Mountain House Incorporation Final Is-nd 7-21-23

F INAL I S N D NITIAL TUDY AND EGATIVE ECLARATION FOR THE M OUNTAIN H OUSE I NCORPORATION JULY 2023 Prepared for: San Joaquin County LAFCo 344 North San Joaquin Street, Suite 374 Stockton, CA 95202 (209) 468-3198 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 Land Use Planning, Design, and Environmental Firm F INAL I S N D NITIAL TUDY AND EGATIVE ECLARATION FOR THE M OUNTAIN H OUSE I NCORPORATION JULY 2023 Prepared for: San Joaquin County LAFCo 344 North San Joaquin Street, Suite 374 Stockton, CA 95202 (209) 468-3198 Prepared by: De Novo Planning Group 1020 Suncast Lane, Suite 106 El Dorado Hills, CA 95762 (916) 580-9818 Proposed Negative Declaration for the Mountain House Incorporation Project Lead Agency: San Joaquin County LAFCo 344 North San Joaquin Street, Suite 374 Stockton, CA 95202 Project Title: Mountain House Incorporation Project Project Location: The proposed Project area is located along the Alameda County-San Joaquin County border, near the foothills of the Diablo range and north of Interstate 205 (I-205) in the southwestern portion of San Joaquin County, California. The City of Tracy located to the southeast, across I-205, and the City of Livermore is located approximately eight miles to the southwest. The existing landform consists of gently northeast-sloping terrain. Topographic features are limited to areas along Mountain House Creek, and the levee bordering Old River. The Union Pacific Railroad Mococo Subdivision crosses the northern portion of the site and two minor creeks traverse the site, the larger of the two being Mountain House Creek. Major highway access is available from Interstate 580 (I-580) and I-205. Local road access is available via Grant Line Road, Mountain House Parkway, and Byron Road, all of which connect to I-205 and other points. For purposes of this Initial Study, the Project area is comprised of two Study Areas. Study Area 1 consists of approximately 6.47 square miles (8,062 parcels) and is generally bound by I-205 to the south, Old River to the north, and the Alameda County line to the east. Along the eastern edge is Mountain House Parkway and the Wicklund Cut, an irrigation inlet off Old River. Study Area 2 consists of approximately 6.70 square miles (8,137 parcels), including all of the land comprising Study Area 1, as well as an additional 0.23 square miles (75 additional parcels) of land that is located within the existing Master Plan, but not included as part of the proposed Mountain House Incorporation Boundary, as described further below. The Project area is generally developed with a mix of residential, parks and schools, and some commercial and industrial uses, consistent with the Land Use Plan contained within the Master Plan and subsequent Specific Plans. Undeveloped areas are primarily located within the northernmost and southernmost portions of the Project area. Project Description: The San Joaquin County Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCo) has received an application from the MHCSD to incorporate the existing district boundary (Study Area 1). As discussed, this existing boundary comprises a smaller area than the Master Plan area and MHCSD SOI, which represent the community’s potential boundaries at buildout. LAFCo is evaluating two proposals: one filed by MHCSD (Study Area 1: Proposed Mountain House Incorporation Boundary); and one developed by LAFCo as an alternative to the proposal (Study Area 2: Mountain House Incorporation Alternative Boundary). LAFCo proposes an alternative boundary to eliminate islands of unincorporated County land that would occur with incorporation of the existing MHCSD boundary (Study Area 1), as proposed. The project analyzed in this Initial Study involves the incorporation of Mountain House and the creation of a subsidiary district in order to enforce Declaration of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (CC&Rs) for both incorporation boundary scenarios (Study Area 1 and Study Area 2). The existing MHCSD would divest all of its current powers except enforcement of CC&Rs and become a subsidiary district with the new City Council as its Board of Directors. The Project includes a change in organization; no modifications to the San Joaquin County 2035 General Plan (2035 General Plan) Land Use Map, the land use designations, or intensities/densities identified within the General Plan 2035 Land Use Element are not proposed under either Study Area 1 or Study Area 2. Mountain House is also proposing the creation of a subsidiary district in order to enforce CC&Rs. This is an existing power of the CSD, but cannot be enforced by cities. The existing CSD would divest all of its current powers except enforcement of CC&Rs and become a subsidiary district with the new City Council as its Board of Directors. Findings: In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act, the San Joaquin County Local Agency Formation Commission has prepared an Initial Study to determine whether the proposed project may have a significant adverse effect on the environment. The Initial Study reflect the independent judgment of San Joaquin County Local Agency Formation Commission staff. On the basis of the Initial Study, the San Joaquin County Local Agency Formation Commission hereby finds: The proposed project could not have a significant adverse effect on the environment. The San Joaquin County Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCo) intends to adopt a Negative Declaration, while also finding that, in light of CEQA Guidelines section 15061 (Review of Exemption), the proposed Project meets the “common sense rule” exemption in that it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment (CEQA Guidelines section 15061 (b)(3). For these reasons, the project qualifies as exempt from CEQA and LAFCo intends to adopt a Notice of Exemption concurrently with the adoption of the Negative Declaration. The Initial Study, which provides the basis and reasons for this determination, is attached and/or referenced herein and is hereby made a part of this document. Signature Date MOUNTAIN HOUSE INCORPORATION INITIAL STUDY TABLE OF CONTENTS Initial Study Checklist .................................................................................................................................. 3 Project Title ................................................................................................................................................................... 3 Lead Agency Name and Address .......................................................................................................................... 3 Contact Person and Phone Number .................................................................................................................... 3 Background ................................................................................................................................................................... 3 Project Location and Setting .................................................................................................................................. 5 Project Description .................................................................................................................................................... 6 Requested Entitlements and Other Approvals ............................................................................................... 6 Environmental Factors Potentially Affected .................................................................................... 15 Determination .............................................................................................................................................. 15 Evaluation Instructions ............................................................................................................................ 16 Evaluation of Environmental Impacts ................................................................................................ 17 Environmental Checklist .......................................................................................................................... 18 I. AESTHETICS .............................................................................................................................................. 18 II. AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY RESOURCES ............................................................................. 20 III. AIR QUALITY .......................................................................................................................................... 21 IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ................................................................................................................. 22 V. CULTURAL RESOURCES ...................................................................................................................... 24 VI. ENERGY .................................................................................................................................................... 25 VII. GEOLOGY AND SOILS ........................................................................................................................ 26 VIII. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS .................................................................................................... 28 IX. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS ................................................................................. 30 X. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY ............................................................................................. 32 XI. LAND USE AND PLANNING .............................................................................................................. 34 XII. MINERAL RESOURCES ...................................................................................................................... 36 XIII. NOISE ..................................................................................................................................................... 37 XIV. POPULATION AND HOUSING ........................................................................................................ 38 XV. PUBLIC SERVICES ............................................................................................................................... 39 XVI. RECREATION ....................................................................................................................................... 41 XVII. TRANSPORTATION ......................................................................................................................... 42 XVIII. TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES .............................................................................................. 43 PAGE 1 INITIAL STUDY MOUNTAIN HOUSE INCORPORATION XIX. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS ............................................................................................ 44 XX. WILDFIRE ............................................................................................................................................... 47 XXI. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE ............................................................................ 48 References ..................................................................................................................................................... 49 LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1: Regional Location ....................................................................................................................... 7 Figure 2: Study Area 1 – Proposed Mountain House Incorporation Boundary. ................... 9 Figure 3: Study Area 2 – Mountain House Incorporation Alternative Boundary .............. 11 Figure 4: Mountain House Master Plan Land Uses ........................................................................ 