed Project includes the development of a 412 single-family lot residential subdivision and related improvements that would modify habitats through conversion of an almond orchard to urban development. There is limited potential for impacts to special status animal or plant species to occur due to the lack of habitat. The Project site does not contain any oak trees, creeks, riparian areas, wetlands, or other sensitive habitat.

As discussed further below, the proposed Project is consistent with the development density established in the General Plan and evaluated in the certified General Plan EIR and would not result in any peculiar new project- or site-specific impacts such that the prior environmental document would be inadequate.

Therefore, no further environmental review with respect to biological resources is necessary.

City of Waterford PAGE 35

HIGHLAND POINTE RESIDENTIAL PROJECT

ENVIRONMENTAL

CHECKLIST
Prior Environmental Analysis
General Plan
The General Plan EIR analyzed the anticipated impacts that would occur to the biological resources of the City of Waterford because of the future urban development that was contemplated by the General Plan, including the low-density residential uses contemplated on the Project site. These impacts included development impacts to special-status species, species of concern, non-listed species, sensitive biological communities, and migratory wildlife corridors (City of Waterford General Plan Draft EIR, pages 87 through 109).

The General Plan EIR concluded that implementation of the General Plan policies and actions, combined with identified Waterford Municipal Code requirements, would protect biological resources in the areas where the General Plan contemplated future development. However, the General Plan EIR determined that some impacts associated with these environmental topics would occur.

The proposed Project is consistent with the General Plan’s adopted vision and land uses designated on the Project site and would not result in any new or substantially increased significant impacts beyond those that were already addressed in the General Plan EIR. These impacts were adequately addressed in Chapter

3.4 of the General Plan EIR. The General Plan EIR did not identify any mitigation measures, but the General Plan and Municipal Code include relevant policies and provisions that would further serve to minimize potential impacts to biological resources to which the proposed Project would be subject. Moreover, there is a comprehensive federal and State regulatory framework that governs the protection of biological resources to which the proposed Project would be required to adhere.

MDP
The MDP acknowledges that biological resources have been subject to prior program-level environmental review and will be further evaluated at the project level pursuant to CEQA. Section 1.7, “CEQA Compliance,” explains that project-specific environmental review will tier from the City of Waterford’s General Plan EIR and will include preparation of an expanded Initial Study addressing issue areas not otherwise fully covered, including biological resources (Lake Pointe MDP, §1.7), ensuring that potential impacts to special-status species, sensitive habitats, and jurisdictional features would be identified and mitigated consistent with CEQA requirements.

Mitigation Measures/Uniformly Applied Development Policies and Standards General Plan
The General Plan EIR determined that future development under the General Plan would be required to be consistent with all relevant General Plan provisions, as well as all other applicable federal, State, regional and local laws and regulations governing biological resources, which would be applied to the proposed Project. These serve as uniformly applied development policies and standards and/or as conditions of approval for the proposed Project to ensure consistency with the General Plan and compliance with applicable federal, State, regional and City laws, and regulations.

HIGHLAND POINTE RESIDENTIAL PROJECT

ENVIRONMENTAL

CHECKLIST
City of Waterford PAGE 36
MDP
As evaluated in the Lake Pointe Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration, implementation of the project would be subject to uniformly applied General Plan policies, development standards, and federal and state regulatory requirements that reduce impacts to biological resources to a less-than-significant level with mitigation. The MDP shall comply with applicable provisions of the Clean Water Act (including Sections 401 and 404), Regional Water Quality Control Board requirements, and consultation with the U.S.

Fish and Wildlife Service and California Department of Fish and Wildlife, as applicable, and shall implement stormwater Best Management Practices and erosion control measures to protect adjacent waters and habitats. Mitigation Measure BIO-1 requires that a qualified biologist conduct pre-construction surveys for special-status species and nesting birds prior to ground disturbance, with establishment of appropriate avoidance buffers if resources are identified; Mitigation Measure BIO-2 requires avoidance and minimization of impacts to jurisdictional waters and riparian areas and compliance with all permit conditions, including compensatory mitigation if required. With adherence to these uniformly applied policies, standards, and mitigation measures, biological resource impacts would be reduced to a less-thansignificant level.

Responses to Checklist Questions
Response a): Less than Significant. The Project site is an almond orchard that has been consistently disturbed due to the historic and current agricultural uses and are biologically unremarkable. Structures on the Project site include two residential farm complexes. The first is located along Vineyard Road along the northern boundary of the Project site. This complex is approximately 0.7 acres and contains a small farmhouse, ornamental shade trees, and grassy yard. The second complex is approximately 7.5 acres located in the center of the Project site and is composed of a residence, several accessory farm structures, and a yard for farm operations.

Based on the intensive agricultural activities associated with farming, the Project site lacks suitable habitat for special-status plant species, and therefore it is unlikely that special-status plants will occur on the Project site. For the same reason, special-status wildlife species are not expected to occur on the Project site except for occasional foraging or on a transitory basis. As discussed further below, raptor species such as Swainson’s hawk, burrowing owl, and white-tailed kite are species that have potential to forage on the Project site, however, nesting habitat is not present.

The Project site is not in designated critical habitat of any federally listed species. Habitats on the Project site are highly disturbed by intensive farming for decades and periodic disking and tilling of portions of the Project site for many years. Ruderal vegetation on the Project site is primarily constrained to the outer edges of the vegetable fields along the boundaries of the Project site.

Special-status plants occur in natural habitats with relatively undisturbed areas. Aquatic natural communities such as vernal pools, marshes and swamps, seasonal wetlands, riparian scrub, and areas with unique soil types such as gabbro, serpentine, or alkali are the most likely habitat for special status plants.

All special-status plants in the broader study area occur in habitat types that do not occur on the Project site. As noted above, the Project site contains ruderal habitat that is routinely disked and has been historically farmed for decades. The Project site is not suitable for special-status plants. No special- status City of Waterford PAGE 37

HIGHLAND POINTE RESIDENTIAL PROJECT

ENVIRONMENTAL

CHECKLIST
plants or potentially suitable habitat for special-status plants occur within the Project site. Due to lack of suitable habitat, it is unlikely that special status plants will occur in the Project site. Human settlement has involved a high frequency of ground disturbance associated with the historical and current farming activities in the region, including the Project site. Therefore, the Project site does not contain suitable habitat for special-status plant species. Implementation of the proposed Project would have a less than significant impact on these species.

Special-status wildlife species recorded in the broader study area include burrowing owl, Swainson’s hawk, tricolored blackbird (Agelaius tricolor), white-tailed kite (Elanus leucurus), least Bell’s vireo (Vireo bellii pusillus), California tiger salamander (Ambystoma californiense), giant garter snake (Thamnophis gigas), western spadefoot (Spea hammondii), delta smelt (Hypomesus transpacificus), longfin smelt (Spirinchus thaleichthys), Central Valley steelhead (Oncorhynchus mykiss), brush rabbit (Sylvilagus bachmani riparius), California red-legged frog (Rana aurora draytonii), valley elderberry longhorn beetle (Desmocerus californicus dimorphus), vernal pool fairy shrimp (Branchinecta lynchi), and vernal pool tadpole shrimp (Lepidurus packardi). While the Project site may have provided habitat for several of the special-status wildlife species at some time in the distant past, intensive farming and development that have occurred on-site for decades have substantially modified any such natural habitats. There are several raptors and other birds species that can use agricultural fields, but orchard limits the foraging opportunities for most raptors. All other special-status species are either unlikely to be present or would only occur on a transitory or very occasional basis.

Special-status birds that occur within the broader San Joaquin region include: tricolored blackbird, Swainson’s hawk, northern harrier, and bald eagle, which are associated with streams, rivers, lakes, wetlands, marshes, and other wet environments; loggerhead shrike, and burrowing owl, which lives in open areas, usually grasslands, with scattered trees and brush; and raptors that are present in varying habitats throughout the region. As discussed further below, the Project site does not contain these types of wet environments or other habitat/vegetation types. In addition, except for the ornamental trees immediately adjacent to the farm residence, there are no other “non-orchard” trees on-site which could be used by migratory birds on a transitory basis.

Consistent with the General Plan EIR’s analysis on this environmental topic, the proposed Project would be required to comply with applicable provisions of the City’s General Plan and adopted federal, State, regional, and local laws and regulations for the protection of special-status plants and animals, including habitat. As detailed above, the City of Waterford General Plan includes numerous policies and actions intended to protect special-status plants and animals, including habitat, from adverse effects associated with future development and improvement projects. Given the already-disturbed nature of the Project site, combined with the implementation of the General Plan policies and actions, this would ensure that the proposed Project results in a less than significant impact to these species.

Raptors. Raptors are protected by state law, but not all raptor species are listed species at the state or federal level. The Migratory Bird Treaty Act and Fish and Game Code protect raptor species year-round, as well as their nests during nesting season, nesting for these species typical peak from May to August.

Raptors can be found in a variety of habitats across California including grasslands, open woodlands, riparian areas, marshes, and cultivated fields. Raptors may nest in trees near the Project site and may

HIGHLAND POINTE RESIDENTIAL PROJECT

ENVIRONMENTAL

CHECKLIST
City of Waterford PAGE 38
forage on or near the Project site. Nesting usually commences in the early spring, concurrent with other resident Central Valley raptors, and most young fledge by early July. If Project construction is scheduled to commence during the nesting season (i.e., between February 15 through September 15), and raptors are nesting on or near the Project site, a construction setback of 100 feet from the nest would be required until nesting is complete. The implementation of Project Requirement BIO-1 would ensure that raptors are not significantly impacted during Project construction activities, consistent with the General Plan EIR’s analysis. The implementation of Project Requirement BIO-1 would ensure that the proposed Project complies with the applicable requirements specified in the General Plan to protect these biological resources.

Project Requirement(s) (To Be Imposed as Enforceable Conditions of Approval) Project Requirement BIO-1: Prior to the commencement of grading activities, site clearing, or other ground disturbing activities on the Project site, the Project applicant shall arrange for a qualified biologist to conduct a preconstruction survey for raptors. If no raptors or raptor nests are detected, then construction activities may commence and no further actions are necessary pursuant to this PR BIO-1. If raptors or occupied nests are discovered, then the following shall be implemented:
• During the nesting season (February 15 through September 15) occupied nests shall not be disturbed and shall be provided with a 100-foot construction setback from the nest until nesting is complete.

Implementation of this requirement shall occur prior to grading, site clearing or other ground disturbing activities. StanCOG shall be responsible for monitoring, and a qualified biologist shall conduct surveys as required under this PR BIO-1.

Response b): Less than Significant. The CDFW considers sensitive natural communities to have significant biotic value, with species of plants and animals unique to each community. While not always documented as a sensitive natural community in the CNDDB, streams, rivers, wet meadows, and vernal pools are of high concern because they provide unique aquatic habitat for many endemic species, including special status plants, birds, invertebrates, and amphibians. Waterford is in a bioregion that includes vernal pools, valley sink scrub and saltbush, freshwater marsh, grasslands, arid plains, orchards, and oak savannah. Development accommodated by the General Plan in or near riparian and habitat areas could result in removal of vegetation or further habitat degradation from pollutants transported by urban runoff, changes in vegetation because of changes in land use and management practices, as well as altered site hydrology from the construction of adjacent urban development and roadways. Alterations to the flow, bed, channel, or bank of creeks and streams within the Planning Area would affect the ability of riparian corridors to provide habitat for wildlife species that utilize them for feeding, cover, and nesting, and thus could result in a loss of riparian habitat function.

The City of Waterford has prepared the General Plan to include numerous policies and actions intended to protect sensitive natural communities, including riparian habitat, from adverse effects associated with future development and improvement projects. As noted in the General Plan EIR, subsequent development projects, such as the proposed Project, would be required to comply with the General Plan and adopted federal, State, regional and local laws, and regulations for the protection of sensitive natural City of Waterford PAGE 39

HIGHLAND POINTE RESIDENTIAL PROJECT

ENVIRONMENTAL

CHECKLIST
communities, including riparian habitat. Based on the foregoing, the General Plan EIR determined impacts in this regard would be less than significant.

There are no riparian habitats or other sensitive natural communities located on the Project site. Absent any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural communities, implementation of the proposed Project would have a less than significant impact relative to this topic.

Response c): Less than Significant. As discussed at length in the General Plan EIR. streams, rivers, wet meadows, and vernal pools (wetlands and jurisdictional waters) are of high concern because they provide unique aquatic habitat (perennial and ephemeral) for many endemic species, including special status plants, birds, invertebrates, and amphibians. These aquatic habitats oftentimes qualify as protected wetlands or jurisdictional waters and are protected from disturbance through the federal and state CWAs.

The implementation of an individual project would require a detailed and site-specific review of the site to determine the presence or absence of water features. If water features are present and disturbance is required, federal and State laws and regulations require measures to reduce, avoid, or compensate for impacts to these resources. The requirements of these Federal and State laws and regulations are implemented through the permit process. Construction and development activities associated with individual future projects could result in the disturbance or loss of waters of the United States. Subsequent development projects, such as the proposed Project, would be required to comply with relevant provisions of the General Plan and adopted applicable Federal, State, and local laws and regulations for the protection of sensitive natural communities, including protected wetlands. The City of Waterford has prepared the General Plan to include numerous policies and actions intended to protect wetlands and waters of the U.S. from adverse effects associated with future development and improvement projects.

The Project site does not contain protected wetlands or other jurisdictional areas and thus there is no need for permitting associated with the federal or state Clean Water Acts. Absent any wetlands or jurisdictional waters, implementation of the proposed Project would have a less than significant impact relative to this topic.

Response d): Less than Significant. As discussed in more detail in the General Plan EIR, habitat loss, fragmentation, and degradation resulting from land use changes or habitat conversion can alter the use and viability of wildlife movement corridors (i.e., linear habitats that naturally connect and provide passage between two or more otherwise disjunct larger habitats or habitat fragments). Wildlife habitat corridors maintain connectivity for daily movement, travel, mate seeking, and migration; plant propagation; genetic interchange; population movement in response to environmental change or natural disaster; and recolonization of habitats subject to local extirpation or removal. The suitability of a habitat as a wildlife movement corridor is related to, among other factors, the habitat corridor’s dimensions (length and width), topography, vegetation, exposure to human influence, and the species in question. The Planning Area does not currently provide an important connection between any areas of natural habitat that would otherwise be isolated. However, as discussed in the General Plan EIR, development of the Planning Area could impede the movement of wildlife by disturbing and/or blocking local movement corridors or by disturbing nursery sites. Subsequent development projects, such as the proposed Project, would be required to comply with relevant provisions of the General Plan and adopted applicable federal, State, and local laws and regulations for the protection of movement corridors.

HIGHLAND POINTE RESIDENTIAL PROJECT

ENVIRONMENTAL

CHECKLIST
City of Waterford PAGE 40
There are no documented wildlife corridors or wildlife nursery sites on or adjacent to the Project site. The Project site is located adjacent to mostly developed, urbanized areas that include roads and existing residential developments. The residential development of the proposed Project is not anticipated to interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors or wildlife nursery sites. Implementation of the proposed Project would have a less than significant impact, relative to this topic.

Responses e), f): Less than Significant. As discussed in the General Plan EIR, with respect to consistency with local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance, subsequent development projects, such as the proposed Project, would be required to comply with applicable provisions in the General Plan policies as well as the Municipal Code. The General Plan does not contain any provisions that would conflict with local requirements. The General Plan provides for the continued implementation of local requirements, including policies and ordinances related to protection of biological resources. Implementation of the proposed Project would have a less than significant impact, relative to this topic, consistent with the General Plan EIR significance determination for this topic.

City of Waterford PAGE 41

HIGHLAND POINTE RESIDENTIAL PROJECT

ENVIRONMENTAL

CHECKLIST
V. CULTURAL RESOURCES
Significant
Impact Peculiar
to the Project
or the Project
Site
Significant
Impact due to
New
Information
Impact
Adequately
Addressed in
the General
Plan EIR
Impact not
Previously
Addressed in
General Plan
EIR
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource pursuant to '15064.5? X
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to '15064.5? X
c) Disturb any human remains, including those interred
outside of formal cemeteries? X
Project Impacts:

As discussed further below, the proposed Project is consistent with the development density established in the General Plan and evaluated in the certified General Plan EIR and would not result in any peculiar new project- or site-specific impacts such that the prior environmental document would be inadequate.

Therefore, no further environmental review with respect to cultural resources is necessary.

Prior Environmental Analysis:

General Plan
The General Plan EIR analyzed the anticipated impacts that would occur to historical and cultural resources within the Planning Area (which included the Project site) because of the future urban development that was contemplated by the General Plan. These impacts included potential destruction or damage to any historical, cultural, and unique archaeological and paleontological resources (City of Waterford General Plan Draft EIR, pages 110 through 122). However, the General Plan contains goals, policies, and actions for the preservation and treatment of archaeological, historical, cultural, and paleontological resources. Moreover, other laws and requirements also come into play. For example, Public Resources Code Section 5097 has specific stop-work and notification procedures to follow if Native American human remains are inadvertently discovered during development activities. The General Plan requires that human remains are treated in compliance with the provisions of California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 and California Public Resources Code Section 5097.98.

The General Plan EIR concluded that the policies and actions described above, combined with the relevant provisions of the Waterford Municipal Code, may not be sufficient to adequately address all historical, archaeological deposits and other cultural resources in the Planning Area by, for example, providing for the early detection of potential conflicts between development and resource protection, and by preventing or minimizing the material impairment of the ability of archaeological deposits to convey their significance through excavation or preservation. Accordingly, the General Plan EIR concluded that with implementation of the above General Plan policies and actions, as well as compliance with all other applicable federal, State, and local laws and regulations, this would ensure that potential impacts to historic and archaeological resources because of the development contemplated under the General Plan would be less-than-significant.

HIGHLAND POINTE RESIDENTIAL PROJECT

ENVIRONMENTAL

CHECKLIST
City of Waterford PAGE 42
MDP
As stated in Section 1.7, CEQA Compliance, of the MDP the project-specific environmental review will include preparation of an expanded Initial Study addressing cultural resources, among other topics, to supplement the City of Waterford General Plan EIR. Furthermore, Chapter 8.18, Cultural Resources, confirms the MDP’s intent to remain consistent with the City’s General Plan policies related to the conservation of cultural and historic resources. Implementation of these measures ensures that potential impacts to prehistoric or historic-period resources, if encountered during future development, will be addressed in accordance with applicable federal, state, and local requirements, as required under CEQA.

Mitigation Measures/Uniformly Applied Development Policies and Standards MDP
Based on the analysis contained in Section 3.5 (Cultural Resources) of the Lake Pointe Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration, cultural resources impacts are addressed through incorporation of standard City policies and project-specific mitigation measures consistent with CEQA and the Waterford Vision 2025 General Plan PEIR. The Initial Study concludes that, with mitigation, impacts to previously unknown archaeological or historical resources would be reduced to a less-than-significant level.

Uniformly applied development standards include compliance with CEQA Guidelines §15064.5, adherence to General Plan policies requiring protection of significant cultural and historic resources, and implementation of City development review procedures that require evaluation of cultural resources prior to grading or ground disturbance. In addition, the following Mitigation Measures shall be implemented:
(1) Pre-Construction Cultural Resources Survey – Prior to issuance of grading permits, a qualified professional archaeologist shall conduct a records search and, if necessary, field survey of areas subject to ground disturbance; (2) Inadvertent Discovery Procedure – If archaeological materials are encountered during construction, all work within 100 feet of the find shall halt until the resource is evaluated by a qualified archaeologist and appropriate treatment measures (such as avoidance, preservation in place, or data recovery) are implemented; and (3) Human Remains Protocol – In the event of discovery of human remains, work shall cease immediately and the Stanislaus County Coroner shall be notified in accordance with Health and Safety Code §7050.5; if remains are determined to be Native American, the Native American Heritage Commission shall designate a Most Likely Descendant to recommend appropriate treatment pursuant to Public Resources Code §5097.98. Implementation of these uniformly applied policies and mitigation measures, consistent with the General Plan EIR findings and incorporated into project conditions of approval, ensures that potential impacts to cultural resources are reduced to a lessthan-significant level with mitigation.

Responses to Checklist Questions
Response a), b), c): Less than Significant. As noted above, compliance with applicable Waterford General Plan policies and actions, as well as all applicable federal and state laws and regulations, would ensure that any impacts to cultural, historic, and archaeological resources4, as well as policies and actions for the conservation of cultural, historic, and archaeological resources, to the extent these were 4 A discussion of the proposed Project’s potential impacts on paleontological resources is discussed below in the Geology and Soils Section.

City of Waterford PAGE 43

HIGHLAND POINTE RESIDENTIAL PROJECT

ENVIRONMENTAL

CHECKLIST
inadvertently discovered during construction activities, would be less than significant. The General Plan policies and actions, as well as a comprehensive federal and state regulatory scheme, provide a framework for ensuring that effects on significant historic, archaeological, and other cultural resources that could be inadvertently discovered during construction are less than significant. The proposed Project’s compliance with applicable federal, state, and local laws and regulations, including relevant General Plan policies and actions would ensure the potential impacts are less than significant, consistent with the impact conclusions set forth in the General Plan EIR.

HIGHLAND POINTE RESIDENTIAL PROJECT

ENVIRONMENTAL

CHECKLIST
City of Waterford PAGE 44
VI. ENERGY
Significant Impact Peculiar to the Project or the Project Site Significant
Impact Peculiar
to the Project
or the Project
Site
Significant
Impact due to
New
Information
Impact
Adequately
Addressed in
the General
Plan EIR
Impact not
Previously
Addressed in
General Plan
EIR
a) Result in potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during project construction or
operation?
X
b) Conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for
renewable energy or energy efficiency? X
Project Impacts:

As discussed below, energy would be used during both the construction and operational phases of the proposed Project. Energy usage during the construction phase would originate from mobile and stationary construction equipment. Construction-related energy usage can vary substantially depending on the level of activity, length of the construction period, specific construction operations, and types of equipment.

Operational energy usage would be generated by electricity use for the onsite facilities and landscaping at the Project site. Energy usage during both the construction and operational phases of the proposed Project would be typical for a project of this kind, and would not represent a wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources. Additionally, the proposed Project would not conflict with or obstruct any state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency.

As discussed further below, the proposed Project is consistent with the development density established in the General Plan and evaluated in the certified General Plan EIR and would not result in any peculiar new project- or site-specific impacts such that the prior environmental document would be inadequate.

Therefore, no further environmental review with respect to energy resources is necessary.

Prior Environmental Analysis:

The General Plan EIR did not include a dedicated analysis of energy impacts as consideration of the potentially significant energy implications of a project were not required at the time it was written.

However, the General Plan EIR included consideration of a host of relevant adopted laws, regulations and policies that require energy efficiency standards to which development under the General Plan (including the proposed Project) would be subject. Consistency with these standards, as well as other applicable federal, State and City laws and regulations, would ensure energy efficiency to greatest extent feasible.

Mitigation Measures/Uniformly Applied Development Policies and Standards As noted above, the consumption of energy because of development activities contemplated by the General Plan (including the low-density residential uses for the Project site) is discussed in the Waterford General Plan, which encourages coordination with utility service providers and the conservation of energy and resources. In addition, there is a comprehensive regulatory framework at federal and State levels that help ensure energy efficiency and conservation.

As explained above, the General Plan EIR identified numerous goals and policies in the General Plan that will be applied to the proposed Project. These serve as uniformly applied development policies and City of Waterford PAGE 45

HIGHLAND POINTE RESIDENTIAL PROJECT

ENVIRONMENTAL

CHECKLIST
standards and/or as conditions of approval for the proposed Project to ensure consistency with the General Plan and compliance with all applicable federal, State and City laws, regulations, and policies.

Responses to Checklist Questions
Responses a-b): Less than Significant. Appendix G of the State CEQA Guidelines requires consideration of the potentially significant energy implications of a project. CEQA requires mitigation measures to reduce “wasteful, inefficient and unnecessary” energy usage (Public Resources Code Section 21100, subdivision [b][3]) in the event a significant energy impact is identified. The means to achieve the goal of conserving energy include, among others, decreasing overall energy consumption, decreasing reliance on natural gas and oil, and increasing reliance on renewable energy sources. In particular, the proposed Project would be considered “wasteful, inefficient, and unnecessary” if it were to violate applicable state or federal energy standards and/or otherwise result in significant energy inefficiencies, atypical energy intensiveness of materials, cause significant, unmitigated impacts that would disrupt local and regional energy supplies or generate requirements for additional capacity that could not be efficiently achieved, or conflict or create an inconsistency with an applicable energy plan, policy, or regulation that was adopted for purposes of mitigating environmental impacts.

The amount of energy used at the Project site would directly correlate to the energy consumption (including fuel) used by vehicle trips (worker, haul, and vendor) generated during Project construction, fuel used by off-road construction vehicles during construction, fuel used by vehicles during Project operation, and electricity usage during Project operation.

With respect to construction, the proposed Project would require demolition, site preparation, grading, building construction, architectural coating, and paving activities. Project construction would require energy for the manufacture and transportation of building materials, preparation of the site (e.g., demolition, site clearing, and grading), and the actual construction of the buildings and other site improvements. Petroleum-based fuels such as diesel fuel and gasoline would be the primary sources of energy for these tasks. Limitations on idling vehicles and equipment along with requirements that equipment be properly maintained would result in fuel savings. Similarly, compliance with applicable State laws and regulations would limit idling from both on-road and off-road diesel-powered equipment and are part of a comprehensive regulatory framework that is implemented by the ARB. Additionally, as a practical matter, it is reasonable to assume that the overall construction schedule and process would be designed to be as efficient as feasible to avoid excess monetary costs. For example, equipment and fuel are not typically used wastefully due to the added expense associated with renting the equipment, maintaining it, and fueling it. Therefore, the opportunities for further future efficiency gains during construction are limited. For the foregoing reasons, it is anticipated that the construction phase of the proposed Project would not result in wasteful, inefficient, and unnecessary consumption of energy. Construction-related energy impacts would be less than significant.

With respect to operation, the proposed Project would consume energy as part of building operations and transportation activities. The amount of energy used by the proposed Project during operation, which is a typical low-density residential development, would include the amount of energy used by the Project buildings and outdoor lighting, the fuel used by vehicle trips generated during operation, and fuel used by Project maintenance activities. The proposed Project would be required to comply with all applicable

HIGHLAND POINTE RESIDENTIAL PROJECT

ENVIRONMENTAL

CHECKLIST
City of Waterford PAGE 46
energy efficiency and other standards and requirements, including, without limitation, those established by the City of Waterford and Stanislaus County. For example, buildings developed as part of the proposed Project would be required to comply with the latest version of the California Building Energy Efficiency Standards (Title 24), which require a high degree of energy efficiency for new buildings. These standards include minimum energy efficiency requirements related to building envelope, mechanical systems (e.g., heating, ventilation, and air conditioning [HVAC] and water heating systems), and indoor and outdoor lighting, are widely regarded as the some of the most advanced and stringent building energy efficiency standards in the country. In addition, as specified in Subchapter 6, Part 6 of the Title 24 standards, the proposed Project would be required to design the proposed buildings to structurally accommodate future installation of a rooftop solar system. As such, the design of the proposed Project would facilitate the future commitment to renewable energy resources. Therefore, building energy consumption would not be considered wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary.

Additionally, the proposed Project would be required to comply with all other applicable statewide and federal measures, including, among others, those intended to improve the energy efficiency of the statewide passenger and heavy-duty truck vehicle fleet (e.g., the Pavley Bill and the Low Carbon Fuel Standard), which improve vehicle fuel economies, thereby conserving gasoline and diesel fuel for any trips that would be generated by the Project. While the proposed Project does not directly control implementation of these measures, the comprehensive regulatory framework would apply to all vehicles (including those utilized by the proposed Project). These energy savings would continue to accrue over time.

Overall, the proposed Project would not violate any state or federal energy standards and/or otherwise result in significant adverse impacts related to project energy requirements, energy efficiencies, atypical energy intensiveness of materials, cause significant, unmitigated impacts that would disrupt local and regional energy supplies or generate requirements for additional capacity that could not be efficiently achieved, or conflict or create an inconsistency with an applicable energy plan, policy, or regulation that was adopted for purposes of mitigating environmental impacts. Therefore, the proposed Project would not be expected to cause inefficient, wasteful, or unnecessary use of energy resources nor cause a significant impact on any of the thresholds as described by Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines. This is a less than significant impact.

City of Waterford PAGE 47

HIGHLAND POINTE RESIDENTIAL PROJECT

ENVIRONMENTAL

CHECKLIST
VII. GEOLOGY AND SOILS
Significant
Impact Peculiar
to the Project
or the Project
Site
Significant
Impact due to
New
Information
Impact
Adequately
Addressed in
the General
Plan EIR
Impact not
Previously
Addressed in
General Plan
EIR
a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving:

X
i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as
delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo
Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State
Geologist for the area or based on other substantial
evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines
and Geology Special Publication 42.

X
ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? X
iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including
liquefaction? X
iv) Landslides? X
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? X c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse?
X
d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1- B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating
substantial risks to life or property?
X
e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal
systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater?
X
f) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? X
Project Impacts:

The proposed Project includes the development of a 412 single-family lot residential subdivision and related improvements in a seismically active region. However, while the region overall is considered seismically active, the Project site is not located within a currently designated Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone and no known surface expressions of active faults are believed to exist within the Project site.

Construction of the proposed Project would involve clearing, grading and excavation of the Project site, which could render the Project site susceptible to a temporary increase in erosion from the grading and other construction-related activities. In addition, ground excavation and grading activities would have the potential to uncover paleontological resources.

HIGHLAND POINTE RESIDENTIAL PROJECT

ENVIRONMENTAL

CHECKLIST
City of Waterford PAGE 48
As discussed further below, the proposed Project is consistent with the development density established in the General Plan and evaluated in the certified General Plan EIR and would not result in any peculiar new project- or site-specific impacts such that the prior environmental document would be inadequate.

Therefore, no further environmental review with respect to geology and soils is necessary.

Prior Environmental Analysis:

General Plan
The General Plan EIR analyzed the potential impacts due to local soils and geologic conditions that would occur because of the future urban development that was contemplated by the General Plan. These impacts included seismic hazards such as groundshaking, earthquake-induced landslides and liquefaction, erosion, soil instability (expansive soils, lateral spreading, landslides, subsidence, collapsible soils), naturally occurring asbestos and wastewater conflicts, as well as potential impacts to paleontological resources (City of Waterford General Plan Update Draft EIR, pages 123 through 138). As detailed more fully therein, the analysis found that while development and buildout of the General Plan could result in geological and soils related impacts, these impacts would be less than significant through the application of development standards contained in the Waterford Municipal Code, the application of General Plan goals and policies that would assist in minimizing or avoiding geologic hazards and compliance with other local, state, and federal standards related to geologic and soils conditions.

In addition, all construction in California is required to be designed in accordance with the latest seismic design standards of the California Building Code and the California Health and Safety Code. The California Building Code, Title 24, Part 2, Chapter 16 addresses structural design and Chapter 18 addresses soils and foundations. Collectively, these state requirements, which have been adopted by the City of Waterford, include, among other things, design standards and requirements that are intended to minimize impacts on structures in seismically active areas of California. For example, Section 1613 specifically provides structural design standards for earthquake loads. Section 1803.5.11 and 1803.5.12 provide requirements for geotechnical investigations for structures assigned varying Seismic Design Categories in accordance with Section 1613. Additionally, the City of Waterford has adopted Design and Construction Standards and incorporated numerous policies into its General Plan, as noted above, relative to seismicity to ensure the health and safety of all people.

Based on the foregoing, the General Plan EIR determined that impacts associated with build out of the General Plan, including the low-density residential development contemplated for the Project site, due to geologic and soils conditions were less than significant. These impacts were adequately addressed in Chapter 3.6 of the General Plan EIR.

