NEWMAN 2030 GENERAL PLAN EIR
D E S I G N , C O M M U N I T Y & E N V I R O N M E N T
Public Review Draft EIR
City of Newman October 4, 2006
D E S I G N , C O M M U N I T Y & E N V I R O N M E N T
1625 SHATTUCK AVENUE, SUITE 300
BERKELEY, CALIFORNIA 94709
TEL: 510 848 3815
FAX: 510 848 4315
NEWMAN 2030 GENERAL PLAN EIR
Public Review Draft EIR
City of Newman October 4, 2006
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I
1. INTRODUCTION................................................................................................................... ........ 1- 1
2. REPORT SUMMARY ....................................................................................................................... 2- 1
3. PROJECT DESCRIPTION ............................................................................................................... 3- 1
4. ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION............................................................................................. 4- 1
4.1 AESTHETICS ........................................................................................................................ 4.1- 1
4.2 AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES ....................................................................................... 4.2- 1
4.3 AIR QUALITY ..................................................................................................................... 4.3- 1
4.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES.............................................................................................. 4.4- 1
4.5 CULTURAL RESOURCES ................................................................................................. 4.5- 1
4.6 GEOLOGY AND SOILS.................................................................................................... 4.6- 1
4.7 HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS ............................................................ 4.7- 1
4.8 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY..................................................................... 4.8- 1
4.9 LAND USE........................................................................................................................... 4.9- 1
4.10 NOISE ............................................................................................................................... 4.10- 1
4.11 POPULATION AND HOUSING.................................................................................. 4.11- 1
4.12 PUBLIC SERVICES............................................................................................................ 4.12- 1
4.13 TRANSPORTATION....................................................................................................... 4.13- 1
4.14 UTILITIES ........................................................................................................................... 4.41- 1
5. ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT .................................................................... 5- 1
6. CEQA- REQUIRED ASSESSMENT CONCLUSIONS ............................................................ 6- 1
7. REPORT PREPARERS...................................................................................................................... 7- 1
APPENDIX A – NOISE DATA
APPENDIX B – TRAFFIC REPORT
C I T Y O F N E W M A N
G E N E R A L P L A N P U B L I C R E V I E W D R A F T E I R
T A B L E O F C O N T E N T S
ii
List of Figures
Figure 3- 1 Regional Location................................................................. 3- 2
Figure 3- 2 City Limits, Proposed SOI and Planning Area .................... 3- 4
Figure 3- 3 Land Use Map..................................................................... 3- 14
Figure 3- 4 Sphere of Influence Boundary Changes............................... 3- 17
Figure 3- 5 Master Plan Areas ................................................................ 3- 19
Figure 3- 4 Circulation Plan.................................................................. 3- 21
Figure 3- 5 Circulation Improvements ................................................. 3- 22
Figure 4.1- 1 Gateways.......................................................................... 4.1- 11
Figure 4.2- 1 County General Plan Designations .................................... 4.2- 3
Figure 4.2- 2 Important Farmlands......................................................... 4.2- 6
Figure 4.2- 3 Lands Under Williamson Act Contracts ........................... 4.2- 8
Figure 4.4- 1 Vegetative Cover................................................................ 4.4- 6
Figure 4.6- 1 Regional Faults .................................................................. 4.6- 5
Figure 4.6- 2 Earthquake Faults in the Planning Area............................ 4.6- 6
Figure 4.6- 3 Soil Types ........................................................................ 4.6- 10
Figure 4.8- 1 FEMA Floodplain.............................................................. 4.8- 3
Figure 4.8- 2 Dam Inundation Areas ...................................................... 4.8- 9
Figure 4.9- 1 Existing Land Use.............................................................. 4.9- 7
Figure 4.10- 1 State Office of Noise Control Land Use
Compatibility Standards.................................................. 4.10- 3
Figure 4.12- 1 Existing Public Facilities ................................................. 4.12- 2
C I T Y O F N E W M A N
G E N E R A L P L A N P U B L I C R E V I E W D R A F T E I R
T A B L E O F C O N T E N T S
iii
Figure 5.1 No Project Alternative ......................................................... 5- 5
Figure 5.2 Concentrated Growth Alternative..................................... 5- 12
Figure 5.3 Reduced Growth Alternative ............................................. 5- 18
List of Tables
Table 2- 1 Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures .................... 2- 5
Table 3- 1 Existing Land Use in the Proposed SOI................................ 3- 8
Table 3- 2 Proposed Land Use Designations in the Project Area ........ 3- 13
Table 3- 3 General Plan Buildout Projections ...................................... 3- 26
Table 4.2- 1 Important Farmland Categories ......................................... 4.2- 6
Table 4.2- 2 Farmland in the Proposed SOI........................................... 4.2- 7
Table 4.3- 1 Ambient Air Quality Standards for Criteria Pollutants .... 4.3- 8
Table 4.3- 2 Comparison of projected VMT and Corresponding Pollutants
Emissions ........................................................................... 4.3- 12
Table 4.3- 3 Proposed General Plan Consistency with Clean Air Planning
TCMs................................................................................. 4.3- 16
Table 4.6- 1 Soil Types in the Proposed SOI and their Erosion and Expan-sion
Potential...................................................................... 4.6- 9
Table 4.9- 1 Existing Newman Land Use Acres..................................... 4.9- 5
Table 4.10- 1 Definitions of Acoustical Terms ....................................... 4.10- 6
Table 4.10- 2 Typical Sound Levels in the Environment........................ 4.10- 7
Table 4.10- 3 Summary of Short- Term Noise Measurements............... 4.10- 13
Table 4.10- 4 Increases in Traffic Noise Along Area Roadways by Proposed
General Plan Buildout ..................................................... 4.10- 21
Table 4.11- 1 Population and Household Trends in Newman ............... 4.11- 3
C I T Y O F N E W M A N
G E N E R A L P L A N P U B L I C R E V I E W D R A F T E I R
T A B L E O F C O N T E N T S
iv
Table 4.11- 2 Occupation and Industry Sector of Employed Newman Resi-dents,
2000 Census ............................................................ 4.11- 5
Table 4.13- 1 General LOS Thresholds Based on Impact Fee Study...... 4.13- 4
Table 4.13- 2 LOS Definitions – Intersections ....................................... 4.13- 5
Table 4.13- 3 Current LOS Based on Traffic Volumes .......................... 4.13- 7
Table 4.13- 4 Existing Peak Hour Intersection LOS.............................. 4.13- 9
Table 4.13- 5 Buildout Traffic Volumes and LOS................................ 4.13- 16
Table 4.13- 6 Proposed GP Buildout Intersection Geometry .............. 4.13- 26
Table 4.13- 7 Proposed GP Buildout Peak Hour Intersection Levels of Ser-vice
.................................................................................. 4.13- 28
Table 4.13- 8 Intersection Requiring Signalization with proposed General
Plan Buildout .................................................................. 4.13- 30
Table 4.13- 9 Railroad Crossings .......................................................... 4.13- 32
Table 5- 1 Project Alternatives Summary............................................... 5.2
Table 5- 2 Comparison of Project Alternatives...................................... 5.3
1 INTRODUCTION
1- 1
This Draft Environmental Impact Report ( EIR) has been prepared to provide
an assessment of the potential environmental consequences of adoption and
implementation of the proposed City of Newman General Plan. This evalua-tion
is designed to inform City of Newman decision- makers, other responsi-ble
agencies and the public- at- large of the nature of the General Plan and its
effect on the environment. This EIR has been prepared in accordance with
and in fulfillment of California Environmental Quality Act ( CEQA) re-quirements.
The City of Newman is the Lead Agency for the project.
A. Proposed Action
The proposed project, the Newman General Plan, is a complete revision of
the existing General Plan, for which no comprehensive update has been com-pleted
since 1992. The proposed General Plan is the principal policy docu-ment
for guiding future conservation and development of the area. Although
the proposed Plan addresses a long- term planning horizon through 2030, it
also provides overall direction to the day- to- day actions of the City, its elected
officials and staff. The project is described in greater detail in Chapter 3.
The General Plan includes goals, policies and actions designed to implement
the community’s vision for Newman. The policies and actions are intended
for use by the City to guide everyday decision- making and to ensure progress
toward the attainment of the goals outlined in the Plan.
B. EIR Scope, Issues and Concerns
This document is a Program EIR that analyzes the proposed adoption and
implementation of the Newman General Plan. As a Program EIR, it is not
project- specific and does not evaluate the impacts of specific development that
may be proposed under the General Plan. Such projects will require separate
environmental review to secure the necessary discretionary development
C I T Y O F N E W M A N
G E N E R A L P L A N P U B L I C R E V I E W D R A F T E I R
I N T R O D U C T I O N
1- 2
permits. Therefore, while subsequent environmental review may be tiered
off this EIR, it is not intended to address impacts of individual projects.