13 . PAGE 2 MOUNTAIN HOUSE INCORPORATION INITIAL STUDY INITIAL STUDY CHECKLIST PROJECT TITLE Mountain House Incorporation LEAD AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS San Joaquin County LAFCo 344 North San Joaquin Street, Suite 374 Stockton, CA 95202 (209) 468-3198 CONTACT PERSON AND PHONE NUMBER Jim Glaser, Executive Director 344 North San Joaquin Street, Suite 374 Stockton, CA 95202 (209) 468-3198 BACKGROUND Mountain House is a master-planned development located in San Joaquin County (County) along the Alameda County-San Joaquin County border, approximately three miles northwest of the City of Tracy. Envisioned as a self-sufficient community offering employment, goods, services, and recreation, Mountain House was proposed to accommodate a portion of the growth projected by the County’s General Plan in an orderly, well-organized development pattern. In 1990, the San Joaquin County Community Development Department initiated review of the Mountain House General Plan Amendment. The General Plan Amendment would add a new community of Mountain House to the San Joaquin County General Plan 1995 (General Plan 1995). The Mountain House project was analyzed in an EIR pertaining to an Amendment to the General Plan 1995. The General Plan 1995 Amendment Final EIR (FEIR) was certified in March 1992; however, the Board of Supervisors voted not to grant the Amendment to the General Plan 1995. The Mountain House new community was also evaluated as one of five new or expanded communities that were proposed for inclusion in the San Joaquin County General Plan 2010 (General Plan 2010). The San Joaquin County Comprehensive Planning Program FEIR analyzed the impacts of new growth proposed in the updated General Plan 2010, including the Mountain House community. In July 1992, the County Board of Supervisors certified the FEIR, but voted not to include the Mountain House project in the General Plan 2010. A General Plan 2010 Amendment application was subsequently submitted. A Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (SEIR) was prepared to review the revised application requesting amendment to the General Plan 2010. On February 25, 1993 the County Board of Supervisors certified the SEIR and approved the Mountain House General Plan 2010 Amendment. Policies in the General Plan 2010 required a proposed new community to submit a comprehensive Master Plan for the project, as well as a Public Financing Plan, followed by one or more Specific Plans. Only after the adoption of these three subsequent plans could a new community project apply to the County for development permits (e.g., subdivision maps and use permits). Subsequent to the approved Mountain House General Plan 2010 Amendment, a Draft Master Plan (Master Plan) for the Mountain House project, as well as the first Draft Specific Plan (Specific Plan I) were prepared. A FEIR for the Mountain House Master Plan and Specific Plan I (SCH PAGE 3 INITIAL STUDY MOUNTAIN HOUSE INCORPORATION #90020776) was also prepared to evaluate applications associated with the following: • Draft Master Plan for the 4,784-acre project site; • Draft Specific Plan I for development of three subareas on the site, totaling 1,345 acres. The three subareas include Central Mountain House (primarily residential); Mountain House Business Park in the southeastern portion of the site (primarily business park offices and freeway commercial); and Old River Industrial Park in the eastern portion of the site, north of Byron Road (primarily industrial and public land uses); • Amendment to the General Plan 2010 land use map. Significant changes included the elimination of a previously approved 500-foot open space buffer zone along the western site boundary and the inclusion of Grant Line Village into the project site; • Reclassification of the project site from AG-40 to AU-20, and specific zoning for the Specific Plan I subareas; • Various General Plan 2010 text amendments; and • Draft Development Agreement (limited to consistency with other plans). The Mountain House Master Plan and Specific Plan I FEIR was certified and the Mountain House Master Plan and Specific Plan I were adopted by the Board of Supervisors on November 10, 1994. The Master Plan intends to provide approximately 15,700 units of housing and services for approximately 44,000 people at buildout forecast for 2040. The Land Use Plan contained within the Master Plan serves to establish the generalized location and categories of land use for the entire Mountain House community. The Land Use Plan identifies the most prevalent land uses in Mountain House as Residential, consisting of approximately 2,486.2 gross acres, or 58 percent of the Planning Area; Open Space and Parks consisting of approximately 524.4 gross acres, or 12 percent of the Planning Area; Commercial consisting of approximately 443.1 gross acres, or 10 percent of the Planning Area; Public (including schools) consisting of approximately 422.9 gross acres, or 10 percent of the Planning Area; Industrial consisting of approximately 382.1 gross acres, or nine percent of the Planning Area; and Mixed-Use consisting of approximately 58.2 gross acres, or one percent of the Planning Area. The Master Plan also contains goals and policies to guide community form and design, and the provision of community facilities and urban services. Additional design regulations and requirements are found in the County Development Title, the Mountain House Community Services District (MHCSD) Design Manual, and Design Guidelines for the community. Specific Plan I (SP I) is the first of three phased Specific Plans and covers the first stage of development within Mountain House. It addresses 1,348 acres of the overall community, including three of the 12 neighborhoods planned for Mountain House and a complementary balance of commercial, industrial and public uses. The Specific Plan Area consists of three subareas: Central Mountain House, a 1,040-acre subarea located centrally within the Mountain House community; Mountain House Business Park, a 143.5-acre subarea located at the Mountain House Parkway freeway interchange in the southeast corner of the Mountain House community; and Old River Industrial Park, a 164.5-acre subarea located in the northeastern portion of the Mountain House community, between the Old River and Byron Road. Other improvements outside these three subareas consist of a water treatment plant located north of Byron Road, raw water pumping and conveyance, and other infrastructure improvements. The MHCSD became a "Special District", of the State of California, on April 16, 1996, pursuant to Division 3 of Title 6 of the Government Code. The MHCSD was created by the County of San PAGE 4 MOUNTAIN HOUSE INCORPORATION INITIAL STUDY Joaquin to provide services within the boundaries of the Master Planned Mountain House Community. Presently, the MHCSD boundary encompasses 3,471 acres, or about 72.6 percent of the 4,784-acre (approximately 7.5 square mile) Master Plan area. The MHCSD Sphere of Influence (SOI) boundaries are the same as the Master Plan boundaries and represent ultimate buildout of the District. In December 2008, MHCSD elected and seated its first 5-member Board of Directors. Specific Plan II (SP II) was adopted February 8, 2005. SP II fully implements the Master Plan for the SP II Planning Area, which encompasses approximately 2,300 acres and includes seven of the 12 Mountain House neighborhoods, the Town Center, commercial areas, and associated parks, schools, open space and infrastructure. SP II establishes the location and acreages of land uses within the SP II Area and provides zoning classifications in accordance with the County General Plan, the Master Plan and the County Development Title. An Initial Study (SCH #1990020776) was prepared by the County, which determined the 1994 FEIR prepared for the Master Plan remains valid and the project is within the scope of the 1994 FEIR. Specific Plan III, the third of three Specific Plans that implement the Master Plan, was adopted November 22, 2005. SP III fully implements the Master Plan for the SP III Planning Area, which consists of approximately 816 acres in the southeastern region of the Master Plan area (also known as College Park). In addition to implementing the Master Plan goals and objectives, SP III establishes the framework for land use and development standards that govern the community build-out of the neighborhoods within its planning area. SP III also added a major new land use objective to the Master Plan to accommodate a satellite campus within the community for Delta Community College. SP III also identifies the public infrastructure and services needed to support development in the planning area. It defines the permitted uses, development density, building setbacks, building heights, and other development standards to be utilized for projects in the planning area. A FEIR for the SP III (SCH #2003102074) was prepared to evaluate impacts related to implementation of the Specific Plan, including associated amendments to the Mountain House Master Plan, development of a community college, Tentative Maps, and other proposed entitlements. In 2015, MHCSD began investigating the feasibility of incorporating as a city to expand its control over local services and to increase revenues to improve services. Incorporation of Mountain House and the creation of a subsidiary district in order to enforce Declaration of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (CC&Rs) is the subject of this Initial Study, as described below. PROJECT LOCATION AND SETTING The proposed Project area is located along the Alameda County-San Joaquin County border, near the foothills of the Diablo range and north of Interstate 205 (I-205) in the southwestern portion of San Joaquin County, California; refer to Figure 1, Regional Vicinity. The City of Tracy located to the southeast, across I-205, and the City of Livermore is located approximately eight miles to the southwest. The existing landform consists of gently northeast-sloping terrain. Topographic features are limited to areas along Mountain House Creek, and the levee bordering Old River. The Union Pacific Railroad Mococo Subdivision crosses the northern portion of the site and two minor creeks traverse the site, the larger of the two being Mountain House Creek. Major highway access is available from Interstate 580 (I-580) and I-205. Local road access is available via Grant Line Road, Mountain House Parkway, and Byron Road, all of which connect to I-205 and other points. For purposes of this Initial Study, the Project area is comprised of two Study Areas. Study Area 1 consists of approximately 6.47 square miles (8,062 parcels) and is generally bound by I-205 to PAGE 5 INITIAL STUDY MOUNTAIN HOUSE INCORPORATION the south, Old River to the north, and the Alameda County line to the east. Along the eastern edge is Mountain House Parkway and the Wicklund Cut, an irrigation inlet off Old River; refer to Figure 2, Study Area 1 – Proposed Mountain House Incorporation Boundary. Study Area 2 consists of approximately 6.70 square miles (8,137 parcels), including all of the land comprising Study Area 1, as well as an additional 0.23 square miles (75 additional parcels) of land that is located within the existing Master Plan, but not included as part of the proposed Mountain House Incorporation Boundary, as described further below. Refer to Figure 3, Study Area 2 – Mountain House Incorporation Alternative Boundary. The Project area is generally developed with a mix of residential, parks and schools, and some commercial and industrial uses, consistent with the Land Use Plan contained within the Master Plan and subsequent Specific Plans. Undeveloped areas are primarily located within the northernmost and southernmost portions of the Project area. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The San Joaquin County Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCo) has received an application from the MHCSD to incorporate the existing district boundary (Study Area 1). As discussed, this existing boundary comprises a smaller area than the Master Plan area and MHCSD SOI, which represent the community’s potential boundaries at buildout. LAFCo is evaluating two proposals: one filed by MHCSD (Study Area 1: Proposed Mountain House Incorporation Boundary); and one developed by LAFCo as an alternative to the proposal (Study Area 2: Mountain House Incorporation Alternative Boundary). LAFCo proposes an alternative boundary to eliminate islands of unincorporated County land that would occur with incorporation of the existing MHCSD boundary (Study Area 1), as proposed. The project analyzed in this Initial Study involves the incorporation of Mountain House and the creation of a subsidiary district in order to enforce Declaration of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (CC&Rs) for both incorporation boundary scenarios (Study Area 1 and Study Area 2). The existing MHCSD would divest all of its current powers except enforcement of CC&Rs and become a subsidiary district with the new City Council as its Board of Directors. The Project includes a change in organization; no modifications to the San Joaquin County 2035 General Plan (2035 General Plan) Land Use Map, the land use designations, or intensities/densities identified within the General Plan 2035 Land Use Element are not proposed under either Study Area 1 or Study Area 2; refer to Figure 4, Mountain House Master Plan Land Uses. Mountain House is also proposing the creation of a subsidiary district in order to enforce CC&Rs. This is an existing power of the CSD, but cannot be enforced by cities. The existing CSD would divest all of its current powers except enforcement of CC&Rs and become a subsidiary district with the new City Council as its Board of Directors. REQUESTED ENTITLEMENTS AND OTHER APPROVALS California has