For the reasons noted below, the proposed Project would not result in a new or substantially more severe significant impacts than what was previously analyzed in the General Plan EIR.

MDP
The MDP is consistent with the adopted General Plan policies and implementing regulations, which include geologic and soil suitability standards applicable citywide (MDP, Ch. 8). Because the project area consists of gently rolling terrain currently in agricultural use and development would occur pursuant to City of Waterford PAGE 49

HIGHLAND POINTE RESIDENTIAL PROJECT

ENVIRONMENTAL

CHECKLIST
City grading standards, Uniform Building Code requirements, and site-specific geotechnical investigation prior to construction, potential impacts related to seismic hazards, expansive soils, liquefaction, and erosion were previously evaluated at the program level and would be further addressed through standard regulatory compliance. Therefore, consistent with the General Plan Program EIR, adherence to existing geotechnical review requirements and implementation of established City engineering standards would ensure that impacts related to geology and soils remain less than significant.

Mitigation Measures/ Uniformly Applied Development Policies and Standards General Plan
All applicable policies and actions from the General Plan EIR, including those for geology and soils impacts identified above, as well as other applicable standards under state and local laws and regulations, would be applied to the proposed Project. These serve as uniformly applied development policies and standards and/or as conditions of approval for the proposed Project to ensure consistency with the General Plan and compliance with applicable state and City laws, rules, and regulations.

MDP
Based on the analysis contained in Section 3.6, Geology & Soils (pp. 43–44) of the Lake Pointe Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration, potential geology and soils impacts associated with implementation of the MDP are required to comply with uniformly applied development standards and building regulations intended to reduce risks related to seismic hazards, soil instability, expansive soils, and erosion. Development within the plan area is subject to site-specific geotechnical investigations prepared by a qualified geotechnical engineer at the improvement plan stage. All grading, foundation design, and construction activities are to conform to the recommendations of the approved geotechnical report, the most current California Building Code (CBC), and City of Waterford grading and improvement standards. Standard conditions of approval require implementation of erosion and sediment control measures consistent with the City’s Stormwater Pollution Prevention requirements to minimize soil erosion during construction. Specifically, Mitigation Measures GEO-1 requires “Prior to issuance of grading permits, the project applicant shall submit a site-specific geotechnical investigation for review and approval by the City Engineer. The investigation shall evaluate soil characteristics, liquefaction potential, settlement, expansive soils, and seismic design parameters, and shall provide recommendations for grading, foundation design, and construction practices. All recommendations shall be incorporated into project improvement plans and implemented during construction.”
With compliance with the CBC, City standards, and Mitigation Measure GEO-1, geology and soils impacts would be reduced to a less-than-significant level consistent with the conclusions of the Mitigated Negative Declaration.

Responses to Checklist Questions
Responses a.i), a.ii): Less than Significant. No known active faults cross the Project site, and the Project site is not located within an Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone. Nevertheless, relatively large earthquakes have historically occurred in the Bay Area and along the margins of the Central Valley. Many earthquakes of low magnitude occur every year in California.

HIGHLAND POINTE RESIDENTIAL PROJECT

ENVIRONMENTAL

CHECKLIST
City of Waterford PAGE 50
Portions of the Great Valley fault are considered seismically active thrust faults; however, since the Great Valley fault segments are not known to extend to the ground surface, the State of California has not defined Earthquake Fault Hazard Zones around the postulated traces. The Great Valley fault is considered capable of causing significant ground shaking at the Project site as is the case for other areas in this region, but the recurrence interval is believed to be longer than for more distant, strike-slip faults. Further seismic activity can be expected to continue along the western margin of the Central Valley, and as with all projects in the area, the proposed Project would be required to be designed to accommodate strong earthquake ground shaking, in compliance with the applicable California Building Code standards.

Since there are no known active faults crossing the Project site and the Project site is not located within an Earthquake Fault Special Study Zone, the potential for ground rupture at the Project site is considered low.

An earthquake of moderate to high magnitude generated within the San Francisco Bay Region and along the margins of the Central Valley could cause considerable ground shaking at the Project site, like that which has occurred in the past to other lands in this region. To minimize, to the extent feasible, potential damage to the proposed structures caused by groundshaking, as noted above, all Project construction would be required to comply with the latest California Building Code standards, as adopted by the City of Waterford Municipal Code.

Seismic design provisions of current building codes generally prescribe minimum lateral forces, applied statically to the structure, combined with the gravity forces of dead-and-live loads. The code-prescribed lateral forces are generally considered to be substantially smaller than the comparable forces that would be associated with a major earthquake. Therefore, structures should be able to: (1) resist minor earthquakes without damage, (2) resist moderate earthquakes without structural damage but with some nonstructural damage, and (3) resist major earthquakes without collapse but with some structural as well as nonstructural damage.

Building new structures for human use would increase the number of people exposed to local and regional seismic hazards. Seismic hazards are a significant risk for most property in California.

The City reviews all proposed development projects for consistency with the General Plan policies and California Building Code provisions identified above. This review occurs throughout the project application review and processing stage, and throughout plan check and building inspection phases prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy. To minimize potential damage to the buildings and site improvements to the extent feasible, as noted above, all construction in California is required to be designed in accordance with the latest seismic design standards of the California Building Code. The California Building Code, Title 24, Part 2, Chapter 16 addresses structural design and Chapter 18 addresses soils and foundations. Collectively, these state requirements, which have been adopted by the City of Waterford, include design standards and requirements that are intended to minimize impacts to structures in seismically active areas of California. Section 1613 specifically provides structural design standards for earthquake loads. Section 1803.5.11 and 1803.5.12 provide requirements for geotechnical investigations for structures assigned varying Seismic Design Categories in accordance with Section 1613.

Design in accordance with these standards and policies would ensure that any potential Project impact City of Waterford PAGE 51

HIGHLAND POINTE RESIDENTIAL PROJECT

ENVIRONMENTAL

CHECKLIST
would be less than significant, consistent with the General Plan EIR’s analysis. Because all development in the Project site must be designed in conformance with these state and local standards and policies, any potential impact would be considered less than significant, consistent with the impact conclusions set forth in the General Plan EIR.

Responses a.iii): Less than Significant. Liquefaction normally occurs when sites underlain by saturated, loose to medium dense, granular soils are subjected to relatively high ground shaking. During an earthquake, ground shaking may cause certain types of soil deposits to lose shear strength, resulting in ground settlement, oscillation, loss of bearing capacity, landsliding, and the buoyant rise of buried structures. Most liquefaction hazards are associated with sandy soils, some silty soils of low plasticity, and some gravelly soils. Cohesive soils are generally not considered to be susceptible to liquefaction. In general, liquefaction hazards are most severe within the upper 50 feet of the surface, except where slope faces or deep foundations are present. The Geotechnical Report notes that liquefaction potential was evaluated using data from six cone penetration tests (CPTs) to the total depth explored of approximately 50 feet below existing ground surface. The results of the liquefaction analyses indicate that the sand layers are potentially liquefiable between the groundwater elevation and approximately 47 feet below ground surface.

Deformation of the ground surface is a common result of liquefaction. Vertical settlement may result from densification of the deposit or volume loss from venting to the ground surface. Densification occurs as excess pore pressures dissipate, resulting in vertical settlement at the ground surface.

Projects that are undertaken in a manner that is consistent with the policies and standards of the City of Waterford General Plan, and comply with all appropriate state and local Uniform Building Code (UBC) construction regulations, will not result in the creation of a significant adverse physical impact from unstable soils or earth conditions in the city. As such, this is a less than significant impact, consistent with the impact conclusions set forth in the General Plan EIR.

Responses a.iv): Less than Significant. The Project site is relatively flat and there are no major slopes in the vicinity of the Project site. As such, the Project site is exposed to little or no risk associated with landslides. This is a less than significant impact, consistent with the impact conclusions set forth in the General Plan EIR.

Response b): Less than Significant. During the proposed Project’s construction preparation process, exposed surfaces could be susceptible to erosion from wind and water. As discussed in the General Plan EIR, effects from erosion could include impacts on water quality and air quality if not properly addressed.

For example, exposed soils that are not properly contained or capped increase the potential for increased airborne dust and increased discharge of sediment and other pollutants into nearby stormwater drainage facilities. Risks associated with erosive surface soils can be reduced by using appropriate controls during construction and properly re-vegetating exposed areas. The proposed Project would be required to do so pursuant to Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) and compliance with the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit requirements which would ensure that it would not result in any new or substantially more severe significant impacts than identified in the General Plan EIR.

HIGHLAND POINTE RESIDENTIAL PROJECT

ENVIRONMENTAL

CHECKLIST
City of Waterford PAGE 52
Therefore, this is less than significant impact, consistent with the impact conclusions set forth in the General Plan EIR.

Responses c), d): Less than Significant. The potential for the proposed Project to be exposed to unstable soil conditions resulting from on-or off-site landslide, and liquefaction are discussed above under Responses a.iii, and a.iv., and were found to be less than significant impacts, consistent with the conclusions set forth in the General Plan EIR.

Lateral Spreading: The geologic conditions conducive to lateral spreading include gentle surface slope (0.3-5% slope), and liquefiable soils. The Project site and surrounding area are relatively flat, and sloping ground conditions were not observed in the Project vicinity. Accordingly, the proposed Project would not result in any new or substantially more severe significant impacts than identified in the General Plan EIR.

Therefore, this is less than significant impact, consistent with the impact conclusions set forth in the General Plan EIR.

Expansive Soils: Expansive soils shrink/swell when subjected to moisture fluctuations, which could cause heaving and cracking of slabs-on-grade, pavements, and structures founded on shallow foundations. As discussed in more detail in the Geotechnical Report, the Project site does not contain expansive soils.

Consistent with the analysis set forth in Section 3.7, Geology and Soils, of the General Plan EIR, the proposed Project, like all other construction in the City, would be required to be designed in accordance with the latest seismic design standards of the California Building Code. As noted above, the California Building Code, Title 24, Part 2, Chapter 16 addresses structural design and Chapter 18 addresses soils and foundations. Collectively, these state requirements, which have been adopted by the City of Waterford, include design standards and requirements that are intended to feasibly minimize impacts to structures in seismically active areas of California. Section 1803.5.11 and 1803.5.12 provide requirements for geotechnical investigations for structures assigned varying Seismic Design Categories in accordance with Section 1613. The proposed Project would be required to be designed and constructed in accordance with these standards and policies, which would ensure that any potential impact is less than significant.

Because Project development must be designed in conformance with these state and local standards and policies, any potential impact would be considered less than significant, consistent with the impact conclusions set forth in the General Plan EIR.

Response e): No Impact. The Project site would be served by public wastewater facilities and does not require an alternative wastewater system such as septic tanks. Implementation of the proposed Project would have no impact on this environmental issue.

Response f): Less than Significant. The Project site is in a region known to have paleontological resources. As noted above and as analyzed in the General Plan EIR, the Waterford General Plan includes policies and actions that would reduce impacts on paleontological resources, as well as policies and actions for the conservation of paleontological resources.

The General Plan policies and actions provide a framework for ensuring that effects on significant unknown paleontological resources are reduced to the extent feasible. The proposed Project would be subject to all applicable General Plan policies and actions in this regard and is consistent with the City of Waterford PAGE 53

HIGHLAND POINTE RESIDENTIAL PROJECT

ENVIRONMENTAL

CHECKLIST
development types anticipated under the General Plan and analyzed in the General Plan EIR. As such, this is a less than significant impact, consistent with the impact conclusions set forth in the General Plan EIR.

As such, this is a less than significant impact.

HIGHLAND POINTE RESIDENTIAL PROJECT

ENVIRONMENTAL

CHECKLIST
City of Waterford PAGE 54
XIII. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
Significant
Impact Peculiar
to the Project
or the Project
Site
Significant
Impact due to
New
Information
Impact
Adequately
Addressed in
the General
Plan EIR
Impact not
Previously
Addressed in
General Plan
EIR
a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the
environment?
X
b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of
greenhouse gasses?
X
Project Impacts:

As discussed below, development of the proposed Project would result in an increase in greenhouse gas emissions from construction and operational activities. The proposed Project is allowed under the existing General Plan land use designation and is consistent with the development density established thereunder.

As discussed below, compliance with the relevant General Plan goals, policies and actions and applicable City Code provisions, and compliance with applicable Federal, State, and local laws and regulations would ensure impacts related to greenhouse gas emissions are less than significant level.

Accordingly, as discussed further below, the proposed Project is consistent with the development density established in the General Plan and evaluated in the certified General Plan EIR, and would not result in any peculiar new project- or site-specific impacts such that the prior environmental document would be inadequate. Therefore, no further environmental review with respect to greenhouse gas emissions is necessary.

Prior Environmental Analysis:

General Plan
The General Plan EIR did not include a dedicated analysis of greenhouse gas impacts as consideration of the potentially significant greenhouse gas implications of a project were not required at the time it was written. However, the General Plan EIR included consideration of a host of relevant adopted laws, regulations and policies that require air quality standards to which development under the General Plan (including the proposed Project) would be subject. Consistency with these standards, as well as other applicable federal, State and City laws and regulations, would ensure reductions in greenhouse gases to greatest extent feasible.

MDP
The potential for greenhouse gas emissions associated with implementation of the MDP was previously addressed through program-level environmental review and subsequent project-level analysis. As described in Section 1.7, CEQA Compliance, the project-specific environmental review included preparation of an expanded Initial Study to address issue areas not otherwise fully analyzed in the City of Waterford Vision 2025 General Plan Program EIR, including air quality (Lake Pointe Master Development Plan [MDP], §1.7). Because GHG emissions are analyzed under the broader air quality and energy resource City of Waterford PAGE 55

HIGHLAND POINTE RESIDENTIAL PROJECT

ENVIRONMENTAL

CHECKLIST
frameworks, the MDP relies on consistency with the General Plan’s land use pattern, which promotes mixed-use development, pedestrian connectivity, bicycle circulation, and reduced vehicle trips (MDP, §§2.4, 8.17). In addition, the MDP incorporates sustainability principles, such as walkability, integrated open space, energy conservation, shading to reduce urban heat island effects, and resource-efficient building design that further support reductions in operational emissions (MDP, pp. 5–6; §8.19).

Accordingly, the prior environmental analysis concluded that implementation of the Lake Pointe MDP would be consistent with the General Plan’s growth assumptions and associated GHG analysis.

Mitigation Measures/Uniformly Applied Development Policies and Standards Based on the analysis contained in Section 3.3 (Air Quality and Climate Change) of the Lake Pointe Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration, the MDP would contribute to cumulative greenhouse gas emissions associated with regional growth in the San Joaquin Valley, which is designated non-attainment for ozone and PM₁₀; however, the MDP is consistent with the Waterford Vision 2025 General Plan and applicable air quality planning frameworks. As discussed in the MND, project-level GHG emissions are addressed through compliance with the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (SJVAPCD) rules and regulations, including participation in the Indirect Source Review (ISR) program, payment of applicable air quality mitigation fees, and implementation of development design features that promote compact, mixed-use, pedestrian-oriented development consistent with General Plan policies. In addition, the project would comply with state regulatory measures governing greenhouse gases, including Assembly Bill 1493 vehicle emission standards and Executive Order S-3-05 targets, as applicable at the time of development. With implementation of these uniformly applied policies, standards, and fee-based mitigation programs, project-level impacts would be reduced to the maximum extent feasible; however, as concluded in the General Plan PEIR and reaffirmed in this Initial Study, cumulative GHG and regional air quality impacts associated with long-term growth remain significant and unavoidable, and no additional feasible project-specific mitigation measures beyond regulatory compliance and General Plan implementation are identified.

Responses to Checklist Questions
Response a): Less than Significant. Emissions of GHGs contributing to global climate change are attributable in large part to human activities associated with the industrial/manufacturing, utility, transportation, residential, and agricultural sectors. Therefore, the cumulative global emissions of GHGs contributing to global climate change can be attributed to every nation, region, and city, and virtually every individual on Earth. A project’s GHG emissions are at a micro-scale relative to global emissions but could result in a cumulatively considerable incremental contribution to a significant cumulative macro-scale impact. Implementation of the proposed Project would contribute to increases in GHG emissions that are associated with global climate change. Estimated GHG emissions attributable to the proposed Project would be primarily associated with increases of CO2 and other GHG pollutants, such as methane (CH4) and nitrous oxide (N2O), from mobile sources and utility usage. Climate change-related impacts are considered significant if implementation of the proposed Project would do any of the following:
• Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment.

HIGHLAND POINTE RESIDENTIAL PROJECT

ENVIRONMENTAL

CHECKLIST
City of Waterford PAGE 56
• Conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases.

Most individual projects do not generate sufficient GHG emissions to create a project-specific impact through a direct influence on climate change; therefore, the issue of climate change typically involves an analysis of whether a project’s contribution towards an impact is cumulatively considerable. “Cumulatively considerable” means that the incremental effects of an individual project are significant when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, other current projects, and probable future projects (CEQA Guidelines, Section 15355).

The SJVAPCD has evaluated different approaches for estimating impacts and summarizing potential GHG emission reduction measures. As documented in relevant SJVAPCD materials, the SJVAPCD has concluded that “existing science is inadequate to support quantification of impacts that project specific GHG emissions have on global climatic change.” This is readily understood when one considers that global climatic change is the result of the sum total of GHG emissions, both man-made and natural that occurred in the past; that is occurring now; and will occur in the future. The effects of project specific GHG emissions are cumulative, and unless reduced or mitigated, their incremental contribution to global climatic change could be considered significant.

The Final Draft Guidance for Assessing and Mitigating Air Quality Impacts (SJVAPCD, 2015) provides an approach to assessing a project’s impacts on greenhouse gas emissions by evaluating the project’s emissions to the “reduction targets” established in ARB’s AB 32 Scoping Plan. For instance, the SJVACD’s guidance recommends that projects should demonstrate that “project specific GHG emissions would be reduced or mitigated by at least 29%, compared to Business as Usual (BAU), including GHG emission reductions achieved since the 2002-2004 baseline period, consistent with GHG emission reduction targets established in ARB’s AB 32 Scoping Plan. Projects achieving at least a 29% GHG emission reduction compared to BAU would be determined to have a less than significant individual and cumulative impact for GHG.”
Subsequent to the SJVAPCD’s approval of the Final Draft Guidance for Assessing and Mitigating Air Quality Impacts (SJVAPCD 2015), the California Supreme Court issued an opinion that affects the conclusions that should/should not be drawn from a GHG emissions analysis that is based on consistency with the AB 32 Scoping Plan. More specifically, in Center for Biological Diversity v. California Department of Fish and Wildlife, the Court ruled that showing a “project-level reduction” that meets or exceeds the Scoping Plan’s overall statewide GHG reduction goal is not necessarily sufficient to show that the project’s GHG impacts will be adequately mitigated: “the Scoping Plan nowhere related that statewide level of reduction effort to the percentage of reduction that would or should be required from individual projects...” According to the Court, the lead agency cannot simply assume that the overall level of effort required to achieve the statewide goal for emissions reductions will suffice for a specific project.

Given this Court decision, reliance on a 29 percent GHG emissions reduction from projected BAU levels compared to the Project’s estimated 2020 levels as recommended in the SJVAPCD’s guidance documents will not be the basis for an impact conclusion in this environmental checklist. Given that the SJVAPCD has concluded that “existing science is inadequate to support quantification of impacts that project specific GHG emissions have on global climatic change,” the City, in its discretion, has determined that this Environmental Checklist will instead rely on a qualitative approach for this analysis. Specifically, while the City of Waterford PAGE 57

HIGHLAND POINTE RESIDENTIAL PROJECT

ENVIRONMENTAL

CHECKLIST
analysis quantifies construction and operational-related GHG emissions, it does not compare these emissions to a quantitative threshold or reduction target. Instead, the analysis relies on an assessment of the proposed Project for consistency with the City of Waterford qualified CAP, which is specifically designed to reduce GHG emissions in accordance with the GHG emission reduction targets identified by the State of California in the CARB Scoping Plan. Additionally, a qualitative analysis of the proposed Project’s consistency with other relevant planning documents and relevant laws is provided herein.

The proposed Project’s short-term construction-related and long-term operational GHG emissions were estimated using the California Emission Estimator Model (CalEEMod)TM. CalEEMod is a statewide model designed to provide a uniform platform for government agencies, land use planners, and environmental professionals to quantify GHG emissions from land use projects. The model quantifies direct GHG emissions from construction and operation (including vehicle use), as well as indirect GHG emissions, such as GHG emissions from energy use, solid waste disposal, vegetation planting and/or removal, and water use. Emissions are expressed in annual metric tons of CO2 equivalent units of measure (i.e., MT CO2e), based on the global warming potential of the individual pollutants.

SHORT-TERM CONSTRUCTION GHG EMISSIONS
Estimated maximum GHG emissions associated with construction of the proposed Project are summarized in Table GHG-1. These emissions include all worker vehicles, vendor vehicles, hauler vehicles, and off-road construction vehicle GHG emissions. For the purposes of a conservative analysis, based on input from the Project proponent, the proposed Project is assumed to commence construction in 2026 and finish in 2027.

It should be noted that this schedule is an approximation and may change over time.5 A regularized construction schedule was utilized for modelling purposes for the sake of simplicity.

Table GHG-1: Maximum Project Construction GHG Emissions (Average Approx. MT CO2e/year) YEAR NON-BIO- CO2 TOTAL CO2 CH4 N2O REFRIGERANTS CO2E
Phase 1 1,515 1,515 0 0 0 1,530
Phase 2 1,562 1,562 0 0 0 1,576
Total 3,077 3,077 0 0 1 3,106
SOURCE: CALEEMOD (V.2022.1)
As presented in the table above, short-term construction emissions of GHGs are estimated to total 3,106 MT CO2e per year for Phases 1 and 2.

Short-term greenhouse gas emissions would occur because of construction equipment used for the following: demolition, grading, paving, and building construction activities associated with future development and infrastructure projects that will be undertaken in Waterford over the next 20 years, including the low-density residential uses of the proposed Project. GHG emissions would also result from worker and vendor trips to and from project sites and from demolition and soil hauling trips. Construction activities are short-term and cease to emit greenhouse gases upon completion, unlike operational 5 This timing assumption is considered conservative since, to the extent construction commences later than 2025, it is reasonable to assume GHG emissions (as well as other air quality emissions) would be less given the increasingly stringent regulatory context at the federal, State, regional and local levels.

HIGHLAND POINTE RESIDENTIAL PROJECT

ENVIRONMENTAL

CHECKLIST
City of Waterford PAGE 58
emissions that are continuous year after year until operation of the use ceases. As such, SJVAPCD recommends in its guidance to amortize project-specific construction emissions over a 30-year operational lifetime of a project, as has been done here. This normalizes construction emissions so that they can be grouped with operational emissions to generate a precise project GHG inventory. However, the SJVAPCD does not have a current threshold of significance for construction-related GHG emissions for plan-level impacts (including general plans).

OPERATIONAL GHG EMISSIONS
The operational GHG emissions estimate for the proposed Project includes on-site area, energy, mobile, waste, and water emissions generated by the proposed Project during its operation. Estimated GHG emissions associated with the proposed Project are summarized in Table GHG-2, below. For purposes of a conservative analysis, the following should be noted about CalEEMod. It does not account for the Governor Newsom’s Zero-Emission by 2035 Executive Order (N-79-20), which requires that all new cars and passenger trucks sold in California be zero-emission vehicles by 2035. Additionally, the CalEEMod modeling conducted does not account for the incorporation of additional Renewables Portfolio Standard attainment beyond CalEEMod defaults, incorporation of AB 341, or incorporation of Title 24 requirements for the EV charging stations. Incorporation of the foregoing into the Project’s design are anticipated to further substantially reduce the operational emissions associated with passenger vehicles (i.e. mobile emissions), energy emissions, and waste emissions, over time, including prior to the 2035 final implementation year. Therefore, this analysis is conservative in nature in that the proposed Project’s operational emissions results are likely an overestimate for mobile, energy, and waste emissions. As shown in the following table, as conservatively modeled, the annual GHG emissions associated with the proposed Project would be approximately 5,975 MT CO2e.

Table GHG-2: Operational GHG Emissions at Buildout (Metric Tons/Year) Greenhouse Gases MT/year
BCO₂ 37
NBCO₂ 5,754
CO2
5,791
CH4
4 N2O 0
R 7
CO2e 5,975
SOURCE: CALEEMOD (V.2022.1)
Consistent with the analysis in the General Plan EIR, pursuant to applicable laws and regulations, Pacific Gas & Electric (PG&E), the electrical service provider for the Project site, will need to continue to annually increase renewable electricity through 2045 to meet the carbon- free electricity target set by SB 100. In addition, the proposed Project would need to comply with applicable provisions of AB 341, which set a target of reducing landfill waste by 75 percent by 2020, and the applicable Title 24 standards, which require incorporation of rooftop PV systems and solar panels, as well as electric vehicle charging capabilities, among other things. The additional potential reductions in the proposed Project’s GHG emissions associated with implementation of the foregoing requirements were also not incorporated into City of Waterford PAGE 59

HIGHLAND POINTE RESIDENTIAL PROJECT

ENVIRONMENTAL

CHECKLIST
the modeling reductions; for this reason, as well, the operational emissions shown in Table GHG-2 are conservative.

PROJECT CONSISTENCY WITH APPLICABLE PLANS
Several plans and policies have been adopted to reduce GHG emissions in Stanislaus County. The proposed Project’s consistency with the State’s 2022 Scoping Plan, as well as Stanislaus Council of Government’s (StanCOG’s) 2022 Regional Transportation Plan and the Sustainable Communities Strategy (RTP/SCS).

The CARB’s 2022 Scoping Plan
The 2022 Scoping Plan strategies that are relevant to this consistency analysis include those focused on reducing fossil fuel use, energy demand, and vehicle miles traveled (VMT); maximizing recycling and diversion from landfills; and increasing water conservation. The proposed Project would be consistent with these goals through the incorporation of applicable standards and requirements as Project design features, which includes, among others, complying with the latest requirements of the CALGreen Code and Building Energy Efficiency Standards, and complying with the AB 341 waste diversion goal of 75 percent.

In addition, the proposed Project would receive electricity from PG&E, which is required to reduce GHG emissions by increasing procurement from eligible renewable energy by set target years. Moreover, the proposed Project would provide extensive pedestrian connectivity to encourage alternative modes of transportation (by, for example, installing roadway improvements with ample sidewalk features as well as a Class II bike facilities), and would be required to be consistent with the requirements of the latest (2022) version of the Title 24 Energy Code. Therefore, the proposed Project would be consistent with, and thus would not conflict with, the relevant provisions of the 2022 Scoping Plan.

Consistency with the SJVAPCD Requirements: The proposed Project, like other developments contemplated under the General Plan, would be required to comply with all applicable SJVAPCD (Air District) Rules and Regulations. For example, Rules and Regulations that would apply to the proposed Project include Regulation VIII (which provides fugitive PM10 dust prohibitions); Rule 8021 (which provides rules for PM10 dust prohibition associated with construction, demolition activities, excavation, extraction, and other earthmoving activities); and Rule 4601 (which provides rules to limit VOC emissions for architectural coatings). In summary, the proposed Project would comply with all applicable SJVAPCD Rules and Regulations.

CONCLUSION
In summary, the GHG emissions that would result from the proposed Project’s construction and operation, would not generate significant GHG emissions or conflict with any applicable applicable plans, policies, or regulations. Like other development contemplated by the General Plan, the proposed Project, including the off-site improvements, would be consistent with the plans, policies, laws, regulations, and GHG emissions reduction actions/strategies outlined in the comprehensive federal, state, regional and local regulatory framework, including the 2022 Scoping Plan Update, the StanCOG’s 2022 RTP/SCS and the Air District’s Rules and Regulations. Therefore, Project-related impacts related to GHG emissions would be less than significant.

HIGHLAND POINTE RESIDENTIAL PROJECT

ENVIRONMENTAL

CHECKLIST
City of Waterford PAGE 60
IX. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
Significant
Impact Peculiar
to the Project
or the Project
Site
Significant
Impact due to
New
Information
Impact
Adequately
Addressed in
the General
Plan EIR
Impact not
Previously
Addressed in
General Plan
EIR
a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through the routine transport, use, or
disposal of hazardous materials?
X
b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and
accident conditions involving the release of hazardous
materials into the environment?
X
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or
acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school?
X
d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of
hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to
Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment?
X
e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two
miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard or excessive noise for people residing or working in the project area?
X
f) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency
evacuation plan?
X
g) Expose people or structures, either directly or
indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires?
X
Project Impacts:

The proposed Project includes the development of a 412 single-family lot residential subdivision and related improvements that would not result in activities that transport, store, or use hazards and hazardous materials in a manner that would result in new significant impacts or an increase in severity of previously identified impacts as evaluated in the General Plan EIR. As discussed below, compliance with relevant provisions in the General Plan and applicable City Code requirements, as well as compliance with a comprehensive regulatory framework under applicable federal, State, and local laws and regulations would ensure that impacts related to hazards and hazardous materials are less than significant.

As discussed further below, the proposed Project is consistent with the development density established in the General Plan and evaluated in the certified General Plan EIR and would not result in any peculiar new project- or site-specific impacts such that the prior environmental document would be inadequate.

Therefore, no further environmental review with respect to hazards and hazardous materials is necessary.

City of Waterford PAGE 61

HIGHLAND POINTE RESIDENTIAL PROJECT

ENVIRONMENTAL

CHECKLIST
Prior Environmental Analysis:

General Plan
The General Plan EIR analyzed the anticipated impacts related to hazards and hazardous materials that could occur because of the future urban development that was contemplated by the General Plan. This analysis included consideration of potential impacts related to transportation, use and disposal of hazardous materials, and consistency with emergency response and evacuation plans (City of Waterford General Plan Draft EIR, 139 through 150). The General Plan EIR’s analysis found that while development and buildout of the Waterford General Plan could introduce a variety of human health and hazards impacts, these impacts would be less than significant through the application of development standards in the Waterford Municipal Code, the application of General Plan goals and policies that would assist in minimizing or avoiding hazardous conditions, and compliance with local, state and federal standards related to hazards and hazardous materials. These impacts were adequately addressed in Chapter 3.8 of the General Plan EIR.

MDP
The MDP identifies that project‐specific environmental review would be conducted pursuant to CEQA to address site-specific issues not otherwise evaluated in the City of Waterford General Plan EIR, including hazards and hazardous materials (MDP §1.7). The MDP identifies the project site as largely agricultural land currently operated as an almond farm (MDP §1.3), and provides that ongoing agricultural operations may continue as interim uses until development occurs (MDP §2.7), thereby recognizing the potential for routine agricultural chemical use typical of such operations. The MDP further establishes that future development must comply with applicable City regulations and zoning standards (MDP §§1.6, 2.7) and be processed through development review and site plan approval (MDP Ch. 7), ensuring consistency with adopted safety policies contained in the General Plan (MDP §8.24, Safety). Through adherence to these regulatory frameworks, including compliance with local, state, and federal hazardous materials management requirements, the MDP relies on uniformly applied policies and subsequent environmental review to ensure that potential hazards related to hazardous materials use, storage, or disposal would be addressed to a less-than-significant level consistent with the General Plan Program EIR.

Mitigation Measures/Uniformly Applied Development Policies and Standards General Plan
Compliance with all relevant goals, policies and actions from the General Plan EIR, as well as applicable City’s Improvement Standards and adherence to the comprehensive regulatory framework under applicable federal, State and local laws and regulations, would serve as uniformly applied development policies and standards and/or as conditions of approval for the proposed Project to ensure consistency with the relevant provisions of the General Plan and compliance with applicable provisions of the Waterford Municipal Code and other applicable federal, State and City, laws, rules and regulations.