The scope of this Draft EIR was established by the City of Newman through
the General Plan process. Issues addressed in this EIR are the following:
1. Aesthetics
2. Agricultural Resources
3. Air Quality
4. Biological Resources
5. Cultural Resources
6. Geology and Soils
7. Hazards and Hazardous Materials
8. Hydrology and Water Quality
9. Land Use
10. Noise
11. Population and Housing
12. Public Services
13. Transportation
14. Utilities
C. Report Organization
This Draft EIR is organized into the following chapters:
♦ Chapter 1: Introduction, provides a preface and overview describing
both the intended use of the document, and the review and certification
process of both the General Plan and the EIR.
♦ Chapter 2: Report Summary, summarizes environmental consequences
that would result from the proposed project, describes recommended
mitigation measures and indicates the level of significance of environ-mental
impacts before and after mitigation. A Summary Table is also in-cluded
for clarity.
C I T Y O F N E W M A N
G E N E R A L P L A N P U B L I C R E V I E W D R A F T E I R
I N T R O D U C T I O N
1- 3
♦ Chapter 3: Project Description, describes the proposed General Plan in
detail, including a summary of the chapters of the proposed General Plan
and a listing of proposed land use designation changes.
♦ Chapter 4: Environmental Evaluation, provides an analysis of the po-tential
environmental impacts of the proposed project and presents rec-ommended
mitigation measures, if required, to reduce their significance.
♦ Chapter 5: Alternatives to the Proposed Project, considers two alterna-tives
to the proposed project, including the CEQA- required “ No Project
Alternative.”
♦ Chapter 6: CEQA- Required Assessment Conclusions, discusses growth
inducement, unavoidable significant effects and significant irreversible
changes as a result of the project.
♦ Chapter 7: Report Preparers identifies preparers of the Draft EIR.
D. Environmental Review Process
The Draft EIR will be available for review by the public and interested par-ties,
agencies and organizations for a period of at least 45 days, as required by
State law.
Written comments on the Draft EIR are also encouraged for incorporation
into the Final Environmental Impact Report ( FEIR) and should be submitted
to:
Mr. Michael Holland
Community Development Director/ City Manager
City of Newman Planning Commission
1162 Main Street
Newman, CA 95360
Following the close of the public comment period, a FEIR will be prepared to
respond to all substantive comments regarding the Draft EIR. The FEIR will
be made available for public review prior to consideration of its certification
C I T Y O F N E W M A N
G E N E R A L P L A N P U B L I C R E V I E W D R A F T E I R
I N T R O D U C T I O N
1- 4
by the City of Newman City Council. Once the City Council certifies the
FEIR, it will also consider adoption of the Newman General Plan itself,
which may be approved as drafted or modified, or denied.
2 REPORT SUMMARY
2- 1
This summary presents an overview of the analysis contained in Chapter 4:
Environmental Evaluation. CEQA requires that this chapter summarize the
following: 1) areas of controversy; 2) significant impacts; 3) unavoidable sig-nificant
impacts; 4) implementation of mitigation measures; and 5) alterna-tives
to the project.
A. Project Under Review
This EIR evaluates the potential environmental effects of the Newman Gen-eral
Plan. The proposed General Plan updates the existing General Plan,
which was adopted in 1992. The proposed Plan provides policy direction to
accommodate growth through 2030, while maintaining Newman’s quality of
life, small- town character and agricultural traditions. The updated plan in-volves
Sphere of Influence ( SOI) and land use designation changes as well as
revisions to goals, policies and actions. The Plan also proposes a number of
circulation changes.
The project area for purposes of this EIR is the area within the existing city
limits, as well as the city’s proposed SOI, which is shown in Figure 3- 2 in
Chapter 3, Project Description. The eight elements of the proposed General
Plan that are analyzed in this EIR are as follows:
♦ Land Use Element
♦ Transportation and Circulation Element
♦ Public Facilities and Services Element
♦ Recreational and Cultural Resources Element
♦ Natural Resources Element
♦ Health and Safety Element
♦ Community Design Element
A full description of the proposed General Plan is provided in Chapter 3.
C I T Y O F N E W M A N
G E N E R A L P L A N P U B L I C R E V I E W D R A F T E I R
R E P O R T S U M M A R Y
2- 2
B. Areas of Controversy
In addition to the various meetings held as part of the General Plan update
process, the City of Newman held a public scoping meeting on July 18, 2006
to present the project and receive responses.
C. Significant Impacts
Under CEQA, a significant impact on the environment is defined as a sub-stantial,
or potentially substantial, adverse change in any of the physical con-ditions
within the area affected by the project, including land, air, water, min-erals,
flora, fauna, ambient noise and objects of historic and aesthetic signifi-cance.
The proposed project has the potential to generate environmental impacts in
a number of areas that could be significant:
♦ Aesthetics
♦ Air Quality
♦ Agricultural Resources
♦ Biological Resources
♦ Hydrology and Water Quality
♦ Geology, Soils & Seismicity
♦ Hazardous Materials
♦ Hydrology
♦ Land Use
♦ Noise
♦ Population and Housing
♦ Public Services
♦ Traffic
♦ Utilities
As shown in Table 2- 1, most of the significant impacts in these areas would be
reduced to a less- than- significant level due to the goals, policies and actions
C I T Y O F N E W M A N
G E N E R A L P L A N P U B L I C R E V I E W D R A F T E I R
R E P O R T S U M M A R Y
2- 3
included in the proposed General Plan. Impacts that would remain signifi-cant
and unavoidable regardless of mitigation are discussed below in Section
E: Unavoidable Significant Impacts.
D. Mitigation Measures
This Draft EIR concludes that the proposed General Plan is largely self-mitigating.
As a result, the only significant impacts that have been identified
in this Draft EIR are those which are significant and unavoidable, and for
which no mitigation is available to reduce the level of impact to less than sig-nificant.
Thus, there are no mitigation measures identified in this Draft EIR.
E. Unavoidable Significant Impacts
Section 15126.2( b) of the CEQA Guidelines requires that an EIR describe any
significant impacts that cannot be avoided, even with the implementation of
feasible mitigation measures. Significant unavoidable impacts were identified
in the areas of agricultural resources, air quality, biological resources, noise,
transportation and utilities. These impacts are identified in Table 2- 1 as “ SU”
in the “ Significance After Mitigation” column and listed as well in Table 6- 2
in Chapter 6 ( CEQA- Required Assessment Conclusions).
F. Alternatives to the Project
This Draft EIR analyzes alternatives to the proposed project. Four alterna-tives
to the proposed project are considered:
♦ No Project Alternative. The No Project Alternative assumes the con-tinuation
of development and conservation under the existing General
Plan.
♦ Concentrated Growth Alternative. The Concentrated Growth Alter-native
assumes the same amount of growth but would increase the den-
C I T Y O F N E W M A N
G E N E R A L P L A N P U B L I C R E V I E W D R A F T E I R
R E P O R T S U M M A R Y
2- 4
sity of density uses to reduce the amount of farmland that would be con-verted
to urban uses.
♦ Reduced Growth Alternative. The Reduced Growth Alternative would
decrease the overall amount of land planned for new urban development
to reduce the amount of farmland that would be converted to urban uses.
The density and intensity of land uses on the lands planned for urbaniza-tion
however would remain the same as the density and intensity of land
uses in the proposed General Plan.
As shown in Chapter 5, Alternatives, the Reduced Growth Alternative has
the least environmental impact and is therefore the environmentally superior
alternative.
G. Summary Table
Table 2- 1 presents a summary of impacts and mitigation measures identified
in this report. It is organized to correspond with the environmental issues
discussed in Chapter 4.
The table is arranged in four columns: 1) environmental impacts; 2) signifi-cance
prior to mitigation; 3) mitigation measures; and 4) significance after
mitigation. For a complete description of potential impacts and suggested
mitigation measures, please refer to the specific discussions in Chapter 4. Ad-ditionally,
this summary does not detail the timing of mitigation measures.
Timing will be further detailed in the mitigation monitoring program.
C I T Y O F N E W M A N
G E N E R A L P L A N P U B L I C R E V I E W D R A F T E I R
R E P O R T S U M M A R Y
LTS = Less Than Significant; S = Significant; SU = Significant Unavoidable Impact
2- 5
TABLE 2- 1 SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
Significant Impact
Significance
Before
Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Significance
With
Mitigation
AESTHETICS
There are no significant impacts to aesthetics, so no mitigation measures are necessary.
AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES
Impact AG- 1: While the policies and actions of the proposed
General Plan would delay, reduce and partially offset the
conversion of farmland, the conversion of prime farmland,
unique farmland and farmland of statewide importance to urban
uses as a result of implementation of the proposed General Plan
would remain a significant impact.
S The proposed General Plan policies work to reduce the impact to
the extent feasible, and no additional mitigation is available.
SU
Impact AG- 2: Although the policies of the proposed General
Plan would reduce the impact of conflicts with existing County
agricultural designations and zoning, the conflict would be still
result in a temporary significant impact.
S The proposed General Plan policies work to reduce the impact to
the extent feasible, and no additional mitigation is available.
SU
Impact AG- 3: While the policies of the proposed General Plan
would reduce the impact of the proposed General Plan on
existing Williamson Act contracts, there would still be a
significant impact to existing Williamson Act contracts resulting
from the proposed General Plan.