established a Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCo) for every county. LAFCos have numerous powers, but those of primary concern are the power to act on local agency or district boundary changes and to adopt spheres of influence (SOI). LAFCos are required to review and ultimately approve or disapprove proposals for changes of organization and reorganization consistent with written policies, procedures and guidelines adopted by the Commission (Section 56375). Accordingly, the San Joaquin LAFCo is the Lead Agency for the proposed project, pursuant to the State Guidelines for Implementation of CEQA, Section 15050. PAGE 6 MOUNTAIN HOUSE INCORPORATION INITIAL STUDY PAGE 7 INITIAL STUDY MOUNTAIN HOUSE INCORPORATION This page left intentionally blank. PAGE 8 MOUNTAIN HOUSE INCORPORATION INITIAL STUDY PAGE 9 INITIAL STUDY MOUNTAIN HOUSE INCORPORATION This page left intentionally blank. PAGE 10 MOUNTAIN HOUSE INCORPORATION INITIAL STUDY PAGE 11 INITIAL STUDY MOUNTAIN HOUSE INCORPORATION This page left intentionally blank. PAGE 12 MOUNTAIN HOUSE INCORPORATION INITIAL STUDY PAGE 13 INITIAL STUDY MOUNTAIN HOUSE INCORPORATION This page left intentionally blank. PAGE 14 MOUNTAIN HOUSE INCORPORATION INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED None of the environmental factors listed below would have potentially significant impacts as a result of development of this project, as described on the following pages. Agriculture and Forestry Aesthetics Air Quality Resources Biological Resources Cultural Resources Energy Hazards and Hazardous Geology and Soils Greenhouse Gasses Materials Hydrology and Water Land Use and Planning Mineral Resources Quality Noise Population and Housing Public Services Recreation Transportation Tribal Cultural Resources Utilities and Service Mandatory Findings of Wildfire Systems Significance DETERMINATION On the basis of this initial evaluation: I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a X NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. I find that the proposed project MAY have a "potentially significant impact" or "potentially significant unless mitigated" impact on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required. Signature Date PAGE 15 INITIAL STUDY MOUNTAIN HOUSE INCORPORATION EVALUATION INSTRUCTIONS 1) A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No Impact" answers that are adequately supported by the information sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses following each question. A "No Impact" answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved (e.g., the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A "No Impact" answer should be explained where it is based on project-specific factors as well as general standards (e.g., the project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on a project-specific screening analysis). 2) All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off-site as well as on- site, cumulative as well as project-level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational impacts. 3) Once the lead agency has determined that a particular physical impact may occur, then the checklist answers must indicate whether the impact is potentially significant, less than significant with mitigation, or less than significant. "Potentially Significant Impact" is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect may be significant. If there are one or more "Potentially Significant Impact" entries when the determination is made, an EIR is required. 4) "Negative Declaration: Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated" applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from "Potentially Significant Impact" to a "Less Than Significant Impact." The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level (mitigation measures from Section XVII, "Earlier Analyses," may be cross-referenced). 5) Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(D). In this case, a brief discussion should identify the following: a) Earlier Analysis Used. Identify and state where they are available for review. b) Impacts Adequately Addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis. c) Mitigation Measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Measures Incorporated," describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site- specific conditions for the project. 6) Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information sources for potential impacts (e.g., general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a previously prepared or outside document should, where appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where the statement is substantiated. 7) Supporting Information Sources: A source list should be attached, and other sources used or individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion. 8) This is only a suggested form, and lead agencies are free to use different formats; however, lead agencies should normally address the questions from this checklist that are relevant to a project's environmental effects in whatever format is selected. 9) The explanation of each issue should identify: a) The significance criteria or threshold, if any, used to evaluate each question; and b) The mitigation measure identified, if any, to reduce the impact to less than significant. PAGE 16 MOUNTAIN HOUSE INCORPORATION INITIAL STUDY EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS In each area of potential impact listed in this section, there are one or more questions which assess the degree of potential environmental effect. A response is provided to each question using one of the four impact evaluation criteria described below. A discussion of the response is also included. • Potentially Significant Impact. This response is appropriate when there is substantial evidence that an effect is significant. If there are one or more "Potentially Significant Impact" entries, upon completion of the Initial Study, an EIR is required. • Less than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated. This response applies when the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from "Potentially Significant Impact" to a "Less Than Significant Impact". The Lead Agency must describe the mitigation measures and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level. • Less than Significant Impact. A less than significant impact is one which is deemed to have little or no adverse effect on the environment. Mitigation measures are, therefore, not necessary, although they may be recommended to further reduce a minor impact. • No Impact. These issues were either identified as having no impact on the environment, or they are not relevant to the project. PAGE 17 INITIAL STUDY MOUNTAIN HOUSE INCORPORATION ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST This section of the Initial Study incorporates the most current Appendix "G" Environmental Checklist Form contained in the CEQA Guidelines. Impact questions and responses are included in both tabular and narrative formats for each of the environmental topic areas. I. AESTHETICS Less Than Potentially Less Than Significant with Would the project: Significant Significant No Impact Mitigation Impact Impact Incorporation a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic X vista? b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock X outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? 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 X accessible vantage point). If the project is in an urbanized area, would the project conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality? d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime X views in the area? Responses to Checklist Questions Responses a), b), c), d): The Project area is located along the Alameda County-San Joaquin County border, near the foothills of the Diablo range and north of I-205 in the southwestern portion of San Joaquin County. The existing landform consists of gently northeast-sloping terrain, with topographic features limited to areas along Mountain House Creek, and the levee bordering Old River. There are no State scenic highways within the Project area; however, a portion of I-580 between I-205 and I-5, located approximately 0.5 miles southwest of the Project area, is officially designated as a scenic highway by the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) (California Department of Transportation, 2022). The Project proposes the incorporation of Mountain House and the creation of a subsidiary district in order to enforce CC&Rs for both incorporation boundary scenarios (Study Area 1 and Study Area 2). The Project includes a change in organization and no modifications to the 2035 General Plan Land Use Map, land use designations, or intensities/densities identified within the 2035 General Plan Land Use Element are proposed at this time. The Project would not result in any physical environmental changes, as defined by CEQA, and would not result in any impact related to aesthetic resources. PAGE 18 MOUNTAIN HOUSE INCORPORATION INITIAL STUDY The proposed Project does not involve site-specific development; the 2035 General Plan anticipates continued urbanization of the area, including continued development of the remaining vacant lands. Since the proposed incorporation proposes no changes to the land use regulatory framework, the permissible land uses and associated densities of future development would not be affected. As future development is considered, each project would be reviewed for consistency with policies, programs, and the established regulatory framework aimed to reduce potential impacts to aesthetics. Such development projects would also be analyzed for potential environmental impacts, consistent with the requirements of CEQA. Therefore, no aesthetic- related impacts would occur as a result of the proposed Project. PAGE 19 INITIAL STUDY MOUNTAIN HOUSE INCORPORATION II. AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY RESOURCES Less Than Potentially Less Than Significant with No Would the project: Significant Significant Mitigation Impact Impact Impact Incorporation a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the X Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use? b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, X or a Williamson Act contract? c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code X section 1222(g)) or timberland (as defined in Public Resources Code section 4526)? d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of X forest land to non-forest use? e) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in X conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-forest use? Responses to Checklist Questions Responses a), b), c), d), e): The Project area is generally developed with a mix of residential, parks and schools, and some commercial and industrial uses. Undeveloped areas are primarily located within the northernmost and southernmost portions of the Project area. The Project area is not designated as Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance, as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency (California Department of Conservation, 2022a). The 2035 General Plan does not designate any land within the Project area agricultural use and there is no land within the Project area under a Williamson Act contract (Conservation Biology Institute, 2022). There are no timber resources or forest land within the Project area. The proposed Project does not involve site-specific development; the Project proposes the incorporation of Mountain House and the creation of a subsidiary district in order to enforce CC&Rs for both incorporation boundary scenarios (Study Area 1 and Study Area 2). The Project includes a change in organization and no modifications to the 2035 General Plan Land Use Map, land use designations, or intensities/densities identified within the 2035 General Plan Land Use Element are proposed at this time. As the Project area does not contain any agriculture or forestry resources or any lands zoned for agriculture or forestry, no impacts would occur in this regard. PAGE 20 MOUNTAIN HOUSE INCORPORATION INITIAL STUDY III. AIR QUALITY Less Than Potentially Less Than Significant with No Would the project: Significant Significant Mitigation Impact Impact Impact Incorporation a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the X applicable air quality plan? b) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region X is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard? c) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial X pollutant concentrations? d) Result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of X people? Responses to Checklist Questions Responses a), b), c), d): The Project area is located within the San Joaquin Valley Air Basin (SJVAB), which is within the jurisdictional boundary 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 regulations