MDP
Based on the analysis contained in Section 3.7, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, of the Lake Pointe Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration, potential impacts related to the routine transport, use, or disposal

HIGHLAND POINTE RESIDENTIAL PROJECT

ENVIRONMENTAL

CHECKLIST
City of Waterford PAGE 62
of hazardous materials; accidental release of hazardous substances; proximity to schools; listing pursuant to Government Code §65962.5; airport hazards; emergency response interference; and wildfire exposure were evaluated and determined to be less than significant with adherence to existing federal, state, and local regulations. Development of the Lake Pointe Master Development Plan, Pre-Zone, and Annexation area would be required to comply with applicable provisions of the California Health and Safety Code, California Code of Regulations (including Title 22), Uniform Fire Code, and City of Waterford building and fire standards governing hazardous material storage, handling, and emergency response planning.

Uniformly applied development policies and standards—including implementation of any recommended remediation in accordance with Regional Water Quality Control Board or other agency oversight, preparation of Hazardous Materials Business Plans for applicable uses, and compliance with construction best management practices—would ensure that any potential contamination or hazardous material exposure is properly identified and addressed prior to occupancy. With mandatory regulatory compliance and standard conditions of approval incorporated into project implementation, no significant hazards or hazardous materials impacts beyond those identified in the General Plan Program EIR would occur, and no additional project-specific mitigation measures are required.

Responses to Checklist Questions
Responses a), b): Less than Significant. The proposed Project would place new residential uses in an area of the City that currently contains predominantly agricultural and residential uses in nearby locations.

Consistent with the General Plan EIR analysis, the proposed residential land uses do not involve the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials, or present a reasonably foreseeable release of hazardous materials, except for common residential grade hazardous materials such as household cleaners, paint, etc. The operational phase of the proposed Project does not pose a significant hazard to the public or the environment given the nature and scope of the low-density residential uses. According to the California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) there are no Federal Superfund Sites, State Response Sites, or Voluntary Cleanup Sites on, or in the near vicinity of the Project site. The Project site is not included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code § 65962.5. There is no other listed cleanup sites located within 1,000 feet of the Project site. In addition to the requirements associated with federal and State laws and regulations and the Municipal Code (including but not limited to §§ 8.17.030, 15.30.050, and 17.58.040), the General Plan includes policies and actions to minimize the potential for impacts associated with hazardous materials. These policies and actions in the General Plan, which are listed above, would ensure that potential hazards are identified on the Project site, that development is in areas where potential exposure to hazards and hazardous materials can be mitigated to an acceptable level, and that business operations comply with Federal and State laws and regulations regarding the use, transport, storage, and disposal of hazardous materials. The General Plan also includes policies and actions to ensure that the City has adequate emergency response plans and measures to respond in the event of an accidental release of a hazardous substance.

Any Project operations that involve the use of hazardous materials would be typical in nature and scope for low-density residential uses and would be required to have any such hazardous material transported, stored, used, and disposed of in compliance with applicable local, state, and federal laws and regulations.

The Stanislaus County Department of Environmental Resources is the Certified Unified Program Agencies City of Waterford PAGE 63

HIGHLAND POINTE RESIDENTIAL PROJECT

ENVIRONMENTAL

CHECKLIST
(CUPA) for Stanislaus County and is responsible for the implementation of statewide programs within the City including Hazardous Materials Business Plan (HMBP) requirements, among numerous other programs. Additionally, businesses, including construction companies, are regulated by Cal/Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) and are therefore required to ensure employee safety. Specific requirements include identifying hazardous materials in the workplace, providing safety information to workers that handle hazardous materials, and adequately training workers. To ensure the safety of employees and reduce the potential for accidental release of hazardous materials into the environment, the Project applicant, or their contractor, must submit an HMBP to Stanislaus County Department of Environmental Resources for review and approval prior to bringing hazardous materials onsite during construction activities.

The use, transportation, and disposal of hazardous materials is regulated and monitored by local fire departments, CUPAs, the Cal OSHA and the DTSC consistent with the requirements of Federal, State, and local laws, regulations, and policies. Consistent with the General Plan EIR’s analysis, construction equipment and materials utilized during Project construction would require the use of petroleum-based products (oil, gasoline, diesel fuel), and a variety of common chemicals including paints, cleaners, and solvents. Transportation, storage, use, and disposal of hazardous materials during Project construction activities would be required to comply with applicable federal, state, and local statutes and regulations.

Consistent with the conclusions set forth in the General Plan EIR, compliance with the foregoing would ensure that no significant impacts in this regard would occur. In addition, Project Requirement HYD-1 (Hydrology and Water Quality) requires the Project applicant to implement a SWPPP during construction activities, which would prevent any contaminated runoff from leaving the Project site. The proposed Project would not result in new or more significant or more severe impacts than what was disclosed in the General Plan EIR. Therefore, compliance with applicable federal, state, local statutes, and regulations, and the SWPPP provided in Project Requirement HYD-1, the proposed Project would have a less than significant impact relative to this issue, consistent with the impact conclusions set forth in the General Plan EIR.

Response c): Less than Significant. The Project site is not located within 1/4-mile of an existing or proposed school. The nearest school to the Project site is Waterford Middle School, located approximately

0.4 miles southwest of the Project site.

Consistent with the General Plan EIR’s analysis, given the low-density residential nature of the proposed Project, it would not be expected to emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste. In any event, as discussed above, any typical hazardous materials involved in Project construction or operation would be required to be handled in accordance with applicable federal, State, and local requirements, which would further limit the potential for it to expose nearby uses, including schools, to hazardous emissions or an accidental release. Hazardous emissions are monitored by the SJVAPCD, RWQCB, DTSC and the local CUPA (Stanislaus County). In the event of a hazardous materials spill or release, notification and cleanup operations would be performed in compliance with applicable federal, State, and local laws, regulations, and policies, including hazard mitigation plans. As part of the development review process, the City would require consistency with all applicable policies and requirements to address and reduce the risks to an acceptable level such that surrounding uses will not be exposed to hazardous materials in excess of adopted State and federal standards, and also require

HIGHLAND POINTE RESIDENTIAL PROJECT

ENVIRONMENTAL

CHECKLIST
City of Waterford PAGE 64
the submittal of information regarding hazardous materials manufacturing, storage, use, transport, and/or disposal by the proposed Project to the Stanislaus Consolidated Fire Protection District (SCFPD).

Compliance with all applicable laws and regulations as well as relevant General Plan policies and actions related to land use compatibility and hazardous materials would further ensure that this impact is less than significant.

Accordingly, the proposed Project would not result in new or more severe significant impacts than what was disclosed in the General Plan EIR. Therefore, this is a less than significant impact, consistent with the impact conclusions set forth in the General Plan EIR.

Response d): Less than Significant. The General Plan EIR noted there are no hazardous materials release sites on a list compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 located in the Planning Area. This conclusion was confirmed with respect to the Project site. The proposed Project is not located on a Cortese List site. The proposed Project would not result in new or more severe significant impacts than what was disclosed in the General Plan EIR. Therefore, this is a less than significant impact, consistent with the impact conclusions set forth in the General Plan EIR.

Response e): Less than Significant. As noted in the General Plan EIR, hazards related to airports are typically grouped into two categories: air hazards and ground hazards. Most accidents occur during takeoff and landing. Therefore, the higher the density around an airport, including transportation facilities, the higher the risk associated with this type of hazard. There is no airport facilities located within the Planning Area.

Consistent with the analysis in the General Plan EIR, the proposed Project is not located within two miles of any airport, nor along the extended runway centerline, nor is it within an Airport Influence Area (AIA).

Additionally, there are no private airstrips within the vicinity of the Project site. As explained above, there are no public or private airports within the City of Waterford. Furthermore, for informational purposes, it is noted that the proposed Project consists of low-rise structures and does not propose any structures of substantial height that would protrude into active airspace. Accordingly, the proposed Project would not result in new or more severe significant impacts than what was disclosed in the General Plan EIR.

Therefore, safety hazards related to the proposed Project’s proximity to an airport are less than significant, consistent with the impact conclusions set forth in the General Plan EIR.

Response f): Less than Significant Impact. As discussed in the General Plan EIR, the General Plan ensures that the City’s emergency access routes, emergency contact lists, and public information regarding designated facilities and routes are regularly reviewed to ensure that up to date information is available to the City and the public in the event of an emergency. Important new critical facilities would be located to ensure resiliency in the event of a natural disaster as set forth in the City’s relevant planning documents.

Consistent with the General Plan EIR’s analysis, the proposed Project does not include any actions that would impair or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan. The proposed Project involves the development of low-density residential land uses and related improvements within an urbanizing environment and would not physically interfere with any emergency response or evacuation plans. The proposed Project involves the enhancement of existing roadway network, improved site access, vehicular circulation, and improved emergency response capabilities City of Waterford PAGE 65

HIGHLAND POINTE RESIDENTIAL PROJECT

ENVIRONMENTAL

CHECKLIST
within the Project site. Moreover, it would be designed such that it would comply with all applicable Fire Code and related standards and requirements. Accordingly, the proposed Project would not result in new or more severe significant impacts than what was disclosed in the General Plan EIR. Implementation of the proposed Project would result in a less than significant impact on this environmental topic, consistent with the impact conclusions set forth in the General Plan EIR.

Response g): Less than Significant. As discussed in more detail in the General Plan EIR and further below in the Wildfires section, the risk of wildfire is related to a variety of parameters, including fuel loading (vegetation), fire weather (winds, temperatures, humidity levels and fuel moisture contents) and topography (degree of slope). Steep slopes contribute to fire hazard by intensifying the effects of wind and making fire suppression difficult. Fuels such as grass are highly flammable because they have a high surface area to mass ratio and require less heat to reach the ignition point, while fuels such as trees have a lower surface area to mass ratio and require more heat to reach the ignition point.

The City has areas with an abundance of flashy fuels (i.e. grassland) in the outlying residential parcels, agricultural lands, and open lands that, when combined with warm and dry summers with temperatures often exceeding 100 degrees Fahrenheit, create a situation that results in higher risk of wildland fires.

Most wildland fires are human caused, so areas with easy human access to land with the appropriate fire parameters generally result in an increased risk of fire.

However, like most other lands within the Planning Area with a low to moderate fire threat to people and structure, the Project site is not located within a designated wildfire hazard area. Moreover, the proposed Project would be required to be consistent with relevant General Plan policies and actions, which address, among other things, adequate water supply and water flow availability, ensuring adequate emergency access, adequate fire protection services, fire safe design site standards, and ensuring public awareness regarding fire safety. The proposed Project would be required to comply with the applicable provisions of federal, State, and local requirements related to wildland fire hazards, including all applicable State fire safety laws and regulations associated with fire-safe building standards and defensible space requirements, all of which would further reduce wildfire risk. Accordingly, the proposed Project would not result in new or more severe significant impacts than what was disclosed in the General Plan EIR.

Implementation of the proposed Project would result in a less than significant impact on this environmental topic, consistent with the impact conclusions set forth in the General Plan EIR.

HIGHLAND POINTE RESIDENTIAL PROJECT

ENVIRONMENTAL

CHECKLIST
City of Waterford PAGE 66
X. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
Significant
Impact Peculiar
to the Project
or the Project
Site
Significant
Impact due to
New
Information
Impact
Adequately
Addressed in
the General
Plan EIR
Impact not
Previously
Addressed in
General Plan
EIR
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste
discharge requirements or otherwise substantially
degrade surface or ground water quality?
X
b) Substantially decrease groundwater supplies or
interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such
that the project may impede sustainable groundwater
management of the basin?
X
c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the
course of a stream or river or through the addition of
impervious surfaces, in a manner which would:

X
(i) result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or offsite; X (ii) substantially increase the rate or amount of
surface runoff in a manner which would result in
flooding on- or offsite;
X
(iii) create or contribute runoff water which would
exceed the capacity of existing or planned
stormwater drainage systems to provide substantial
additional sources of polluted runoff; or
X
(iv) impede or redirect flood flows? X
d) In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, risk release of pollutants due to project inundation? X
e) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water
quality control plan or sustainable groundwater
management plan?
X
Project Impacts:

The proposed Project includes the development of a 412 single-family lot residential subdivision and related improvements and would require grading as well as other ground disturbance and constructionrelated activities that would remove some limited vegetation cover and expose soil to wind and water erosion and potentially impact water quality. Waterways in the area have the potential to flood and expose people or structures to flooding. Additional impervious surfaces would be created with the development of the proposed Project, which has the potential to increase runoff during Project construction and operations that could impact water quality.

However, as discussed further below, the proposed Project is consistent with the development density established in the General Plan and evaluated in the certified General Plan EIR, and would not result in any peculiar new project- or site-specific impacts such that the prior environmental document would be City of Waterford PAGE 67

HIGHLAND POINTE RESIDENTIAL PROJECT

ENVIRONMENTAL

CHECKLIST
inadequate. Therefore, no further environmental review with respect to hydrology and water quality is necessary.

Prior Environmental Analysis:

General Plan
The General Plan EIR analyzed the anticipated hydrology and water quality impacts that would occur because of the future urban development, including the proposed Project’s low-density residential uses, which was contemplated by the General Plan. These impacts included the environmental topic areas of water quality and groundwater supply, drainage, flooding, risks of seiche, tsunami and mudflow (City of Waterford General Plan Draft EIR, pages 151 through 176). In so doing, the General Plan EIR’s analysis took into consideration a discussion of the regional hydrology, flooding, water quality, water purveyors, and water sources in Waterford, as well as an identification of the comprehensive federal, State, regional and local regulatory framework that governs these environmental topic areas.

In addition to the General Plan policies, there are other standards and requirements that would govern development pursued under the General Plan. These goals, policies, requirements and standards include, but are not limited to, erosion control measures set forth in the City’s Municipal Code; the State Water Resources Control Board General Construction Activity Storm Water Permit requirements, and goals and policies in the General Plan requiring the protection of new and existing development from flood and drainage hazards, the prevention of storm drainage run-off in excess of pre-development levels, and the development and application of erosion control plans and best management practices. Moreover, the General Plan EIR’s analysis details a comprehensive regulatory framework at federal, State, regional and local levels that will govern new development pursued under the General Plan.

MDP
Chapter 6, Public Facilities, of the MDP describes the proposed water, sanitary sewer, and storm drainage systems that would serve the project, identifying the City of Waterford municipal facilities provide, and specifying that they would be built consistent with City standards (MDP §6.4). In addition, Chapter 3 (Community Character) and the Sustainability discussion emphasize incorporation of sustainable landscapes, storm water capture, and open space corridors as organizing elements of the community, which function to reduce runoff, promote infiltration where feasible, and support water quality objectives (MDP §3.5). Based on this prior program-level and project-level analysis, hydrology and water quality impacts were evaluated within the broader framework of General Plan consistency and planned municipal infrastructure.

Mitigation Measures/Uniformly Applied Development Policies and Standards General Plan
All applicable provisions from the General Plan relied upon in the General Plan EIR as well as relevant standards and requirements from the City’s Improvement Standards for hydrology and water quality impacts, erosion control measures set forth in the City’s Municipal Code including those in the City’s Grading and Erosion Control Ordinance, the City’s Stormwater Management and Discharge Control Ordinance; the State Water Resources Control Board General Construction Activity Storm Water Permit

HIGHLAND POINTE RESIDENTIAL PROJECT

ENVIRONMENTAL

CHECKLIST
City of Waterford PAGE 68
requirements, and the above-referenced goals and policies in the General Plan requiring the protection of new and existing development from flood and drainage hazards, the prevention of storm drainage run-off in excess of pre-development levels, and the development and application of erosion control plans and best management practices, will be applied to the proposed Project. These serve as uniformly applied development policies and standards and/or as conditions of approval for the proposed Project to ensure consistency with the General Plan and compliance with applicable provisions of the Waterford Municipal Code and other federal, State, regional and City laws, rules, and regulations.

MDP
Based on the analysis contained in Section 3.8, Hydrology and Water Quality (pp. 47–50) of the Lake Pointe Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration, implementation of the MDP would result in less-thansignificant impacts to hydrology and water quality with incorporation of uniformly applied development standards and regulatory compliance measures. The MDP is required to comply with all applicable federal, state, and local stormwater regulations, including preparation and implementation of a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) pursuant to the State Water Resources Control Board Construction General Permit (NPDES), and adherence to City of Waterford Improvement Standards governing storm drainage design, runoff control, and post-construction water quality treatment. Storm drainage facilities are be designed to detain on-site runoff and prevent increases in peak flows downstream, consistent with the City’s engineering standards and the Waterford Vision 2025 General Plan policies. With adherence to these uniformly applied regulations, standard conditions of approval, and permitting requirements, potential impacts related to erosion, sedimentation, flooding, and degradation of surface or groundwater quality would be reduced to a less-than-significant level; therefore, no additional project-specific mitigation measures are required beyond regulatory compliance.

Responses to Checklist Questions
Response a): Less than Significant. To ensure that stormwater runoff from the Project site does not adversely increase pollutant levels in adjacent surface waters and stormwater conveyance infrastructure, the proposed Project would be mandated to adhere to applicable requirements under applicable laws and regulations regarding the incorporation of BMPs to effectively reduce pollutants from stormwater leaving the Project site during both the construction and operational phases of the proposed Project. For example, the proposed Project would be required to prepare and obtain approval of a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) pursuant to applicable laws and regulations and thereafter implement all best management practices and other measures set forth therein. The final storm drainage infrastructure plan for the proposed Project would also be submitted to the City for review and approval to confirm compliance with all applicable standards and requirements.

The collection of applicable impact fees and determined fair share fee amounts are adopted by the City as Conditions of Approval (COAs) in accordance with legal nexus requirements for all new development projects prior to project approval. The payment of applicable development impact fees by the proposed Project would ensure that it pays its fair share of capital improvement fees towards future system expansions and other infrastructure as part of the City’s Capital Improvement Program to serve the Waterford community. Additionally, through compliance with the NPDES permit requirements, and compliance with the SWPPP, and adherence to all other applicable requirements and standards, the City of Waterford PAGE 69

HIGHLAND POINTE RESIDENTIAL PROJECT

ENVIRONMENTAL

CHECKLIST
proposed Project would not result in a violation of any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements. Consistency with applicable General Plan and Municipal Code provisions, compliance with the NPDES, the SWPPP required by Project Requirement HYD-1, and the final storm drainage infrastructure plan required by Project Requirement HYD-2 would further ensure that the proposed Project implements all applicable standards and requirements specified in the General Plan and as otherwise provided for under applicable laws and regulations.

Project Requirement(s) – To Be Incorporated as Enforceable Conditions of Project Approval Project Requirement HYD-1: The Project applicant shall prepare, obtain approval of and implement a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) pursuant to applicable laws and regulations that addresses specific types and sources of stormwater pollutants, and specifies appropriate control measures to eliminate any potentially significant impacts on receiving water quality from stormwater runoff. The SWPPP shall require treatment BMPs that incorporate, at a minimum, the required hydraulic sizing design criteria for volume and flow to treat projected stormwater runoff. The SWPPP shall comply with the most current standards established by the Central Valley RWQCB. Best Management Practices shall be selected from the City’s Post-Construction Stormwater Standards Manual according to site requirements and shall be subject to approval by the City Engineer and Central Valley RWQCB.

Project Requirement HYD-2: Prior to approval of each Final Map, the Project applicant shall submit a detailed storm drainage infrastructure plan covering the development contemplated by the subject Final Map to the City of Waterford for review and approval to confirm compliance with all applicable standards and requirements. The proposed Project’s storm drainage infrastructure plans shall, to the reasonable satisfaction of the City Engineer, demonstrate adequate infrastructure capacity to collect and direct all stormwater generated on the Project site within onsite retention/detention facilities to the City’s existing stormwater conveyance system, and demonstrate that the proposed Project would not result in on- or offsite flooding impacts by incorporating into the design all applicable standards and requirements. The proposed Project shall also pay all applicable development impact fees, which would include funding for offsite Citywide storm drainage infrastructure improvements identified in the City of Waterford Storm Drain Master Plan and adopted by the City as set forth in the applicable Impact Fee Schedule.

Therefore, the proposed Project’s compliance with the NPDES, the SWPPP required by Project Requirement HYD-1, and the final storm drainage infrastructure plan required by Project Requirement HYD-2, along with adherence to all other applicable standards and requirements and payment of applicable development impact fees, would ensure that the proposed Project would have a less than significant impact, consistent with the impact conclusions set forth in the General Plan EIR.

Response b): Less than Significant. Consistent with the analysis in the General Plan EIR, the proposed Project would result in the construction of a new detention basin and a reservation of a future potential well site to be dedicated to the City, which are part of the master planning for the vicinity, as well as result in an increase in impervious surfaces. As previously discussed, while the proposed Project would convert agricultural lands to urban uses and thus increase impervious surfaces, it would involve only low-density residential uses as well as park/open space/detention basin uses, consistent with the Project site’s General Plan land use designation and therefore was considered in the City’s planning projections.

HIGHLAND POINTE RESIDENTIAL PROJECT

ENVIRONMENTAL

CHECKLIST
City of Waterford PAGE 70
Therefore, consistent with the General Plan EIR’s analysis, the proposed Project, along with other development contemplated under the General Plan, would not be considered to interfere substantially with groundwater recharge, as further noted below. Moreover, the proposed Project would be required to prepare a SWPPP that would include BMPs for capturing stormwater and otherwise would be required to comply with all applicable laws and requirements in addressing stormwater flows and water quality.

Therefore, the proposed Project would not result in new or more severe significant impacts than what was disclosed in the General Plan EIR in this regard.

Groundwater recharge in connection with the proposed Project would occur primarily through percolation of surface waters through the soil and into the detention basin. As discussed in the General Plan EIR, the addition of significant areas of impervious surfaces (such as roads, driveways, buildings, etc.) can interfere with this natural groundwater recharge process. Upon full Project buildout, substantial portions of the Project site would be covered in impervious surfaces, which would reduce the potential for groundwater percolation to occur on the Project site as compared to existing conditions. However, the proposed Project would incorporate a detention basin as well as park/open space areas and other pervious surfaces within individual lots, which would help allow for groundwater recharge. Moreover, as discussed at length in the General Plan EIR, the City has adequate existing water service capacity to serve General Plan buildout, including the proposed Project, which has been determined to be consistent with the ESJGS-GSP and related groundwater sustainability efforts, and thus, the proposed Project would not delete groundwater supplies. Moreover, the inclusion of drainage infrastructure throughout the Project site, and the inclusion of numerous areas of pervious surface coverage (e.g., detention basin, well site, park/open space areas, etc.), the proposed Project would result in less than significant impacts related to depletion of groundwater supplies and interference with groundwater recharge, consistent with the impact conclusions set forth in the General Plan EIR.

Response c): Less than Significant. As discussed in more detail in the General Plan EIR, when land is in a natural or undeveloped condition, soils, mulch, vegetation, and plant roots absorb rainwater. This absorption process is called infiltration or percolation. Much of the rainwater that falls on natural or undeveloped land slowly infiltrates the soil and is stored either temporarily or permanently in underground layers of soil. When the soil becomes completely soaked or saturated with water or the rate of rainfall exceeds the infiltration capacity of the soil, the rainwater begins to flow on the surface of land to low lying areas, ditches, channels, streams, and rivers. Rainwater that flows off a site is defined as storm water runoff.

Accordingly, development of the proposed Project would alter the infiltration and runoff processes with the inclusion of houses, other buildings, roads, and parking lots, which would introduce asphalt, concrete, and roofing materials to the landscape. As discussed in the General Plan EIR’s analysis, these materials are relatively impervious, which means that they absorb less rainwater. As impervious surfaces are added to the ground conditions, the natural infiltration process is reduced. As a result, the volume and rate of storm water runoff increases. The increased volumes and rates of storm water runoff may result in flooding if adequate storm drainage facilities are not provided.

Therefore, development of the Project site would potentially increase local runoff production and would introduce constituents into storm water that are typically associated with urban runoff unless City of Waterford PAGE 71

HIGHLAND POINTE RESIDENTIAL PROJECT

ENVIRONMENTAL

CHECKLIST
appropriately addressed through infrastructure design. These constituents include heavy metals (such as lead, zinc, and copper) and petroleum hydrocarbons. To effectively address these concerns, the proposed Project would install stormwater infrastructure that adheres to all applicable standards and requirements, including ensuring that post-development flows do not exceed pre-development flows and incorporating BMPs into the proposed site development to limit the concentrations of these constituents in any site runoff that is discharged into downstream facilities to acceptable levels. Storm mains that meet all applicable standards and requirements would be installed within the subdivision to serve the proposed Project.

To ensure that stormwater runoff from the Project site does not adversely increase pollutant levels in adjacent surface waters and stormwater conveyance infrastructure, Project Requirement HYD-1 requires the preparation of a SWPPP in accordance with all applicable laws and regulations. As described previously, the SWPPP would require the incorporation of BMPs to effectively reduce pollutants from stormwater leaving the Project site during both the construction and operational phases of the proposed Project, and would reduce the potential for disturbed soils and ground surfaces to result in erosion and sediment discharge into adjacent surface waters.

The proposed Project is also required to pay all applicable development impact fees in connection with the City’s planned stormwater infrastructure as set forth in the City’s adopted fee schedule.

Furthermore, to ensure that stormwater runoff generated at the Project site because of new impervious surfaces does not exceed the capacity of the existing or planned stormwater drainage system, Project Requirement HYD-2 above requires the Project applicant to submit a detailed storm drainage infrastructure plan to the City of Waterford Community Development Department for review and approval. The proposed Project’s storm drainage infrastructure plans shall, to the reasonable satisfaction of the City Engineer, demonstrate adequate infrastructure capacity to collect and direct all stormwater generated on the Project site within onsite detention facilities to the City’s existing stormwater conveyance system, and confirm that the proposed Project’s infrastructure meets all applicable standards and requirements and thus would not result in on- or off-site flooding impacts.

Through the payment of all applicable fees, and the implementation of Project Requirements HYD-1 and HYD-2 as well as adherence to all other standards and requirements under applicable laws and regulations, this would ensure that this impact is less than significant, consistent with the impact conclusions set forth in the General Plan EIR.

Response d): Less than Significant. As discussed above and more fully therein, the General Plan EIR identifies special flood hazard areas mapped on the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) and addresses the comprehensive regulatory framework at play with respect to potential flooding risks. The Project site is not located within a regulatory floodway or flood zone delineated by FEMA. Moreover, the proposed Project would be required to incorporate into its design all features required under applicable laws and regulations to further reduce any flooding risks. Therefore, the proposed Project would not result in new significant impacts or substantially more severe significant impacts than what was disclosed in the General Plan EIR. Therefore, this is a less than significant impact, consistent with the impact conclusions set forth in the General Plan EIR.

HIGHLAND POINTE RESIDENTIAL PROJECT

ENVIRONMENTAL

CHECKLIST
City of Waterford PAGE 72
Response e): Less than Significant. The proposed Project would be subject to a Municipal National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Permit and would ensure that adequate drainage would be provided through connection to the City’s existing water and sanitary sewer lines and development of bioretention areas for stormwater runoff. As previously mentioned, the proposed Project would be required to prepare and implement a SWPPP in accordance with applicable federal and state requirements. The SWPPP would identify BMPs that are intended to prevent erosion runoff during construction. Furthermore, the General Plan contains several policies intended to protect groundwater supplies, and as explained above and in the General Plan EIR, the proposed Project would not deplete those supplies or substantially interfere with groundwater recharge. The General Plan designates the Project site for residential use, and the Project site would be developed consistent with that land use designation and the established development density. Therefore, the proposed Project is considered planned growth and would not conflict with the Water Quality Control Plan, Urban Water Management Plan, or Comprehensive Groundwater Management Plan. Impacts would be less than significant. As such, the proposed Project would not result in new significant impacts or more severe significant impacts than what was disclosed in the General Plan EIR and the criteria for requiring further CEQA review is not met.

Therefore, this impact is less than significant, consistent with the impact conclusions set forth in the General Plan EIR.

City of Waterford PAGE 73

HIGHLAND POINTE RESIDENTIAL PROJECT

ENVIRONMENTAL

CHECKLIST
XI. LAND USE AND PLANNING
Significant
Impact Peculiar
to the Project
or the Project
Site
Significant
Impact due to
New
Information
Impact
Adequately
Addressed in
the General
Plan EIR
Impact not
Previously
Addressed in
General Plan
EIR
a) Physically divide an established community? X
b) Cause a significant environmental impact due to a
conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation
adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an
environmental effect?
X
Project Impacts:

The development of a 412 single-family lot residential subdivision and related improvements would not physically divide the community, and there are no conflicts with land use plans, policies, or regulations adopted for purposes of mitigating environmental impacts as the proposed Project would be developed consistent with the low-density residential land use designation and established development density.

As discussed further below, the proposed Project is consistent with the development density established in the General Plan and evaluated in the certified General Plan EIR and would not result in any peculiar new project- or site-specific impacts such that the prior environmental document would be inadequate.

Therefore, no further environmental review with respect to land use and planning is necessary.

Prior Environmental Analysis:

General Plan
The General Plan EIR analyzed the anticipated impacts on land use because of the future urban development that was contemplated by the General Plan. This analysis identified the existing land use conditions, discussed population and housing trends and projections, analyzed the consistency of the General Plan’s land use vision with relevant planning documents and policies. Consideration of these potential impacts included evaluating whether development pursued under the General Plan would divide an established community and whether it would create potential conflicts with any land use plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environment effect (City of Waterford General Plan Draft EIR, pages 177 through 204). The analysis found that while development and buildout of the General Plan would result in land use impacts, these impacts would be less than significant through the application of relevant General Plan goals and policies, as well as other City planning documents and Municipal Code provisions that would assist in minimizing or avoiding land use impacts.

MDP
The proposed MDP is consistent with the land use framework established in the City of Waterford Vision 2025 General Plan and EIR. As described in Section 1.6, Relationship to City Plans and Regulations, the MDP is intended to “implement the City’s General Plan and establish the policies and standards that both control and govern the development of Lake Pointe,” serving as the primary land use and regulatory document for the 425-acre planning area (MDP §1.6, p. 6). The MDP area is designated Low Density Residential under the General Plan, with a Neighborhood Center and potential school site identified at key intersections (MDP §2.1, p. 7). Chapter 2, Land Use, further establishes a mixed-use framework incorporating residential

HIGHLAND POINTE RESIDENTIAL PROJECT

ENVIRONMENTAL

CHECKLIST
City of Waterford PAGE 74
neighborhoods of varying densities, neighborhood commercial, mixed-use, church facilities, parks, and open space, consistent with the General Plan’s New Urbanism principles promoting integration of housing, shops, schools, parks, and civic facilities (MDP §2.4, p. 10). Additionally, Section 1.7, CEQA Compliance, explains that project-specific environmental review would tier from the City’s General Plan Program EIR, with preparation of an expanded Initial Study to address any issues not previously analyzed (MDP §1.7, p. 6). Therefore, prior environmental analysis conducted for the General Plan and its EIR provides the foundational evaluation of land use and planning impacts, and the MDP is structured to ensure consistency with that adopted land use vision while addressing project-specific considerations through subsequent CEQA review.

Mitigation Measures/Uniformly Applied Development Policies and Standards General Plan
All applicable provisions identified in the General Plan EIR as relevant goals and policies in the Waterford General Plan as well as all other applicable Municipal Code provisions, would be applied to the proposed Project. These serve as uniformly applied development policies and standards and/or as conditions of approval for the proposed Project to ensure consistency with the General Plan and compliance with all other applicable local and regional laws, rules, and regulations.