S The proposed General Plan policies work to reduce the impact to
the extent feasible, and no additional mitigation is available.
SU
Impact AG- 4: While the policies and actions of the proposed
General Plan would delay, reduce and partially offset cumulative
impacts on agriculture, the conversion of farmland and
impairment of agriculture as a result of implementation of the
proposed General Plan, together with other development in the
county and the region, would be a significant cumulative impact.
S The proposed General Plan policies work to reduce the impact to
the extent feasible, and no additional mitigation is available.
SU
C I T Y O F N E W M A N
G E N E R A L P L A N P U B L I C R E V I E W D R A F T E I R
R E P O R T S U M M A R Y
LTS = Less Than Significant; S = Significant; SU = Significant Unavoidable Impact
2- 6
Significant Impact
Significance
Before
Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Significance
With
Mitigation
AIR QUALITY
Impact AIR- 1: Even through the proposed General Plan
contains policies that reduce single- occupant vehicle trips and
other air pollutants, the proposed General Plan would not be
consistent with applicable air quality plans of the SJVAPCD,
since population growth that could occur under the proposed
General Plan would exceed that projected by StanCOG and used
in projections for air quality planning. The projected growth
would lead to an increase in the region’s VMT, beyond that
anticipated in the SJVAPCD’s clean air planning efforts. As a
result, the impact is considered significant.
S The proposed General Plan policies work to reduce the impact to
the extent feasible, and no additional mitigation is available.
SU
Impact AIR- 2: Cumulative development in Newman and its
SOI would contribute to on- going air quality issues in the San
Joaquin Valley Air Basin. This cumulative impact would be
considered significant.
S The proposed General Plan policies work to reduce the impact to
the extent feasible, and no additional mitigation is available.
SU
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Impact BIO- 1: While the proposed General Plan would reduce
its project level impact to biological resources to a less- than-significant
impact, it would still contribute to a significant
cumulative impact associated with the loss of habitat for common
and possible special- status species and the loss or displacement of
wildlife that would have to compete for suitable habitats with
existing adjacent populations.
S The proposed General Plan policies work to reduce the impact to
the extent feasible, and no additional mitigation is available.
SU
CULTURAL RESOURCES
Since the implementation of the proposed General Plan would not result in significant impacts to cultural resources, no mitigation measures are required.
C I T Y O F N E W M A N
G E N E R A L P L A N P U B L I C R E V I E W D R A F T E I R
R E P O R T S U M M A R Y
LTS = Less Than Significant; S = Significant; SU = Significant Unavoidable Impact
2- 7
Significant Impact
Significance
Before
Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Significance
With
Mitigation
GEOLOGY AND SOILS
The proposed General Plan would not result in significant impacts related to geology and soils; therefore, no mitigation measures are required.
HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
Since no significant hazards and hazardous materials- related impacts have been identified, no mitigation measures are required.
HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
Since no significant impacts were identified to hydrology and water quality as a result of the adoption and implementation of the proposed General Plan, no mitigation measures
are required.
LAND USE
Since no significant impacts were identified, no mitigation measures are required.
NOISE
Impact NOI- 1: Noise in Newman would increase significantly
along many major roadways as development and population
increase within the community. Although proposed General
Plan policies and actions would help to mitigate traffic noise
increases, they could remain significant in some areas with the
adoption and implementation of the proposed General Plan
policies and actions. This impact is significant.
S The proposed General Plan policies work to reduce the impact to
the extent feasible, and no additional mitigation is available.
SU
POPULATION AND HOUSING
Since no significant impacts were identified concerning housing and population as a result of the adoption and implementation of the proposed General Plan, no mitigation
measures are required.
C I T Y O F N E W M A N
G E N E R A L P L A N P U B L I C R E V I E W D R A F T E I R
R E P O R T S U M M A R Y
LTS = Less Than Significant; S = Significant; SU = Significant Unavoidable Impact
2- 8
Significant Impact
Significance
Before
Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Significance
With
Mitigation
PUBLIC SERVICES
Since no impacts were identified, no mitigation measures are required. Policies and mitigation measures that are identified in other sections of this EIR would also apply to any
unforeseen impacts associated with the construction and operation of park or recreational facilities.
TRANSPORTATION
TRAF- 1: Build out of the General Plan will result in LOS D, E
or F conditions on various city streets which would operate at
LOS C under the current General Plan. While improvements
and policies contained in the proposed General Plan will help
improve the operation of these roadway segments to the extent
feasible, the impact will remain significant.
S The proposed General Plan policies work to reduce the impact to
the extent feasible, and no additional mitigation is available.
SU
Impact TRAF- 2: Buildout of the proposed General Plan will
add traffic to the inter- regional roadway system, including streets
in Merced and Stanislaus County outside of the city’s SOI.
While the proposed General Plan includes policies to work with
regional transportation providers to address the needed
improvements, because the regional roadways are outside the
City’s authority to impose mitigation, and funding mechanisms
are not in place to improve the regional roadways, the impact is
considered a significant impact.
S The proposed General Plan policies work to reduce the impact to
the extent feasible, and no additional mitigation is available.
SU
C I T Y O F N E W M A N
G E N E R A L P L A N P U B L I C R E V I E W D R A F T E I R
R E P O R T S U M M A R Y
LTS = Less Than Significant; S = Significant; SU = Significant Unavoidable Impact
2- 9
Significant Impact
Significance
Before
Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Significance
With
Mitigation
Impact TRAF- 3: Buildout of the Newman General Plan could
result in peak hour LOS in excess of LOS C at existing
intersection on city streets. While it is possible that subsequent
project- level analysis outside the scope of the General Plan- level
analysis will identify improvements that could yield LOS C,
because additional improvements are uncertain due to existing
development constraints, conditions in excess of LOS C at
intersections on city streets is considered a significant impact.
S The proposed General Plan policies work to reduce the impact to
the extent feasible, and no additional mitigation is available.
SU
UTILITIES
Impact UTL- 1: While there is adequate localized water available
to support the proposed General Plan, since there is no study to
determine the overall cumulative impact of regional growth on
the groundwater supply and associated availability of water to
support growth, there is a possibility that the proposed General
Plan could contribute to a cumulative significant impact
associated with groundwater supply.
S The proposed General Plan policies work to reduce the impact to
the extent feasible, and no additional mitigation is available.
SU
C I T Y O F N E W M A N
G E N E R A L P L A N P U B L I C R E V I E W D R A F T E I R
R E P O R T S U M M A R Y
LTS = Less Than Significant; S = Significant; SU = Significant Unavoidable Impact
2- 10
3 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
3- 1
This EIR evaluates the potential environmental effects of the Newman Gen-eral
Plan. The proposed General Plan updates the existing General Plan,
which was adopted in 1992. The proposed Plan provides policy direction to
accommodate growth through 2030, while maintaining Newman’s quality of
life, small- town character and agricultural traditions. The updated plan in-volves
sphere of influence and land use designation changes as well as revi-sions
to goals, policies and actions. This chapter describes the proposed Gen-eral
Plan.
A. Project Location and Setting
1. Location
The City of Newman is located in western Stanislaus County, immediately
north of the Merced County line, approximately 100 miles southeast of San
Francisco. As shown in Figure 3- 1, Newman is 13 miles south of Patterson,
five miles north of Gustine, and one mile west of the San Joaquin River.
State Highway 33 passes through the center of the city. Interstate 5, Califor-nia’s
major north- south interstate corridor, is 5 miles west. Highway 99 is 15
miles east and Highway 152 to Gilroy and San Jose is 10 miles south.
2. Project Area
Newman is a small, compact town surrounded by farmland, with a tradi-tional
downtown and older neighborhoods on a rectilinear street grid at the
city’s center and newer residential developments surrounding the historic
core. Highway 33 and the Southern Pacific Railroad bisect the city and form
the eastern edge of downtown. The Westside Marketplace on Highway 33 at
the southern end of town includes local- serving retail and services. New-man’s
industrial zone is east of Highway 33, from Kern Street south to the
Merced County line. The northwest fringes of the city around Orestimba
Road and Fig Lane contain rural residential transitional uses between higher
intensity uses in town and surrounding agricultural land.