within the SJVAB and has jurisdiction over most air quality matters within its borders. The Project proposes the incorporation of Mountain House and the creation of a subsidiary district in order to enforce CC&Rs for both incorporation boundary scenarios (Study Area 1 and Study Area 2). The Project includes a change in organization and no modifications to the 2035 General Plan Land Use Map, land use designations, or intensities/densities identified within the 2035 General Plan Land Use Element are proposed at this time. The Project would not result in any physical environmental changes, as defined by CEQA, and would not result in any impacts related to air quality. The proposed Project does not involve site-specific development; the 2035 General Plan anticipates continued urbanization of the area, including continued development of the remaining vacant lands. Since the proposed incorporation proposes no changes to the land use regulatory framework, the permissible land uses and associated densities of future development would not be affected. As future development is considered, each project would be reviewed for consistency with policies, programs, and the established regulatory framework aimed to reduce potential impacts to air quality. Such development projects would also be analyzed for potential environmental impacts, consistent with the requirements of CEQA. Therefore, no air quality- related impacts would occur as a result of the proposed Project. PAGE 21 INITIAL STUDY MOUNTAIN HOUSE INCORPORATION IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES Less Than Potentially Less Than Significant with No Would the project: Significant Significant Mitigation Impact Impact Impact Incorporation a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status X 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? b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, X regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or US Fish and Wildlife Service? c) Have a substantial adverse effect on state or federally protected wetlands (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through X direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory X wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree X preservation policy or ordinance? f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community X Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? Responses to Checklist Questions Response a), b), c), d), e), f): The Project area is generally developed, with undeveloped areas primarily located within the northernmost and southernmost portions of the Project area. Mountain House Creek runs through the Project area and Old River forms the northern boundary. The Project area is located within the boundaries of the San Joaquin County Multi-Species Habitat Conservation and Open Space Plan (SJMSCP). The Project proposes the incorporation of Mountain House and the creation of a subsidiary district in order to enforce CC&Rs for both incorporation boundary scenarios (Study Area 1 and Study Area 2). The Project includes a change in organization and no modifications to the 2035 General Plan Land Use Map, land use designations, or intensities/densities identified within the 2035 General Plan Land Use Element are proposed at this time. The Project would not result in any physical environmental changes, as defined by CEQA, and would not result in any impact related to biological resources. The proposed Project does not involve site-specific development; the 2035 General Plan anticipates continued urbanization of the area, including continued development of the PAGE 22 MOUNTAIN HOUSE INCORPORATION INITIAL STUDY remaining vacant lands. Since the proposed incorporation proposes no changes to the land use regulatory framework, the permissible land uses and associated densities of future development would not be affected. As future development is considered, each project would be reviewed for consistency with policies, programs, and the established regulatory framework aimed to reduce potential impacts to biological resources, including the SJMSCP. Such development projects would also be analyzed for potential environmental impacts, consistent with the requirements of CEQA. Therefore, no impacts to biological resources would occur as a result of the proposed Project. PAGE 23 INITIAL STUDY MOUNTAIN HOUSE INCORPORATION V. CULTURAL RESOURCES Less Than Potentially Less Than Significant with No Would the project: Significant Significant Mitigation Impact Impact Impact Incorporation a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource pursuant to X Section15064.5? b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant X to Section 15064.5? c) Disturb any human remains, including those X interred outside of formal cemeteries? Responses to Checklist Questions Responses a), b), c): According to CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5, a historical resource is a resource listed in, or determined to be eligible for listing in, the California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR); a resource included in a local register of historical resources; or any object, building, structure, site, area, place, record, or manuscript that a lead agency determines to be historically significant. A resource is considered historically significant if it meets at least one of the following criteria: • Associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of local or regional history or the cultural heritage of California or the United States; • Associated with the lives of persons important to local, California or national history; • Embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region or method of construction or represents the work of a master or possesses high artistic values; or • Has yielded, or has the potential to yield, information important to the prehistory or history of the local area, California or the nation. Archaeological resources are the physical remains of past human activities and can be either prehistoric or historic in origin. The Project proposes the incorporation of Mountain House and the creation of a subsidiary district in order to enforce CC&Rs for both incorporation boundary scenarios (Study Area 1 and Study Area 2). The Project includes a change in organization and no modifications to the 2035 General Plan Land Use Map, land use designations, or intensities/densities identified within the 2035 General Plan Land Use Element are proposed at this time. The Project would not result in any physical environmental changes, as defined by CEQA, and would not result in any impact related to cultural resources The proposed Project does not involve site-specific development; the 2035 General Plan anticipates continued urbanization of the area, including continued development of the remaining vacant lands. Since the proposed incorporation proposes no changes to the land use regulatory framework, the permissible land uses and associated densities of future development would not be affected. As future development is considered, each project would be reviewed for consistency with policies, programs, and the established regulatory framework aimed to reduce potential impacts to cultural resources. Such development projects would also be analyzed for potential environmental impacts, consistent with the requirements of CEQA. Therefore, no impacts to cultural resources would occur as a result of the proposed Project. PAGE 24 MOUNTAIN HOUSE INCORPORATION INITIAL STUDY VI. ENERGY Less Than Potentially Less Than Significant with No Would the project: Significant Significant Mitigation Impact Impact Impact Incorporation a) Result in potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary X consumption of energy resources, during project construction or operation? b) Conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for X renewable energy or energy efficiency? Responses to Checklist Questions Response a), b): Appendix F 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]). According to Appendix F of the CEQA Guidelines, the means to achieve the goal of conserving energy include 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 state and federal energy standards and/or result in significant adverse impacts related to project energy requirements, energy inefficiencies, energy intensiveness of materials, cause significant impacts on local and regional energy supplies or generate requirements for additional capacity, fail to comply with existing energy standards, otherwise result in significant adverse impacts on energy resources, or conflict or create an inconsistency with applicable plan, policy, or regulation. The Project proposes the incorporation of Mountain House and the creation of a subsidiary district in order to enforce CC&Rs for both incorporation boundary scenarios (Study Area 1 and Study Area 2). The Project includes a change in organization and no modifications to the 2035 General Plan Land Use Map, land use designations, or intensities/densities identified within the 2035 General Plan Land Use Element are proposed at this time. The Project would not result in any physical environmental changes, as defined by CEQA, and would not result in any energy- related impacts. The proposed Project does not involve site-specific development; the 2035 General Plan anticipates continued urbanization of the area, including continued development of the remaining vacant lands. Since the proposed incorporation proposes no changes to the land use regulatory framework, the permissible land uses and associated densities of future development would not be affected. As future development is considered, each project would be reviewed for consistency with policies, programs, and the established regulatory framework aimed to reduce potential impacts to energy. Such development projects would also be analyzed for potential environmental impacts, consistent with the requirements of CEQA. Therefore, no energy-related impacts would occur as a result of the proposed Project. PAGE 25 INITIAL STUDY MOUNTAIN HOUSE INCORPORATION VII. GEOLOGY AND SOILS Potentially Less Than Less Than No Would the project: Significant Significant with Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact a) Directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or X death involving: 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 X substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? X iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including X liquefaction? iv) Landslides? X b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of X topsoil? 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 X landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), X creating substantial direct or indirect risks to life or property? e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water X disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water? f) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic X feature? Responses to Checklist Questions Responses a), b), c), d), e), f): The Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act was passed in 1972 to mitigate the hazard of surface faulting to structures for human occupancy. The Act’s main purpose is to prevent the construction of buildings used for human occupancy on the surface trace of active faults. The Act requires the State Geologist to establish regulatory zones, known as “Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zones,” around the surface traces of active faults and to issue appropriate maps. If an active fault is found, a structure for human occupancy cannot be placed over the trace of the fault and must be set back from the fault (typically 50 feet). PAGE 26 MOUNTAIN HOUSE INCORPORATION INITIAL STUDY Liquefaction is a phenomenon where earthquake-induced ground vibrations increase the pore pressure in saturated, granular soils until it is equal to the confining, overburden pressure. Engineering research of soil liquefaction potential indicates that generally three basic factors must exist concurrently in order for liquefaction to occur. These factors include: a source of ground shaking, such as an earthquake, capable of generating soil mass distortions; a relatively loose silty and/or sandy soil; and, a relatively shallow groundwater table (within approximately 50 feet below ground surface) or completely saturated soil conditions that will allow positive pore pressure generation. Landslides are mass movements of the ground that include rock falls, relatively shallow slumping and sliding of soil, and deeper rotational or transitional movement of soil or rock. According to the California Geological Survey, the Project area is not within an earthquake fault zone and has not been evaluated for liquefaction or landslide potential (California Geological Survey, 2022). The Public Health and Safety Element in the 2035 General Plan identifies the western area of the County, which includes the Project