MDP
As discussed in Section 3.9, Land Use and Planning, of the Lake Pointe Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration, the MDP is consistent with the Waterford Vision 2025 General Plan land use designations, policies, and implementation programs, and the project site is located within the City’s Sphere of Influence as contemplated by the General Plan and associated EIR. The Initial Study concludes that the project would not physically divide an established community, conflict with applicable land use plans or policies adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating environmental effects, or conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan. The project implements the General Plan’s planned urban expansion framework and is subject to the City’s zoning, subdivision, and development standards upon annexation. Because the project tiers from the certified General Plan EIR and incorporates all applicable goals, policies, and standards, no additional project-specific mitigation measures are required beyond uniformly applied development regulations and consistency findings already adopted by the City.

City of Waterford PAGE 75

HIGHLAND POINTE RESIDENTIAL PROJECT

ENVIRONMENTAL

CHECKLIST
Responses to Checklist Questions
Response a): No Impact. As discussed in the General Plan EIR, development contemplated under the General Plan, including the proposed low-density residential uses for the Project site, establishes the City’s vision for future growth and development. The land uses allowed under the General Plan provide opportunities for cohesive new growth at in-fill locations within existing urbanized areas of the city, as well as new growth adjacent to existing urbanized areas, but would not create physical division within the community. New development and redevelopment projects, including the proposed Project, would be designed to complement the character of the existing community and neighborhoods and provide connectivity between existing development and new development.

The Project site is surrounded by residential and agricultural uses. The proposed Project has been designed to complement the existing character and neighborhoods in the surrounding area, would be consistent and compatible with the surrounding land uses, would provide connectivity through improved roadways with sidewalks, and would not include any new areas designated for urbanization or new roadways, infrastructure, or other features that would divide an established community. As such, the proposed Project would not result in new significant impacts or more severe significant impacts than what was disclosed in the General Plan EIR. There is no impact, consistent with the impact conclusions set forth in the General Plan EIR.

Response b): Less than Significant. As discussed more fully in the General Plan EIR, the General Plan was prepared in conformance with State laws and regulations associated with the preparation of general plans, including requirements for environmental protection. Discussion of the General Plan’s consistency with applicable State laws and regulations, plans, and policies associated with specific environmental issues (e.g., air quality, traffic, water quality, etc.) was provided in the relevant chapters of the General Plan EIR. The General Plan serves as the primary planning document for the City, and focuses on a balanced land use pattern, creating a community where new development blends with existing neighborhoods, and promoting the City as a desirable place to live and work. The General Plan carries forward and enhances policies and measures from the City’s prior General Plan that were intended for environmental protection and would not remove or conflict with City plans, policies, or regulations adopted for environmental protection.

The proposed Project would be consistent with the General Plan land use designation and established development density for the Project site evaluated in the General Plan EIR. The proposed Project has been designed to be consistent with the City’s General Plan land use designation, as well as relevant General Plan goals and policies, and relevant Municipal Code provisions, and is therefore considered planned growth that would not conflict with the General Plan or any other land use plans or policies adopted for purposes of mitigating impacts. Therefore, the proposed Project would not result in new significant impacts or substantially more severe significant impacts than identified in the General Plan EIR. This is a less than significant impact, consistent with the impact conclusions set forth in the General Plan EIR.

HIGHLAND POINTE RESIDENTIAL PROJECT

ENVIRONMENTAL

CHECKLIST
City of Waterford PAGE 76
XII. MINERAL RESOURCES
Significant
Impact Peculiar
to the Project
or the Project
Site
Significant
Impact due to
New
Information
Impact
Adequately
Addressed in
the General
Plan EIR
Impact not
Previously
Addressed in
General Plan
EIR
a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the
residents of the state?
X
b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local
general plan, specific plan or other land use plan?
X
Responses to Checklist Questions
The development of a 412 single-family lot residential subdivision and related improvements would not result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value, nor would it result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site.

As discussed further below, the proposed Project is consistent with the development density established in the General Plan and evaluated in the certified General Plan EIR and would not result in any peculiar new project- or site-specific impacts such that the prior environmental document would be inadequate.

Therefore, no further environmental review with respect to mineral resources is necessary.

Prior Environmental Analysis:

The General Plan EIR analyzed the anticipated impacts on mineral resources because of the future urban development that was contemplated by the General Plan. This analysis identified the existing mineral resources within and near the Planning Area as well as the relevant regulatory framework, and evaluated potential impacts related thereto (City of Waterford General Plan Draft EIR, pages 205 through 209). The analysis found that development and buildout of the General Plan, including the contemplated lowdensity residential uses on the Project site, would not result in significant impacts to mineral resources given that the lack of known mineral resources within the Planning Area.

Responses to Checklist Questions
Responses a), b): No Impact. As noted above and more fully therein, the Waterford General Plan EIR does not identify significant mineral resources within the Planning Area, including the Project site.

Therefore, there is no possibility of loss of mineral resources of local or statewide importance. Therefore, the proposed Project would not result in the loss of availability of known mineral resources or mineral resource recovery sites. The proposed Project would result in no impact and would not result in new significant impacts or substantially more severe significant impacts than identified in the General Plan EIR. There is no impact, consistent with the impact conclusions set forth in the General Plan EIR.

City of Waterford PAGE 77

HIGHLAND POINTE RESIDENTIAL PROJECT

ENVIRONMENTAL

CHECKLIST
XIII. NOISE
Significant
Impact Peculiar
to the Project
or the Project
Site
Significant
Impact due to
New
Information
Impact
Adequately
Addressed in
the General
Plan EIR
Impact not
Previously
Addressed in
General Plan
EIR
a) Generation of a temporary or permanent increase in
ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in
excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other
agencies?
X
b) Generation of excessive groundborne vibration or
groundborne noise levels? X
c) For a project located within the vicinity of a private airstrip or an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people
residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels?
X
Project Impacts:

As discussed below, the proposed Project, which involves the development of a 412 single-family lot residential subdivision and related improvements, would result in an increase in noise from construction and operational activities, as well as an increase in groundborne vibration during construction.

Compliance with the relevant provisions relied upon in the General Plan EIR including the identified General Plan goals and policies, and the City of Waterford Noise Ordinance, in additional to incorporation of specific measures into the Project’s design provided herein, would ensure noise related impacts are less than significant. In addition, a Noise and Vibration Assessment for the Project was prepared (refer to Appendix C).

As discussed further below, the proposed Project is consistent with the development density established in the General Plan and evaluated in the certified General Plan EIR and would not result in any peculiar new project- or site-specific impacts such that the prior environmental document would be inadequate.

Therefore, no further environmental review with respect to noise and vibration is necessary.

Prior Environmental Analysis:

General Plan
The General Plan EIR analyzed the anticipated impacts of noise and vibration associated with the future urban development that was contemplated by the General Plan, including the residential uses planned for the Project site. These impacts included construction noise, traffic noise, operational noise, groundborne vibration, groundborne noise, and overall increases in noise resulting from mobile and stationary sources that would result from implementation of the General Plan (City of Waterford General Plan Draft EIR, pages 210 through 224). As described on page 224 of the General Plan EIR, no significant adverse physical impact on the noise environment is expected to result from the General Plan’s adoption and implementation.

MDP

HIGHLAND POINTE RESIDENTIAL PROJECT

ENVIRONMENTAL

CHECKLIST
City of Waterford PAGE 78
As stated in Section 1.7, CEQA Compliance, of the MDP, the project-specific environmental review included preparation of technical studies addressing noise, among other topics, to evaluate site-specific conditions not otherwise fully analyzed in the General Plan EIR. In addition, Chapter 2 establishes development standards that expressly incorporate “noise standards, and buffers between existing and proposed land uses as appropriate,” thereby integrating noise compatibility considerations into the land use framework of the MDP (§2.7). Further, Chapter 8.23, Noise, confirms consistency with the Waterford Vision 2025 General Plan policies governing land use compatibility, roadway noise exposure, and residential design standards. Accordingly, the prior Program EIR analysis, combined with project-level technical noise studies and incorporation of uniform development standards within the MDP, ensures that potential noise impacts are addressed through established thresholds, site planning, setbacks, and buffering requirements.

Mitigation Measures/Uniformly Applied Development Policies and Standards Based on the analysis contained in Section 3.11 (Noise) of the Lake Pointe Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration, potential noise impacts associated with construction activities and long-term operational noise (primarily traffic-related) were evaluated using the thresholds established in the Waterford Vision 2025 General Plan and Program EIR. The analysis determined that project-generated noise would be consistent with applicable City of Waterford General Plan policies, municipal code standards, and established construction performance standards. Short-term construction noise would be temporary and subject to uniformly applied development standards, including restrictions on hours of construction, proper maintenance of equipment with manufacturer-recommended mufflers, and compliance with City noise control regulations. Long-term operational noise levels, including traffic noise, were determined to be within acceptable limits for the proposed land uses and consistent with the General Plan land use compatibility guidelines. As a result, impacts were found to be less than significant, and no project-specific mitigation measures beyond compliance with existing City policies, development standards, and applicable building code requirements (including Title 24 acoustical standards, where applicable) were required.

Responses to Checklist Questions
Response a): Less than Significant.

Construction Noise
The development of the proposed Project would entail construction activities which include noise generated from grading/excavation and building construction activities. Local residents would be subject to elevated noise levels due to the operation of Project-related construction equipment. Construction activities are carried out in discrete steps, each of which has its own mix of equipment and, consequently, its own noise characteristics. These various sequential phases would change the character of the noise levels surrounding the construction site as work progresses. Construction noise levels reported in the Federal Transit Administration’s Transit (FTA) Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual and the Federal Highway Administration’s (FHWA) Roadway Construction Noise Model (RCNM) were used to quantify noise levels from Project related construction activities. The equipment used within the RCNM is based on the estimates used within the air quality computer modeling. Typically, the estimated construction noise levels are governed primarily by equipment that produces the highest noise levels.

City of Waterford PAGE 79

HIGHLAND POINTE RESIDENTIAL PROJECT

ENVIRONMENTAL

CHECKLIST
Construction noise levels for each generalized construction phase (ground clearing, excavation, foundation construction, building construction, paving, and site cleanup) are based on a typical construction equipment mix for an industrial project and do not include use of atypical, very loud, and vibration-intensive equipment (e.g., pile drivers).

The degree to which noise-sensitive receptors are affected by construction activities depends heavily on their proximity. While construction activities would occur at various locations within each Project phase, noise was assessed from the center of each construction phase area consistent with the General Assessment methodology adopted by the FTA. Estimated noise levels attributable to the development of the proposed Project are shown for each construction phase in Tables NOI-1 and NOI-2.

TABLE NOI-1: Phase 1 Construction Noise Levels at Noise-Sensitive Uses Construction Phase
Noise Levels (Leq dBA)
North of Project site East of Project site South of Project site West of Project site 1,000 feet away 2,360 feet away 400 feet away 1,000 feet away Site Preparation 65 57 73 65
Grading 65 58 73 65
Building Construction 62 54 70 62
Paving 65 58 73 65
Architectural Coating 54 47 62 54
Max. Construction Noise 65 58 73 65
FTA Construction Criterion 80 80 80 80
Exceeds Threshold No No No No
Leq dBA: Average noise energy level; Max: maximum; avg: average; ft: feet Note: Noise levels from construction activities do not take into account attenuation provided by intervening structures.

SOURCE: FHWA ROADWAY CONSTRUCTION NOISE MODEL.

TABLE NOI-2: Phase 2 Construction Noise Levels at Noise-Sensitive Uses Construction Phase
Noise Levels (Leq dBA)
North of Project site East of Project site South of Project site West of Project site 650 feet away 1,790 feet away 1,225 feet away 1,625 feet away Site Preparation 68 60 63 60
Grading 69 60 63 61
Building Construction 66 57 60 58
Paving 69 60 63 61
Architectural Coating 58 49 52 50
Max. Construction Noise 69 60 63 61
FTA Construction Criterion 80 80 80 80
Exceeds Threshold No No No No
Leq dBA: Average noise energy level; Max: maximum; avg: average; ft: feet Note: Noise levels from construction activities do not take into account attenuation provided by intervening structures.

SOURCE: FHWA ROADWAY CONSTRUCTION NOISE MODEL.

HIGHLAND POINTE RESIDENTIAL PROJECT

ENVIRONMENTAL

CHECKLIST
City of Waterford PAGE 80
Tables NOI-1 and NOI-2 show the average noise levels of construction noise levels attributable to the proposed Project based on an assessment distance at the center of the site. Average noise levels represent the noise exposure to sensitive uses based on the distance to the center of all proposed Project components. Noise levels from construction equipment would be less than the 80 dBA noise criterion developed by the FTA for construction noise. This is due to the large project site and the large distance between offsite noise sensitive uses and the average location of construction vehicles.

Traffic volumes related to construction workers and truck trips needed for delivery of equipment and building materials. The amount of construction related traffic would be relatively small with less than 100 one-way trips distributed throughout the day based on estimates of worker and truck trips from the CalEEMod model. This low quantity of vehicle trips would not result in a substantial magnitude of noise along local roadways. In addition, construction traffic would be limited to the allowed hours of construction activity during the day when people are least sensitive to noise and would cease after the construction phase is completed.

While noise from construction activities on-site would be clearly audible above the existing ambient noise environment, they would occur during the least noise-sensitive portions of the day, as per City Municipal Code Section §8.22.040.G Construction or Demolition would also be less than the construction noise thresholds. In addition, construction would be generally located away from offsite noise sensitive uses due to the large size of the Project site. Consequently, noise associated with Project-related construction would not result in significant impacts and no mitigation is required.

Operations Phase Noise
The operations phase of the proposed Project would involve noise generation from stationary and mobile noise sources. Stationary noise sources associated with the proposed Project would include, but not limited to, mechanical equipment (e.g., HVAC units); landscape maintenance equipment; refuse collection, vehicles on the local internal roadway; and general residential activities. The City of Waterford’s Noise Element and Ordinance is designed to control unnecessary, excessive, and annoying sounds from sources on private property by specifying noise levels that cannot be exceeded.

HVAC units and other stationary equipment would be selected and installed to comply with the City of Waterford’s Section §8.22.040.K of the Noise Ordinance. The City considers compliance with these noise limits to result in acceptable levels of noise. Compliance with the City’s noise limits would minimize these impacts to less than significant levels.

Noise generated by vehicle travel along local roadways within the Project site would generally be from light passenger vehicles due to the nature of residential uses. These vehicle trips would be distributed over the large Project area and would occur within internal roadways. Due to the low magnitude of passenger vehicles, infrequency of vehicle trips, and distribution throughout the Project site, onsite noise levels attributable to the Project’s traffic volumes and parking activities would result in less than significant noise impacts. Noise from landscape maintenance, vehicles, and residential activities would be similar to noise currently occurring in other residential land uses. Noise from landscaping activities is addressed under Municipal Code Section § 8.22.040 Prohibited Acts. Compliance with these requirements would result in less than significant noise impacts. Noise impacts from stationary sources would be less than significant and no mitigation is required.

City of Waterford PAGE 81

HIGHLAND POINTE RESIDENTIAL PROJECT

ENVIRONMENTAL

CHECKLIST
Operation of the proposed Project would generate traffic along roadways in the Project vicinity. Projectgenerated trips would use Vineyard Road, Tim Bell Road, Yosemite Boulevard, El Pomar Avenue and other local roadways. The proposed Project would generate 3,986 trips per day with 300 AM peak hour trips and 403 PM peak hour trips. The corresponding increase in off-site traffic noise would range from 0.0 to

13.9 dBA for the analyzed roadway segments. The increase in noise levels along Vineyard Road and Tim Bell Road is due to the relatively undeveloped nature of land uses along those roadways. The City’s Vision 2025 General Plan Update Program EIR recognizes that new developments in agrarian or undeveloped areas may result in substantial increases in traffic noise levels along local roadways. As such, the City has adopted significance thresholds based on the noise sensitivity of land uses. Table 9, Operations Traffic Noise, depict the noise increase from the proposed Project. Thus, the traffic noise increases are below the City’s exterior noise threshold and would also not be perceptible or substantial. The impact on traffic noise levels would be less than significant and no mitigation is required.

Table 9 Operations Traffic Noise
Noise Sensitive Receptors No Project
(dBA CNEL)
With
Project
(dBA CNEL)
Project
Increase
(dBA CNEL)
City Noise
Threshold
(dBA CNEL)
Exceeds
Threshold?
Vineyard Road
(East of Tim Bell Road) 46.5 60.4 13.9 65 No
Tim Bell Road
(North of Vineyard Road) 58.4 58.7 0.2 65 No
Tim Bell Road
(South of Vineyard Road) 59.8 62.4 2.6 65 No
Tim Bell Road
(South of Bentley Street) 56.9 57.6 0.8 65 No
Yosemite Boulevard
(West of F Street / Oakdale Waterford Hwy) 65.5 66.4 0.9 70 No Yosemite Boulevard
(Between F Street / Oakdale Waterford Hwy and
Tim Bell Road)

66.0 66.0 0.1 70 No
Yosemite Boulevard
(East of Tim Bell Road) 68.1 68.2 0.1 70 No
El Pomar Avenue
(West of Tim Bell Road) 52.4 53.3 0.9 65 No
El Pomar Avenue
(East of Tim Bell Road) 44.4 44.4 0.0 65 No
SOURCE: FHWA RD-77-108 HIGHWAY TRAFFIC NOISE PREDICTION MODEL.

Response b): Less than Significant.

Vibration Impacts
The proposed Project would not generate or expose persons or structures to excessive groundborne vibration from the construction phase with the implementation of mitigation measures. Pile driving, blasting, and vibratory rollers are generally the sources of the most severe vibration during construction.

Neither pile driving nor blasting would be used during Project construction. Conventional construction equipment would be used for grading and building construction activities.

HIGHLAND POINTE RESIDENTIAL PROJECT

ENVIRONMENTAL

CHECKLIST
City of Waterford PAGE 82
Table NOI-3 summarizes typical vibration levels measured during construction activities for various vibration-inducing pieces of equipment.

Table NOI-3 Vibration Levels for Construction Equipment Equipment ppv at 25 ft (in/sec)
Pile driver (impact)
upper range 1.518
typical 0.644
Pile driver (sonic)
upper range 0.734
typical 0.170
Vibratory roller 0.210
Large bulldozer 0.089
Caisson drilling 0.089
Loaded trucks 0.076
Jackhammer 0.035
Small bulldozer 0.003
ppv: peak particle velocity; ft: feet; in/sec: inches per second.

SOURCE: CALTRANS 2020; FTA 2018.

Grading and construction would occur up to the property lines and as noted above, some land uses are close to the property lines. Table NOI-4 shows the vibration annoyance criteria from constructiongenerated vibration activities proposed at the Project site and the Project related vibration level relative to residences near the Project site.

Table NOI-4 Vibration Annoyance Assessment at Nearest Uses Equipment
Vibration Level (ppv)
Nearest
Building to the
North of the
Project Site
Nearest
Building to the
East of the
Project Site
Nearest
Building to the
South of the
Project Site
Nearest
Building to the
West of the
Project Site
60 feet away 45 feet away 170 feet away 30 feet away
Large bulldozer 0.024 0.04 0.01 0.07
Small bulldozer 0.020 0.00 0.00 0.06
Loaded trucks 0.001 0.03 0.00 0.00
Maximum 0.02 0.04 0.01 0.07
Annoyance Criteria 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2
Exceed Annoyance Criteria? No No No No
ppv: Peak Particle Velocity
SOURCE: FTA
As shown in Table NOI-4, vibration decibel levels would exceed the criteria threshold when construction activities occur under maximum (i.e., closest to the receptor) exposure conditions. Because vibration generated by construction equipment would be below the FTA’s annoyance criteria, impacts for vibration annoyance at the nearest sensitive receptors would be less than significant.

City of Waterford PAGE 83

HIGHLAND POINTE RESIDENTIAL PROJECT

ENVIRONMENTAL

CHECKLIST
Table NOI-5, Structural Damage Criteria at Sensitive Uses, shows the peak particle velocity levels (ppv) relative to structural damage to sensitive uses from vibration activities.

Table NOI-5 Building Damage Assessment at Nearest Uses
Equipment
Vibration Levels (ppv)
Nearest
Building to the
North of the
Project Site
Nearest
Building to the
East of the
Project Site
Nearest Building
to the South of
the Project Site
Nearest Building
to the West of
the Project Site
60 feet away 45 feet away 170 feet away 30 feet away
Large bulldozer 0.024 0.04 0.01 0.07
Small bulldozer 0.020 0.00 0.00 0.06
Loaded trucks 0.001 0.03 0.00 0.00
Maximum 0.02 0.04 0.01 0.07
Building Damage Criteria 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2
Exceeds Building Damage
Criteria?
No No No No
ppv: peak particle velocity; Max: maximum; avg: average; ft: feet SOURCE: FTA (CALCULATIONS CAN BE FOUND IN ATTACHMENT B).

As shown in Table NOI-5, all ppv levels would be below the building damage threshold at the nearest offsite buildings. As such, impacts related to the potential for cosmetic building damage would be less than significant.

Response c): Less than Significant. The Project site is not located vicinity of a private airstrip or an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport. The nearest airport to the Project site is the Modesto City-County Airport which is located approximately eleven miles to the west. In addition, the Project involves the development of land uses which are not considered to be noise sensitive. Therefore, it would not result in exposure of people residing or working in the Project area to excessive noise levels. There would be no impact.

HIGHLAND POINTE RESIDENTIAL PROJECT

ENVIRONMENTAL

CHECKLIST
City of Waterford PAGE 84
XIV. POPULATION AND HOUSING
Significant
Impact Peculiar
to the Project
or the Project
Site
Significant
Impact due to
New
Information
Impact
Adequately
Addressed in
the General
Plan EIR
Impact not
Previously
Addressed in
General Plan
EIR
a) Induce substantial unplanned population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new
homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example,
through extension of roads or other infrastructure)?
X
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing people or
housing, necessitating the construction of replacement
housing elsewhere?
X
Project Impacts:

The proposed Project would result in the construction of a 412 single-family lot residential subdivision and related improvements on lands that are currently used for agricultural-related purposes, which would increase population growth within the Project vicinity. Using the most recent Department of Finance (2024) estimates for the average number of people residing in a dwelling unit in the City of Waterford of

2.99, the addition of 412 housing units could increase the population of the City by an estimated 1,232 persons.

As discussed further below, the proposed Project is consistent with the development density established in the General Plan and evaluated in the certified General Plan EIR and would not result in any peculiar new project- or site-specific impacts such that the prior environmental document would be inadequate.

Therefore, no further environmental review with respect to population and housing is necessary.

Prior Environmental Analysis:

General Plan
The General Plan EIR analyzed the anticipated population and housing impacts that would occur because of the future urban development that was contemplated by the General Plan, including the low-density residential uses contemplated for the Project site. These impacts included population growth and availability of housing opportunities (City of Waterford General Plan Draft EIR, pages 225 through 234).

As discussed in the General Plan EIR, the General Plan is a long-range planning document that establishes the City’s vision for growth patterns, including areas for development and lands for open space and conservation. The General Plan provides the framework for the City’s plan for growth and development, including new businesses, expansion of existing businesses, and new residential uses. Infrastructure and services would need to be extended to accommodate future growth.

The General Plan EIR’s analysis found that while development and buildout of the General Plan can result in population and housing impacts, implementation of the General Plan would not contribute to a significant generation of growth that would substantially exceed any established growth projections nor would it displace substantial numbers of housing units or people. As future development occurs under the General Plan, new roads, infrastructure, and services would be necessary to serve the development, and this infrastructure would accommodate planned growth. The General Plan is intended to accommodate City of Waterford PAGE 85

HIGHLAND POINTE RESIDENTIAL PROJECT

ENVIRONMENTAL

CHECKLIST
the City’s fair share of statewide housing needs, which are allocated by the SJCOG, based on regional numbers provided by the California Department of Housing and Community Development on a regular basis (every eight years). Moreover, the General Plan EIR noted that the General Plan includes policies and actions that mitigate environmental impacts associated with growth, such as air quality, noise, traffic, water supply, and water quality effects. Accordingly, the General Plan EIR determined these impacts would be less than significant. These impacts were adequately addressed in Chapter 3.13 of the General Plan EIR.

MDP
The MDP allows for development of up to 1,606 dwelling units within approximately 425 acres, implementing the City of Waterford General Plan’s land use designations and growth strategy. The MDP provides for a range of residential product types with net densities ranging from 3.0 to 20 dwelling units per acre, thereby accommodating diverse household sizes and income levels consistent with General Plan housing objectives. Section 1.7 further explains that project-specific environmental review would tier from the City’s General Plan Program EIR and include an expanded Initial Study addressing topics not otherwise covered, thereby ensuring that population growth and associated housing development occur within the environmental assumptions and mitigation framework previously analyzed.

Mitigation Measures/Uniformly Applied Development Policies and Standards Section 3.12 of the Lake Pointe Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration evaluates Population and Housing impacts and concludes that implementation of the proposed Master Development Plan, Pre-Zone, and Annexation would result in a planned increase in population through the development of up to 1,606 residential units, consistent with the Waterford Vision 2025 General Plan land use designations and growth projections. The project site is designated for residential development under the General Plan and is located within the City’s Sphere of Influence; therefore, the anticipated population growth is consistent with adopted policies intended to accommodate orderly urban expansion. The project would not displace existing housing units or require the relocation of substantial numbers of people, as the site is currently in agricultural use and largely undeveloped. Population growth associated with the project has been evaluated at the program level in the Waterford Vision 2025 General Plan PEIR, and associated impacts to public services, utilities, and infrastructure are addressed through compliance with General Plan policies, development impact fees, and the City’s development review process. Accordingly, impacts related to population growth and housing are considered less than significant, and no additional project-specific mitigation measures beyond uniformly applied development policies and standards are required.

Responses to Checklist Questions
Response a): Less than Significant. The proposed Project is consistent with the land use designation and development density established in the General Plan and can be considered planned growth assumed under the General Plan and would involve only infrastructure and improvements necessary to serve the proposed residential uses. Therefore, the proposed Project would not induce significant unplanned growth, either directly or indirectly, and thus it would not result in new significant impacts or more severe significant impacts than identified in the General Plan EIR. This is a less than significant impact, consistent with the impact conclusions set forth in the General Plan EIR.

HIGHLAND POINTE RESIDENTIAL PROJECT

ENVIRONMENTAL

CHECKLIST
City of Waterford PAGE 86
Response b): No Impact. The Project site is undeveloped from a residential perspective (only used for agricultural purposes) and does not include any housing or residents. Therefore, no impact would occur, and the proposed Project would not result in new significant impacts or more severe significant impacts than identified in the General Plan EIR. There would be no impact, consistent with the impact conclusions set forth in the General Plan EIR.

City of Waterford PAGE 87

HIGHLAND POINTE RESIDENTIAL PROJECT

ENVIRONMENTAL

CHECKLIST
XV. PUBLIC SERVICES
Significant
Impact Peculiar
to the Project
or the Project
Site
Significant
Impact due to
New
Information
Impact
Adequately
Addressed in
the General
Plan EIR
Impact not
Previously
Addressed in
General Plan
EIR
a) Would the project result in substantial adverse
physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the
construction of which could cause significant
environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable
service ratios, response times or other performance
objectives for any of the public services:

X
i) Fire protection? X
ii) Police protection? X
iii) Schools? X
iv) Parks? X
v) Other public facilities? X
Project Impacts:

The proposed Project consists of the development of a 412 single-family lot residential subdivision and related improvements and would be anticipated to increase the need for the provision of new and/or expanded public services or facilities.

As discussed further below, the proposed Project is consistent with the development density established in the General Plan and evaluated in the certified General Plan EIR and would not result in any peculiar new project- or site-specific impacts such that the prior environmental document would be inadequate.

Therefore, no further environmental review with respect to public services is necessary.

Prior Environmental Analysis:

General Plan
The General Plan EIR analyzed the anticipated impacts on the demand for fire and police protection and school and park and recreation facilities, as well as library and other community facilities, because of the future urban development that was contemplated by the General Plan. These impacts included increased demand for fire, police and school services, provision of adequate fire flow, and increased demand for parks and recreation (City of Waterford General Plan Draft EIR, pages 235 through 249). It found that while development and buildout of the General Plan can result in public services and facilities impacts, these impacts would be less than significant through compliance with applicable state and local standards related to the provision of public services and facilities and through the application of relevant General Plan goals and policies that would assist in minimizing or avoiding impacts to public services and facilities.

As the General Plan EIR disclosed, new and expanded facilities would be triggered over time but would primarily be provided on sites with land use designations that allow such uses and the environmental

HIGHLAND POINTE RESIDENTIAL PROJECT

ENVIRONMENTAL

CHECKLIST
City of Waterford PAGE 88
impacts of constructing and operating the governmental facilities would likely be like those associated with new development, redevelopment, and infrastructure projects under the General Plan. Those impacts are described in the relevant chapters of the General Plan EIR. As discussed in those chapters, the General Plan includes policies and actions that are specifically designed to reduce or avoid environmental impacts of construction and development, which includes public facilities. Other applicable standards and requirements would also come into play with development pursued under the General Plan. These goals, policies and standards include, but are not limited to the California Fire Code, the California Health and Safety Code, the Waterford Municipal Code, and goals and policies in the General Plan requiring periodic review of the City’s Development Impact Fee requirements, proportional share participation in the financial costs of public services and facilities pursuant to the City’s adopted fee schedule, maintaining adequate staffing levels, providing adequate access for emergency vehicles and evacuation routes, and requiring certain types of development that may generate higher demand or special needs to mitigate the demands/needs.

These impacts were adequately addressed in Chapter 3.14 of the General Plan EIR.

MDP
As described in Chapter 6, Public Facilities, of the Lake Pointe Master Development Plan (MDP), the project site would be served by established public service providers, including Stanislaus Consolidated Fire Protection District for fire protection, the Stanislaus County Sheriff for police protection, and the Waterford Unified School District for school services, with utilities and municipal services provided by the City of Waterford and other regional agencies. Pursuant to Section 1.7 (CEQA Compliance), project-level environmental review was prepared to address site-specific issues not otherwise covered in the General Plan Program EIR, thereby evaluating potential impacts to fire, police, schools, and other public services and ensuring that implementation of the MDP would not result in significant adverse impacts beyond those previously analyzed.

Mitigation Measures/Uniformly Applied Development Policies and Standards:

General Plan
All applicable policies and actions set forth in the General Plan and identified in the General Plan EIR relating to impacts on public services would be applied to the proposed Project. These serve as uniformly applied development policies and standards and/or as conditions of approval for the proposed Project to ensure consistency with the General Plan and compliance with applicable state and City laws, rules, and regulations.

MDP
Section 3.13, Public Services, of the Lake Pointe Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration evaluates potential impacts to fire protection, police protection, schools, parks, and other governmental services.

Consistent with the Waterford Vision 2025 General Plan and its Program EIR, the project would increase demand for public services as a result of up to 1,606 residential units and associated neighborhood commercial uses; however, impacts were determined to be less than significant with implementation of uniformly applied development policies, standards, and fee programs. Fire and emergency medical City of Waterford PAGE 89

HIGHLAND POINTE RESIDENTIAL PROJECT

ENVIRONMENTAL

CHECKLIST
services would be provided in accordance with City standards for response times, hydrant placement, water supply, emergency access, and building and fire code compliance. Police services would be funded through the City’s General Fund and supported by development impact fees and ongoing property and sales tax revenues generated by the project. School impacts would be addressed through compliance with State law, including payment of statutory school impact fees to the appropriate school district(s), which constitutes full mitigation under CEQA. Additional public facilities such as parks and civic services would be provided consistent with the General Plan, Quimby Act requirements, development impact fee programs, and the project’s Development Agreement.

No project-specific significant impacts to public services beyond those identified and addressed in the General Plan PEIR were found. Therefore, no additional mitigation measures are required beyond compliance with existing City policies, infrastructure standards, development impact fee requirements, school impact fees pursuant to Government Code §65995, and ongoing coordination with affected service providers. Mitigation Monitoring is not applicable, as impacts would be reduced to a less than significant level through adherence to established regulatory requirements and uniformly applied development standards.