F I G U R E 3 - 1
§ ¨ ¦ 5
§ ¨ ¦ 80
§ ¨ ¦ 5
§ ¨ ¦ 80
§ ¨ ¦ 80
§ ¨ ¦ 505
§ ¨ ¦ 580
§ ¨ ¦ 280
tu101
tu50
§ ¨ ¦ 680
tu101 ¦ § ¨ 880
§ ¨ ¦ 205
Ã
Ã
M o n t e r e y B a y
tu101
Turlock
ñ ñ
Tracy
Merced
Madera
Tuolumne
Mariposa
Fresno
Napa
Newman
Davis
Salinas
Modesto
Oakland
San Jose
Stockton
Fairfield
Sacramento
o
Merced
Stanislaus
Napa
San Benito
San Joaquin
Solano
Santa Clara
Calaveras
Alameda
Sacramento
Amador
Contra Costa
San Mateo
Santa Cruz
C I T Y O F N E W M A N
G E N E R A L P L A N P U B L I C R E V I E W D R A F T E I R
P R O J E C T D E S C R I P T I ON
R E G I O N A L L O C A T I O N
San
Francisco
Newman
Sacramento
Los Angeles
California
Idaho
Nevada
Oregon
0 50100 200Miles
0 5 10 20Miles
C I T Y O F N E W M A N
G E N E R A L P L A N P U B L I C R E V I E W D R A F T E I R
P R O J E C T D E S C R I P T I O N
3- 3
The project area for purposes of this EIR is the city’s proposed Sphere of In-fluence
( SOI), which is shown in Figure 3- 2.1 The SOI is an area comprising
the incorporated city limits plus additional unincorporated territory outside
the city that is the city’s ultimate physical boundary and service area. It is the
area that the City expects to annex in the future. The SOI is adopted by the
county’s Local Agency Formation Commission ( LAFCO). 2
In addition to the SOI, the Stanislaus County LAFCO requires cities to also
establish a Primary SOI, which is to include land that is expected to be an-nexed
within the next ten years or so. The proposed General Plan proposes
slight expansions of both the Primary SOI and SOI. These and other pro-posed
changes in the proposed General Plan are described below.
1 The Planning Area is the area that was examined and considered in the
preparation of the proposed General Plan and the area that is covered by the General
Plan land use map. It includes all territory within the city limits as well as additional
land outside the city limits and outside the city’s SOI which bears relation to its plan-ning.
It encompasses almost 11,000 acres and extends roughly from Lundy Road on
the north to the San Joaquin River on the east, the Newman Wasteway on the south
and Eastin Road on the west. The part of the Planning Area outside the proposed SOI
was not analyzed in this EIR because there are no changes proposed to existing uses in
this area; the area is proposed to remain in the existing primarily agricultural use
through 2030, the time frame of the proposed General Plan. Part of the Planning
Area outside the proposed SOI is designated Urban Reserve. These lands are to be
considered for development beyond the time frame of the proposed General Plan, but
would remain in agriculture or open space through 2030.
2 The LAFCO is the agency in each county that established spheres of influ-ence
for each city and special district and approves changes in local government
boundaries or organization, with the purpose of discouraging urban sprawl, preserving
agricultural land and encouraging the orderly formation and development of local
government agencies.
! ! ! ! !
!
! ! ! ! ! !
!
!
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! !
!
! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! !
EASTIN ROAD
ORESTIMBA ROAD
W STUHR ROAD
N ST
DRAPER ROAD HALE ROAD
FREITAS ROAD
L STREET
HILLS FERRY ROAD
LUNDY ROAD
E STUHR ROAD
VILLA MANUCHA ROAD
JORGENSEN ROAD
FIG LANE
M STREET
PUMP ROAD
DO ROAD
MERCED STREET
MC CLINTOCK ROAD
HARVEY ROAD
HALLOWELL ROAD
JENSEN ROAD
MAIN STREET
FRESNO ST
WANGENHEIM ROAD
KERN ST
HOYER ROAD
YOLO ST
HARDIN ROAD
INYO AVENUE
ORESTIMBA ROAD DRISKELL AVENUE
CANYON CREEK DRIVE
PRINCE STREET
PATCHETT DRIVE
UPPER ROAD
CANAL SCHOOL ROAD
BRAZO RD
DRAPER ROAD
SHIELLS ROAD
SANTA FE GRADE
MC CLINTOCK ROAD
RIVER ROAD
KELLEY ROAD
EUCALYPTUS AVENUE
RUTH AVE
HILLS FERRY ROAD
T ST
HOYER ROAD
SANCHES ROAD
Q ST
SHERMAN PARKWAY
W STUHR ROAD
SHIELLS ROAD
AZEVEDO ROAD " ö
" ö
Stanislaus County
Merced County
Wasteway
Wasteway
C. C. I. D. Canal
C. C. I. D. Canal
San Joaquin River
F I GUR E 3 - 2
C I T Y L I M I T S , P R OP O S ED S P H E R E O F INF L U ENC E A N D P L A N N ING A R E A
C I T Y O F N EWM A N
G E N E R A L P L A N P U B L I C R E V I E W D R A F T E I R
P ROJ E C T D E S C R I P T I O N
0 0.25 0.5 Miles
City Limits
Proposed Primary Sphere of Influence
Planning Area Boundary
!
! !
!
!
Sphere of Influence
County Boundary
Waterways
C I T Y O F N E W M A N
G E N E R A L P L A N P U B L I C R E V I E W D R A F T E I R
P R O J E C T D E S C R I P T I O N
3- 5
Table 3- 1 shows existing land uses in the proposed SOI. The most prevalent
land use is agriculture at 1,978 acres or nearly 74.6 percent of the project area,
followed by public/ quasi- public uses at 9.7 percent. There are an estimated
3,092 housing units, 461,000 square feet of commercial uses and 755,000
square feet of industrial uses in Newman. 3
Newman grew an average of 5.5 percent per year in the 1990s, from 4,151 to
7,093, much faster than the State at 1.3 percent. Since 2000, the city’s popula-tion
has grown another 43 percent to 10,140.4 This rapid growth reflects re-gional
growth pressures affecting the Central Valley, as people living in more
expensive regions look for affordable housing in the Valley.
B. Project Objectives
This section describes the basic objectives of the proposed General Plan that
is evaluated in this EIR. The project objectives were also an important basis
for formulation of the alternatives to the project that meet these objectives
and which are evaluated in Chapter 5.
Early in the General Plan update process, the City adopted a Vision State-ment
that is a description of what Newman wants to become through imple-mentation
of the General Plan. Included on page 3- 7 is the Adopted Vision
Statement for the City of Newman General Plan Update. This Statement
represents an agreement among the citizens of Newman on basic community
values, ideals and aspirations for development and conservation. It is an es-
3 The housing unit estimate for the city limits is from the California De-partment
of Finance, Demographic Research Unit, 2006. Table 2: E- 5 City/ County
Population and Housing Estimates, January 1, 2006. The commercial and industrial
floor area estimate is for the city limits and sphere of influence and was developed by
DC& E based on a review of the City’s current traffic model.
4 California Department of Finance, Demographic Research Unit, 2006. Ta-ble
2: E- 5 City/ County Population and Housing Estimates, January 1, 2006.
C I T Y O F N E W M A N
G E N E R A L P L A N P U B L I C R E V I E W D R A F T E I R
P R O J E C T D E S C R I P T I O N
3- 6
sential expression of the basic objectives of the General Plan and the basis for
the Plan’s land use map and goals, policies and actions.
C. The General Plan Update Process
The General Plan update was prepared by a team of City staff and consultants
under the direction of a Steering Committee appointed by the City Council
over a period of almost two years beginning in early 2005. Implementing
actions were also added within each element.
The Steering Committee held a total of nine open public meetings to prepare
the Plan. Interactive public workshops were combined with several of these
meetings, and additional opportunities for public comment were made avail-able,
to ensure that the proposed General Plan would reflect the community’s
vision.
The process began with an analysis of existing conditions based on field ob-servations,
interviews, research, planning studies, and review of pertinent
laws and regulations. The Steering Committee visited other communities
that have incorporated high- quality development practices to get a first- hand
look at projects that exemplify potential future directions for the City. The
existing conditions and the pros and cons of the existing General Plan were
considered to determine the issues to be addressed in the Plan update.
The update team and the Steering Committee worked together to draft a land
use alternative and circulation plan that would address the issues. The alter-native
was evaluated for its planning and environmental impacts and how
effectively it would address the issues. A preferred alternative was selected
which consisted of the best features of each alternative and which is the basis
for the proposed General Plan. A fiscal analysis of the alternative was con-ducted
to ensure a solid City fiscal condition into the future. Goals, policies
and actions were then developed that elaborate on and implement the pre-ferred
alternative, building on the policies of the existing General Plan.
C I T Y O F N E W M A N
G E N E R A L P L A N P U B L I C R E V I E W D R A F T E I R
P R O J E C T D E S C R I P T I O N
3- 7
D. The General Plan Update Process
The General Plan update was prepared by a team of City staff and consultants
under the direction of a Steering Committee appointed by the City Council
over a period of almost two years beginning in early 2005. Implementing
actions were also added within each element.
The Steering Committee held a total of nine open public meetings to prepare
the Plan. Interactive public workshops were combined with several of these
meetings, and additional opportunities for public comment were made avail-able
for public review for a 45- day period beginning on October 4, 2006. Ad-ditional
public comments on the proposed Plan and EIR may be made during
this period and at the Planning Commission and City Council public hear-ings.
The proposed General Plan and EIR will be refined based on comments
received. A Final General Plan and EIR is expected be considered for adop-tion
by the Planning Commission and City Council in late 2006 to early
2007.
E. General Plan Contents
The Newman General Plan includes eight separate chapters, or “ elements”,
that set goals, policies and actions for each given subject. The elements in-clude
the subjects covered by the seven elements that are required by State
law, although as allowed by law, they have been reorganized for ease of use
and relevance to Newman.