area, as an area susceptible to earthquake movement due to its geology and a number of Quaternary (current period of geologic time) thrust faults and lateral faults. According to the County’s Local Hazard Mitigation Plan (LHMP), the Project area is surrounded by expansive soils (County of San Joaquin, 2017). The faults closest to the Project area include the Midway Fault, Black Butte Fault, and Vernalis Fault. Paleontological resources refer to any fossilized remains, traces, or imprints of organisms, preserved in or on the earth's crust, that are of paleontological interest and that provide information about the history of life on earth. According to the 2035 General Plan, approximately 96,788 acres (11 percent of the County) in San Joaquin County have been surveyed for cultural resources as of June 2008. The County’s cultural sites include 262 prehistoric archeological sites, 239 historic archeological sites, and 14 multi-component archeological sites. The Project proposes the incorporation of Mountain House and the creation of a subsidiary district in order to enforce CC&Rs for both incorporation boundary scenarios (Study Area 1 and Study Area 2). The Project includes a change in organization and no modifications to the 2035 General Plan Land Use Map, land use designations, or intensities/densities identified within the 2035 General Plan Land Use Element are proposed at this time. The Project would not result in any physical environmental changes, as defined by CEQA, and would not result in any impact related to geology and soils. The proposed Project does not involve site-specific development; the 2035 General Plan anticipates continued urbanization of the area, including continued development of the remaining vacant lands. Since the proposed incorporation proposes no changes to the land use regulatory framework, the permissible land uses and associated densities of future development would not be affected. As future development is considered, each project would be reviewed for consistency with policies, programs, and the established regulatory framework aimed to reduce potential impacts to geology and soils. Such development projects would also be analyzed for potential environmental impacts, consistent with the requirements of CEQA. Therefore, no impacts related to geology and soils would occur as a result of the proposed Project. PAGE 27 INITIAL STUDY MOUNTAIN HOUSE INCORPORATION VIII. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS Less Than Potentially Less Than Significant with No Would the project: Significant Significant Mitigation Impact Impact Impact Incorporation a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant X impact on the environment? b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the X emissions of greenhouse gasses? Existing Setting Various gases in the Earth’s atmosphere, classified as atmospheric greenhouse gases (GHGs), play a critical role in determining the Earth’s surface temperature. Solar radiation enters Earth’s atmosphere from space, and a portion of the radiation is absorbed by the Earth’s surface. The Earth emits this radiation back toward space, but the properties of the radiation change from high-frequency solar radiation to lower-frequency infrared radiation. Greenhouse gases, which are transparent to solar radiation, are effective in absorbing infrared radiation. As a result, this radiation that otherwise would have escaped back into space is now retained, resulting in a warming of the atmosphere. This phenomenon is known as the greenhouse effect. Among the prominent GHGs contributing to the greenhouse effect are carbon dioxide (CO ), methane (CH ), ozone (O ), water vapor, nitrous oxide (N O), and 2 4 3 2 chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs). 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. In California, the transportation sector is the largest emitter of GHGs, followed by the industrial sector (California Energy Commission, 2021). Carbon dioxide equivalents are a measurement used to account for the fact that different GHGs have different potential to retain infrared radiation in the atmosphere and contribute to the greenhouse effect. This potential, known as the global warming potential of a GHG, is also dependent on the lifetime, or persistence, of the gas molecule in the atmosphere. Expressing GHG emissions in carbon dioxide equivalents takes the contribution of all GHG emissions to the greenhouse effect and converts them to a single unit equivalent to the effect that would occur if only CO were being emitted. 2 Consumption of fossil fuels in the transportation sector was the single largest source of California’s GHG emissions in 2019, accounting for 41 percent of total GHG emissions in the state. This category was followed by the industrial sector (24%), the electricity generation sector (both in-state and out of-state sources) (14%), and the residential sector (8%) (California Energy Commission, 2021). Responses to Checklist Questions Responses a), b): The Project proposes the incorporation of Mountain House and the creation of a subsidiary district in order to enforce CC&Rs for both incorporation boundary scenarios (Study Area 1 and Study Area 2). The Project includes a change in organization and no modifications to the 2035 General Plan Land Use Map, land use designations, or intensities/densities identified within the 2035 General Plan Land Use Element are proposed at PAGE 28 MOUNTAIN HOUSE INCORPORATION INITIAL STUDY this time. The Project would not result in any physical environmental changes, as defined by CEQA, and would not result in any impact related to greenhouse gas emissions. The proposed Project does not involve site-specific development; the 2035 General Plan anticipates continued urbanization of the area, including continued development of the remaining vacant lands. Since the proposed incorporation proposes no changes to the land use regulatory framework, the permissible land uses and associated densities of future development would not be affected. As future development is considered, each project would be reviewed for consistency with policies, programs, and the established regulatory framework aimed to reduce potential impacts to greenhouse gas emissions. Such development projects would also be analyzed for potential environmental impacts, consistent with the requirements of CEQA. Therefore, no impacts related to greenhouse gas emissions would occur as a result of the proposed Project. PAGE 29 INITIAL STUDY MOUNTAIN HOUSE INCORPORATION IX. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS Less Than Potentially Less Than Significant with No Would the project: Significant Significant Mitigation Impact Impact Impact Incorporation a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or X disposal of hazardous materials? b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset X and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste X within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? 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, X would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? 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 X airport, would the project result in a safety hazard or excessive noise for people residing or working in the project area? f) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or X emergency evacuation plan? g) Expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury or death X involving wildland fires? Responses to Checklist Questions Responses a), b), c), d), e), f), g): There are no public airports within two miles of the Project area. The California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (Cal Fire) designates the Project area as a Local Responsibility Area, non-Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone (California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection, 2007). The Project proposes the incorporation of Mountain House and the creation of a subsidiary district in order to enforce CC&Rs for both incorporation boundary scenarios (Study Area 1 and Study Area 2). The Project includes a change in organization and no modifications to the 2035 General Plan Land Use Map, land use designations, or intensities/densities identified within the 2035 General Plan Land Use Element are proposed at this time. The Project would not result in any physical environmental changes, as defined by CEQA, and would not result in any impact related to hazards and hazardous materials. The proposed Project does not involve site-specific development; the 2035 General Plan anticipates continued urbanization of the area, including continued development of the PAGE 30 MOUNTAIN HOUSE INCORPORATION INITIAL STUDY remaining vacant lands. Since the proposed incorporation proposes no changes to the land use regulatory framework, the permissible land uses and associated densities of future development would not be affected. As future development is considered, each project would be reviewed for consistency with policies, programs, and the established regulatory framework aimed to reduce potential impacts to hazards and hazardous materials. Such development projects would also be analyzed for potential environmental impacts, consistent with the requirements of CEQA. Therefore, no impacts related to hazards and hazardous materials would occur as a result of the proposed Project. PAGE 31 INITIAL STUDY MOUNTAIN HOUSE INCORPORATION X. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY Less Than Potentially Less Than Significant with No Would the project: Significant Significant Mitigation Impact Impact Impact Incorporation a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially X degrade surface or ground water quality? b) Substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge X such that the project may impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin? c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river or through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner which would: (i) Result in substantial erosion or siltation on- X or off-site; (ii) Substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result X in flooding on- or offsite; (iii) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or X provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff; or (iv) Impede or redirect flood flows? X d) In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, risk X release of pollutants due to project inundation? e) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable X groundwater management plan? Responses to Checklist Questions Response a), b), c), d), e): The Project area is located in the San Joaquin Delta of the San Joaquin River Basin. The San Joaquin River Basin is bound by the Diablo Range on the west and the Sierra Nevada to the east. The San Joaquin River flows in a southeast to northwest direction from the Sierra Nevada through San Joaquin County into the Delta, San Francisco Bay, and ultimately the Pacific Ocean. Old River, a distributary of the San Joaquin River, forms the northern boundary of the Project area. Mountain House Creek runs through the Project area. Based on Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) National Flood Insurance Program maps, most of the City is located in Zone X (area of minimal flood hazard) (Federal Emergency Management Agency, 2022). A small portion in the north, bordering Old River, is designated Zone A and AE (special flood hazard area subject to inundation by the one-percent annual chance flood). The Pacific Ocean is located approximately 50 miles west of the Project area. According to the 2035 General Plan, the San Luis Dam and New Melones Dam have the potential to inundate PAGE 32 MOUNTAIN HOUSE INCORPORATION INITIAL STUDY portions of Mountain House in the event of a dam failure. Both dams are located approximately 50 miles from Mountain House. The Project proposes the incorporation of Mountain House and the creation of a subsidiary district in order to enforce CC&Rs for both incorporation boundary scenarios (Study Area 1 and Study Area 2). The Project includes a change in organization and no modifications to the 2035 General Plan Land Use Map, land use designations, or intensities/densities identified within the 2035 General Plan Land Use Element are proposed at this time. The Project would not result in any physical environmental changes, as defined by CEQA, and would not result in any impact related to hydrology and water quality. The proposed Project does not involve site-specific development; the 2035 General Plan anticipates continued urbanization of the area, including continued development of the remaining vacant lands. Since the proposed incorporation proposes no changes to the land use regulatory framework, the permissible land uses and associated densities of future development would not be affected. As future development is considered, each project would be reviewed for consistency with policies, programs, and