Responses to Checklist Questions
Response a):
i) Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services: Less than Significant. All new future Project construction would be required to meet all applicable building and safety codes and would be required to be reviewed for safety access. The proposed Project would involve the development of typical low-density residential uses and thus result in planned population growth on the Project site (which is not in or near a high fire risk area). However, consistent with the General Plan EIR’s analysis, this anticipated Project demand is planned as part of the City’s land use vision and has been appropriately considered within the General Plan EIR and accommodated for in its public services planning, such as in the City of Waterford Municipal Service Review.
ii) Emergency vehicle access is anticipated to be sufficient along local roadways. Roads would be designed to comply with all applicable Fire Code and other standards and requirements. Emergency vehicles would have adequate ability to turn around on the Project site. Moreover, the Project’s circulation plan would connect to existing local roadways and planned access routes, which would ensure that emergency access is not impaired. Furthermore, applicable impact fees from the proposed Project would be collected in accordance with the City’s adopted fee schedule, which is reviewed on an annual basis to ensure that the fee is commensurate with the service and otherwise in accordance with legal nexus and other requirements under applicable laws and regulations. Compliance with all applicable Fire Code standards and other requirements and consistency with relevant General Plan policies and actions, along with payment of the applicable impact fees by the Project applicant as COAs prior to issuance of Project building permits, would ensure these impacts are less than significant. Furthermore, ongoing revenues that would come from property taxes generated by the proposed Project would help to fund capital and labor costs associated with fire protection services for the broader Waterford community.

HIGHLAND POINTE RESIDENTIAL PROJECT

ENVIRONMENTAL

CHECKLIST
City of Waterford PAGE 90
To provide adequate fire protection and suppression services to the Project site, the Stanislaus Consolidated Fire Protection District (SCFPD) must have access to adequate onsite hydrants with adequate fire-flow pressure available to meet the needs of fire suppression units. The final site plans and development specifications developed for the proposed Project would be required to indicate the location and design specifications of the fire hydrants that would be required within the Project site.

The proposed Project would be required to comply with all applicable General Plan policies and actions related to reducing fire risks. Project plans would also be reviewed by the SCFPD to ensure that the Project site has complied with relevant design criteria intended to address fire safety. The proposed Project is consistent with the Residential land use designation for the Project site and the development density established under the General Plan, and therefore to the extent that the proposed Project would increase demand for fire protection services, this was previously considered and evaluated by the General Plan EIR.

The proposed Project would not result in new significant impacts or substantially more severe significant impacts than identified in the General Plan EIR, no mitigation measures are required, and the criteria for requiring further CEQA review are not met. Therefore, this is considered a less than significant impact, consistent with the impact conclusions set forth in the General Plan EIR. iii) Police Protection: Less than Significant. The proposed Project would be located within the jurisdiction of the Waterford Police Department. All new future Project construction would be required to meet all applicable building and safety codes and would be required to be reviewed for safety access. The proposed Project would involve the development of residential uses and thus result in planned population growth on the Project site. However, consistent with the General Plan EIR’s analysis, this anticipated Project demand is planned as part of the City’s land use vision and has been appropriately considered within the General Plan EIR and accommodated for in its public services planning, such as in the City of Waterford Municipal Service Review, and would not require the development of any new or expanded Police Department facilities. The Water Police Department is expected to adequately serve the proposed Project without triggering the need for new or expanded facilities to maintain applicable acceptable response times.

Furthermore, applicable impact fees from the proposed Project would be collected in accordance with the City’s adopted fee schedule and pursuant to Project COAs, which is reviewed on an annual basis to ensure that the fee is commensurate with the service demands and otherwise in accordance with legal nexus and other requirements under applicable laws and regulations. Compliance with all applicable Fire Code standards and other requirements and consistency with relevant General Plan policies and actions, along with payment of the applicable impact fees by the Project applicant, would ensure these impacts are less than significant. Furthermore, ongoing revenues that would come from property taxes generated by the proposed Project would help to fund capital and labor costs associated with police services for the broader Waterford community.

The proposed Project would be served by the Waterford Police Department. As previously discussed, the proposed Project is consistent with the Residential land use designation for the Project site and the development density established under the General Plan, and therefore the extent that the proposed Project would increase demand for police protection services, this was previously considered by the General Plan EIR. The proposed Project would not result in new significant impacts or substantially more City of Waterford PAGE 91

HIGHLAND POINTE RESIDENTIAL PROJECT

ENVIRONMENTAL

CHECKLIST
severe significant impacts than identified in the General Plan EIR, no mitigation measures are required, and the criteria for requiring further CEQA review are not met.

Project implementation would not require the construction of new or expanded police facilities to serve the proposed Project to maintain acceptable response times and existing police protection service levels.

Therefore, this is considered a less than significant impact, consistent with the impact conclusions set forth in the General Plan EIR.
iv) Schools: Less than Significant. The proposed Project would be located within the jurisdiction of the Waterford Unified School District (WUSD). The proposed Project would involve the development of typical residential uses and thus result in planned population growth on the Project site. However, consistent with the General Plan EIR’s analysis, this anticipated Project demand is planned as part of the City’s land use vision and has been appropriately considered and accommodated for in its public services planning and would not require the development of any new or expanded school facilities.

Moreover, all new residential developments in the City are required to pay a developer impact fee to fund school improvement projects to mitigate impacts on school facilities, as applicable, which serve as the only permitted mitigation requirements under state law. The development impact fee is the source of school capital improvement funding provided by new development. Payment of the applicable school facilities fees by the Project applicant would constitute full mitigation, as explained further below. In addition, ongoing revenues that would come from property taxes generated by the proposed Project would help to fund improvements associated with school services for the benefit of the broader Waterford community.

According to Government Code Section 65996, the development fees authorized by SB 50 (1998) are deemed to be “full and complete school facilities mitigation” for any demands or impacts on school facilities caused by new development. The proposed Project includes the development of 412 additional housing units. The number of students generated by the proposed residential Project would be consistent with the levels assumed in General Plan EIR as the proposed Project is consistent with General Plan’s land use and density assumptions for the Project site.

As noted above, payment of the applicable school facilities fees by the Project applicant is considered to fully mitigate the impacts of new development on school facilities under Section 65996 of the California Government Code. Therefore, the proposed Project would not result in new significant impacts or substantially more severe significant impacts than identified in the General Plan EIR. No mitigation measures are required and the criteria for requiring further CEQA review are not met. Therefore, this is considered a less than significant impact, consistent with the impact conclusions set forth in the General Plan EIR.
v) Parks: Potential Project impacts to parks and recreational facilities are addressed in Section XVI below.
vi) Other Public Facilities: Less than Significant. The proposed Project would involve the development of typical residential uses and thus result in planned population growth on the Project site.

However, consistent with the General Plan EIR’s analysis, this anticipated Project demand is planned as part of the City’s land use vision and has been appropriately considered and accommodated for in its public services planning and would not require the development of any new or expanded library or other

HIGHLAND POINTE RESIDENTIAL PROJECT

ENVIRONMENTAL

CHECKLIST
City of Waterford PAGE 92
community facilities. Accordingly, the proposed Project is within the scope of projected growth under the General Plan and the anticipated uses on the Project site are assumed in the General Plan EIR.

Development anticipated under the proposed Project would be consistent with development levels analyzed in the Waterford General Plan EIR and would not trigger new or expanded facilities to maintain acceptable service ratios. Payment of any applicable impact fees would be required by the proposed Project upon issuance of a building permit. As discussed in the General Plan EIR, such impact fees, combined with other revenue sources, would ultimately fund the construction or expansion of other public facilities over time to offset the increased demand for these facilities due to General Plan buildout.

Therefore, the proposed Project would not result in new significant impacts or substantially more severe significant impacts than identified in the General Plan EIR. No mitigation measures are required and the criteria for requiring further CEQA review are not met. Therefore, this is considered a less than significant impact, consistent with the impact conclusions set forth in the General Plan EIR.

City of Waterford PAGE 93

HIGHLAND POINTE RESIDENTIAL PROJECT

ENVIRONMENTAL

CHECKLIST
XVI. RECREATION
Significant
Impact Peculiar
to the Project
or the Project
Site
Significant
Impact due to
New
Information
Impact
Adequately
Addressed in
the General
Plan EIR
Impact not
Previously
Addressed in
General Plan
EIR
a) Would the project increase the use of existing
neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational
facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated?
X
b) Does the project include recreational facilities or
require the construction or expansion of recreational
facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment?
X
Project Impacts:

The proposed Project includes the development of a 412 single-family lot residential subdivision and related improvements and would be anticipated to increase the use of, and demand for, recreational facilities. As discussed further below, the proposed Project is consistent with the development density established in the General Plan and evaluated in the certified General Plan EIR and would not result in any peculiar new project- or site-specific impacts such that the prior environmental document would be inadequate. Therefore, no further environmental review with respect to park and recreation is necessary.

Prior Environmental Analysis:

General Plan
The General Plan EIR analyzed the anticipated impacts on the demand for park and recreation facilities because of the future urban development that was contemplated by the General Plan. These impacts included increased demand for parks and recreation (City of Waterford General Plan Draft EIR, pages 250 through 258). The General Plan EIR determined that growth accommodated under the General Plan would include a range of uses that would increase the population of the City and attract additional workers and tourists to the City. Such growth would result in increased demand for parks and recreation facilities. The provision of new parks and recreation facilities would reduce the potential for adverse impacts and physical deterioration of existing parks and recreation facilities, by providing additional facilities to accommodate the demand for parks and recreation facilities. These new facilities would be provided at a pace and in locations appropriate to serve new development. In addition to ensuring that new and expanded parks and recreation facilities are provided to accommodate new growth, the General Plan includes policies and actions to ensure that parks and recreation facilities are adequately maintained and improved to serve both existing and planned growth.

The analysis found that while development and buildout of the General Plan can result in recreation facilities impacts, these impacts would be less than significant through the application of General Plan goals and policies that would assist in minimizing or avoiding impacts to recreation facilities as well as compliance with the City’s park dedication ordinance and applicable provisions of the state Quimby Act..

The General Plan has adopted goals and policies to ensure that this standard is met and is adequately funded, and that new development funds its fair share of services needed to meet General Plan objectives.

These goals and policies call for the provision of new park and recreational facilities as needed by new

HIGHLAND POINTE RESIDENTIAL PROJECT

ENVIRONMENTAL

CHECKLIST
City of Waterford PAGE 94
development through parkland dedication and the payment of park and recreation fees. Any new or expanded parks or recreational facilities that may be constructed in the future would be primarily provided on sites with land use designations that allow such uses and the environmental impacts of constructing and operating the parks and recreational facilities would likely be like those associated with new development, redevelopment, and infrastructure projects under the General Plan. These impacts are described in the relevant chapters of the General Plan EIR. As discussed therein, the General Plan includes policies and actions that are specifically designed to reduce or avoid environmental impacts of construction and development, which includes parks and recreational facilities.

In addition, compliance with other applicable state and local standards related to the provision of public services and facilities, combined with the above-referenced application of General Plan goals and policies, would assist in minimizing or avoiding impacts to public services and facilities, as noted above. The General Plan did not identify any mitigation measures but did include policies and actions that would serve to minimize potential impacts to park and recreational facilities of the City.

Mitigation Measures/Uniformly Applied Development Policies and Standards General Plan
All applicable General Plan policies and actions identified in the General Plan EIR related to impacts to park and recreation as well as all other applicable state and local standards (e.g., Quimby Act) would be applied to the proposed Project. These serve as uniformly applied development policies and standards and/or as conditions of approval for the proposed Project to ensure consistency with the relevant provisions of the General Plan and compliance with applicable state and City, laws, rules, and regulations.

MDP
Based on the analysis contained in Section 3.14 (Recreation) of the Lake Pointe Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration, the proposed Lake Pointe Master Development Plan includes a comprehensive system of parks, open space areas, pedestrian pathways, a recreation lake, and a recreational club intended to meet the needs of future residents consistent with the Waterford Vision 2025 General Plan standards. The proposed Project is largely consistent with and implements the intent of the MDP at a more detailed level of design. One exception is the removal of the “conceptual” 20-acre lake. The conceptual lake was an amenity that requires excessive water, water treatment, and maintenance, all of which are not currently desirable to the City of Waterford. The Tentative Map still contains a stormwater basin component needed for the subdivision, and also includes a 4.5-acre park area defined as Lot B. The project is required to comply with the City of Waterford’s parkland dedication requirements pursuant to the Quimby Act and applicable Municipal Code provisions, which require the dedication of land, payment of in-lieu fees, or a combination thereof to ensure adequate neighborhood and community park acreage is provided concurrent with residential development. In addition, the Master Development Plan incorporates on-site recreational amenities proportionate to the projected 1,606 residential units, thereby reducing potential physical deterioration of existing parks or the need for construction of new off-site facilities. Because the project provides integrated on-site recreational facilities consistent with General Plan policies and City standards, impacts to recreation facilities are considered less than significant. No additional project-specific mitigation measures beyond compliance with uniformly applied City parkland City of Waterford PAGE 95

HIGHLAND POINTE RESIDENTIAL PROJECT

ENVIRONMENTAL

CHECKLIST
dedication requirements and development standards are required, and mitigation monitoring is not applicable.

Responses to Checklist Questions
Responses a), b): Less than Significant. As discussed in the General Plan EIR, new residents from development allowed by the General Plan would increase the demand for park and recreational opportunities and facilities. Consistent with this General Plan EIR analysis, the proposed Project would generate demand associated with its proposed low-density residential uses. Accordingly, pursuant to the General Plan’s performance standard, the proposed Project includes construction and operation of additional park and recreational facilities, and would be required to pay applicable in-lieu fees for any remaining acreage required under the General Plan park performance standard (5 acres per 1,000 residents) not covered by the on-site park and recreational facilities. Consistent with the General Plan EIR’s analysis, the proposed Project would be required to be consistent with applicable General Plan policies and actions that would support parkland goals, and as described in the City of Waterford Municipal Code. Contribution of required park and recreational facilities, combined with payment of applicable in lieu fees, along with generation of property tax revenue, would aid in the development of new and expanded park and recreational space and maintenance as required and as planned for under the General Plan, to ensure continued park facilities for all City residents.

As noted above, the proposed Project is within the scope of projected growth under the General Plan and the anticipated uses and density for the Project site areas assumed in the General Plan EIR. The proposed Project would not result in new significant impacts or substantially more severe significant impacts than identified in the General Plan EIR. The criteria for requiring further CEQA review are not met. As such, this is a less than significant impact, consistent with the impact conclusions of the General Plan EIR.

HIGHLAND POINTE RESIDENTIAL PROJECT

ENVIRONMENTAL

CHECKLIST
City of Waterford PAGE 96
XVII. TRANSPORTATION
Significant
Impact Peculiar
to the Project
or the Project
Site
Significant
Impact due to
New
Information
Impact
Adequately
Addressed in
the General
Plan EIR
Impact not
Previously
Addressed in
General Plan
EIR
a) Conflict with a program plan, ordinance, or policy
addressing the circulation system, including transit,
roadway, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities?
X
b) Would the project conflict or be inconsistent with
CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3, subdivision (b)? X
c) Substantially increase hazards due to a geometric
design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous
intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm
equipment)?
X
d) Result in inadequate emergency access? X
Project Impacts:

The development of the proposed Project would result in construction activities and the development and occupation of the residential buildings (as well as related improvements) that would result in transportation impacts because a site that is not currently developed with urban uses would become developed with the proposed residential uses.

As discussed further below, the proposed Project is consistent with the development density established in the General Plan and evaluated in the certified General Plan EIR and would not result in any peculiar new project- or site-specific impacts such that the prior environmental document would be inadequate.

Therefore, no further environmental review with respect to transportation is necessary.

Prior Environmental Analysis
General Plan
The General Plan EIR analyzed the anticipated impacts of transportation associated with the future urban development that was contemplated by the General Plan. As discussed below, the General Plan EIR concluded that it can be expected that the growth resulting from the implementation of the Waterford General Plan will contribute to the significant transportation problem. The General Plan EIR concluded that the General Plan would contribute to the cumulative deterioration of the transportation system as an overall consequence of regional growth and this is considered a “significant” adverse impact under CEQA.

The City adopted a statement of overriding considerations when certifying the General Plan EIR.

MDP
The MDP incorporates prior environmental review conducted for the City of Waterford General Plan. As described in Section 1.7, CEQA Compliance, the project‐specific environmental review includes preparation of an expanded Initial Study addressing transportation and related topics not otherwise covered in the City’s General Plan Program EIR (Lake Pointe Master Development Plan [MDP], §1.7).

Chapter 5, Circulation, establishes the project’s multimodal transportation framework, including a City of Waterford PAGE 97

HIGHLAND POINTE RESIDENTIAL PROJECT

ENVIRONMENTAL

CHECKLIST
hierarchical street system, pedestrian and bicycle connectivity (Section 5.1), and automobile circulation improvements (Section 5.2), supported by detailed roadway cross-sections (Figures 5-3 through 5-8) to ensure adequate capacity and safe access at buildout (MDP, ch. 5, pp. 44–53). In addition, Chapter 8, Relationship to the General Plan, specifically addresses consistency with adopted policies related to Streets & Roads (Section 8.6), Alternative Transportation (Section 8.7), and Vehicle Trip Reduction (Section 8.8), confirming that the MDP implements General Plan policies promoting connectivity, reduced short vehicle trips through neighborhood-serving commercial uses, and enhanced pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure (MDP, ch. 8, pp. 70–71).

Mitigation Measures/Uniformly Applied Development Policies and Standards Based on the analysis contained in Section 3.15 (Transportation & Traffic) of the Lake Pointe Master Development Plan Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration, transportation impacts are addressed from the Waterford Vision 2025 General Plan EIR, which identified regional traffic increases and congestion along Highway 132 and “F” Street as significant and unavoidable impacts, for which a Statement of Overriding Considerations was previously adopted by the City. The Initial Study concludes that the Lake Pointe project is consistent with the General Plan circulation policies, which promote neotraditional design, internal street connectivity, pedestrian facilities, and reduction of vehicle miles traveled to the maximum extent feasible. Uniformly applied development policies and standards include preparation of project-level traffic analysis, compliance with City roadway design standards, construction of required frontage and intersection improvements, participation in applicable regional and local traffic impact fee programs, and coordination with Caltrans for improvements affecting State Route 132. Because regional traffic growth is largely outside the City’s control, no additional project-specific mitigation beyond implementation of General Plan policies, fair-share infrastructure improvements, and applicable fee programs is feasible. With incorporation of these uniformly applied standards and required improvements, project-level impacts would be reduced to less than significant; however, cumulative regional transportation impacts remain significant and unavoidable consistent with the certified General Plan EIR.

Responses to Checklist Questions
Response a): Less than Significant. The proposed roadway layout maintains a high degree of connectivity within the Project site, and to surrounding streets. All roadway improvements and designs align with and are consistent with adopted transportation-related programs, plans, ordinances, and policies for Waterford. Therefore, the proposed Project is not expected to adversely impact the circulation system, including planned transit, roadway, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities. Therefore, this is a less than significant impact, consistent with the impact conclusions set forth in the General Plan EIR.

Response b): Less than Significant. As of July 1, 2020, CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3(b) states that the required metric for the evaluation of transportation impacts is VMT (rather than LOS). It outlines the criteria for analyzing a project’s transportation impacts. For land use projects, this section states that “vehicle miles traveled exceeding an applicable threshold of significance may indicate a significant impact.”

HIGHLAND POINTE RESIDENTIAL PROJECT

ENVIRONMENTAL

CHECKLIST
City of Waterford PAGE 98
As noted in Appendix D, the quantitative VMT analysis shows that under both Baseline and Cumulative Conditions, the proposed Project would not result in a 15 percent reduction in vehicle miles traveled per dwelling unit when compared to City of Waterford averages. Instead, the proposed Project would result in a 2.6% project-generated daily VMT increase per household compared to the City of Waterford average under Baseline Conditions. Additionally, the proposed Project would result in a 1.2% project-generated daily VMT decrease per household compared to the City of Waterford average under Cumulative Conditions.

Nevertheless, as noted in Appendix D, the proposed Project is consistent with the City of Waterford General Plan land use designation and allowable development density for which an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) has been certified, resulting in a less-than-significant transportation impact under the first bullet criteria for the VMT threshold. In addition, the City of Waterford has assumed the existing land use and development density for this location since these land uses were established by the City Council in 2007. The proposed Project is a small portion of the General Plan and MDP approval and is a step toward implementation of the General Plan and MDP. The growth proposed is consistent with the City’s longstanding growth assumptions in this Traffic Analysis Zone (TAZ). As such, implementation of the proposed Project results in a less-than-significant transportation impact under the second bullet criteria for the VMT threshold.

Therefore, the primary conclusions of the VMT analysis for the proposed Project are:
• A less-than-significant transportation impact because the proposed project is consistent with General Plan land use designation and allowable development thresholds for which an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) has been certified; and • A less-than-significant transportation impact because the proposed project is Consistent with the City of Waterford’s projected land use growth within the project’s Traffic Analysis Zone (TAZ) In addition to the required VMT analysis under CEQA, an Intersection Level of Service (LOS) analysis was prepared for informational purposes and to evaluate consistency with City of Waterford performance standards, as documented in Appendix D (Transportation Impact Analysis Report, February 24, 2026).

The study evaluated seven (7) key study intersections under Existing (Year 2025), Existing with Project, Cumulative No Project (Year 2047), and Cumulative with Project conditions during both AM and PM peak hours.

Under Existing with Project conditions, all study intersections are projected to continue operating at acceptable LOS A, B, or C conditions during both AM and PM peak hours. The F Street / Hickman Road / SR 132 (Yosemite Boulevard) signalized intersection would continue to operate at LOS C in both peak periods with the addition of project traffic. The project access intersection at Tim Bell Road / Vineyard Road would operate at LOS B for the westbound side-street stop-controlled approach under both AM and PM peak hour conditions.

Under Cumulative with Project conditions, all seven study intersections are projected to continue operating at acceptable LOS A, B, or C conditions during both AM and PM peak hours. No intersection City of Waterford PAGE 99

HIGHLAND POINTE RESIDENTIAL PROJECT

ENVIRONMENTAL

CHECKLIST
would operate at deficient levels attributable to project traffic. Therefore, the Project would result in a less-than-significant impact relative to Existing and Cumulative Intersection Level of Service conditions A Roadway Segment Level of Service analysis was also conducted using Average Daily Traffic (ADT) volumes for five (5) roadway segments in the project vicinity, as detailed in Appendix D. Under Existing with Project conditions, all roadway segments would operate at acceptable LOS A, B, or C conditions. Tim Bell Road segments would operate at LOS A or B, and Vineyard Road between Tim Bell Road and the Project site would operate at LOS C.

Under Cumulative with Project conditions, all roadway segments would continue to operate at acceptable LOS A, B, or C conditions. No roadway widening would be required to maintain acceptable segment operations. Therefore, the Project would result in a less-than-significant impact relative to Existing and Cumulative Daily (24-hour) Roadway Segment Level of Service.

Based on the comprehensive Transportation Impact Analysis (Appendix D), the following conclusions and recommendations apply:
• A less-than-significant transportation impact relative to Existing with Project AM and PM Peak Hour Intersection Level of Service;
• A less-than-significant transportation impact relative to Cumulative with Project AM and PM Peak Hour Intersection Level of Service;
• A less-than-significant transportation impact relative to Existing with Project Daily (24-hour) Roadway Segment Level of Service; and
• A less-than-significant transportation impact relative to Cumulative with Project Daily (24-hour) Roadway Segment Level of Service.

This impact conclusion is consistent with the impact conclusions of the General Plan EIR, which includes the City’s adopted Statement of Overriding Considerations.

Response c): Less than Significant. Proposed street sections for new streets to be constructed by the proposed Project meet the minimum City of Waterford design standards for residential streets.

Furthermore, proposed street improvements would provide continuous and connected sidewalks. The proposed improvements and corresponding design features are compatible with the proposed and neighborhood uses; therefore, the Project would not prevent or obstruct access or connectivity with future development. Additionally, the project would provide a sidewalk on the west side of Tim Bell Road to provide a pedestrian connection to the existing sidewalk located to the south. The proposed design does not present hazards due to a geometric design feature or incompatible uses. Therefore, this impact would be less than significant, consistent with the impact conclusions of the General Plan EIR.

Response d): Less than Significant. The proposed Project includes multiple access points (on Vineyard Road) connecting the Project site with the nearby streets. All proposed on-site streets would meet minimum street design standards and provide adequate emergency vehicle access. Therefore, this is considered a less than significant impact, consistent with the impact conclusions of the General Plan EIR.

HIGHLAND POINTE RESIDENTIAL PROJECT

ENVIRONMENTAL

CHECKLIST
City of Waterford PAGE 100
XVIII. TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES
Significant
Impact Peculiar
to the Project
or the Project
Site
Significant
Impact due to
New
Information
Impact
Adequately
Addressed in
the General
Plan EIR
Impact not
Previously
Addressed in
General Plan
EIR
Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code Section 21074 as either a site,
feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and that is:

X
a) Listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code Section
5020.1(k)?
X
b) A resource determined by the lead agency, in its
discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1? In applying the criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1, the lead agency shall consider the significance of the resources to a California Native
American tribe.

X
Project Impacts:

As discussed further below, the proposed Project is consistent with the development density established in the General Plan and evaluated in the certified General Plan EIR and would not result in any peculiar new project- or site-specific impacts such that the prior environmental document would be inadequate.

Therefore, no further environmental review with respect to tribal cultural resources is necessary.

Impacts from future development pursued under the General Plan could impact unknown archaeological resources including Native American artifacts and human remains. Compliance with the General Plan policies and actions, as well as State and local laws, regulations and guidelines would provide an opportunity to identify, disclose, and avoid or minimize the disturbance of and impacts to a tribal cultural resource through tribal consultation and CEQA review procedures. Therefore, impacts related to tribal cultural resources because of General Plan implementation would be considered less than significant. For example, the General Plan policies would protect historical archaeological deposits in the Planning Area by providing for the early detection of potential conflicts between development and resource protection, and by preventing or minimizing the material impairment of the ability of archaeological deposits to convey their significance through excavation or preservation. Implementation of the General Plan, as well as compliance with other federal, State, and local laws and regulations detailed in the General Plan EIR, would ensure potential impacts to historical archaeological deposits and other tribal cultural resources are less than significant.

City of Waterford PAGE 101

HIGHLAND POINTE RESIDENTIAL PROJECT

ENVIRONMENTAL

CHECKLIST
Responses to Checklist Questions
Responses a-b): Consistent with the General Plan EIR’s analysis, due to the possible presence of undiscovered/undocumented archeological or Tribal Cultural Resources within the Project site, appropriate steps to preserve and/or document any previously undiscovered resources that may be encountered during construction and/or operational activities, including human remains, would be required. The Waterford General Plan includes policies and actions that would reduce impacts to cultural, historic, and archaeological resources, as well as policies and actions for the conservation of cultural, historic, and archaeological resources. As such, the proposed Project would be required to be consistent with all applicable General Plan policies and actions and is consistent with the adopted vision and uses identified within the General Plan. Moreover, it would be required to implement Project Requirement TRI1 as well as comply with all other applicable federal, state, and local laws and regulations. Therefore, the proposed Project would not result in any new significant impact or an increase in severity of previously identified impacts beyond those that were already addressed in the General Plan EIR. Implementation of the following Project requirement would further ensure the potential impacts are less than significant, consistent with the impact conclusions set forth in the General Plan EIR.

Project Requirement(s) – To Be Imposed as An Enforceable Project Condition of Approval Project Requirement TRI-1: If presently undocumented buried archaeological deposits are encountered during future Project-associated construction activities, work must cease within a 50-foot radius of the discovery. A qualified archaeologist must be retained to document the discovery, assess its significance, and recommend treatment. If human remains or any associated funerary artifacts are discovered during construction, all work must cease within the immediate vicinity of the discovery. In accordance with the California Health and Safety Code (Section 7050.5), the Stanislaus County Sheriff/Coroner must be contacted immediately. If the Coroner determines the remains to be of Native American origin, the Coroner will notify the Native American Heritage Commission, which will in turn appoint a Most Likely Descendent (MLD) to act as a tribal representative. The MLD will work with the Project proponent/applicant and a qualified archaeologist to determine the proper treatment of the human remains and any associated funerary objects.

Construction activities will not resume until either the human remains are exhumed, or the remains are avoided via project construction design change.

HIGHLAND POINTE RESIDENTIAL PROJECT

ENVIRONMENTAL

CHECKLIST
City of Waterford PAGE 102
XIX. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
Significant
Impact Peculiar
to the Project
or the Project
Site
Significant
Impact due to
New
Information
Impact
Adequately
Addressed in
the General
Plan EIR
Impact not
Previously
Addressed in
General Plan
EIR
a) Require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment or storm
water drainage, electric power, natural gas, or
telecommunications facilities, the construction or
relocation of which could cause significant
environmental effects?
X
b) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project and reasonably foreseeable future development
during normal, dry and multiple dry years?
X
c) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the projects projected
demand in addition to the providers existing
commitments?
X
d) Generate solid waste in excess of state or local
standards, or in excess of the capacity of local
infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of
solid waste reductions goals?
X
e) Comply with federal, state, and local management and reduction statutes and regulations related to solid
waste?
X
Project Impacts:

The proposed Project includes the development of a 412 single-family lot residential subdivision and related improvements and would be anticipated to increase the use of, and demand for utilities and service systems. Public utilities would be constructed with the proposed Project, including the extension of water, sewer, storm, solid waste, and dry utilities into the Project site. Fire hydrants would be installed per applicable City of Waterford standards. Storm mains would be installed within the subdivision to serve the proposed Project.

As discussed in greater detail below, there is adequate wastewater treatment and water capacity to meet the water and wastewater treatment, conveyance and supply demands of the proposed Project, and no expansions of City facilities in this regard would be required because of the proposed Project. The proposed Project will rely in part on a new municipal groundwater well to be installed by the City, which will augment existing City groundwater production capacity and ensure sufficient potable water is available at buildout. The City’s water supply portfolio includes groundwater resources and may include surface water supplies, where available, consistent with applicable water rights, contracts, and regulatory requirements. The combined groundwater production capacity, including the planned new well, together with any available surface water supplies, is sufficient to meet the projected water demands of the proposed Project. Utility extensions to the Project site are nearby and would need to extend services to serve the Project site.

City of Waterford PAGE 103

HIGHLAND POINTE RESIDENTIAL PROJECT

ENVIRONMENTAL

CHECKLIST
As discussed further below, the proposed Project is consistent with the development density established in the General Plan and evaluated in the certified General Plan EIR and would not result in any peculiar new project- or site-specific impacts such that the prior environmental document would be inadequate.

Therefore, no further environmental review with respect to utilities and service systems is necessary.

Prior Environmental Analysis:

General Plan
The General Plan EIR analyzed the anticipated impacts on the demand for utilities and service systems because of the future urban development that was contemplated by the General Plan. These impacts included increased demand for utilities and service systems (City of Waterford General Plan Draft EIR, pages 277 through 327). The analysis found that while development and buildout of the General Plan can result in utilities and service system impacts, these impacts would be at a less than significant level through the application of General Plan goals and policies that would assist in minimizing or avoiding impacts to utilities and service systems. In addition, compliance with state and local standards related to the provision of utilities and service systems combined with the application of General Plan goals and policies would assist in minimizing or avoiding impacts on utilities and service systems, as noted above.

The General Plan did not identify any mitigation measures but did include policies and actions that would serve to minimize potential impacts to utilities and service systems of the City.