The Housing Element, which by law must be updated every five years, was
adopted in 2003 under a separate update process. Although an integral and
consistent component of the General Plan, no changes to the Housing Ele-
C I T Y O F N E W M A N
G E N E R A L P L A N P U B L I C R E V I E W D R A F T E I R
P R O J E C T D E S C R I P T I O N
3- 8
TABLE 3- 1 EXISTING LAND USE IN THE PROPOSED SOI
City Limits Proposed SOI
Land Use Category Acres
Percent
of Total Acres
Percent
of Total
Total
Acres
Agriculture 13 0.9 1,978 74.6 1,991
Commercial 31 2.3 1 0 32
Heavy Industrial 19 1.4 55 2.1 74
Industrial/ Commercial 14 1.0 11 0.4 25
Light Industrial 36 2.6 8 0.3 44
Multi- Family Residential 23 1.7 1 0 24
Public/ Quasi- Public 171 12.5 259 9.7 430
Rural Residential 50 3.7 127 4.8 177
Single Family Residential 611 44.6 125 4.7 736
Vacant 83 6.1 44 1.7 127
Commercial/ Industrial 4 0.5 0 0 4
Office 2 0.2 0 0 2
Right- of- Way 313 22.8 44 1.7 305
TOTAL 1,370 100.0% 2,653 100.0% 3,971
Notes: Totals may not sum due to rounding. Based on the Stanislaus County land use
database.
C I T Y O F N E W M A N
G E N E R A L P L A N P U B L I C R E V I E W D R A F T E I R
P R O J E C T D E S C R I P T I O N
3- 9
City of Newman General Plan Update
Adopted Vision Statement
The Vision Statement below is a description of what Newman wants to become through the implementation of its General Plan.
The Vision Statement provides a sense of the purpose and mission for the General Plan and sets the tone for the Plan’s goals, policies
and actions.
Newman will continue to be a small town with a vibrant downtown surrounded by attractive residential neighborhoods and
undeveloped agricultural and ranching lands. Newman is and will be a safe community where people know their neighbors.
The historic fabric of the downtown and surrounding neighborhoods provide a strong sense of place and pride for residents.
Newman will be a walkable community, with a well- connected street grid, pedestrian amenities and bike lanes. Residents
will be able to walk to downtown, to school, to work and through the city on safe, tree- lined streets. Newman’s historic
downtown will offer unique shops, services and restaurants, with the small town character preserved by design standards.
Additional retail development will also be located along the Highway 33 corridor.
There will be a range of activities available in Newman for all residents, including youth and seniors. Parks scattered
throughout the city will provide a variety of play equipment and facilities that promote community gatherings. A network
of pedestrian trails and bike paths will connect residents to parks, schools, downtown and other destinations.
A range of housing types will be available in Newman, each meeting high design standards. New residential subdivisions
will offer single- family homes that are affordable to a range of incomes and include sufficient yard space around each house.
Multi- family housing, including townhouses, condominiums and apartments will be located throughout the community
including in new development areas, on previously vacant lots, and in the downtown. New development will be well-integrated
with Newman’s existing fabric.
Newman will provide a variety of employment options for local residents, from entry- level to more advanced positions in
the trade, office and higher- paying retail industries. These new jobs will occur in the downtown, along Highway 33, in in-dustrial
areas and in new employment areas.
A sufficient level of public services and infrastructure will be in place as Newman grows and future development will not
negatively impact existing infrastructure. Roadways, police, fire and medical services, and water supply and wastewater
treatment infrastructure will be provided to support the safe environment that residents value. There will be sufficient pub-lic
schools, providing quality education to local residents. The quality of Newman’s natural resources will be preserved and
enhanced.
Newman will meet the challenge of managing growth while enhancing the small town flavor, safety and strong sense of
community that attracts people to live here.
C I T Y O F N E W M A N
G E N E R A L P L A N P U B L I C R E V I E W D R A F T E I R
P R O J E C T D E S C R I P T I O N
3- 10
ment are proposed at this time and it is not a part of the project evaluated in
this EIR.
The following is a brief explanation of the other eight elements of the pro-posed
General Plan that are analyzed in this EIR.
♦ Land Use Element. The Land Use Element, the heart of the General
Plan, designates the intensity and location of various types of residential,
commercial, industrial, open space, recreational, public and agricultural
uses.
♦ Transportation and Circulation Element. The Transportation and Cir-culation
Element identifies the general location and extent of existing and
proposed major streets and other transportation facilities to support the
mix and layout of uses designated in the Land Use Element.
♦ Public Facilities and Services Element. This Element provides for ade-quate
public facilities and services, including water, wastewater, drainage,
solid waste and recycling, fire, police, schools, libraries, and healthcare, to
serve existing residents and to maintain adequate service levels while ac-commodating
growth.
♦ Recreational and Cultural Resources Element. This Element sets forth
policies and actions for acquisition, development and improvement of
Newman’s parks and recreational facilities. The element addresses park
standards, planning and design, inter- agency coordination, trails and
greenways, recreation programs, and private recreation facilities. The
Element also addresses the preservation of the community’s archaeologi-cal
and historical resources and heritage.
♦ Natural Resources Element. The Natural Resources Element provides
direction regarding the conservation, development and use of natural re-sources
in and around Newman, including agricultural land, water qual-ity,
vegetation and wildlife, and air quality.
♦ Health and Safety Element. This Element addresses risks associated
with seismic and other geologic hazards, flooding and dam inundation,
and hazardous materials, and provides for adequate emergency prepared-
C I T Y O F N E W M A N
G E N E R A L P L A N P U B L I C R E V I E W D R A F T E I R
P R O J E C T D E S C R I P T I O N
3- 11
ness. It also assesses the noise environment in the community and ad-dresses
noise problems.
♦ Community Design Element. The purpose of the Community Design
Element is to identify, protect and enhance the positive characteristics of
Newman’s built environment that contribute to its sense of place and
contribute towards a high quality of life for its residents.
Each element of the General Plan contains background information and a set
of goals, policies and actions.
♦ A goal is a description of the general desired result the City seeks to create
through implementation of the General Plan.
♦ A policy is a specific statement that guides decision- making toward
achieving a goal. Policies indicate a commitment of the City to a particu-lar
course of action. They are clear directives used by the City staff,
Planning Commission and City Council in their review of and decisions
on development proposals and other matters before the City.
♦ An action is a program, procedure or technique that carries out a policy
and moves the City toward achieving a goal.
F. Summary of Proposed Actions
The following is a summary of the major changes between the existing Gen-eral
Plan and the updated proposed General Plan.
1. Land Use Designations
The proposed General Plan establishes various land use designations that pre-scribe
allowable uses, densities and intensities. The proposed General Plan
land use designations are summarized in Table 3- 2. Proposed major changes
in land use designations are described below.
C I T Y O F N E W M A N
G E N E R A L P L A N P U B L I C R E V I E W D R A F T E I R
P R O J E C T D E S C R I P T I O N
3- 12
a. Residential Designations
♦ The Neighborhood Planned Residential ( NPR) land use designation was
removed.
♦ The Very Low Density Residential ( VLDR) designation was added. The
VLDR designation provides for large lot single- family homes at densities
between 1 to 3 units per gross acre.
♦ The maximum density of the Low Density Residential ( LDR) designation
was increased from 5 to 6 units per gross acre.
♦ Secondary dwelling units are allowed in all residential designations other
than High Density Residential ( HDR), in accordance with State law.
♦ The residential density ranges were changed to whole numbers to make
the density ranges more straightforward.
♦ The overall average maximum density of the Master Plan Subareas was
increased from 6 to 8 units per gross acre, with no more than 75 percent
of the units at a density of 6 units per gross acre or less and at least 10 per-cent
of the units at 12 units per gross acre or higher. No more than 10
percent of the total units in Subareas 3, 4 and 5 shall be Very Low Density
Residential ( VLDR). The Master Plan Subareas are shown in Figure 3- 5.
b. Non- Residential Designations
♦ The Industrial Service ( IS) designation was eliminated.
♦ A Service Commercial ( SC) designation was added.
♦ The density of residential uses in the Downtown Commercial ( DC) des-ignation
was increased from 5 to 10 units per gross acre to 12 to 30 units
per gross acre. The uses were clarified to indicate that residential uses are
allowed downtown only as part of a mixed use development above
ground floor retail and not as a stand- alone residential use.
♦ The Downtown ( D) designation was renamed Downtown Commercial
( DC).