the established regulatory framework aimed to reduce potential impacts to hydrology and water quality. Such development projects would also be analyzed for potential environmental impacts, consistent with the requirements of CEQA. Therefore, no impacts related to hydrology and water quality would occur as a result of the proposed Project. PAGE 33 INITIAL STUDY MOUNTAIN HOUSE INCORPORATION XI. LAND USE AND PLANNING Less Than Potentially Less Than Significant with No Would the project: Significant Significant Mitigation Impact Impact Impact Incorporation 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 X adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? Responses to Checklist Questions Response a), b): The Project area is located along the Alameda County-San Joaquin County border, near the foothills of the Diablo range and north of Interstate 205 (I-205) in the southwestern portion of San Joaquin County. As discussed in the Project Description, the Project area is comprised of two Study Areas: Study Area 1, which consists of approximately 6.47 square miles (8,062 parcels) and Study Area 2, which consists of approximately 6.70 square miles (8,137 parcels), including all of the land comprising Study Area 1, as well as an additional 0.23 square miles (75 additional parcels) of land that is located within the existing Master Plan, but not included as part of the proposed Mountain House Incorporation Boundary. The Project area is generally developed with a mix of residential, parks and schools, and some commercial and industrial uses, consistent with the Land Use Plan contained within the Master Plan and subsequent Specific Plans. Undeveloped areas are primarily located within the northernmost and southernmost portions of the Project area. The Project proposes the incorporation of Mountain House and the creation of a subsidiary district in order to enforce CC&Rs for both incorporation boundary scenarios (Study Area 1 and Study Area 2). The Project includes a change in organization and no modifications to the 2035 General Plan Land Use Map, land use designations, or intensities/densities identified within the 2035 General Plan Land Use Element are proposed at this time. The Project would not result in any physical environmental changes, as defined by CEQA, and would not result in any impact related to land use and planning. Buildout of the Mountain House area consistent with the 2035 General Plan Land Use Map, Master Plan, and subsequent Specific Plans has been anticipated. Incorporation of Mountain House would not physically divide an established community, as the incorporation boundaries would primarily include portions of the Master Plan that are already developed. Study Area 1 is consistent with the MHCSD boundaries. The boundaries proposed under Study Area 1 would exclude some land, primarily outside of, but along the periphery of the MHCSD boundaries. These parcels include developed and undeveloped parcels. The developed parcels are primarily very low density residential located south of Grant Line Road and north of Kelso Road. Although located within the Master Plan area, these residences are physically disconnected from surrounding development within the MHSCD by existing roadways or large areas of undeveloped land. Incorporation consistent with Study Area 1 would not introduce new roadways or other physical barriers that would physically divide these developed parcels. Study Area 2 includes properties outside of the MHCSD; however, these areas have been included within the Master Plan from its inception and anticipated as part of full buildout of the Mountain House Master Plan. Incorporation consistent with either Study Area 1 or Study Area 2 would not create any physical barriers that would divide an established community. PAGE 34 MOUNTAIN HOUSE INCORPORATION INITIAL STUDY The proposed Project does not involve site-specific development; the 2035 General Plan anticipates continued urbanization of the area, including continued development of the remaining vacant lands. Since the proposed incorporation proposes no changes to the land use regulatory framework, the permissible land uses and associated densities of future development would not be affected. Thus, the Project would not result in a significant environmental impact due to a conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigation an environmental effect. As future development is considered, each project would be reviewed for consistency with policies, programs, and the established regulatory framework aimed to reduce potential impacts related to land use and planning. Such development projects would also be analyzed for potential environmental impacts, consistent with the requirements of CEQA. The Project would not result in any impact related to physically dividing an established community, nor would it conflict with any adopted land use or other related plans, policies, or regulations. Therefore, no impacts related to land use and planning would occur as a result of the proposed Project. PAGE 35 INITIAL STUDY MOUNTAIN HOUSE INCORPORATION XII. MINERAL RESOURCES Less Than Potentially Less Than Significant with No Would the project: Significant Significant Mitigation Impact Impact Impact Incorporation a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region X and the residents of the state? b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally- important mineral resource recovery site delineated X on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan? Responses to Checklist Questions Responses a), b): According to the 2035 General Plan, mineral resources within the County consist primarily of sand and gravel aggregate, with limited mining of peat, gold, and silver. No mineral extraction operations are known to exist in or adjacent to the Project area (California Department of Conservation, 2022b). The Project proposes the incorporation of Mountain House and the creation of a subsidiary district in order to enforce CC&Rs for both incorporation boundary scenarios (Study Area 1 and Study Area 2). The Project includes a change in organization and no modifications to the General Plan 2035 Land Use Map, land use designations, or intensities/densities identified within the General Plan 2035 Land Use Element are proposed at this time. The Project would not result in any physical environmental changes, as defined by CEQA, and would not result in any impact related to mineral resources. As previously noted, although the proposed Project does not involve site-specific development, the Project does anticipate future development. As future development is considered, each project would be reviewed for consistency with policies, programs, and the established regulatory framework aimed to reduce potential impacts to mineral resources. Such development projects would also be analyzed for potential environmental impacts, consistent with the requirements of CEQA. Any future developments facilitated by the incorporation of Mountain House would be required to be reviewed for site-specific impacts. Potential development would be in compliance with all applicable federal, State, and local regulations regulating mineral resources. If necessary, mitigation would be recommended to reduce potential impacts to mineral resources to a less than significant level. Therefore, no impacts to mineral resources would occur as a result of the proposed Project. PAGE 36 MOUNTAIN HOUSE INCORPORATION INITIAL STUDY XIII. NOISE Less Than Potentially Less Than Significant with No Significant Significant Mitigation Impact Impact Impact Incorporated a) Generation of a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards X established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? b) Generation of excessive groundborne vibration or X groundborne noise levels? 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 X of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? Responses to Checklist Questions Response a), b), c): The Project proposes the incorporation of Mountain House and the creation of a subsidiary district in order to enforce CC&Rs for both incorporation boundary scenarios (Study Area 1 and Study Area 2). The Project includes a change in organization and no modifications to the 2035 General Plan Land Use Map, land use designations, or intensities/densities identified within the 2035 General Plan Land Use Element are proposed at this time. The Project would not result in any physical environmental changes, as defined by CEQA, and would not result in any impact related to noise. The proposed Project does not involve site-specific development; the 2035 General Plan anticipates continued urbanization of the area, including continued development of the remaining vacant lands. Since the proposed incorporation proposes no changes to the land use regulatory framework, the permissible land uses and associated densities of future development would not be affected. As future development is considered, each project would be reviewed for consistency with policies, programs, and the established regulatory framework aimed to reduce potential impacts to noise. Such development projects would also be analyzed for potential environmental impacts, consistent with the requirements of CEQA. The Project area is not located within the vicinity of a private airstrip or an airport land use plan and would not expose people residing or working in the area to excessive noise levels due to aircraft. Therefore, no impacts related to noise would occur as a result of the proposed Project. PAGE 37 INITIAL STUDY MOUNTAIN HOUSE INCORPORATION XIV. POPULATION AND HOUSING Less Than Potentially Less Than Significant with No Would the project: Significant Significant Mitigation Impact Impact Impact Incorporation a) Induce substantial unplanned population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for X example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? b) Displace substantial numbers of existing people or housing, necessitating the construction of X replacement housing elsewhere? Responses to Checklist Questions Response a), b): The Project proposes the incorporation of Mountain House and the creation of a subsidiary district in order to enforce CC&Rs for both incorporation boundary scenarios (Study Area 1 and Study Area 2). The Project includes a change in organization and no modifications to the 2035 General Plan Land Use Map, land use designations, or intensities/densities identified within the 2035 General Plan Land Use Element are proposed at this time. The Project would not result in any physical environmental changes, as defined by CEQA, including the removal of any existing residential uses resulting in the displacement of people or housing, and therefore, would not result in any impact related to population and housing. Buildout of the Mountain House area consistent with the 2035 General Plan Land Use Map, Master Plan, and subsequent Specific Plans has been anticipated. The proposed Project would not allow for substantial unplanned population growth, either directly or indirectly, beyond what was anticipated by these plans. Study Area 1 is consistent with the MHCSD service area boundaries and is currently served by infrastructure and services; the proposed incorporation, consistent with Study Area 1, would not result in an extension of roads or other infrastructure that would result in substantial unplanned population growth. Study Area 2 includes properties outside of the MHCSD; however, these areas have been included within the Master Plan from its inception and anticipated as part of full buildout of the Mountain House Master Plan. Thus, incorporation consistent with Study Area 2 would not induce substantial unplanned population growth. The proposed Project does not involve site-specific development; the 2035 General Plan anticipates continued urbanization of the area, including continued development of the remaining vacant lands. Since the proposed incorporation proposes no changes to the land use regulatory framework, the permissible land uses and associated densities of future development would not be affected. As future development is considered, each project would be reviewed for consistency with policies, programs, and the established regulatory framework aimed to reduce potential impacts to population and housing. Such development projects would also be analyzed for potential environmental impacts, consistent with the requirements of CEQA. Therefore, no impacts related to population and housing would occur as a result of the proposed Project. PAGE 38 MOUNTAIN HOUSE INCORPORATION INITIAL STUDY XV. PUBLIC SERVICES Less Than Potentially Less Than Significant with No Significant Significant Mitigation Impact Impact Impact Incorporation 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: i) Fire protection? X ii) Police protection? X iii) Schools? X iv) Parks? X v) Other public facilities? X Responses to Checklist Questions Response