MDP
The MDP comprehensively addresses public services and utilities in Chapter 6, Public Facilities, and Chapter 8, Relationship to the General Plan – Public Services and Facilities. As described in Section 6.1 through 6.5, potable water, non-potable water, sanitary sewer, and storm drainage services will be provided by the City of Waterford, with solid waste service provided by Waste Management (Lake Pointe MDP, ch. 6, pp. 54–58 ). The MDP includes conceptual infrastructure plans for potable water, sanitary sewer, and storm drainage, demonstrating the framework for extending and financing necessary utility improvements concurrent with phased development. Chapter 7, Implementation, further establishes that public facility financing and capital improvements will be coordinated through the City’s Capital Improvement Program to ensure adequate service capacity prior to occupancy (Lake Pointe MDP, ch. 7, §§7.11–7.12). Additionally, Section 8.9 confirms consistency with the Waterford Vision 2025 General Plan policies requiring that public services and facilities be available to meet the demands of new development (Lake Pointe MDP, ch. 8, §8.9). As a result of the prior environmental analysis prepared for the Waterford General Plan Program EIR and the project-specific CEQA review identified in Section 1.7, public service impacts associated with water, wastewater, stormwater, and solid waste infrastructure were evaluated at the program and project levels, and no significant adverse impacts beyond those previously identified are anticipated, provided that development proceeds in accordance with the MDP infrastructure plans, City standards, and applicable mitigation measures (Lake Pointe MDP, §1.7).

Mitigation Measure/Uniformly Applied Development Policies and Standards General Plan
All applicable policies and standards identified in the General Plan to reduce impacts on utility and service systems would be applied to the proposed Project. These serve as uniformly applied development policies

HIGHLAND POINTE RESIDENTIAL PROJECT

ENVIRONMENTAL

CHECKLIST
City of Waterford PAGE 104
and standards and/or as conditions of approval for the proposed Project to ensure consistency with the General Plan and compliance with other applicable federal, state and City laws, rules, and regulations.

MDP
Based on the analysis contained in Section 3.13 (Public Services) and Section 3.16 (Utilities and Service Systems) of the Lake Pointe Master Development Plan Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration, the proposed project would result in less-than-significant impacts to water supply, wastewater treatment, stormwater drainage, and solid waste services through compliance with the City of Waterford Vision 2025 General Plan policies, Municipal Code requirements, and uniformly applied development standards. The project is required to connect to the City’s municipal water and wastewater systems, demonstrate adequate water supply availability consistent with the prepared Water Supply Assessment, construct onsite and off-site sewer, water, and storm drain infrastructure in accordance with City Improvement Standards, and comply with applicable National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit requirements and Clean Water Act provisions for stormwater discharge. In addition, the applicant is required to pay all applicable development impact and connection fees to ensure that expanded public facilities maintain acceptable service ratios, and to coordinate with the Modesto Irrigation District for water and storm drainage facilities, as applicable. The project must also comply with local and state diversion requirements. Because the project incorporates these uniformly applied policies, standards, and regulatory requirements, the Initial Study concludes that no project-specific mitigation measures beyond compliance with existing regulations are required, and impacts to public services and utilities would remain less than significant.

Responses to Checklist Questions
Responses a), c): Less than Significant. As Waterford continues to develop in the future, there will be an increased need for water and wastewater services, potentially including a reliable source of water and recycled water. Future needs of wastewater processing have been addressed in the City master plans and would require that the City continue to implement phased improvements to some pump stations, sewer mains, and the various wastewater treatment plants when triggered by growth. While full buildout of the development contemplated in the General Plan would slightly increase the existing treatment demand at the districts’ treatment plants, the proposed General Plan includes a range of policies designed to ensure an adequate wastewater treatment capacity for development.

The General Plan EIR concluded that wastewater generation and discharges from development allowed under the General Plan, including the residential uses contemplated for the Project site, would not cause exceedances of wastewater treatment requirements for effluent or capacity of the wastewater treatment plant, and impacts would be less than significant.

The proposed Project is consistent with the General Plan land use designation of residential and the development density established thereunder. Accordingly, for the reasons set forth in the General Plan EIR, the City has adequate capacity to serve the proposed Project’s projected demand for wastewater treatment services in addition to its existing and other future commitments, and no improvements or expansions to the existing wastewater treatment plant are required to serve the proposed Project. The City of Waterford PAGE 105

HIGHLAND POINTE RESIDENTIAL PROJECT

ENVIRONMENTAL

CHECKLIST
addition of Project-generated wastewater would not result in any CVRWQCB violations related to effluent treatment or discharge.

The General Plan designates the Project site for Residential Single use, and the proposed Project is consistent with that land use designation. Therefore, the proposed Project is considered planned growth and to the extent that the proposed Project would require new or expanded water, wastewater, stormwater, electrical and natural gas facilities, this was previously considered by the General Plan EIR.

For these reasons, the proposed Project would not result in new or more severe significant impacts disclosed in the General Plan EIR. The criteria for requiring further CEQA review are not met.

Implementation of the proposed Project would have a less than significant impact, consistent with the impact conclusions set forth in the General Plan EIR.

Response b): Less than Significant. As discussed at length in the General Plan EIR, implementation of the General Plan would result in increased population and employment growth within the Planning Area, and a corresponding increase in the demand for additional water supplies. Consistent with these conclusions, the construction and operation of the proposed Project would increase water demand onsite. The General Plan designates the Project site for Residential Single use, and the proposed Project is consistent with the land use designation and development density established thereunder.

The General Plan EIR noted that the General Plan includes a range of policies designed to ensure an adequate water supply for development and to minimize the potential adverse effects of increased water use. As detailed therein, projected water demands associated with General Plan buildout would not exceed the projected available water supplies, and the General Plan includes a comprehensive set of goals, policies, and actions to ensure an adequate and reliable source of clean potable water. Therefore, impacts associated with sufficient water supplies to serve future development, including the residential uses contemplated for the Project site, during normal, single dry, and multiple dry years are less than significant. The policies and actions listed therein would further assist in ensuring that adequate water supplies are available to serve new growth projected under the proposed General Plan. The proposed Project is considered planned growth and to the extent that the proposed Project would require additional water supply and/or water treatment, this was previously considered by the General Plan EIR. For these reasons, the proposed Project would not result in new or more severe significant impacts than those disclosed in the General Plan EIR. The criteria for requiring further CEQA review are not met. Therefore, this is a less than significant impact, consistent with the impact conclusions set forth in the General Plan EIR.

Responses d), e): Less than Significant. The proposed Project would not generate significant or abnormal volumes of solid waste. Because the General Plan EIR determined that solid waste capacity is adequate to serve the demand resulting from General Plan build-out and the proposed Project’s use is consistent with the General Plan land use designation for the Project site and the development density established thereunder, the proposed Project would not result in new significant impacts or an increase in severity of previously identified significant impacts than those identified in the General Plan EIR.

Furthermore, the General Plan EIR concluded that construction and operation of development allowed under the General Plan would not conflict with applicable State and local laws and regulations governing solid waste disposal and diversion, and the General Plan includes policies and actions to promote

HIGHLAND POINTE RESIDENTIAL PROJECT

ENVIRONMENTAL

CHECKLIST
City of Waterford PAGE 106
consistency with other solid waste regulations. Consistent with the analysis in the General Plan EIR, the proposed Project would be required to comply with all applicable federal, state, and local laws and regulations regarding solid waste. To the extent that the proposed Project would generate both construction and operational solid waste, this was previously considered by the General Plan EIR. For these reasons, the proposed Project would not result in new or more severe significant impacts disclosed in the General Plan FEIR. The criteria for requiring further CEQA review are not met. Therefore, this is a less than significant impact, consistent with the impact conclusions set forth in the General Plan EIR.

City of Waterford PAGE 107

HIGHLAND POINTE RESIDENTIAL PROJECT

ENVIRONMENTAL

CHECKLIST
XX. WILDFIRE
Significant
Impact
Peculiar to the
Project or the
Project Site
Significant
Impact due to
New
Information
Impact
Adequately
Addressed in
the General
Plan EIR
Impact not
Previously
Addressed in
General Plan
EIR
If located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones, would the project:
a) Substantially impair an adopted emergency response
plan or emergency evacuation plan? X
b) Due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors,
exacerbate wildfire risks, and thereby expose project
occupants to, pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire?
X
c) Require the installation or maintenance of associated infrastructure (such as roads, fuel breaks, emergency water sources, power lines, or other utilities) that may exacerbate fire risk or that may result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment?
X
d) Expose people or structures to significant risks, including downslope or downstream flooding or landslides, as a
result of runoff, post-fire slope instability, or drainage changes?
X
Project Impacts
The Project site is not located in or near a State Responsibility Area (SRA) and is not classified as a very high fire hazard severity zone (FHSZ), like other portions of the City of Waterford. Accordingly, Project impacts would be less than significant in this regard.

Prior Environmental Review:

General Plan
The General Plan EIR did not include a dedicated analysis of wildfire impacts as consideration of the potentially significant wildfire implications of a project were not required at the time it was written.

However, the General Plan EIR included consideration of a host of relevant adopted laws, regulations and policies that ensure that hazardous materials would be limited such that risk of wildfire is reduced.

Consistency with these standards, as well as other applicable federal, State and City laws and regulations, would ensure reductions in wildfire risks to greatest extent feasible.

In addition, the General Plan ensures that there are adequate fire protection service providers in the event of a fire by directing the City to maintain adequate staffing levels to support achieving the City’s service level goals for fire protection. Furthermore, as discussed in the General Plan EIR, State and City laws and regulations have established structural fire resistance and protection standards, as well as requirements regarding debris and vegetation in wildfire hazard areas.

HIGHLAND POINTE RESIDENTIAL PROJECT

ENVIRONMENTAL

CHECKLIST
City of Waterford PAGE 108
MDP
The MDP addresses wildfire and fire protection considerations through its regulatory framework and public services planning. As stated in Section 1.7, CEQA Compliance, the project-specific environmental review includes preparation of an expanded Initial Study to address site-specific issues not otherwise covered in the City of Waterford General Plan Program EIR, thereby incorporating prior environmental analysis into subsequent review tiers (Lake Pointe Master Development Plan sec. 1.7). With respect to fire protection and emergency response, Chapter 6 identifies Stanislaus Consolidated Fire Protection District as the service provider (sec. 6.10), ensuring that development within the 425-acre MDP area would be served by established fire protection infrastructure and emergency services. Additionally, Chapter 8 (Safety) affirms consistency with the City’s General Plan policies related to public health and safety, which encompass fire hazard risk reduction through urban design, infrastructure planning, and adherence to applicable building and fire codes. Because the plan area is characterized primarily by existing agricultural uses and is planned for urban development contiguous with the City’s northeast boundary, wildfire risks are addressed through urban service extension, required fire protection standards, and compliance with General Plan safety policies. Therefore, prior environmental analysis under the General Plan Program EIR, combined with project-level CEQA review and established fire service provision, provides the framework for evaluating and mitigating potential wildfire impacts.

Mitigation Measures/Uniformly Applied Development Policies and Standards General Plan
All applicable policies and standards identified in the General Plan EIR relevant to wildland fire and emergency response would be applied to the proposed Project. In addition, all other applicable requirements and standards under state and local laws and regulations relating to fire safety will be imposed on the proposed Project. These serve as uniformly applied development policies and standards and/or as conditions of approval for the proposed Project to ensure consistency with the relevant provisions of the General Plan, Fire Code and Municipal Code and compliance with all other applicable state and City laws, rules, and regulations.

MDP
Based on the analysis contained in the Lake Pointe Master Development Plan Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration, Wildfire impacts are considered less than significant. Because the project is consistent with the General Plan policies and will implement uniformly applied development standards related to fire protection and emergency response, no project-specific significant wildfire impacts have been identified and no additional mitigation measures beyond compliance with adopted codes and standards are required.

Responses to Checklist Questions
Response a): Less than Significant. The Project site is not located in or near a State Responsibility Area (SRA) and is not classified as a very high fire hazard severity zone (FHSZ), and therefore impacts would be less than significant. For informational purposes, it is noted that the Project site would connect to an existing network of City streets, which would be further enhanced by the proposed Project. The appropriate turning radiuses, in accordance with the applicable Fire Code requirements, have been City of Waterford PAGE 109

HIGHLAND POINTE RESIDENTIAL PROJECT

ENVIRONMENTAL

CHECKLIST
planned to accommodate fire trucks (including turning radius) on-site. The proposed improvements would allow for greater emergency access relative to existing conditions. Moreover, the proposed Project would require building construction to meet all applicable Fire Code requirements, and would have fire hydrants in accordance with the standards of the City; such fire hydrants would assist with fire suppression efforts if a fire was to occur on or near the Project site. The proposed Project would also not impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan. Implementation of the proposed Project would not alter any roadways, access points, or otherwise degrade traffic operations and access to the area in such a way as to interfere with an emergency response or evacuation plan.

Therefore, impacts from Project implementation would be considered less than significant impact relative to adopted emergency response plans or evacuation plans. Moreover, the proposed Project would also be constructed in accordance with applicable California Fire Code requirements for emergency access as directed by the City’s Fire Department preliminary review. For these reasons, the proposed Project would not result in new or more severe significant impacts disclosed in the General Plan EIR, and impacts in this regard would be less than significant, consistent with the impact conclusions set forth therein.

Response b): Less than Significant. The Project site is not located in or near a State Responsibility Area (SRA) and is not classified as a very high fire hazard severity zone (FHSZ), and therefore impacts would be less than significant. For informational purposes, the following is noted.

The risk of wildfire is related to a variety of parameters, including fuel loading (vegetation), fire weather (winds, temperatures, humidity levels and fuel moisture contents) and topography (degree of slope).

Steep slopes contribute to fire hazard by intensifying the effects of wind and making fire suppression difficult. Fuels such as grass are highly flammable because they have a high surface area to mass ratio and require less heat to reach the ignition point. The Project site is in an area that is predominately residential, which is not considered at a significant risk of wildfire. There are no steep slopes on or near the Project site. Development of the proposed Project would not exacerbate fire risks. Therefore, impacts from Project implementation would be considered less than significant impact relative to the spread of wildfire.

Moreover, the proposed Project would also be constructed in accordance with California Fire Code requirements for emergency access as directed by the City’s Fire Department preliminary review. The General Plan EIR determined that implementation of the General Plan would have a less than significant impact relative to this topic. For these reasons, the proposed Project would not result in new or more severe significant impacts disclosed in the General Plan EIR, and impacts in this regard would be less than significant, consistent with the impact conclusions set forth therein.

Response c): Less than Significant. The Project site is not located in or near a State Responsibility Area (SRA) and is not classified as a very high fire hazard severity zone (FHSZ), and therefore impacts would be less than significant. For informational purposes, the following is noted.

The proposed Project includes development of infrastructure (water, sewer, and storm drainage) to serve the proposed residential buildings. The proposed Project does not include the construction of fuel breaks, emergency water sources, or power lines. As noted above, the proposed Project would require fire hydrants in accordance with the applicable standards of the City and Fire Code, and such fire hydrants would assist with fire suppression efforts if a fire was to occur. The proposed infrastructure improvements would allow for decreased fire risk relative to existing conditions. Therefore, impacts from Project implementation would be considered less than significant impact relative to infrastructure that may

HIGHLAND POINTE RESIDENTIAL PROJECT

ENVIRONMENTAL

CHECKLIST
City of Waterford PAGE 110
exacerbate fire risk. Moreover, the proposed Project would also be constructed in accordance with applicable California Fire Code requirements for emergency access as directed by the City’s Fire Department preliminary review. The General Plan EIR determined that implementation of the General Plan would have a less than significant impact relative to this topic. For these reasons, the proposed Project would not result in new or more severe significant impacts disclosed in the General Plan EIR, and impacts in this regard would be less than significant, consistent with the impact conclusions set forth therein.

Response d): Less than Significant. The Project site is not located in or near a State Responsibility Area (SRA) and is not classified as a very high fire hazard severity zone (FHSZ), and therefore impacts would be less than significant. For informational purposes, the following is noted.

The proposed Project would require the installation of storm drainage infrastructure to ensure that storm waters properly drain from the Project site and does not result in downstream flooding or major drainage changes. Overall, impacts from Project implementation would be considered less than significant impact relative to risks, including downslope or downstream flooding or landslides, because of runoff, post-fire slope instability, or drainage changes. Moreover, the proposed Project would also be constructed in accordance with applicable California Fire Code requirements for emergency access as directed by the City’s Fire Department preliminary review. The General Plan EIR determined that implementation of the General Plan would have a less than significant impact relative to this topic. For these reasons, the proposed Project would not result in new or more severe significant impacts disclosed in the General Plan EIR, and impacts in this regard would be less than significant, consistent with the impact conclusions set forth therein.

City of Waterford PAGE 111

HIGHLAND POINTE RESIDENTIAL PROJECT

ENVIRONMENTAL

CHECKLIST
XXI. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE
Significant
Impact Peculiar
to the Project
or the Project
Site
Significant
Impact due to
New
Information
Impact
Adequately
Addressed in
the General
Plan EIR
Impact not
Previously
Addressed in
General Plan
EIR
a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the
quality of the environment, substantially reduce the
habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the
number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered
plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the
major periods of California history or prehistory?
X
b) Does the project have impacts that are individually
limited, but cumulatively considerable? (“Cumulatively
considerable” means that the incremental effects of a
project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)? X
c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly?
X
Project Impacts:

The preceding analysis, along with the attached supporting technical materials and other information in the administrative record, demonstrates that the foregoing effects will not occur because of the proposed Project.

Responses to Checklist Questions
Response a): Less than Significant. As discussed in this document, as well as in the attached supporting technical materials and other information in the administrative record, the proposed Project would not result in new or substantially more severe significant impacts than identified in the General Plan EIR and would be required to comply with applicable General Plan EIR mitigation measures. The criteria for requiring further CEQA review are not met. Therefore, these are less than significant impacts.

Response b): Less than Significant. As discussed in this document, as well as in the attached supporting technical materials and other information in the administrative record, the General Plan EIR assumed full development and buildout of the Project site, consistent with the use and density proposed by the Project.

The cumulative impacts associated with buildout of the City of Waterford General Plan, including the Project site, were fully addressed in the General Plan EIR. Additionally, as described throughout the analysis above, the proposed Project would not result in any significant individual or cumulative impacts that would not be reduced to less than significant levels through the application of uniformly applied development policies and/or standards. Therefore, this is considered a less than significant impact.

Response c): Less than Significant. As described throughout the analysis above, as well as in the attached supporting technical materials and other information in the administrative record, the proposed Project would not result in any significant impacts that would have environmental effects which would cause

HIGHLAND POINTE RESIDENTIAL PROJECT

ENVIRONMENTAL

CHECKLIST
City of Waterford PAGE 112
substantial adverse effects on humans. The analysis in the relevant sections above provides the application of uniformly applied development policies and/or standards that would further ensure any potentially significant impact on humans is less than significant. A variety of requirements including, for example, those related to aesthetics and light and glare, GHG and air quality, cultural resources, hazardous materials, seismic hazards, water pollution and water quality, and noise, ensure any adverse effects on humans are reduce to an acceptable standard. Therefore, this is considered a less than significant impact.

City of Waterford PAGE 113

HIGHLAND POINTE RESIDENTIAL PROJECT

ENVIRONMENTAL

CHECKLIST

REFERENCES
• Army Corps of Engineers. 1987. Army Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual. • Barbour and Major 1988. Terrestrial Vegetation of California. • C Donald Ahrens. 2006. Meteorology Today: An Introduction to Weather, Climate, & the Environment.
• California Air Resources Board. Risk Reduction Plan to Reduce Particulate Matter Emissions from Diesel-Fueled Engines and Vehicles. October 2000. Available at:
https://www.arb.ca.gov/diesel/documents/rrpFinal.pdf.
• California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE). 2007. Fire Hazard Severity Zones in State Responsibility Area (SRA). Adopted by CAL FIRE on October 2, 2007. Available at: http://frap.fire.ca.gov/webdata/maps/san_joaquin/fhszs_map.39.pdf • California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE). 2007. Draft Fire Hazard Severity Zones in LRA. Adopted by CAL FIRE on November 7, 2007. Available:
http://frap.fire.ca.gov/webdata/maps/san_joaquin/fhszl06_1_map.39.pdf • California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC). 2017. EnviroStor database. Accessed on December 16, 2025. Available at: https://www.envirostor.dtsc.ca.gov/public/ • California Department of Conservation. California Important Farmlands Finder. Available at:
https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/DLRP/CIFF/.
• California Department of Conservation. Williamson Act/Land Conservation Act. Available at:
http://www.conservation.ca.gov/dlrp/lca.
• California Department of Fish and Wildlife. CNDDB BIOS viewer. Version 6, Available at:
https://wildlife.ca.gov/Data/BIOS.
• California Energy Commission. 2024. California Greenhouse Gas Emission Inventory – 2024 Edition. Available at: https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/ghg-inventory-data • City of Waterford. City of Waterford General Plan Update Vision 2025. • City of Waterford, 2006. The City of Waterford General Plan Program Environmental Impact Report. August 2006.
• City of Waterford. 2024. Waterford Municipal Code. Current through Ordinance 2024-07 and adopted December 5, 2025.
• Department Of Toxic Substances Control EnviroStor Database. 2025. Available at:
http://www.envirostor.dtsc.ca.gov/.
• Inventory of California Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990 to 2004. (Staff Final Report), California Energy Commission, 2006.
• National Atmospheric and Space Administration. Carbon Dioxide. May 2025. https://climate.nasa.gov/%C2%A0%C2%A0/
• Meteorology Today: An Introduction to Weather, Climate, & the Environment, 2003, D.C. Ahrens.

HIGHLAND POINTE RESIDENTIAL PROJECT

ENVIRONMENTAL

CHECKLIST
City of Waterford PAGE 114
• Our World in Data. 2025. Greenhouse Gas Emissions. https://ourworldindata.org/greenhousegas-emissions • San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District. March 19, 2015. Guide for Assessing and Mitigating Air Quality Impacts (GAMAQI).
• San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District. Small Project Analysis Level (SPAL). November 2020. Available at:
https://www.valleyair.org/transportation/CEQA%20Rules/GAMAQI-SPAL.PDF. • U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Water Sense Guide. Available At https://www.epa.gov/watersense/program-guidelines.
• U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) Web Soil Survey (WSS), Accessed May 2025.

City of Waterford PAGE 115

HIGHLAND POINTE RESIDENTIAL PROJECT

ENVIRONMENTAL

CHECKLIST

APPENDIX A

TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP

VINEYARD ROAD
M.I.D. LOWER MAIN CANAL W.I.D. LOWER MAIN CANAL TIM BELL ROAD

PHASE LINE
EX. 20' ACCESS EASEMENT
PER 3474-OR-255 TO BE

ABANDONED
EX. 10' ACCESS EASEMENT
PER D.N. 2003-0136039

TO BE ABANDONED
10'
20'
B
D
E
C
C
C
F
G
C
D
D
D
NTS

2.0%

VERTICAL CURB, GUTTER
AND SIDEWALK.

2.0%
30'
18'
R/W
FL

PARTIAL WIDTH VINEYARD DRIVE
S/W
6' 6'
11'
TRAVEL
7'
BIKE
CL
20'
EX.

R/W 20' EX. R/W 10'

DEDICATION
11'
TRAVEL
4'

SHOULDER

THIS SECTION IS UTILIZED UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED

2.0%

ROLL CURB, GUTTER
AND SIDEWALK.

2.0%
CL
S/W
45'
2' 5' 18' 18' 2'

R/W R/W
FL FL
45' LOCAL INTERIOR RESIDENTIAL STREET
NTS

2.0% 2.0%
CL
60'
18'
R/W
FL
60' LOCAL INTERIOR STREET WITH WELLNESS WALK
18'
R/W
11'
TRAVEL
7'

PARKING
11'
TRAVEL
7'

PARKING
22'

VERTICAL CURB AND GUTTER
NTS

2.0%

ROLL CURB, GUTTER
AND SIDEWALK.

2.0%
CL
51'
6' 22'
R/W
FL
51' LOCAL INTERIOR RESIDENTIAL STREET
22'
R/W
11'
TRAVEL
4'
BIKE
7'

PARKING
11'
TRAVEL
4'
BIKE
7'

PARKING

VERTICAL CURB AND
GUTTER
C
FL 2'
A

ROLL CURB AND GUTTER

PARK/ SIDE LOT
1'
FL
NTS
B
D
NTS

2.0% 2.0%
CL
53'
18'
R/W
FL

LOCAL INTERIOR STREET WITH WELLNESS WALK,

PARTIAL WIDTH
13'
11'
TRAVEL
7'

PARKING
11'
TRAVEL
22'

VERTICAL CURB AND GUTTER
EP
E
2'
P.U.E.
10'
P.U.E.
10'
P.U.E.
10'
P.U.E.
10'
P.U.E.
10'

SIDEWALK WITHIN
PARK
NOTE:

DRY UTILITIES TO BE PLACED

WITHIN THE RIGHT OF WAY
A.C. DIKE OR SWALE

OPTION FOR DRAINAGE
A.C. DIKE

PAVED W/W
5' 8'
BIKE
9'

LSING LSING

PAVED W/W
5' 8'
BIKE
9'

LSING LSING

ROLL CURB AND GUTTER
NTS

TYPICAL BASIN CROSS SECTION
R/W
100 YEAR, 24 HOUR STORM (STANISLAUS COUNTY STDS.)
6:1 TYP.
6:1 TYP. WET AREA (1" CITY STANDARD)
3'
LS
8'

PAVED W/W
BIKE
NTS

BRIDGE CROSS SECTION

EXISTING CONCRETE

CURB EDGE

PROPOSED PEDESTRIAN

WALKWAY

PROPOSED

FENCING

PROPOSED

FENCING

EXISTING CONCRETE BRIDGE DECK

EXISTING BARRIER

EX CL
±2.1' SHOULDER
11'

TRAVEL LANE
11'

TRAVEL LANE
8'

PED PATH
±3.2' LANE SHIFT
PROPOSED 6" CURB

EXISTING CONCRETE

CURB EDGE
±32.6' EXISTING BRIDGE DECK WIDTH
F
NTS
W.I.D. CANAL PATHWAY
PROPOSED 4'

IRON FENCING
±53.5 W.I.D. CANAL PEDESTRIAN PATHWAY
G
P/L
PROPOSED 2'

CONCRETE WALL
8'

PED PATH
A. REGULATORY AGENCY: CITY OF WATERFORD
101 E. STREET WATERFORD, CA 95386
T: (209) 874-2328
B. PROPERTY OWNER RIDDLE RANCH PROPERTIES, L.P.
12013 EL POMAR AVENUE
WATERFORD, CA 95386
C. APPLICANT/ SUBDIVIDER: DGS LAND GROUP
3675 MT. DIABLO BOULEVARD, SUITE 350
LAFAYETTE, CA. 94549
T: (925) 580-7672
CONTACT: STEVEN MILLER
D. ENGINEER: NORTHSTAR ENGINEERING GROUP, INC
620 12th STREET
MODESTO CA, 95354
T: (209) 524-3525
CONTACT: LEA C. SIMVOULAKIS
E. ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NUMBERS: 080-022-017, 018 AND 080-015-001 F. EXISTING LAND USE: ORCHARD
G. PROPOSED LAND USE: SINGLE FAMILY HOMES
H. EXISTING GP/ZONING: LD (LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL)/ PC (RESIDENTIAL AND

NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL) RS (RESIDENTIAL SINGLE)
I. PROPOSED GP/ZONING: LD/ PC AND RS
J. TOTAL PROJECT SIZE: 73.7 ± ACRES
K. TOTAL NUMBER OF R-1 LOTS: 412
L. DENSITY: 5.6 DU/AC
M. TYPICAL LOT SIZES: 45' X 77', 45' X 80' 50' X 85', AND 50' X 100' N. UTILITIES: WATER SYSTEM - CITY OF WATERFORD

SANITARY SEWER - CITY OF WATERFORD

STORM DRAINAGE - CITY OF WATERFORD

GAS - PG&E
ELECTRIC - M.I.D.

TELEPHONE - AT&T

SCHOOL DISTRICT - WATERFORD UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT

PROJECT INFORMATION

1. ALL IMPROVEMENTS SHALL BE CONSTRUCTED AS PER THE CITY OF WATERFORD STANDARD PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS EXCEPT AS NOTED.

2. STORM DRAINAGE: PROPOSED RETENTION BASIN WITHIN LOT "B"

3. SANITARY SEWER: CONNECTION TO CITY OF WATERFORD SEWER SYSTEM.

4. WATER SYSTEM: CONNECTION TO CITY OF WATERFORD WATER SYSTEM.

5. STREET LIGHTING SHALL BE INSTALLED PER CITY OF WATERFORD STANDARD DETAILS.

6. PUBLIC UTILITIES ARE TO BE INSTALLED UNDER GROUND IN EASEMENTS.

7. THE SUBDIVIDER HEREBY RESERVES THE RIGHT TO FILE "MULTIPLE SUBDIVISION MAPS" AS SET FORTH BY THE SUBDIVISION MAP ACT, ARTICLE 4, SECTION 66456.1., AND FILE PARCEL MAPS FOR REASON OF SALE. ALL PARCEL LINES SHALL CONFORM TO THIS TENTATIVE MAP.

8. PUBLIC UTILITY EASEMENTS WILL BE PROVIDED ALONG ALL STREET IN-TRACT FRONTAGES.

9. EXISTING ORCHARD TREES TO BE REMOVED.

10. THE ENTIRE PROJECT SITE IS IN FLOOD ZONE "X", AREAS OF 0.2% ANNUAL CHANCE FLOOD; AREAS OF 1% ANNUAL CHANCE FLOOD WITH AVERAGE DEPTHS OF LESS THAN 1 FOOT, PER F.I.R.M. PANEL NO. 06099C0390E, EFFECTIVE DATE SEPTEMBER 26, 2008.

11. ALL LOT SETBACK REQUIREMENTS ARE PER THE LAKE POINTE MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN.

GENERAL NOTES

SHEET INDEX

1. TM1.1 COVER SHEET AND CROSS SECTIONS

2. TM2.1 DIMENSION PLAN

3. TM2.2 DIMENSION PLAN

4. TM2.3 DIMENSION PLAN

5. TM3.1 UTILITY PLAN

6. TM3.2 UTILITY PLAN

7. TM3.3 UTILITY PLAN

8. TM4.1 TOPOGRAPHY PLAN

9. TM4.2 TOPOGRAPHY PLAN

10. TM4.3 TOPOGRAPHY PLAN

11. L1.1 CONCEPTUAL SITE PLAN - NEIGHBORHOOD PARK, PHASE 1

12. L1.2 CONCEPTUAL SITE PLAN - NEIGHBORHOOD PARK, PHASE 2 (FULL PARK BUILD OUT)

TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP
HIGHLAND POINTE SUBDIVISION, PHASES 1 AND 2

WATERFORD, CALIFORNIA
0 1" =
150 75 150
150' COVER SHEET APPROVED
SHEET
NUMBER DATE DESCRIPTIONS REVISIONS NO.