C I T Y O F N E W M A N
G E N E R A L P L A N P U B L I C R E V I E W D R A F T E I R
P R O J E C T D E S C R I P T I O N
3- 13
TABLE 3- 2 PROPOSED LAND USE DESIGNATIONS IN THE PROJECT AREA
City Limits SOI
Land Use Designationa Acres
Percent
of Total Acres
Percent
of Total
Total
Acres
Low Density Residential 467 44.9% 6 0.2% 473
Medium Density Residential 69 6.6% 28 1.1% 97
High Density Residential 38 3.7% 0 0% 38
Central Residential 91 8.6% 0 0% 91
Planned Mixed Residential 0 5.0% 20 0.8% 72
Community Commercial 52 1.4% 0 0% 15
Service Commercial 15 1.4% 0 0% 15
Downtown Commercial 37 3.6% 0 0% 37
Business Park 0 0% 96 3.8% 96
Light Industrial 30 2.9% 290 11.5% 320
Heavy Industrial 46 4.4% 10 0.4% 56
Public/ Quasi- Public 153 14.7% 0 0% 153
Recreation and Parks 42 4.0% 9 0.4% 51
TOTAL 1,041 100% 2,520 100% 3,560
Note: Percentage totals may not sum due to rounding.
a The proposed General Plan land use map also includes an Urban Reserve designation and an
Industrial Reserve designation on lands outside the proposed SOI. These lands are to be con-sidered
for development beyond the 2030 time frame of the proposed General Plan, but would
remain in agriculture or open space through 2030.
C I T Y O F N E W M A N
G E N E R A L P L A N P U B L I C R E V I E W D R A F T E I R
P R O J E C T D E S C R I P T I O N
3- 14
♦ The General Commercial ( CG) designation was renamed Community
Commercial ( CC).
2. Land Use Map
The proposed General Plan land use map is shown in Figure 3- 3. Proposed
major changes in the General Plan land use map are described below.
♦ The proposed SOI is now shown in the land use map. The SOI was ex-panded
approximately ¼ mile to the south to Hallowell Road. Proposed
SOI boundary changes are shown in Figure 3- 4.
♦ The Primary SOI was expanded at the northern end of the city to Stuhr
Road, encompassing Master Plan Subareas 1, 2 and 3, in recognition that
these parcels are appropriate to be developed first.
♦ The new Very Low Density Residential ( VLDR) designation was applied
along the Central California Irrigation District ( CCID) Canal in Master
Plan Areas 3, 4 and 5.
♦ The areas designated for Heavy Industrial ( HI) uses south of Hills Ferry
Road and between East Stuhr Road and Hills Ferry Road were changed to
Light Industrial ( LI).
♦ The area east of Highway 33 and south of Sherman Parkway formerly
designated Business Park ( BP) was changed to Low Density Residential
( LDR), reflecting existing recent residential development of the area.
♦ Parcels east of Highway 33 were changed from Downtown Commercial
( DC) to Service Commercial ( SC), focusing the downtown west of High-way
33.
♦ Parcels west of Highway 33 and south of Inyo Avenue to the Westside
Marketplace were changed from General Commercial to Downtown
Commercial ( DC).
EASTIN ROAD
ORESTIMBA ROAD
W STUHR ROAD
N ST
DRAPER ROAD HALE ROAD
FREITAS ROAD
L STREET
HILLS FERRY ROAD
LUNDY ROAD
E STUHR ROAD
VILLA MANUCHA ROAD
JORGENSEN ROAD
FIG LANE
M STREET
PUMP ROAD
MERCED STREET
MC CLINTOCK ROAD
HARVEY ROAD
HALLOWELL ROAD
JENSEN ROAD
MAIN STREET
FRESNO ST
WANGENHEIM ROAD
KERN ST
HOYER ROAD
YOLO ST
HARDIN ROAD
INYO AVENUE
ORESTIMBA ROAD DRISKELL AVENUE
CANYON CREEK DRIVE
PRINCE STREET
PATCHETT DRIVE
UPPER ROAD
CANAL SCHOOL ROAD
BRAZO RD
DRAPER ROAD
SHIELLS ROAD
SANTA FE GRADE
MC CLINTOCK ROAD
RIVER ROAD
KELLEY ROAD
EUCALYPTUS AVENUE
RUTH AVE
HILLS FERRY ROAD
T ST
HOYER ROAD
SANCHES ROAD
Q ST
SHERMAN PARKWAY
W STUHR ROAD
SHIELLS ROAD
AZEVEDO ROAD
" ö
Stanislaus County
Merced County
Wasteway
Wasteway
C. C. I. D. Canal
San Joaquin River
" ö
C. C. I. D. Canal
F IGUR E 3 - 3
L A N D U S E MAP
C I T Y O F N E W M A N
P R O J E C T D E S C R I P T I O N
0 0.25 0.5 Miles
City Limits
Proposed Primary Sphere of Influence
Proposed Sphere of Influence
Planning Area Boundary
County Boundary
Waterways
Agriculture
Low Density Residential
Medium Density Residential
High Density Residential
Central Residential
Planned Mixed Residential
Community Commercial
Service Commercial
Downtown Commercial
Urban Reserve
Business Park
Light Industrial
Heavy Industrial
Industrial Reserve
Public/ Quasi- Public
Recreation and Parks
Area expected to be developed
with Very Low Density Residential
G E N E R A L P L A N P U B L I C R E V I E W D R A F T E I R
C I T Y O F N E W M A N
G E N E R A L P L A N P U B L I C R E V I E W D R A F T E I R
P R O J E C T D E S C R I P T I O N
3- 16
Figure 3- 3 Land Use Map 11x17 BACK
! ! ! !!! !!!!! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! !
!
!
!
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! !
!
! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
EASTIN ROAD
ORESTIMBA ROAD
W STUHR ROAD
N ST
DRAPER ROAD HALE ROAD
FREITAS ROAD
L STREET
HILLS FERRY ROAD
LUNDY ROAD
E STUHR ROAD
VILLA MANUCHA ROAD
JORGENSEN ROAD
FIG LANE
M STREET
PUMP ROAD
MERCED STREET
MC CLINTOCK ROAD
HARVEY ROAD
HALLOWELL ROAD
JENSEN ROAD
MAIN STREET
FRESNO ST
WANGENHEIM ROAD
KERN ST
HOYER ROAD
YOLO ST
HARDIN ROAD
INYO AVENUE
ORESTIMBA ROAD DRISKELL AVENUE
CANYON CREEK DRIVE
PRINCE STREET
PATCHETT DRIVE
UPPER ROAD
CANAL SCHOOL ROAD
BRAZO RD
DRAPER ROAD
SHIELLS ROAD
SANTA FE GRADE
MC CLINTOCK ROAD
RIVER ROAD
KELLEY ROAD
EUCALYPTUS AVENUE
RUTH AVE
HILLS FERRY ROAD
T ST
HOYER ROAD
SANCHES ROAD
Q ST
SHERMAN PARKWAY
W STUHR ROAD
SHIELLS ROAD
AZEVEDO ROAD
" ö
Stanislaus County
Merced County
Wasteway
Wasteway
C. C. I. D. Canal
San Joaquin River
" ö
C. C. I. D. Canal
F I G U R E 3 - 4
S P H E R E O F I N F LU E N C E BOUNDARY CHANG E S
C I T Y O F N EWM A N
P R O J E C T D E S C R I P T I O N
0 0.25 0.5 Miles Source: Stanislaus County GIS and Merced County GIS
City Limit
County Boundary
Planning Area Boundary
Existing Primary Sphere of Influence
New Area Added to Primary Sphere of Influence
!
! !
!
!
Existing Sphere of Influence
New Area Added to Sphere of Influence
G E N E R A L P L A N P U B L I C R E V I E W D R A F T E I R
C I T Y O F N E W M A N
G E N E R A L P L A N P U B L I C R E V I E W D R A F T E I R
P R O J E C T D E S C R I P T I O N
3- 18
♦ Areas formerly designated Neighborhood Planned Residential, a designa-tion
which was eliminated, were changed to Planned Mixed Residential
( PMR) and Low Density Residential ( LDR).
♦ Parcels south of West Stuhr Road, west of the CCID canal and east of
Draper Road formerly designated Urban Reserve were changed to Agri-culture
( A).
♦ The number of Master Plan Areas was increased from three to nine to in-corporate
former Industrial Specific Plan areas, the expanded SOI south of
the city, the area along Highway 33 at the north end of the city designated
Business Park ( BP) and to allow for planned development of smaller,
more finely grained, cohesive neighborhoods. The proposed Master Plan
Areas are shown in Figure 3- 5.
3. Goals, Policies and Actions
The goals, policies and actions of each element were updated to reflect
changes in the community’s vision and changes in conditions since adoption
of the previous General Plan. Implementing actions were also added within
each element.
4. Plan Organization
Proposed changes in the organization of the General Plan include the follow-ing.
♦ The Administration Element was eliminated and its contents consolidated
into the other elements.
♦ Appendix A, the Specific Plan and Neighborhood Plan Guidelines, was
eliminated and its contents included in the Master Plan Area criteria con-tained
in the Land Use Element.
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! !
!
!
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! !
!
! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
EASTIN ROAD
ORESTIMBA ROAD
W STUHR ROAD
N ST
DRAPER ROAD HALE ROAD
FREITAS ROAD
L STREET
HILLS FERRY ROAD
LUNDY ROAD
E STUHR ROAD
VILLA MANUCHA ROAD
JORGENSEN ROAD
FIG LANE
M STREET
PUMP ROAD
MERCED STREET
MC CLINTOCK ROAD
HARVEY ROAD
HALLOWELL ROAD
JENSEN ROAD
MAIN STREET
FRESNO ST
WANGENHEIM ROAD
KERN ST
HOYER ROAD
YOLO ST
HARDIN ROAD
INYO AVENUE
ORESTIMBA ROAD DRISKELL AVENUE
CANYON CREEK DRIVE
PRINCE STREET
PATCHETT DRIVE
UPPER ROAD
CANAL SCHOOL ROAD
BRAZO RD
DRAPER ROAD
SHIELLS ROAD
SANTA FE GRADE
MC CLINTOCK ROAD
RIVER ROAD
KELLEY ROAD
EUCALYPTUS AVENUE
RUTH AVE
HILLS FERRY ROAD
T ST
HOYER ROAD
SANCHES ROAD
Q ST
SHERMAN PARKWAY
W STUHR ROAD
SHIELLS ROAD
AZEVEDO ROAD
" ö
Stanislaus County
Merced County
Wasteway
Wasteway
C. C. I. D. Canal
San Joaquin River
" ö
C. C. I. D. Canal
Area 3- R/ BP Area 2- R/ BP Area 1- R
Area 4- R
Area 5- R
Area 6- R
Area 7- R
Area 8- R
Area 9- I
Area 10- I
376 acres 204 acres 146 acres
211 acres
214 acres
240 acres
319 acres
158 acres
120 acres
169 acres
F IGURE 3 - 5
M A S T E R P L AN A R E A S
C I T Y O F N E W M A N
P R O J E C T D E S C R I P T I O N
0 0.25 0.5 Miles
City Limits
Proposed Primary Sphere of Influence
!
! !
!
!
Proposed Sphere of Influence
Planning Area Boundary
County Boundary
Source: Stanislaus County GIS and Merced County GIS
I = Industrial Plan Area
R = Residential Plan Area
R/ BP = Residential / Business
Park Plan Area
G E N E R A L P U B L I C R E V I E W D R A F T E I R
C I T Y O F N E W M A N
G E N E R A L P L A N P U B L I C R E V I E W D R A F T E I R
P R O J E C T D E S C R I P T I O N
3- 20
G. Circulation Improvements
The proposed General Plan includes a circulation plan, which consists of a
network of arterial, collector and local roads that support the proposed lay-out
and mix of land uses. The proposed circulation plan is shown in Fig-ure
3- 6.
Several needed improvements to the existing circulation system have been
identified to realize the proposed circulation plan. These circulation im-provements
are numbered and described below and shown with correspond-ing
numbers on Figure 3- 7.
1. Highway 33. Highway 33 would be widened or re- striped to accommo-date
four lanes of traffic. Between Yolo and Inyo Avenues, where prop-erties
along the highway are developed and many are not likely to rede-velop,
the highway would be re- striped to four lanes within the existing
curb to curb width, rather than widened. The portion of Highway 33 ad-jacent
to the railroad would include a Class I bikeway. In downtown
Newman, where the railroad is separate from the highway, the bikeway
would be located along the railroad right- of- way, separate from the high-way.
2. West Parkway. Harvey Road would be extended to create a new West
Parkway between Stuhr Road and Hallowell Road. West Parkway
would be a two- lane arterial north of Shiells Road, the proposed South
Parkway, and a two- lane collector south of Shiells Road.
3. Prince Street. Prince Street would be widened to a four- lane arterial
between Inyo Avenue and Canyon Creek Drive and would be a two- lane
collector between Canyon Creek Drive and the proposed South Park-way.
Prince Street would include a Class I bikeway on the east side of
the street between Inyo Avenue and South Parkway.
EASTIN ROAD
ORESTIMBA ROAD
W STUHR ROAD
N ST
DRAPER ROAD
L STREET
HILLS FERRY ROAD
E STUHR ROAD
VILLA MANUCHA ROA
FIG LANE
M STREET
MERCED STREET
MC CLINTOCK ROAD
HARVEY ROAD
HALLOWELL ROAD
JENSEN ROAD
MAIN STREET
FRESNO ST
WANGENHE
KERN ST
HOYER ROAD
YOLO ST
HARDIN ROAD
INYO AVENUE
ORESTIMBA ROAD DRISKELL AVENUE
CANYON CREEK DRIVE
PRINCE STREET
PATCHETT DRIVE
UPPER ROAD
CANAL SCHOOL ROAD
BRAZO RD
DRAPER ROAD
SHIELLS ROAD
SANTA FE GRADE
EUCALYPTUS AVENUE
RUTH AVE
T ST
HOYER ROAD
SANCHES ROAD
Q ST
SHERMAN PARKWAY
W STUHR ROAD
SHIELLS ROAD
" ö
Stanislaus County
Merced County
Wasteway
Wasteway
C. C. I. D. Canal
" ö
C. C. I. D. Canal
F IGUR E 3 - 6
CI R C U L A T ION P LAN
C I T Y O F N EWM A N
G E N E R A L P L A N E I R
0 0.25 0.5Miles
4- lane Arterial
2- lane Arterial
Major Collector
Minor Collector
EASTIN ROAD
ORESTIMBA ROAD
W STUHR ROAD
N ST
DRAPER ROAD
L STREET
HILLS FERRY ROAD
E STUHR ROAD
VILLA MANUCHA ROAD
FIG LANE
M STREET
MERCED STREET
MC CLINTOCK ROAD
HARVEY ROAD
HALLOWELL ROAD
JENSEN ROAD
MAIN STREET
FRESNO ST
WANGEN HEIM ROA
KERN ST
HOYER ROAD
YOLO ST
HARDIN ROAD
INYO AVENUE
DRISKELL AVENUE
ORESTIMBA ROAD
CANYON CREEK DRIVE
PRINCE STREET
PATCHETT DRIVE
UPPER ROAD
CANAL SCH OOL ROAD
BRAZO RD
DRAPER ROAD
SHIELLS ROAD
SANTA FE GRADE
EUCALYPTUS AVENUE
RUTH AVE
T ST
HOYER ROAD
SANCHES ROAD
Q ST
SHERMAN PARKWAY
W STUHR ROAD
SHIELLS ROAD
"
Stanislaus County
Merced County
Wasteway
Wasteway
C. C. I. D. Canal
" ö
C. C. I. D. Canal
ö
F I G U R E 3 - 7
C I R C U L A T I O N I M P R O V E M E N T S
C I T Y O F N E W M A N
G E N E R A L P L A N P U B L I C R E V I E W D R A F T E I R
P R O J E C T D E S C R I P T I O N
1
2
6
12
9
11
3
8
4
10
5
7
13
14
20
19
18
4
15 16 17
4- Lane Arterial 1 Various Roadway Improvements
2- Lane Arterial New Railroad Grade Crossing
Major Collector
0 0.25 0.5 Miles
C I T Y O F N E W M A N
G E N E R A L P L A N P U B L I C R E V I E W D R A F T E I R
P R O J E C T D E S C R I P T I O N
3- 23
4. Jensen/ Sherman Parkway. Jensen/ Sherman Parkway would be wid-ened
to a four- lane arterial between Hills Ferry Road and approximately
mid- way between Harden Road and the proposed West Parkway, and a
two- lane collector between West Parkway and the CCID Canal. Jen-sen/
Sherman Parkway would include a Class I bikeway between
McClintock Road and the CCID Canal.
5. Kern Street/ Driskell Avenue. Kern Street and Driskell Avenue would
be a four- lane arterial between Main Street and Balsam Drive.
6. Hoyer Road. Hoyer Road would be a two- lane collector between
Draper Road and the proposed West Parkway and a four- lane arterial be-tween
West Parkway and Upper Road.
7. Merced Street. Merced Street would be four lanes between Main Street
and Driskell Avenue.
8. Inyo Avenue. Inyo Avenue would be a four- lane arterial between Prince
Street and Highway 33.
9. South Parkway. Shiells Road would be extended into a new South
Parkway from Canal School Road to Draper Road, with a new grade-separated
crossing of the Southern Pacific Railroad.
10. Fig Lane. Fig Lane would be a two- lane collector.
11. Canyon Creek Drive. Canyon Creek Drive would be extended as a
two- lane collector west to the proposed West Parkway.
12. New Collector. A new two- lane collector would extend from Canyon
Creek Drive to Orestimba Road, mid- way between the proposed West
Parkway and Upper Road, along the west side of Yolo Middle School.
13. Canal School/ Hills Ferry Road Intersection Realignment. The Canal
School Road/ Hills Ferry Road intersection would be realigned to
Driskell Avenue to form a new four- way intersection.
14. Hills Ferry Road. Hills Ferry Road would be widened to four lanes
between Driskell Avenue and the new collector located mid- way between
Sherman Parkway and East Stuhr Road.
C I T Y O F N E W M A N
G E N E R A L P L A N P U B L I C R E V I E W D R A F T E I R
P R O J E C T D E S C R I P T I O N
3- 24
15. Balsam Drive. Balsam Drive would be extended as a two- lane collector
north from Sherman Parkway to East Stuhr Road.
16. Eucalyptus Drive. Eucalyptus Drive would be extended as a two- lane
collector from Sherman Parkway to East Stuhr Road.