a): Fire and emergency services for Mountain House are provided by the Mountain House Fire Department through a contract with the French Camp McKinley Fire District (Mountain House Community Services District Fire Department, 2022). Police protection services for Mountain House are provided by the San Joaquin County Sheriff’s Department (Mountain House Community Services District, 2022a). Mountain House is located within the boundaries of the Lammersville Joint Unified School District. The Stockton-San Joaquin County Public Library system operates the Kathleen Buffleben Branch Library in Mountain House. The Project proposes the incorporation of Mountain House and the creation of a subsidiary district in order to enforce CC&Rs for both incorporation boundary scenarios (Study Area 1 and Study Area 2). The Project includes a change in organization and no modifications to the 2035 General Plan Land Use Map, land use designations, or intensities/densities identified within the 2035 General Plan Land Use Element are proposed at this time. The Project would not result in any physical environmental changes, as defined by CEQA, and would not result in any impact related to public services. Buildout of the Mountain House area consistent with the 2035 General Plan Land Use Map, Master Plan, and subsequent Specific Plans has been anticipated. The proposed Project would not require new or physically altered governmental facilities. Study Area 1 is consistent with the MHCSD and is currently provided with public services; therefore, the proposed incorporation would not result in physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts. Study Area 2 includes properties outside of the MHCSD; however, these areas are within the Master Plan and are anticipated for development. According to the Municipal Services Review and Sphere of Influence Plan (MSR), the MHCSD presently provides adequate public facilities and services for the existing population within the SOI, which coincides with the ultimate MHCSD community buildout boundaries (7.5 square miles). Additionally, the MHCSD has the ability to provide additional public facilities and services for any probable need of future populations within the SOI. Upon incorporation, no significant changes are anticipated to the provision of fire and police protection services, schools, parks, or other public facilities. PAGE 39 INITIAL STUDY MOUNTAIN HOUSE INCORPORATION The proposed Project does not involve site-specific development; the 2035 General Plan anticipates continued urbanization of the area, including continued development of the remaining vacant lands. Since the proposed incorporation proposes no changes to the land use regulatory framework, the permissible land uses and associated densities of future development would not be affected. As future development is considered, each project would be reviewed for consistency with policies, programs, and the established regulatory framework aimed to reduce potential impacts to public services. The new City would continue to collaborate with other agencies in planning expansions and new facilities, shared facilities and activities, and other joint planning actions. Future development projects would also be analyzed for potential environmental impacts, consistent with the requirements of CEQA, including the provision of or potential need for new or physically altered governmental facilities. Therefore, no impacts related to public services would occur as a result of the proposed Project. PAGE 40 MOUNTAIN HOUSE INCORPORATION INITIAL STUDY XVI. RECREATION Less Than Potentially Less Than Significant with No Significant Significant Mitigation Impact Impact Impact Incorporation a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical X deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of X recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? Responses to Checklist Questions Responses a), b): The Project proposes the incorporation of Mountain House and the creation of a subsidiary district in order to enforce CC&Rs for both incorporation boundary scenarios (Study Area 1 and Study Area 2). The Project includes a change in organization and no modifications to the 2035 General Plan Land Use Map, land use designations, or intensities/densities identified within the 2035 General Plan Land Use Element are proposed at this time. The Project would not result in any physical environmental changes, as defined by CEQA, and would not result in any impact related to recreation. The proposed Project does not involve site-specific development, including any recreational facilities; the 2035 General Plan anticipates continued urbanization of the area, including continued development of the remaining vacant lands. Since the proposed incorporation proposes no changes to the land use regulatory framework, the permissible land uses and associated densities of future development would not be affected. Study Area 1 is consistent with the MHCSD boundary and parks and recreation facilities have been constructed to serve existing development. Study Area 2 includes property not currently within the MHCSD; however, parks and recreation facilities within the MHCSD are available to and currently serve these residents. Incorporation to include these properties would not change existing conditions and therefore would not result in an increased use of existing parks resulting in substantial physical deterioration. As future development is considered, each project would be reviewed for consistency with policies, programs, and the established regulatory framework aimed to reduce potential impacts to recreation. Such development projects would also be analyzed for potential environmental impacts, consistent with the requirements of CEQA, including the potential for adverse physical effects on the environment associated with construction or expansion of any recreational facilities. Therefore, no impacts related to recreation would occur as a result of the proposed Project. PAGE 41 INITIAL STUDY MOUNTAIN HOUSE INCORPORATION XVII. TRANSPORTATION Less Than Potentially Less Than Significant with No Would the project: Significant Significant Mitigation Impact Impact Impact Incorporation a) Conflict with a program plan, ordinance, or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, X roadway, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities? b) Would the project conflict or be inconsistent with X CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3, subdivision (b)? c) Substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous X intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? d) Result in inadequate emergency access? X Responses to Checklist Questions Response a), b), c), d): The Project proposes the incorporation of Mountain House and the creation of a subsidiary district in order to enforce CC&Rs for both incorporation boundary scenarios (Study Area 1 and Study Area 2). The Project includes a change in organization and no modifications to the 2035 General Plan Land Use Map, land use designations, or intensities/densities identified within the 2035 General Plan Land Use Element are proposed at this time. The Project would not result in any physical environmental changes, as defined by CEQA, and would not result in any impact related to transportation. The proposed Project does not involve site-specific development or any modifications to existing roadways providing emergency access; the 2035 General Plan anticipates continued urbanization of the area, including continued development of the remaining vacant lands. Since the proposed incorporation proposes no changes to the land use regulatory framework, the permissible land uses and associated densities of future development would not be affected. As future development is considered, each project would be reviewed for consistency with policies, programs, and the established regulatory framework aimed to reduce potential impacts to transportation. Such development projects would also be analyzed for potential environmental impacts, consistent with the requirements of CEQA. The Project would not conflict with a program, plan, ordinance, or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities, nor would it conflict with or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3, subdivision (b). Therefore, no impacts related to transportation would occur as a result of the proposed Project. PAGE 42 MOUNTAIN HOUSE INCORPORATION INITIAL STUDY XVIII. TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES Less Than Potentially Less Than Significant with No Significant Significant Mitigation Impact Impact Impact Incorporation a) 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: i) Listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local X register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code Section 5020.1(k)? ii) 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 X 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. Responses to Checklist Questions Responses a), b): The Project proposes the incorporation of Mountain House and the creation of a subsidiary district in order to enforce CC&Rs for both incorporation boundary scenarios (Study Area 1 and Study Area 2). The Project includes a change in organization and no modifications to the 2035 General Plan Land Use Map, land use designations, or intensities/densities identified within the 2035 General Plan Land Use Element are proposed at this time. The Project would not result in any physical environmental changes, as defined by CEQA, and would not result in any impact related to tribal cultural resources. The proposed Project does not involve site-specific development; the 2035 General Plan anticipates continued urbanization of the area, including continued development of the remaining vacant lands. Since the proposed incorporation proposes no changes to the land use regulatory framework, the permissible land uses and associated densities of future development would not be affected. As future development is considered, each project would be reviewed for consistency with policies, programs, and the established regulatory framework aimed to reduce potential impacts to tribal cultural resources. Such development projects would also be analyzed for potential environmental impacts, consistent with the requirements of CEQA. Therefore, no impacts related to tribal cultural resources would occur as a result of the proposed Project. PAGE 43 INITIAL STUDY MOUNTAIN HOUSE INCORPORATION XIX. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS Less Than Potentially Less Than Significant with No Would the project: Significant Significant Mitigation Impact Impact Impact Incorporation a) Require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water, wastewater or storm water drainage, electric power, natural gas, or X telecommunications facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects? b) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project and reasonably foreseeable future X development during normal, dry and multiple dry years? 