JOB #:

DATE:

SCALE:

DRAWN:

DESIGN:

CHK'D:

PLOTTED: 09/17/2025 13:39 PLOTTED BY: PhurbanDWGNAME: F:\24-3445 Waterford 170ac Development\Planning\TM\Phase 1 & 2\TM 1.1.dwg TM1.1
COPYRIGHT © 2025 NORTHSTAR ENGINEERING GROUP, INC
24-3445

MF/ LCS
PMH
PMH
09/17/2025

WATERFORD, CALIFORNIA
HIGHLAND POINTE SUBDIVISION, PHASES 1 AND 2 TIM BELL ROAD

VINEYARD ROAD

EL POMAR AVENUE

PROJECT

LOCATION

BONNIE BRAE AVENUE

YOSEMITE BOULEVARD

VICINITY MAP

VINEYARD ROAD
M.I.D. LOWER MAIN

CANAL TIM BELL ROAD
44' 27' 47'
43' 25'
50' 85'
50' 85'
50' 85'
50' 85'
50' 83' 85'
66'
79'
46'
39'
68'
75'
37'
85'
52'
51'
50'
50'
85'
85'
75'
51'
113'
15'
119'
111' 76'
38'
37'
48'
59'
85'
50'
85'
85'
50'
85'
50'
85'
50'
85'
52'
85'
50'
85'
50'
85'
50'
85'
50'
85'
50'
85'
50'
85'
50'
85'
50'
85'
50'
85'
50'
85'
50'
85'
50'
85'
50'
85'
50'
85'
50'
85'
50'
85'
50'
85'
50'
85'
50'
85'
50'
85'
50'
85'
50'
85'
50'
42'
85'
60' 67'
25'
50'
85'
41'
67'
60'
85'
85' 53'
53' 85'
85'
53'
53'
53'
85'
85'
53'
53'
85'
85'
53'
85'
85'
48'
66'
69'
24'
37'
60'
46'
27'
66'
86'
19' 41'
70'
85'
55'
72'
85'
55'
57'
85'
85'
55'
55'
85'
85'
55'
55'
42'
25'
67'
62'
42'
55'
85'
85' 19'
72'
65'
27'
36'
85'
55'
65'
49'
53'
52'
52'
85'
73'
48'
85'
85'
53'
52'
85'
85'
52'
52'
85'
85'
39'
25'
67'
57'
62'
39'
52'
67'
50'
50'
50'
50'
34' 20'
83' 91'
85'
92' 16'
21'
40'
94'
111'
60'
91'
60'
89'
60'
87'
68'
25'
40'
85'
52'
85'
37'
60'
85'
85'
85'
85'
42'
85'
50'
85'
37'
67'
60'
60'
67'
25'
85'
85' 52'
85' 52'
85'
75'
60'
57' 101'
89' 18'
39'
85'
60'
35'
85'
59' 67'
50'
85'
50'
85'
50'
85'
50'
85'
50'
85'
34'
77'
80'61'
62'
56'
85'
53'
85'
53'
85'
53'
85'
53'
85'
53'
63'
85'
39'
66'
85'
50'
85'
50'
85'
55'
86'
53'
50'
50'
85'
54'
82'
53'
49'
48'
90'
34'
74'
79'
55'
77'
77'
77'
54'
56'
51'
51'
51'
4241 SF 4250 SF 4250 SF 4250 SF 4250 SF 5048 SF
4283 SF
5746 SF
4044 SF
4250 SF
4250 SF
4002 SF
6252 SF
7104 SF
4141 SF
4249 SF
4250 SF
4250 SF
4250 SF
4337 SF
4250 SF
4250 SF
4250 SF
4250 SF
4250 SF
4250 SF
4250 SF
4250 SF
4250 SF
4250 SF
4250 SF
4250 SF
4250 SF
4250 SF
4250 SF
4250 SF
4250 SF
4250 SF
4250 SF
4250 SF
4250 SF
4250 SF
4250 SF
4250 SF
4614 SF
4396 SF
4452 SF
4230 SF
3701 SF
4320 SF
3927 SF
3927 SF
3927 SF
4250 SF
4250 SF
4250 SF
4250 SF
4250 SF
4505 SF
4505 SF
4505 SF
4505 SF
4505 SF
4250 SF
4250 SF
4505 SF
4505 SF
4505 SF
4505 SF
4505 SF
4505 SF
4505 SF
4505 SF
4675 SF
4675 SF
4675 SF
4675 SF
4675 SF
4675 SF
4493 SF
3858 SF
4502 SF
4119 SF
3444 SF
4314 SF
4420 SF
4420 SF
4420 SF
4420 SF
4420 SF
4420 SF
4464 SF
4436 SF
5288 SF
5388 SF
5499 SF
8501 SF
5598 SF
4250 SF
4250 SF
4250 SF
4250 SF
4250 SF
5100 SF
6340 SF
4420 SF
4420 SF

4.5 Ac
5580 SF
5874 SF
4874 SF
5330 SF
6434 SF
29'
29'
29'
29'
26'
30'
26'
35'
31'
184'
25'
396'
35'
30'
25'

3.2 Ac

STREET A

STREET B

STREET C

STREET D

STREET F

STREET E

STREET G

STREET H

STREET I

STREET J

STREET K
R = 300'
R = 250'
60'
44' 47'
43'
50' 85'
50' 85'
50' 85'
50' 85'
50' 83' 85'
66'
79'
39'
68'
75'
85'
51'
50'
50'
85'
85'
75'
113'
15'
119'
111' 76'
59'
85'
50'
85'
85'
50'
85'
50'
85'
50'
85'
52'
85'
50'
85'
50'
85'
50'
85'
50'
85'
50'
85'
50'
85'
50'
85'
50'
85'
50'
85'
50'
85'
50'
85'
50'
85'
50'
85'
50'
85'
50'
85'
50'
85'
50'
85'
50'
85'
50'
85'
50'
85'
50'
85'
50'
85'
50'
42'
85'
60' 67'
50'
85'
41'
67'
60'
85'
85' 53'
53' 85'
85'
53'
53'
53'
85'
85'
53'
53'
85'
85'
53'
85'
85'
48'
66'
69'
37'
60'
46'
66'
86'
19'
70'
85'
55'
72'
85'
55'
85'
85'
55'
55'
85'
85'
55'
55'
42'
67'
62'
42'
55'
85'
85' 19'
72'
36'
85'
55'
52'
65'
52'
85'
73'
48'
85'
85'
52'
85'
85'
52'
52'
85'
85'
39'
67'
57'
62'
39'
52'
67'
50'
50'
50'
50'
34'
91'
85'
92' 16'
40'
94'
111'
60'
91'
60'
89'
60'
87'
68'
40'
85'
52'
85'
37'
60'
85'
85'
85'
85'
42'
85'
50'
85'
37'
67'
60'
60'
67'
85'
85' 52'
85' 52'
85'
75'
60'
57' 101'
89' 18'
39'
85'
60'
35'
85'
59' 67'
50'
85'
50'
85'
50'
85'
50'
85'
50'
85'
34'
77'
80'61'
62'
56'
85'
53'
85'
53'
85'
53'
85'
53'
85'
53'
63'
85'
39'
66'
85'
50'
85'
50'
85'
55'
86'
53'
50'
50'
85'
54'
82'
53'
49'
48'
90'
34'
74'
79'
55'
77'
77'
77'
54'
56'
51'
51'
51'
29'
29'
29'
29'
26'
30'
26'
35'
31'
98'
79'
35'
30'
25'
60'
LOT B
8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
29 30
31 32
33 34
35 36
37 38
39 40
41 42
43 44
45 46
47 48
49 86
87 88
89 90
93 94
95 96
97 98
99 100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163

LOT D (NOT A PART)
355 354 353 352 351 350
356 357 358 359 360 361
384 383 382 381 380 379 378 377 376 375 374 373 372 371 370 369 368 367 366 385
386
387 388 389
390
391
392
393
394
395
400
401
402
403
404
405 406
407
408
409
410
411
412
399
110
336' 24'
250'
396'
3910 SF 3910 SF 3910 SF 3910 SF 3910 SF 3910 SF 3910 SF 3910 SF 3910 SF 3995 SF 3995 SF 3995 SF 3995 SF 3995 SF 3995 SF 3995 SF 3995 SF 3995 SF 3995 SF 4443 SF
5439 SF
3600 SF 3600 SF 3656 SF
4483 SF
5556 SF
3847 SF
3600 SF
4866 SF
4696 SF
3600 SF
3600 SF
3600 SF
7623 SF
4039 SF
3600 SF
3600 SF
4151 SF
4040 SF
3937 SF
3600 SF
3600 SF
3782 SF
3978 SF
4095 SF
3793 SF 3600 SF 3600 SF 3600 SF 3600 SF 3600 SF
3781 SF 3600 SF 3600 SF 3600 SF 3600 SF 3600 SF
4820 SF
5127 SF
5030 SF
4929 SF
4893 SF
5030 SF
4638 SF
4775 SF
4893 SF
4981 SF
4893 SF
5030 SF
4518 SF
4621 SF 80'
45' 80'
45' 80'
45' 80'
45' 80'
27' 29' 62'
50' 61'
30' 26' 80' 80'
45' 45' 80'
45' 80'
45' 80' 85'
47' 85'
47' 85'
47' 85'
47' 85'
47' 85'
47' 85'
47' 85'
47' 85'
47' 85'
47' 85'
46' 85'
46' 85'
46' 85'
46' 85'
46' 85'
46' 85'
46' 85'
46' 85'
46'
33' 26' 52'
31' 31'
62' 25' 33'
82' 51'
80' 33'
26' 61'
80' 45'
80' 48'
80'
45'
80' 28'
27'
66'
66' 32'
39'
85'
53'
83'
48'
20' 44'
24'
32' 44'
53'
81' 50'
80' 44'
12' 45'
80' 45' 45'
29' 57' 51'
80' 33' 45'
80' 40'
90' 82' 135'
45' 112'
51'
45' 88'
30' 16'
26'
45' 80'
45' 80'
45' 80'
23'
60'
36'
95'
135'
80'
120'
45'
80'
45'
80'
45'
80'
48'
28'
61'
47'
5220 SF
4769 SF
5415 SF
396
397
398
19'

STREET A

STREET T
E.V.A. STOP

EXISTING STRIPING STOP

PROPOSED STRIPING DIMENSION PLAN

AS SHOWN APPROVED
SHEET
NUMBER DATE DESCRIPTIONS REVISIONS NO.

JOB #:

DATE:

SCALE:

DRAWN:

DESIGN:

CHK'D:

PLOTTED: 09/17/2025 11:04 PLOTTED BY: PhurbanDWGNAME: F:\24-3445 Waterford 170ac Development\Planning\TM\Phase 1 & 2\TM2.1 - TM2.3.dwg TM2.1
COPYRIGHT © 2025 NORTHSTAR ENGINEERING GROUP, INC
24-3445

MF/ LCS
PMH
PMH
09/17/2025

WATERFORD, CALIFORNIA
HIGHLAND POINTE SUBDIVISION, PHASES 1 AND 2

EXISTING BRIDGE CROSSING STRIPING PLAN
SCALE: 1" = 40' TIM BELL ROAD

VINEYARD ROAD
0 1" =
80 40 80
80'

EXISTING PROPOSED
LEGEND

BOUNDARY LINE

CENTERLINE

RIGHT-OF-WAY

PARCEL/ LOT LINE

CURB, GUTTER AND SIDEWALK

EDGE OF PAVEMENT

PAVEMENT

MASONRY WALL

FENCE (CHAINLINK OR VINYL)
2' WALL WITH 4' IRON FENCE

TRAFFIC CALMING
N/A
*
N/A

PROPOSED BRIDGE CROSSING STRIPING PLAN
SCALE: 1" = 40' TIM BELL ROAD

VINEYARD ROAD

VINEYARD ROAD
M.I.D. LOWER MAIN CANAL
W.I.D. LOWER MAIN
CANAL
44' 27' 47'
43' 25'
85'
50'
85'
50'
85'
50'
85'
50'
85'
50'
85'
50'
85'
50'
85'
50'
85'
50'
85'
50'
85'
50'
85'
50'
85'
50'
85'
50'
85'
50'
85'
50'
85'
50'
85'
50'
85'
50'
42'
85'
60'
67'
25'
50'
85'
41'
67'
60'
85'
85' 53'
53' 85'
85' 53'
53'
53'
85'
85' 53'
53'
85'
85' 53'
85'
85' 48'
66'
69'
24'
37'
60'
46'
27'
66'
86'
19' 41'
70'
85'
55'
72'
85' 55'
57'
85'
85' 55'
55'
85'
85' 55'
55'
42'
25'
67'
62' 42'
55'
85'
85' 19'
72'
65'
27'
36'
85' 55'
65'
49'
53'
52'
52'
85'
73'
48'
85'
85' 53'
52'
85'
85' 52'
52'
85'
85' 67' 57'
62' 39'
52'
50'
50'
50'
34' 20'
83' 91'
85'
92' 16'
111'
85'
35'
85'
59'
67'
50'
85'
50'
85'
50'
85'
50'
85'
50'
85'
34'
77'
80'61' 62'
56'
85'
53'
85'
53'
85'
53'
85'
53'
85'
53'
63' 85'
39'
66'
85'
50'
85'
50'
85'
55'
86'
53'
50'
50' 85'
54'
82'
53'
49'
48' 78'
45'
48'77'
45'
77'
47'
77'
45'
77'
45'
77'
45'
41'
67'
47'
106' 101'
40' 40'
102'
45'
46'
45'
45'
45'
48'
52'
49'
53'
46'
76'
60'
40'
71' 77'
60'
77' 50' 28'
56'
47'
47'
55'
85'
71'
20'
42'
52'
52' 77'
77'
100' 49'
46' 65'
77'
77'
62'
38'
50'
50'
49' 28'
55'
89'
17'
44'
75'
56'
54'
79'
55'
53' 27'
70'
60'
90'
77'
77'
77'
17'
81'
47'
70'
40'
50'
71'
52'
48'
90'
90'
34'
48'
74'
79'
55'
77'
77'
77'
77'
54'
56'
58'
59'
25'
39'
51'
51'
51'
36'
25'
60' 54'
45'
45'
45'
45'
45'
45'
139'
20'
125'
38'
127'
67'
39'
46'
57'
45'
85'
18'
38'
45'
47'
50'
75'
52'
50'
50'
48' 18'
84'
62'
53'
58'
26' 37'
46'
46'
46'
46'
46' 28'
56' 51'
5048 SF
4250 SF
4250 SF
4250 SF
4250 SF
4250 SF
4250 SF
4250 SF
4250 SF
4250 SF
4250 SF
4250 SF
4250 SF
4250 SF
4250 SF
4250 SF
4250 SF
4250 SF
4250 SF
4250 SF
4250 SF
4614 SF
4396 SF
4452 SF
4230 SF
3701 SF
3592 SF
3644 SF
3465 SF
3465 SF
3465 SF
3154 SF
5327 SF 5206 SF
3279 SF
3465 SF
3465 SF
3883 SF
3619 SF
3619 SF
5013 SF
3821 SF
4004 SF
3850 SF 5811 SF
3877 SF
4719 SF
4607 SF
4071 SF
4743 SF
5915 SF
4320 SF
3984 SF
3493 SF
3794 SF
4344 SF
3927 SF
3927 SF
3927 SF
4250 SF
4250 SF
4250 SF
4250 SF
4250 SF
4505 SF
4505 SF
4505 SF
4505 SF
4505 SF
4250 SF
4250 SF
4505 SF
4505 SF
4505 SF
4505 SF
4505 SF
4505 SF
4505 SF
4505 SF
4675 SF
4675 SF
4675 SF
4675 SF
4675 SF
4675 SF
4493 SF
3858 SF
4502 SF
4119 SF
3444 SF
4314 SF
4420 SF
4420 SF
4420 SF
4420 SF
4420 SF
4420 SF
4464 SF
8501 SF
5598 SF
4250 SF
4250 SF
4120 SF
3465 SF
3465 SF
3465 SF
3465 SF
3456 SF
3116 SF
8137 SF
6476 SF
3915 SF
4792 SF
3523 SF
4298 SF
4500 SF
4468 SF
3542 SF
3542 SF
3542 SF
3542 SF
4101 SF
77' 77'
77'
77'
77'
77'
75'
69'
90'
90'
74'
70'
77'
77'
77'
77'
77'
75'
67'
77'
77'
77'
75'
63'
74'

4.5 Ac
5580 SF
5874 SF
4874 SF
5330 SF
4511 SF
4735 SF
29'
29'
26'
30'
26'
35'
31'
184'
25'
396'
233'
30'
25'
24'
22'
5747 SF

STREET D

STREET F

STREET E

STREET G

STREET H

STREET I

STREET J

STREET K

STREET L

STREET M

STREET N

STREET I

STREET O

STREET P

STREET Q

STREET O
R = 250'
R = 300'
R = 300'
R = 300'
R = 300'
217
44' 47'
43'
85'
50'
85'
50'
85'
50'
85'
50'
85'
50'
85'
50'
85'
50'
85'
50'
85'
50'
85'
50'
85'
50'
85'
50'
85'
50'
85'
50'
85'
50'
85'
50'
85'
50'
85'
50'
85'
50'
42'
85'
60'
67'
50'
85'
41'
67'
60'
85'
85' 53'
53' 85'
85' 53'
53'
53'
85'
85' 53'
53'
85'
85' 53'
85'
85' 48'
66'
69' 37'
60'
46'
66'
86'
19'
70'
85'
55'
72'
85' 55'
85'
85' 55'
55'
85'
85' 55'
55'
42'
67'
62' 42'
55'
85'
85' 19'
72'
36'
85' 55'
52'
65'
52'
85'
73'
48'
85'
85'
52'
85'
85' 52'
52'
85'
85' 67' 57'
62' 39'
52'
50'
50'
50'
34'
91'
85'
92' 16'
111'
85'
35'
85'
59'
67'
50'
85'
50'
85'
50'
85'
50'
85'
50'
85'
34'
77'
80'61' 62'
56'
85'
53'
85'
53'
85'
53'
85'
53'
85'
53'
63' 85'
39'
66'
85'
50'
85'
50'
85'
55'
86'
53'
50'
50' 85'
54'
82'
53'
49'
48' 78'
45'
53'
70'
71'
52'
48'
90'
90'
34'
48'
74'
79'
55'
77'
77'
77'
77'
54'
56'
39'
51'
51'
51'
29'
29'
26'
30'
26'
35'
31'
98'
79'
30'
25'
87'
13'
99'
31' 34'
LOT B
1 26
27 28
29 30
31 32
33 34
35 36
37 38
39 40
41 42
43 44
45 46
47 48
49 50
51 52
53 54
55 56
57 58
59 60
61 62
63 64
65 66
67 68
69 70
71 72
73 74
75 76
77 78
79 80
81 82
83 84
85 86
87 88
89 90
91 93 92
94 95
96 97
98 99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119 120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
148
149
150
151
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
205
206
207
208
209
210
211
212
213
214
215
216
218
219
220
221
222
223
224
225
226
227
228
229
230
231
232
233
234
235
236
237
238
239
240
241
242
243
244
245
246
247
248
249
250
251
252
253
254
255
256
257
258
259
260
261
262
263
264
265
266
267
268
269
270
271
272
273
274
275
276
277
278
279
280
281
282
283
284
285
286
287
288
289
290
291
292
293
294
295
296
297
298
299
300
301
302
303
304
305
306
307
308
309 310
311
312
313
314
315
316
317
318
319
320
321
322
323
324
325
326
331 330 329 328 327
332
333
334
335
336
337
338
339
340
341
342
343
344
345
346
347
355 354 353 352 351 350 349 348
356 357 358 359 360 361 362
363
385 384 383 382 381 380 379 378 377 376 375 374 373 372 371 370 369 368 367 366 365 364 386 387 388 389
390
391
392
393
394
395
400
401
402
403
404
405 406
407
408
409
410
411
412
399
110 298'
25' 336' 24'
250'
396'
3609 SF
3187 SF
3335 SF
5996 SF
4712 SF
7595 SF
6414 SF
5947 SF
8017 SF
7970 SF
7890 SF
6396 SF
5465 SF
5000 SF
9347 SF
7936 SF
6478 SF
7346 SF
7994 SF
6828 SF
5733 SF
5765 SF
8656 SF
6963 SF
6000 SF
7082 SF
5750 SF
5100 SF
5100 SF
5700 SF
5998 SF
6262 SF
5781 SF
6807 SF
7271 SF
5962 SF
5962 SF
5962 SF
5959 SF
5487 SF
5400 SF
5400 SF
6084 SF
6033 SF
5000 SF
5000 SF
5000 SF
6434 SF
9546 SF
7392 SF
5964 SF
5300 SF
5300 SF
5300 SF
5648 SF
6031 SF
6448 SF
6751 SF
7452 SF
11373 SF
6322 SF
5100 SF
5100 SF
5100 SF
5100 SF
5600 SF
7749 SF
9297 SF
7475 SF
7117 SF
6647 SF
6176 SF
5706 SF
5235 SF
5000 SF
5000 SF
5000 SF
5548 SF
6156 SF
6755 SF
7039 SF
13459 SF
9087 SF
7422 SF
7415 SF
6183 SF
5376 SF
5022 SF
5000 SF
5000 SF
5000 SF
5000 SF
5000 SF
5000 SF
5000 SF
5000 SF
5494 SF
6123 SF
7076 SF
6197 SF
3910 SF 3910 SF 3910 SF 3910 SF 3995 SF 3995 SF 3995 SF 3995 SF 3995 SF 3995 SF 3995 SF 3995 SF 3995 SF 3995 SF 3995 SF 4517 SF 4354 SF 3825 SF 3825 SF 4104 SF 4494 SF 4443 SF 3910 SF 3910 SF 3910 SF 3910 SF 3910 SF 5439 SF
3600 SF 3600 SF 3656 SF
4483 SF
5556 SF
3847 SF
3600 SF
4866 SF
4696 SF
3600 SF
3600 SF
3600 SF
7623 SF
4039 SF
3600 SF
3600 SF
4151 SF
4040 SF
3937 SF
3600 SF
3600 SF
3782 SF
3978 SF
4095 SF
3793 SF 3600 SF 3600 SF 3600 SF 3600 SF 3600 SF 3600 SF 3990 SF
3781 SF 3600 SF 3600 SF 3600 SF 3600 SF 3600 SF 3600 SF 3977 SF 4269 SF
3760 SF
3760 SF
3760 SF
3760 SF
3680 SF
3680 SF
3680 SF
3680 SF
3680 SF
3680 SF
4075 SF
4121 SF
4121 SF
4121 SF
5246 SF
5913 SF
6260 SF
5319 SF
5026 SF
5000 SF
5000 SF
5000 SF
5000 SF
5000 SF
5000 SF
5000 SF
5302 SF
5512 SF
5366 SF
4820 SF
5127 SF
5030 SF
4929 SF
4893 SF
5030 SF
4638 SF
4775 SF
4518 SF
4621 SF
92'
90'
29'
41'
100'
91'
62' 26'
88'
53'
100'
62'
55'
30'
52'
53'
60'
131'
52'
78'
63'
53'
135'
128'
112'
54'
49'
41'
63'
42'
101'
47'
81'
44'
94' 27'
35' 58'
65'
49'
50'
50'
50'
74'
74'
65'
50'
44'
111'
128'
144'
146'
137'
119'
100'
100'
22'
81'
37' 80' 27'
46'
46'
80'
80'
80'
46'
80' 47'
58'
58' 56' 46'
80' 46'
80' 46'
80' 46'
80' 46'
80' 46'
80' 47'
80' 47'
80' 47'
80' 47' 55'
61' 26' 37'
99'
112'
32'
31'
102' 50'
51'
100' 56'
100'
101' 50'
100' 50'
100' 50'
100' 50'
100' 50'
100' 50'
100' 50'
9'
84'
24'
42'
111'
9' 44'
51'
111'
49'
49'
49'
51'
51'
49'
81'
27' 48'
100'
80'
60'
100'
63'
59'
28'
80'
69'
100'
52'
54'
100'
54'
100'
56'
100'
54'
66'
100'
53'
66'
100'
53'
66'
100'
53'
66'
100'
53'
66' 31' 76'
65' 41'
24'
85' 73'
100'
100' 51'
100' 51'
100' 51'
100' 51' 50'
100' 62'
53'
83'
28'
75'
121' 132'
140' 20'
37'
50'
147'
50'
50'
138'
50'
128'
50'
119'
50'
109'
50'
100'
50'
100'
50'
100'
48'
100'
62'
48'
103'
66'
48'
117'
72'
141'
16'
173'
112'
111'175'
50'
134'
53'
67'
65'
120'
53'
15'
49'
112'
53'
63'
108'
53'
59'
101'
53'
100'
53'
100'
53'
100'
53'
100'
51'
101'
68'
70'
81'
27' 39'
100'
50'
100'
50'
100'
50'
100'
54' 30'
77' 54'
84'
25'
48'
100'
82'
65'
100'
70' 152'
124'
193'
43'
15'
112'
103'
46'
63'
120'
71'
44'
121'
78'
49'
112'
57'
51'
103'
50'
15'
35'
100'
50'
100'
50'
100'
51'
100'
50'
100'
50'
100'
50'
100'
50'
100'
50'
100'
50'
59'
101'
51'
67'
112'
50'
52'
20'
119'
50'
70'
97'
50'
56'
87'
43'
54' 85'
45' 43' 85' 85'
45'
36' 23' 49'
30' 36'
30' 29' 80'
53'
45' 80'
45' 80'
45' 80'
45' 80'
45' 80'
45' 80'
27' 29' 62'
50' 61'
30' 26' 80' 80'
45' 45' 80'
45' 80'
45' 80'
45' 80'
45' 80'
29' 31' 61' 49'
27' 34' 85'
34' 33' 85'47' 85'
47' 85'
47' 85'
47' 85'
47' 85'
47' 85'
47' 85'
47' 85'
47' 85'
47' 85'
47' 85'
46' 85'
46' 85'
46' 85'
46' 85'
46' 85'
46' 85'
46' 85'
46' 85'
46'
33' 26' 52'
31' 31'
62' 25' 33'
82' 51'
80' 33'
26' 61'
80' 45'
80' 48'
80'
45'
80' 28'
27'
66'
66' 32'
39'
85'
53'
83'
48'
20' 44'
24'
32' 44'
53'
81' 50'
80' 44'
12' 45'
80' 45' 45' 62'
29' 57' 51'
80' 33' 45'
80' 40'
90' 82' 135'
45' 112'
51'
45' 88'
30' 16'
26'
45' 80'
45' 80'
45' 80'
23'
60'
36'
95'
135'
80'
120'
45'
80'
45'
80'
45'
80'
48'
28'
61'
47'
5220 SF
4769 SF
5415 SF
396
397
398
19'

STREET A

STREET A STREET K

STREET T STREET U

STREET V

STREET W

STREET X
E.V.A.

E.V.A.

E.V.A.

E.V.A.
0 1" =
40 20 40
40' DIMENSION PLAN

AS SHOWN

EXISTING PROPOSED
LEGEND

BOUNDARY LINE

CENTERLINE

RIGHT-OF-WAY

PARCEL LINE

CURB, GUTTER AND SIDEWALK

EDGE OF PAVEMENT

PAVEMENT

MASONRY WALL

FENCE (CHAINLINK OR VINYL)
2' WALL WITH 4' IRON FENCE

TRAFFIC CALMING APPROVED
SHEET
NUMBER DATE DESCRIPTIONS REVISIONS NO.

JOB #:

DATE:

SCALE:

DRAWN:

DESIGN:

CHK'D:

PLOTTED: 09/17/2025 11:05 PLOTTED BY: PhurbanDWGNAME: F:\24-3445 Waterford 170ac Development\Planning\TM\Phase 1 & 2\TM2.1 - TM2.3.dwg TM2.2
COPYRIGHT © 2025 NORTHSTAR ENGINEERING GROUP, INC
24-3445

MF/ LCS
PMH
PMH
09/17/2025

WATERFORD, CALIFORNIA
HIGHLAND POINTE SUBDIVISION, PHASES 1 AND 2
N/A
*
N/A
M.I.D. LOWER MAIN CANAL
W.I.D. LOWER MAIN
CANAL
85'
50'
85'
50'
85'
50'
85'
50'
85'
50'
85'
50'
85'
50'
85'
50'
85'
50'
85'
50'
85'
50'
85'
50'
85'
50'
85'
50'
85'
50'
85'
50'
42'
85'
60'
67'
25'
50'
85'
41'
67'
60'
85'
85' 53'
53' 85'
85' 53'
53'
53'
85'
85' 53'
53'
85'
85' 53'
85'
85' 48'
66' 60'
85' 85'
85' 55'
55'
85'
85' 55'
55'
42'
25'
67'
62' 42'
55'
85'
85'
52'
35'
85'
59'
67'
50'
85'
50'
85'
50'
85'
50'
85'
50'
85'
34'
77'
80'61' 62'
56'
85'
53'
85'
53'
85'
53'
85'
53'
85'
53'
63' 85'
39'
66'
85'
50'
85'
50'
85'
55'
86'
53'
50'
50' 85'
54'
82'
53'
49'
48' 78'
45'
48' 77'
45'
77'
47'
77'
45'
77'
45'
77'
45'
41'
67'
47'
106' 101'
40' 40'
102'
45'
46'
45'
45'
45'
48'
52'
49'
53'
46'
76'
60'
40'
71' 77'
60'
77' 50' 28'
56'
47'
47'
55'
85'
71'
20'
42'
52'
52' 77'
77'
100' 49'
46' 65'
77'
77'
62'
38'
50'
50'
49' 28'
55'
89'
17'
44'
75'
56'
54'
79'
55'
53' 27'
70' 60'
90'
77'
77'
77'
17'
81'
47'
70'
40'
50' 71'
52'
48'
90'
90'
34'
48'
74'
79'
55'
77'
77'
77'
77'
54'
56'
58'
59'
25'
39'
51'
51'
51'
36'
25'
60' 54'
45'
45'
45'
45'
45'
45'
139'
20'
125'
38'
127'
67'
39'
45'
46'
45'
45'
45'
45'
45'
45'
45'
45'
45'
45'
45'
45'
45'
45'
45'
133'
125'
49'
117'
89'
16'
65'
16'
110'
131'
50'
143'
51'
51'
27'
150'
127'
48'
48'
39' 28'
56' 44'
47' 28'
70'
59'
42'
72' 49'
45'
39'
25'
57' 57'
45'
85'
18'
38'
45'
47'
50'
50'
45'
41'
50'
75'
78'
52'
50'
50'
48' 18'
84'
62'
53'
58'
26' 37'
46'
46'
46'
46'
46' 28'
56' 51'
4250 SF
4250 SF
4250 SF
4250 SF
4250 SF
4250 SF
4250 SF
4250 SF
4250 SF
4250 SF
4250 SF
4250 SF
4250 SF
4250 SF
4250 SF
4250 SF
4614 SF
4396 SF
4452 SF
4230 SF
3701 SF
3592 SF
3644 SF
3465 SF
3465 SF
3465 SF
3154 SF
5327 SF 5206 SF
3279 SF
3465 SF
3465 SF
3883 SF
3619 SF
3619 SF
5013 SF
3821 SF
4004 SF
3850 SF 5811 SF
3877 SF
4719 SF
4607 SF
4071 SF
4743 SF
5915 SF
4320 SF
3984 SF
3493 SF
3794 SF
4344 SF
3927 SF
3927 SF
3927 SF
4250 SF
4250 SF
4250 SF
4250 SF
4250 SF
4505 SF
4505 SF
4505 SF
4505 SF
4505 SF
4250 SF
4250 SF
4505 SF
4505 SF
4505 SF
4505 SF
4505 SF
4505 SF
4505 SF
4505 SF
4675 SF
4675 SF
4675 SF
4675 SF
4675 SF
4120 SF
3465 SF
3465 SF
3465 SF
3465 SF
3456 SF
3116 SF
8137 SF
6476 SF
3185 SF
3464 SF
3465 SF
3465 SF
3465 SF
3465 SF
3465 SF
3465 SF
3465 SF
3465 SF
3465 SF
3465 SF
3465 SF
3465 SF
3465 SF
3465 SF
7672 SF
8570 SF
566 SF
8023 SF
7316 SF
3936 SF 6915 SF
3696 SF
3798 SF
7064 SF
4311 SF
3850 SF
5193 SF
4050 SF
3752 SF
3375 SF
3915 SF
4792 SF
3523 SF
4298 SF
4500 SF
4468 SF
3542 SF
3542 SF
3542 SF
3542 SF
4101 SF
77' 77'
77'
77'
77'
77'
75'
69'
77'
77'
77'
77'
77'
77'
77'
77'
77'
77'
77'
77'
77'
77'
77'
77'
132'
161'
77'
77'
77'
77'
77'
77'
90'
90'
74'
70'
77'
77'
77'
77'
77'
90'
90'
75'
75'
67'
77'
77'
77'
75'
63'
74'

4.5 Ac
5580 SF
5874 SF
4874 SF
5330 SF
4511 SF
4735 SF
29'
26'
30'
26'
35'
31'
184'
25'
396'
233'
30'
25'
24'
22'
26'
26'
134'
3850 SF
4786 SF
5747 SF

STREET F

STREET G

STREET I

STREET J

STREET K

STREET L

STREET M

STREET N

STREET I

STREET O

STREET P

STREET Q

STREET R

STREET S

STREET O
R = 300'
R = 300'
R = 300'
R = 300'
R = 300'
217
85'
50'
85'
50'
85'
50'
85'
50'
85'
50'
85'
50'
85'
50'
85'
50'
85'
50'
85'
50'
85'
50'
85'
50'
85'
50'
85'
50'
85'
50'
85'
50'
42'
85'
60'
67'
50'
85'
41'
67'
60'
85'
85' 53'
53' 85'
85' 53'
53'
53'
85'
85' 53'
53'
85'
85' 53'
85'
85' 48'
66' 60'
85' 85'
85' 55'
55'
85'
85' 55'
55'
42'
67'
62' 42'
55'
85'
85'
52'
35'
85'
59'
67'
50'
85'
50'
85'
50'
85'
50'
85'
50'
85'
34'
77'
80'61' 62'
56'
85'
53'
85'
53'
85'
53'
85'
53'
85'
53'
63' 85'
39'
66'
85'
50'
85'
50'
85'
55'
86'
53'
50'
50' 85'
54'
82'
53'
49'
48' 78'
45'
53'
70'
71'
52'
48'
90'
90'
34'
48'
74'
79'
55'
77'
77'
77'
77'
54'
56'
39'
51'
51'
51'
29'
26'
30'
26'
35'
31'
98'
79'
30'
25'
87'
13'
99'
31' 34'
LOT B
LOT C
29 30
31 32
33 34
35 36
37 38
39 40
41 42
43 44
45 46
47 48
49 50
51 52
53 54
55 56
57 58
59 60
61 62
63 64
65 66
67 68
69 70
71 72
73 74
75 76
77 78
79 80
81 82
83 84
85 86
87 88
89 90
91 93 92
94 95
96 97
98 99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
111
112
113
116 114
117
118
119 120
121
122
129 123
130
131
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
194 193
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
208
209
210
211
212
213
214
215
216
218
219
220
221
222
223
224
225
226
227
228
229
230
231
232
233
234
235
236
237
238
239
240
241
250
263
264
265
266
267
268
269
270
271
272
273
274
275
276
277
278
279
280
281
282
283
284
286
287
288
289
290
291
292
293
294
295
296
297
298
299
300
301
302
303
304
305
306
307
308
309 310
311
340 312
341
342
343
344
345
346
347
110
396'
3609 SF
3187 SF
3335 SF
5996 SF
4712 SF
7595 SF
6414 SF
5947 SF
8017 SF
7970 SF
7890 SF
6396 SF
5465 SF
5000 SF
9347 SF
7936 SF
6478 SF
7346 SF
7994 SF
6828 SF
5733 SF
5765 SF
8656 SF
6963 SF
6000 SF
7082 SF
5750 SF
5100 SF
5100 SF
5700 SF
5998 SF
6262 SF
5781 SF
6807 SF
7271 SF
5962 SF
5962 SF
5962 SF
5959 SF
5487 SF
5400 SF
5400 SF
6084 SF
6033 SF
5000 SF
5000 SF
5000 SF
6434 SF
9546 SF
7392 SF
5964 SF
5300 SF
5300 SF
5300 SF
5648 SF
6031 SF
6448 SF
6751 SF
7452 SF
6322 SF
5235 SF
5000 SF
5000 SF
5000 SF
5548 SF
6156 SF
6755 SF
7039 SF
13459 SF
9087 SF
7422 SF
7415 SF
6183 SF 3680 SF
3680 SF
3680 SF
4075 SF
4121 SF
4121 SF
4121 SF
5246 SF
5913 SF
5000 SF
5000 SF
5000 SF
5302 SF
5512 SF
5366 SF
4820 SF
5127 SF
5030 SF
4929 SF
4893 SF
5030 SF
92'
90'
29'
41'
100'
91'
62' 26'
88'
53'
100'
62'
55'
30'
52'
53'
60'
131'
52'
78'
63'
53'
135'
128'
112'
54'
49'
41'
63'
42'
101'
47'
81'
44'
94' 27'
35' 58'
65'
49'
50'
50'
50'
74'
74'
65'
50'
44'
111'
128'
144'
146'
137'
119'
100'
100'
22'
81'
37' 80'
27'
46'
46'
80'
80'
80'
46'
80' 47'
58'
58' 56' 46'
80' 46' 46' 56'
100'
101' 50'
100' 50'
100'
9'
84'
24'
42'
111'
9' 44'
51'
111'
49'
49'
49'
51'
51'
49'
81'
27' 48'
100'
80'
60'
100'
63'
59'
28'
80'
69'
100'
52'
54'
100'
54'
100'
56'
100'
54'
66'
100'
53'
66'
100'
53'
66'
100'
53'
66'
100'
53'
66' 31' 76'
65' 41'
24'
85' 73'
50'
100'
50'
100'
50'
100'
48'
100'
62'
48'
103'
66'
48'
117'
72'
141'
16'
173'
112'
50'
134'
53'
65'
120'
53'
15'
49'
112'
53'
63'
108'
53'
59'
101'
53'
100'
53'
100'
53'
100'
53'
100'
51'
101'
68'
70'
81'
27' 39'
100'
50'
100'
50'
100'
50'
100'
54' 30'
77' 54'
84'
25'
48'
100'
82'
65'
100'
70' 152'
124'
193'
43'
112'
103'
46'
63'
120'
71'
44'
121'
78'
112'
57'
50'
5415 SF
19' STREET A

STREET V

STREET W

STREET X
E.V.A.

E.V.A.

E.V.A.
0 1" =
40 20 40
40' DIMENSION PLAN

AS SHOWN

EXISTING PROPOSED
LEGEND

BOUNDARY LINE

CENTERLINE

RIGHT-OF-WAY

PARCEL LINE

CURB, GUTTER AND SIDEWALK

EDGE OF PAVEMENT

PAVEMENT

MASONRY WALL

FENCE (CHAINLINK OR VINYL)
2' WALL WITH 4' IRON FENCE

TRAFFIC CALMING APPROVED
SHEET
NUMBER DATE DESCRIPTIONS REVISIONS NO.

JOB #:

DATE:

SCALE:

DRAWN:

DESIGN:

CHK'D:

PLOTTED: 09/17/2025 11:07 PLOTTED BY: PhurbanDWGNAME: F:\24-3445 Waterford 170ac Development\Planning\TM\Phase 1 & 2\TM2.1 - TM2.3.dwg TM2.3
COPYRIGHT © 2025 NORTHSTAR ENGINEERING GROUP, INC
24-3445

MF/ LCS
PMH
PMH
09/17/2025

WATERFORD, CALIFORNIA
HIGHLAND POINTE SUBDIVISION, PHASES 1 AND 2
N/A
*
N/A
WM
WM
WM
WM
WM
WM
WM
WM
WM
WMWM
WMWM
WM
WM
WM
WM
WM

WV WV WV
WVWV
WV
WV
WV

WV WV WV WV
WMWM Ex12"IRR
WV

WV WV WV

WV WV WV

WVWV WV
WVWV

WVWV WV WV WV
WM
WV
WV
WV
BO
BO
W Ex12"SS Ex12"SS Ex6"SS
STOP

STOP STOP STOP

MAIL MAIL
MAIL
MAIL
MAIL
MAIL
MAIL
MAIL

MAIL MAIL MAIL MAIL
MAIL Ex16"W Ex16"W Ex16"W Ex16"W
Ex60"W
Ex60"W

VINEYARD ROAD
M.I.D. LOWER MAIN

CANAL TIM BELL ROAD
10' P.U.E.
10' P.U.E. 10' P.U.E.
10' P.U.E.
10' P.U.E.
10' P.U.E.
10' P.U.E.
10' P.U.E.
10' P.U.E.
10' P.U.E.

W W W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
W
W

PROPOSED STRIPING

EXISTING STRIPING

SSFM SSFM
LOT B
8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
29 30
31 32
33 34
35 36
37 38
39 40
41 42
43 44
45 46
47 48
49 86
87 88
89 90
93 94
95 96
97 98
99 100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163

LOT D (NOT A PART)
355 354 353 352 351 350
356 357 358 359 360 361
384 383 382 381 380 379 378 377 376 375 374 373 372 371 370 369 368 367 366 385
386
387 388 389
390
391
392
393
394
395
400
401
402
403
404
405 406
407
408
409
410
411
412
399
110
396
397
398
SD
SD SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD

SD SD SD SS
SS SS
W
W
SS
SS SS
SS
W W W
W
W
W
W

CONNECT TO EXISTING

SEWER STUB

CONNECT TO EXISTING

WATER LINE

PROPOSED SEWER PUMP STATION

FUTURE DOMESTIC WELL

STORMWATER TREATMENT DEVICE

BUBBLE-UP STRUCTURE

BUBBLE-UP STRUCTURE

FRENCH DRAIN FOR

NUISANCE WATER
SD
SS
SD
0 1" =
80 40 80
80' UTILITY PLAN

AS SHOWN APPROVED
SHEET
NUMBER DATE DESCRIPTIONS REVISIONS NO.

JOB #:

DATE:

SCALE:

DRAWN:

DESIGN:

CHK'D:

PLOTTED: 09/17/2025 15:43 PLOTTED BY: TtophamDWGNAME: F:\24-3445 Waterford 170ac Development\Planning\TM\Phase 1 & 2\TM3.1 - TM3.3.dwg TM3.1
COPYRIGHT © 2025 NORTHSTAR ENGINEERING GROUP, INC
24-3445

MF/ LCS
PMH
PMH
09/17/2025

WATERFORD, CALIFORNIA
HIGHLAND POINTE SUBDIVISION, PHASES 1 AND 2

EXISTING PROPOSED
LEGEND

BOUNDARY LINE

CENTERLINE

RIGHT-OF-WAY

PARCEL LINE

LOT LINE

OVER HEAD ELECTRICAL

GAS (MAIN)

SERVICE POLE

STORM DRAIN (MAIN)

STORM DRAIN MAINTENANCE HOLE

CURB INLET

FRENCH DRAIN

WATER (MAIN)

FIRE HYDRANT

SEWER MAINTENANCE HOLE

SEWER (MAIN)

IRRIGATION (MAIN)

IRRIGATION STRUCTURE

STREET LIGHT
N/A
SP
N/A
Ex8"W 8"W
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
IV
N/A
N/A
ISP
ISP
ISP
IV
IV
ISP
ISP
ISP
ISP
IV
ISP
ISP
ICV
ICV
ICV
ICV
W
WV
W
SEPTIC
WV
ExLEACH

MAIL MAIL MAIL
MAIL

MAIL MAIL
MAIL

VINEYARD ROAD
M.I.D. LOWER MAIN CANAL
W.I.D. LOWER MAIN
CANAL
10' P.U.E.
10' P.U.E.
10' P.U.E.
10' P.U.E.
10' P.U.E.
10' P.U.E.
10' P.U.E.
10' P.U.E.
10' P.U.E.
10' P.U.E.
10' P.U.E.

W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
W
217
LOT B
1 26
27 28
29 30
31 32
33 34
35 36
37 38
39 40
41 42
43 44
45 46
47 48
49 50
51 52
53 54
55 56
57 58
59 60
61 62
63 64
65 66
67 68
69 70
71 72
73 74
75 76
77 78
79 80
81 82
83 84
85 86
87 88
89 90
91 93 92
94 95
96 97
98 99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119 120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
148
149
150
151
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
205
206
207
208
209
210
211
212
213
214
215
216
218
219
220
221
222
223
224
225
226
227
228
229
230
231
232
233
234
235
236
237
238
239
240
241
242
243
244
245
246
247
248
249
250
251
252
253
254
255
256
257
258
259
260
261
262
263
264
265
266
267
268
269
270
271
272
273
274
275
276
277
278
279
280
281
282
283
284
285
286
287
288
289
290
291
292
293
294
295
296
297
298
299
300
301
302
303
304
305
306
307
308
309 310
311
312
313
314
315
316
317
318
319
320
321
322
323
324
325
326
331 330 329 328 327
332
333
334
335
336
337
338
339
340
341
342
343
344
345
346
347
355 354 353 352 351 350 349 348
356 357 358 359 360 361 362
363
385 384 383 382 381 380 379 378 377 376 375 374 373 372 371 370 369 368 367 366 365 364 386 387 388 389
390
391
392
393
394
395
400
401
402
403
404
405 406
407
408
409
410
411
412
399
110
396
397
398
SD SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD SS

SS SS SS
W
W
SS SS
SS SS
SS SS

SS SS SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS

W W W W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W W W

WATER, SEWER, AND

STORM DRAIN STUBS

SEWER AND STORM

DRAIN STUBS

WATER, SEWER, AND

STORM DRAIN STUBS

STORMWATER TREATMENT DEVICE

STORMWATER TREATMENT DEVICE

BUBBLE-UP STRUCTURE

BUBBLE-UP STRUCTURE

FRENCH DRAIN FOR

NUISANCE WATER

WATER STUB

WATER, SEWER, AND

STORM DRAIN STUBS
SD
SS SD
BO
BO
BO
SD SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SS

BO UTILITY PLAN

AS SHOWN APPROVED
SHEET
NUMBER DATE DESCRIPTIONS REVISIONS NO.

JOB #:

DATE:

SCALE:

DRAWN:

DESIGN:

CHK'D:

PLOTTED: 09/17/2025 15:43 PLOTTED BY: TtophamDWGNAME: F:\24-3445 Waterford 170ac Development\Planning\TM\Phase 1 & 2\TM3.1 - TM3.3.dwg TM3.2
COPYRIGHT © 2025 NORTHSTAR ENGINEERING GROUP, INC
24-3445

MF/ LCS
PMH
PMH
09/17/2025

WATERFORD, CALIFORNIA
HIGHLAND POINTE SUBDIVISION, PHASES 1 AND 2
0 1" =
80 40 80
80'

EXISTING PROPOSED
LEGEND

BOUNDARY LINE

CENTERLINE

RIGHT-OF-WAY

PARCEL LINE

LOT LINE

OVER HEAD ELECTRICAL

GAS (MAIN)

SERVICE POLE

STORM DRAIN (MAIN)

STORM DRAIN MAINTENANCE HOLE

CURB INLET

FRENCH DRAIN

WATER (MAIN)

FIRE HYDRANT

SEWER MAINTENANCE HOLE

SEWER (MAIN)

IRRIGATION (MAIN)

IRRIGATION STRUCTURE

STREET LIGHT
N/A
SP
N/A
Ex8"W 8"W
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
IV
N/A
N/A
ISP
ISP
ISP
IV
IV
IV
IV
IV
ISP
ICV
ICV
ICV
ICV
W
WV
WV
Ex60"W
Ex60"W
M.I.D. LOWER MAIN CANAL
W.I.D. LOWER MAIN
CANAL
10' P.U.E.
10' P.U.E.
10' P.U.E.
10' P.U.E.
10' P.U.E.
10' P.U.E.
10' P.U.E.
10' P.U.E.
10' P.U.E.
10' P.U.E.
10' P.U.E.
10' P.U.E.

W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
217
LOT B
LOT C
29 30
31 32
33 34
35 36
37 38
39 40
41 42
43 44
45 46
47 48
49 50
51 52
53 54
55 56
57 58
59 60
61 62
63 64
65 66
67 68
69 70
71 72
73 74
75 76
77 78
79 80
81 82
83 84
85 86
87 88
89 90
91 93 92
94 95
96 97
98 99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
111
112
113
116 114
117
118
119 120
121
122
129 123
130
131
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
194 193
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
208
209
210
211
212
213
214
215
216
218
219
220
221
222
223
224
225
226
227
228
229
230
231
232
233
234
235
236
237
238
239
240
241
250
263
264
265
266
267
268
269
270
271
272
273
274
275
276
277
278
279
280
281
282
283
284
286
287
288
289
290
291
292
293
294
295
296
297
298
299
300
301
302
303
304
305
306
307
308
309 310
311
340 312
341
342
343
344
345
346
347
110
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
W
W
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
W
W
W
W
W
W
W

WATER, SEWER, AND

STORM DRAIN STUBS

SEWER AND STORM

DRAIN STUBS

STORMWATER TREATMENT DEVICE

STORMWATER TREATMENT DEVICE

BUBBLE-UP STRUCTURE

BUBBLE-UP STRUCTURE

FRENCH DRAIN FOR

NUISANCE WATER

WATER STUB

WATER STUB

WATER, SEWER, AND

STORM DRAIN STUBS
BO
BO
BO
BO
BO
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD

SS UTILITY PLAN

AS SHOWN APPROVED
SHEET
NUMBER DATE DESCRIPTIONS REVISIONS NO.

JOB #:

DATE:

SCALE:

DRAWN:

DESIGN:

CHK'D:

PLOTTED: 09/17/2025 15:43 PLOTTED BY: TtophamDWGNAME: F:\24-3445 Waterford 170ac Development\Planning\TM\Phase 1 & 2\TM3.1 - TM3.3.dwg TM3.3
COPYRIGHT © 2025 NORTHSTAR ENGINEERING GROUP, INC
24-3445

MF/ LCS
PMH
PMH
09/17/2025

WATERFORD, CALIFORNIA
HIGHLAND POINTE SUBDIVISION, PHASES 1 AND 2
0 1" =
80 40 80
80'

EXISTING PROPOSED
LEGEND

BOUNDARY LINE

CENTERLINE

RIGHT-OF-WAY

PARCEL LINE

LOT LINE

OVER HEAD ELECTRICAL

GAS (MAIN)

SERVICE POLE

STORM DRAIN (MAIN)

STORM DRAIN MAINTENANCE HOLE

CURB INLET

FRENCH DRAIN

WATER (MAIN)

FIRE HYDRANT

SEWER MAINTENANCE HOLE

SEWER (MAIN)

IRRIGATION (MAIN)

IRRIGATION STRUCTURE

STREET LIGHT
N/A
SP
N/A
Ex8"W 8"W
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
IV
N/A
N/A

EXISTING BUILDING
TO BE REMOVED Ex12"IRR

STOP STOP STOP STOP

MAIL MAIL
MAIL
MAIL
MAIL
MAIL
MAIL
MAIL

MAIL MAIL MAIL MAIL
MAIL
164.0
165.0
165.0
166.0
166.0
167.0
167.0
168.0
168.0
169.0
169.0
170.0
170.0
171.0
171.0
172.0
172.0 173.0
173.0
174.0
174.0
168.0
169.0
170.0
171.0
172.0
173.0
174.0
175.0
176.0
177.0
164.0
165.0166.0
165.0 166.0
166.0
164.0 165.0 166.0167.0 167.0
164.0 165.0 166.0 166.0
163.0 164.0164.0 165.0165.0
164.0
164.0
165.0
165.0
166.0
167.0
168.0
169.0
170.0
171.0
172.0
173.0
174.0
175.0
176.0
177.0
178.0
179.0
165.0 166.0
167.0
165.0
165.0
165.0
165.0
165.0
164.2
164.2
164.4
164.4
164.4
164.4
164.4
164.6
164.8
165.2
165.4
165.0 166.0 167.0 168.0 169.0 170.0 171.0 172.0 173.0 174.0175.0 176.0 177.0 168.0 169.0 168.2 168.4 168.6 168.8 169.2
158.0
167.0
166.0 158.0 158.0165.0
164.0 158.0 166.0164.0
165.0 170.0170.0 169.4 169.6 169.6 169.8 169.8 170.2 170.2 170.0 169.8170.2 170.2 170.4 171.0171.0 170.8 170.8 171.0 171.2171.2 171.0 170.6 170.8 171.0 170.6 170.8 171.0 171.0 170.8 171.2171.2 171.4 171.4 XX X X XX XXX X 12"TREE
12"TREE
12"TREE
6"TREE
6"TREE
12"TREE
30"TREE
30"TREE
18"TREE
15"TREE
24"TREE
24"TREE
18"TREE
24"TREE (TYP)
24"TREE (TYP)
24"TREE (TYP)
24"TREE
24"TREE (TYP)
24"TREE
16"TREE

EXISTING BUILDINGS

TO REMAIN

EXISTING ARENA
TO REMAIN 0
1" =
80 40 80
80' TOPOGRAPHIC PLAN

AS SHOWN APPROVED
SHEET
NUMBER DATE DESCRIPTIONS REVISIONS NO.

JOB #:

DATE:

SCALE:

DRAWN:

DESIGN:

CHK'D:

PLOTTED: 09/17/2025 13:10 PLOTTED BY: PhurbanDWGNAME: F:\24-3445 Waterford 170ac Development\Planning\TM\Phase 1 & 2\TM4.1 - TM4.3.dwg TM4.1
COPYRIGHT © 2025 NORTHSTAR ENGINEERING GROUP, INC
24-3445

MF/ LCS
PMH
PMH
09/17/2025

WATERFORD, CALIFORNIA
HIGHLAND POINTE SUBDIVISION, PHASE 1

EXISTING PROPOSED
LEGEND

BOUNDARY LINE

CENTERLINE

RIGHT-OF-WAY

PARCEL LINE

LOT LINE

FLOW LINE

CONTOURS

TREE TO REMAIN

TREE TO BE REMOVED

DIRT ROAD
165.0 N/A
N/A
N/AX
N/A
N/A
N/A

EXISTING BUILDING

TO BE REMOVED
ISP
ISP
ISP
IV
IV
ISP
ISP
ISP
ISP
IV
ISP
ISP
ICV
ICV
ICV
ICV

EXISTING BUILDINGS

TO REMAIN

MAIL MAIL MAIL
MAIL

MAIL MAIL
MAIL
164.0
165.0
165.0
166.0
166.0
167.0
167.0
168.0
168.0
169.0
169.0
170.0
170.0
171.0
171.0
172.0
172.0
173.0
173.0
174.0
174.0
168.0
169.0
170.0
171.0
172.0
173.0
174.0
175.0
176.0
177.0
178.0
179.0
180.0
181.0
182.0
183.0
184.0
185.0
174.0
175.0
176.0
177.0
178.0
179.0
180.0
181.0
182.0
183.0
184.0
185.0
165.0
166.0
166.0
166.0
166.0
168.0 169.0
170.0 171.0 172.0 173.0 174.0 174.0 174.0
175.0 175.0 176.0 176.0
177.0
177.0
178.0 178.0
179.0 179.0
180.0
180.0
181.0
181.0
166.0 167.0
165.0
165.0
165.0
165.0
165.0
166.0
164.4
164.4 164.6 164.8
165.2
165.4
165.6
165.6
165.6
165.8
167.0
166.6
166.6
166.6
166.8
167.0
168.0
169.0 170.0 171.0 172.0
173.0
168.0 169.0
167.0
167.0
166.0
167.0
168.0
166.0
167.0
168.0
169.0
170.0
171.0
172.0
173.0 174.0
175.0
176.0
177.0
178.0
179.0
180.0
181.0
182.0
179.0 180.0181.0 182.0183.0184.0 185.0 186.0
183.0
184.0
185.0
186.0
187.0
174.0
174.0
175.0
175.0
176.0
176.0
177.0
177.0
178.0
178.0
179.0
179.0
180.0
181.0
182.0
166.0
167.0
168.0169.0
170.0
171.0
172.0
165.0
166.0 167.0 168.0 169.0 170.0 171.0 172.0 173.0 174.0175.0 176.0
177.0 172.0
173.0
174.0
175.0
159.0
165.0
159.0
166.0
166.0
159.0
180.0179.0
181.0
182.0
183.0
184.0
178.0
179.0
180.0
181.0
182.0
183.0
179.0
180.0
181.0 182.0
X
X
X
X X
X
X
X
X
X
6"TREE
12"TREE
30"TREE
30"TREE
18"TREE
15"TREE
24"TREE
24"TREE
18"TREE
24"TREE (TYP)
24"TREE (TYP)
24"TREE (TYP)
24"TREE
24"TREE (TYP)
12"TREE
12"TREE
24"TREE
16"TREE
W.I.D. LOWER MAIN

CANAL TOPOGRAPHIC PLAN

AS SHOWN APPROVED
SHEET
NUMBER DATE DESCRIPTIONS REVISIONS NO.

JOB #:

DATE:

SCALE:

DRAWN:

DESIGN:

CHK'D: PLOTTED: 09/17/2025 13:11 PLOTTED BY: Phurban DWGNAME: F:\24-3445 Waterford 170ac Development\Planning\TM\Phase 1 & 2\TM4.1 - TM4.3.dwg TM4.2
COPYRIGHT © 2025 NORTHSTAR ENGINEERING GROUP, INC
24-3445

MF/ LCS
PMH
PMH
09/17/2025

WATERFORD, CALIFORNIA
HIGHLAND POINTE SUBDIVISION, PHASES 1 AND 2
0 1" =
80 40 80
80'

EXISTING PROPOSED
LEGEND

BOUNDARY LINE

CENTERLINE

RIGHT-OF-WAY

PARCEL LINE

LOT LINE

FLOW LINE

CONTOURS

TREE TO REMAIN

TREE TO BE REMOVED

DIRT ROAD
165.0 N/A
N/A
N/A
X
N/A
N/A
N/A
ISP
ISP
ISP
IV
IV
IV
IV
IV
ISP
ICV
ICV
ICV
ICV
165.0
166.0
166.0
166.0
165.0
165.0
165.0
165.0
165.0
166.0
164.4
164.6
164.8
165.2
165.4
165.6
165.6
165.6
165.8
167.0
166.6
166.6
166.6
166.6
166.8
167.0
168.0
169.0 170.0 171.0 172.0
173.0
167.0
168.0 169.0
167.0
168.0
169.0
166.0
167.0 167.0 167.0
166.0
167.0 167.0 168.0 168.0
167.0
167.0 168.0 168.0
166.0 167.0 168.0 166.0 167.0168.0 169.0 170.0 171.0 172.0 173.0 174.0 175.0 176.0 177.0178.0 179.0 180.0 181.0 182.0 179.0 180.0181.0
182.0183.0184.0 185.0 186.0
183.0
184.0
185.0 186.0 187.0
174.0
174.0
175.0
175.0
176.0
176.0
177.0
177.0
178.0
178.0
179.0
179.0
180.0
181.0
182.0
166.0 167.0 168.0169.0
170.0
171.0
172.0
165.0 166.0 167.0 168.0 169.0 170.0 171.0 172.0 173.0 174.0175.0 176.0 177.0 172.0 173.0 174.0
175.0
159.0 165.0
159.0 166.0
166.0 159.0
159.0
178.0
179.0
180.0 181.0 182.0
183.0
184.0
185.0
179.0
W.I.D. LOWER MAIN CANAL TOPOGRAPHIC PLAN

AS SHOWN APPROVED
SHEET
NUMBER DATE DESCRIPTIONS REVISIONS NO.

JOB #:

DATE:

SCALE:

DRAWN:

DESIGN:

CHK'D: PLOTTED: 09/17/2025 13:11 PLOTTED BY: Phurban DWGNAME: F:\24-3445 Waterford 170ac Development\Planning\TM\Phase 1 & 2\TM4.1 - TM4.3.dwg TM4.3
COPYRIGHT © 2025 NORTHSTAR ENGINEERING GROUP, INC
24-3445

MF/ LCS
PMH
PMH
09/17/2025

WATERFORD, CALIFORNIA
HIGHLAND POINTE SUBDIVISION, PHASES 1 AND 2 0
1" =
80 40 80
80'

EXISTING PROPOSED
LEGEND

BOUNDARY LINE

CENTERLINE

RIGHT-OF-WAY

PARCEL LINE

LOT LINE

FLOW LINE

CONTOURS

TREE TO REMAIN

TREE TO BE REMOVED

DIRT ROAD
165.0 N/A
N/A
N/AX
N/A
N/A
N/A

HIGHLAND POINTE RESIDENTIAL PROJECT

ENVIRONMENTAL

CHECKLIST
City of Waterford PAGE 116

APPENDIX B

AIR QUALITY & GREENHOUSE GAS MODELING
Waterford Lake Pointe - Operations Detailed Report, 10/13/2025 1 / 29
Waterford Lake Pointe - Operations Detailed Report
Table of Contents

1. Basic Project Information

1.1. Basic Project Information

1.2. Land Use Types

1.3. User-Selected Emission Reduction Measures by Emissions Sector

2. Emissions Summary

2.4. Operations Emissions Compared Against Thresholds

2.5. Operations Emissions by Sector, Unmitigated

4. Operations Emissions Details

4.1. Mobile Emissions by Land Use

4.1.1. Unmitigated

4.2. Energy

4.2.1. Electricity Emissions By Land Use - Unmitigated

4.2.3. Natural Gas Emissions By Land Use - Unmitigated

4.3. Area Emissions by Source

4.3.1. Unmitigated
Waterford Lake Pointe - Operations Detailed Report, 10/13/2025 2 / 29

4.4. Water Emissions by Land Use

4.4.1. Unmitigated

4.5. Waste Emissions by Land Use

4.5.1. Unmitigated

4.6. Refrigerant Emissions by Land Use

4.6.1. Unmitigated

4.7. Offroad Emissions By Equipment Type

4.7.1. Unmitigated

4.8. Stationary Emissions By Equipment Type

4.8.1. Unmitigated

4.9. User Defined Emissions By Equipment Type

4.9.1. Unmitigated

4.10. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type

4.10.1. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type - Unmitigated

4.10.2. Above and Belowground Carbon Accumulation by Land Use Type - Unmitigated

4.10.3. Avoided and Sequestered Emissions by Species - Unmitigated

5. Activity Data

5.9. Operational Mobile Sources
Waterford Lake Pointe - Operations Detailed Report, 10/13/2025 3 / 29

5.9.1. Unmitigated

5.10. Operational Area Sources

5.10.1. Hearths

5.10.1.1. Unmitigated

5.10.2. Architectural Coatings

5.10.3. Landscape Equipment

5.11. Operational Energy Consumption

5.11.1. Unmitigated

5.12. Operational Water and Wastewater Consumption

5.12.1. Unmitigated

5.13. Operational Waste Generation

5.13.1. Unmitigated

5.14. Operational Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Equipment

5.14.1. Unmitigated

5.15. Operational Off-Road Equipment

5.15.1. Unmitigated

5.16. Stationary Sources

5.16.1. Emergency Generators and Fire Pumps
Waterford Lake Pointe - Operations Detailed Report, 10/13/2025 4 / 29

5.16.2. Process Boilers

5.17. User Defined

5.18. Vegetation

5.18.1. Land Use Change

5.18.1.1. Unmitigated

5.18.1. Biomass Cover Type

5.18.1.1. Unmitigated

5.18.2. Sequestration

5.18.2.1. Unmitigated

6. Climate Risk Detailed Report

6.1. Climate Risk Summary

6.2. Initial Climate Risk Scores

6.3. Adjusted Climate Risk Scores

6.4. Climate Risk Reduction Measures

7. Health and Equity Details

7.1. CalEnviroScreen 4.0 Scores

7.2. Healthy Places Index Scores

7.3. Overall Health & Equity Scores
Waterford Lake Pointe - Operations Detailed Report, 10/13/2025 5 / 29

7.4. Health & Equity Measures

7.5. Evaluation Scorecard

7.6. Health & Equity Custom Measures

8. User Changes to Default Data
Waterford Lake Pointe - Operations Detailed Report, 10/13/2025 6 / 29

1. Basic Project Information