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 X projects projected demand in addition to the providers existing commitments? d) Generate solid waste in excess of State or local standards, or in excess of the capacity of local X infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals? e) Comply with federal, state, and local management and reduction statutes and regulations related to X solid waste? Responses to Checklist Questions Responses a), b), c), d), e): Water service in the Project area is provided by the MHCSD.Raw water is purchased the Byron Bethany Irrigation District (BBID) and sourced from the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta via the California Aqueduct (Mountain House Community Services District, 2017). The raw water is treated for potable use by MHCSD’s Water Treatment Plant (WTP). The WTP has a current capacity for 15 million gallons per day (mgd) with expansion potential to 20 mgd to meet the ultimate buildout of the MHCSD SOI. The MHCSD Municipal Services Review determined that an adequate long-term water supply is available for the full build out of the Mountain House community and SOI. The MHCSD is currently in the process of preparing its 2020 Urban Water Management Plan and Water Shortage Contingency Plan (Mountain House Community Services District, 2022b). The MHCSD provides wastewater collection and treatment in Project area. The wastewater treatment and disposal system was designed and built to serve buildout of the community with phasing for expansion of equipment within the treatment plant to be added as necessary to meet development needs (Mountain House Community Services District, 2017). Approximately 80 percent of the MHCSD service area drains by gravity to the treatment plant through a backbone collection system. The remaining 20 percent is and will be pumped to the treatment plant through lift stations and force mains. The wastewater treatment plant currently has capacity to process 3.0 mgd of wastewater and has a design capacity of 5.4 mgd. The MHCSD Municipal Services Review determined that this capacity is sufficient to treat all of the wastewater projected to be generated within the Mountain House Master Plan and SOI. PAGE 44 MOUNTAIN HOUSE INCORPORATION INITIAL STUDY The MHCSD provides storm water drainage infrastructure in the Project area. It is designed to prevent flooding on streets and sidewalks by capturing flows and conveying them to the nearest storm drain. The MHCSD contracts refuse collection services from West Valley Disposal for disposal of solid waste, recyclables, and green waste (Mountain House Community Services District, 2022c). Solid waste generated within unincorporated San Joaquin County, of which the Project area is a part, is primarily disposed of at the Foothill Sanitary. In 2019, approximately 47 percent of solid waste from unincorporated San Joaquin County was disposed of at the Foothill Sanitary Landfill; the North County Landfill & Recycling Center and the Forward Landfill received approximately 33 and 18 percent of solid waste, respectively (CalRecycle, 2022a). Foothill Sanitary Landfill has a maximum permitted throughput of 1,500 tons per day (CalRecycle, 2022b). The facility’s maximum capacity is 138,000,000 cubic yards and has a remaining capacity of 125,000,000 cubic yards. It is anticipated that Foothill Sanitary Landfill would continue to receive a majority of the solid waste from the City post-incorporation. Solid waste generated within the Project area could be accommodated at the Foothill Sanitary Landfill or a combination of disposal facilities that currently receive solid waste for disposal. The Modesto Irrigation District (MID) provides electricity and Pacific Gas and Electric (PG&E) provides gas service within the Project area. Telecommunications services are provided by a variety of service providers, including AT&T and Xfinity. The Project proposes the incorporation of Mountain House and the creation of a subsidiary district in order to enforce CC&Rs for both incorporation boundary scenarios (Study Area 1 and Study Area 2). The Project includes a change in organization and no modifications to the 2035 General Plan Land Use Map, land use designations, or intensities/densities identified within the 2035 General Plan Land Use Element are proposed at this time. The Project would not result in any physical environmental changes, as defined by CEQA, and would not result in any impact related to utilities and service systems. Buildout of the Mountain House area consistent with the 2035 General Plan Land Use Map, Master Plan, and subsequent Specific Plans has been anticipated. The proposed Project would not result in development beyond what was anticipated by the plans. Study Area 1 is consistent with the MHCSD and currently served by infrastructure and services; therefore, the proposed incorporation would not require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water, wastewater or storm water drainage, electric power, natural gas, or telecommunications facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects. Study Area 2 includes properties outside of the MHCSD; however, these areas are within the Master Plan and are anticipated for development. According to the MSR, the MHCSD presently provides adequate public facilities and services, which include water, wastewater and stormwater, for the existing population within the SOI, which coincides with the ultimate MHCSD community buildout boundaries (7.5 square miles). Additionally, the MHCSD has the ability to provide additional public facilities and services for any probable need of future populations within the SOI. Upon incorporation, no significant changes are anticipated to the provision water, wastewater, storm water, or other public services by other agencies. The proposed Project does not involve site-specific development; the 2035 General Plan anticipates continued urbanization of the area, including continued development of the remaining vacant lands. Since the proposed incorporation proposes no changes to the land use regulatory framework, the permissible land uses and associated densities of future development would not be affected. As future development is considered, each project would be reviewed for PAGE 45 INITIAL STUDY MOUNTAIN HOUSE INCORPORATION consistency with policies, programs, and the established regulatory framework aimed to reduce potential impacts associated with utilities and service systems. The new City would continue to collaborate with other agencies in planning expansions and new facilities, shared facilities and activities, and other joint planning actions. Future development projects would also be analyzed for potential environmental impacts, consistent with the requirements of CEQA, including the relocation or construction of new or expanded water, wastewater or storm water drainage, electric power, natural gas, or telecommunications facilities. Therefore, no impacts related to utilities and service systems would occur as a result of the proposed Project. PAGE 46 MOUNTAIN HOUSE INCORPORATION INITIAL STUDY XX. WILDFIRE Less Than Potentially Less Than Significant with No Would the project: Significant Significant Mitigation Impact Impact Impact Incorporation 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 X response plan or emergency evacuation plan? d) Due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors, exacerbate wildfire risks, and thereby expose X project occupants to, pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire? c) Require the installation or maintenance of associated infrastructure (such as roads, fuel breaks, emergency water sources, power lines or other X utilities) that may exacerbate fire risk or that may result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment? d) Expose people or structures to significant risks, including downslope or downstream flooding or X landslides, as a result of runoff, post-fire slope instability, or drainage changes? Responses to Checklist Questions Response a), b), c), d): The Project area is located within the San Joaquin County Operational Area. The County’s Emergency Operations Plan, adopted in 2022, establishes the coordinated emergency management system, which includes prevention, protection, response, recovery and mitigation within the Operational Area (County of San Joaquin, 2022). There are no State Responsibility Areas (SRAs) within the Planning area. The California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (Cal Fire) designates the Project area as a Local Responsibility Area, non-Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone (California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection, 2007). The proposed Project does not involve site-specific development; the Project proposes the incorporation of Mountain House and the creation of a subsidiary district in order to enforce CC&Rs for both incorporation boundary scenarios (Study Area 1 and Study Area 2). The Project includes a change in organization and no modifications to the 2035 General Plan Land Use Map, land use designations, or intensities/densities identified within the 2035 General Plan Land Use Element are proposed at this time. As the Project area is not located within a designated SRA, no impacts would occur in this regard. PAGE 47 INITIAL STUDY MOUNTAIN HOUSE INCORPORATION XXI. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE Less Than Potentially Less Than Significant with No Significant Significant Mitigation Impact Impact Impact Incorporation a) Does the project have the potential to substantially degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, X threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, substantially reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? 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 X when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)? c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on X human beings, either directly or indirectly? Responses to Checklist Questions Response a), b), c): The Project proposes the incorporation of Mountain House and the creation of a subsidiary district in order to enforce CC&Rs for both incorporation boundary scenarios (Study Area 1 and Study Area 2). The Project includes a change in organization and no modifications to the 2035 General Plan Land Use Map, land use designations, or intensities/densities identified within the 2035 General Plan Land Use Element are proposed at this time. The Project would not result in any physical environmental changes, as defined by CEQA, and would not substantially degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self- sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, substantially reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory. The proposed Project does not involve site-specific development; the 2035 General Plan anticipates continued urbanization of the area, including continued development of the remaining vacant lands. Since the proposed incorporation proposes no changes to the land use regulatory framework, the permissible land uses and associated densities of future development would not be affected. As future development is considered, each project would be reviewed for consistency with policies, programs, and the established regulatory framework aimed to reduce potential impacts to biological and cultural resources. Such development projects would also be analyzed for potential environmental impacts, consistent with the requirements of CEQA. As part of the environmental review, the potential for cumulative impacts associated with the specific project would be assessed. The proposed Project would not cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly. Therefore, no impact would occur relative to this topic. PAGE 48 MOUNTAIN HOUSE INCORPORATION INITIAL STUDY REFERENCES CalRecycle, Jurisdiction Disposal and Alternative Daily Cover (ADC) Tons by Facility, https://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/LGCentral/DisposalReporting/Destination/DisposalByF acility, accessed March 28, 2022a. CalRecycle, SWIS Facility/Site Activity Details, Foothill Sanitary Landfill (39-AA-0004), https://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/SolidWaste/SiteActivity/Details/1424?siteID=3097, accessed March 28, 2022b. California Department of Conservation, California Important Farmland Finder: 1984-2018, https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/dlrp/ciftimeseries/, accessed March 24, 2022a. California Department of Conservation, Mines Online, https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/mol/index.html, accessed March 25, 2022 b. California Department of Transportation, California State Scenic Highways, https://dot.ca.gov/programs/design/lap-landscape-architecture-and-community- livability/lap-liv-i-scenic-highways, accessed March 24, 2022. California Energy Commission, 2021, 2000-2019 GHG Inventory (2021 Edition), https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/ghg-inventory-data, accessed March 24, 2022. California Geologic Survey, Earthquake Zones of Required Investigation, https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/EQZApp/app/, accessed March 24, 2022. California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection, 2007, Draft Fire Hazard Severity Zones in LRA, https://osfm.fire.ca.gov/media/6609/fhszl06_1_map39.jpg, accessed March 24, 2022. Conservation Biology Institute, San Jacinto Valley Gateway: San Joaquin County Williamson Act Parcels, 08/2015, https://sjvp.databasin.org/maps/new/#datasets=a32f8f44b4524b07b1861e779a0857c0 , accessed March 28, 2022. County of San Joaquin, February 2022, County of San Joaquin Emergency Operations Plan. County of San Joaquin, 2017, Local Hazard Mitigation Plan. Federal Emergency Management Agency, FEMA Flood Map Service Center (Map 06077C0570F), https://msc.fema.gov/portal/search?AddressQuery=mountain%20house%2C%20ca#sea rchresultsanchor, accessed March 24, 2022. Mountain House Community Services District, Public Safety – Sheriff, https://www.mountainhousecsd.org/residents/public-safety-sheriff-and-fire, accessed March 25, 2022a. Mountain House Community Services District, Preparation of 2020 Urban Water Management Plan and Water Shortage Contingency Plan, https://www.mountainhousecsd.org/home/showpublisheddocument/1905/637820036 939830000, accessed March 25, 2022b. PAGE 49 INITIAL STUDY MOUNTAIN HOUSE INCORPORATION Mountain House Community Services District, Garbage and Recycling, https://www.mountainhousecsd.org/residents/garbage-and-recycling, accessed March 25, 2022c. Mountain House Community Services District, January 2017, Municipal Service Review and Sphere of Influence Plan. Mountain House Community Services District Fire Department, About Us, https://mountainhousefire.com/About, accessed March 25, 2022. PAGE 50