17. Barrington Avenue. Barrington Avenue would be extended as a two-lane
collector from Sherman Parkway to East Stuhr Road.
18. McClintock Road. McClintock Road would be extended as a two- lane
collector from East Stuhr Road to Sherman Parkway.
19. New Collector. A new east- west collector would be developed from the
proposed extension of McClintock Road to Hills Ferry Road to provide
access to planned light industrial uses.
20. New Collector. A new collector would be developed to improve access
to planned light industrial uses south of Hills Ferry Road, beginning at
the Hills Ferry Road/ Sherman Parkway intersection, running south,
then west along the county line to the Canal School Road/ Inyo Avenue
intersection.
C I T Y O F N E W M A N
G E N E R A L P L A N P U B L I C R E V I E W D R A F T E I R
P R O J E C T D E S C R I P T I O N
3- 25
H. General Plan Buildout Projections
Table 3- 3 shows the new and total numbers of housing units, commercial and
industrial floor area that are projected to be developed with full buildout of
the proposed General Plan. The buildout projections represent a probable
density and intensity of development that is less than the maximum allowed
by each land use designation, recognizing site constraints, transportation and
other infrastructure requirements, and market conditions. The great majority
of new development would occur outside the existing city limits on land that
would be annexed by the City. Development under the proposed General
Plan would result in an estimated 10,350 new housing units for a total of
13,442 units at buildout. The proposed Plan would also provide for an esti-mated
total of 1,765,000 square feet of commercial uses and 5,036,000 square
feet of industrial uses at buildout. The estimated population at buildout of
the proposed Plan would be 45,703 persons, an increase of 35,190 from 2006.
I. Project Alternatives
Chapter 5 of this Draft EIR evaluates a range of reasonable alternatives to the
proposed General Plan and identifies an environmentally superior alternative.
The discussion focuses on alternatives that meet some or all of the objectives
of the Plan as set forth in the adopted Vision Statement and would avoid or
substantially lessen any of the significant impacts of the Plan.
♦ No Project Alternative. The No Project Alternative assumes the con-tinuation
of development and conservation under the existing General
Plan.
C I T Y O F N E W M A N
G E N E R A L P L A N P U B L I C R E V I E W D R A F T E I R
P R O J E C T D E S C R I P T I O N
3- 26
TABLE 3- 3 GENERAL PLAN BUILDOUT PROJECTIONS
Land Use Existing New Buildout Total
Residential ( units) 3,0921 10,350 13,442
Commercial ( square feet) 461,0002 1,304,000 1,765,000
Industrial ( square feet) 755,0002 4,281,000 5,036,000
Population ( persons) 10,1401 35,1903 45,7033
1 The existing housing unit and population estimates are for the city limits in 2006 and are from
the California Department of Finance, Demographic Research Unit, 2006. Table 2: E- 5
City/ County Population and Housing Estimates, January 1, 2006.
2 The existing and future commercial and industrial floor area estimate are for the city limits
and sphere of influence and were developed by DC& E based on a review of the City’s current
traffic model.
3 Based on an average household size of 3.4.
♦ Concentrated Growth Alternative. The Concentrated Growth Alterna-tive
assumes the same amount of growth but would increase the density
and intensity of uses to reduce the amount of farmland that would be
converted to urban uses.
♦ Reduced Growth Alternative. The Reduced Growth Alternative would
decrease the overall amount of land planned for new urban development
to reduce the amount of farmland that would be converted to urban uses.
The density and intensity of land uses on the lands planned for urbaniza-tion
however would remain the same as the density and intensity of land
uses in the proposed General Plan.
C I T Y O F N E W M A N
G E N E R A L P L A N P U B L I C R E V I E W D R A F T E I R
P R O J E C T D E S C R I P T I O N
3- 27
J. Intended Uses of the General Plan
This EIR will be used to address subsequent discretionary projects, such as
adopting zoning ordinances and approving capital improvement projects or
development proposals that are consistent with the proposed General Plan.
Project- level environmental review for these subsequent projects may be lim-ited
to those issues peculiar to the project and that were not identified as sig-nificant
impacts in this EIR, or for which substantial new information shows
the effects will be more significant than described in this EIR. These subse-quent
projects could include the following:
♦ Amendments to the SOI
♦ Annexation and prezoning
♦ Rezoning
♦ Subarea Master Plan approvals
♦ Development Agreements
♦ Development approvals, such as tentative maps, variances, conditional use
permits and other land use entitlements
♦ Facility and Service Master Plans and Financing Plans
♦ Approval and funding of capital improvement projects
♦ Municipal Bond issuances
♦ Property acquisition by purchase or eminent domain
C I T Y O F N E W M A N
G E N E R A L P L A N P U B L I C R E V I E W D R A F T E I R
P R O J E C T D E S C R I P T I O N
3- 28
4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION
4- 1
This chapter consists of 14 sections that evaluate the environmental impacts
of the proposed General Plan. In accordance with Appendix G of the CEQA
Guidelines, the potential environmental effects of the proposed General Plan
are analyzed for the following environmental issue areas:
♦ Aesthetics
♦ Agricultural Resources
♦ Air Quality
♦ Biological Resources
♦ Cultural Resources
♦ Geology and Soils
♦ Hazards and Hazardous Materials
♦ Hydrology and Water Quality
♦ Land Use
♦ Noise
♦ Population and Housing
♦ Public Services
♦ Transportation
♦ Utilities
A. Format of the Environmental Evaluation
Each section in Chapter 4.0 generally follows the same format and consists of
the following subsections:
♦ The Regulatory Framework subsection contains an overview of the fed-eral,
State and local laws and regulations applicable to each environ-mental
review topic.
♦ The Existing Conditions subsection describes current conditions with re-gard
to the environmental factor reviewed.
♦ The Standards of Significance subsection tells how an impact is judged to
be significant in this EIR. These standards are based on the CEQA guide-lines
and other regulatory criteria where noted.
C I T Y O F N E W M A N
G E N E R A L P L A N P U B L I C R E V I E W D R A F T E I R
E N V I R O N M E N T A L E V A L U A T I O N
4- 2
♦ The Impact Discussion gives an overview of potential impacts of the pro-posed
General Plan and tells why impacts were found to be significant or
less than significant. This section includes a discussion of cumulative im-pacts
of the proposed General Plan.
♦ The Impacts and Mitigation Measures section numbers and lists identified
impacts and identifies measures that would mitigate each impact, where
such measures are available. Since the proposed General Plan is self-mitigating,
only impacts that are noted as significant and unavoidable in
the text are listed in this section.
B. Cumulative Impact Analysis
Section 15130 of the CEQA Guidelines requires an EIR to discuss cumulative
impacts of a project when the project's incremental effect is cumulatively
considerable. A cumulative impact consists of an impact created as a result of
the combination of the project evaluated in the EIR together with other rea-sonably
foreseeable projects causing related impacts.
In the case of a city- wide planning document such as a General Plan, cumula-tive
effects are the effects that combine impacts from the projects develop-ment
in the city with the effects of development in other portions of the re-gion.
By definition, no development within the city would be considered
part of the cumulative impacts; instead, development inside the city is part of
the project itself.
Where the incremental effect of a project is not “ cumulatively considerable,”
a lead agency need not consider that effect significant, but must briefly de-scribe
its basis for concluding that the incremental effect is not cumulatively
considerable.
The cumulative impacts analyses in sections 4.1 to 4.14 are included in the
Impact Discussion in each section.
C I T Y O F N E W M A N
G E N E R A L P L A N P U B L I C R E V I E W D R A F T E I R
E N V I R O N M E N T A L E V A L U A T I O N
4- 3
Individual cumulative impacts may occur over different geographic areas.
The cumulative discussions in sections 4.1 through 4.14 explain the geo-graphic
scope of the area affected by each cumulative effect ( e. g. watershed or
air basin). The geographic area considered for each cumulative impact de-pends
upon the impact that is being analyzed. For example, in assessing aes-thetic
impacts, only development within the vicinity of the project would
contribute to a cumulative visual effect. In assessing air quality impacts, on
the other hand, all development within the air basin contributes to regional
emissions of criteria pollutants, and basinwide projections of emissions is the
best tool for determining the cumulative effect. For most resource issues, the
cumulative context evaluated in this EIR is the County of Stanislaus, though
often the area considered for the cumulative analysis includes a portion of
Merced County since Newman is located on the border of the two.
When applicable, the cumulative impacts of a General Plan take into account
growth projected by the proposed General Plan, in combination with impacts
from projected growth in other cities in the region. Unless otherwise stated,
for each of the following 14 sections, the cumulative impact analysis examines
cumulative effects of the proposed General Plan, in combination with Stanis-laus
Council of Governments ( StanCOG)- projected growth for the other cit-ies
in Stanislaus County.
StanCOG is responsible for estimating regional growth for Stanislaus
County. The last regional population and employment forecast for the re-gion
was completed for StanCOG’s Projections 2005. StanCOG’s projected
2030 population for Newman is 38,582.
C I T Y O F N E W M A N
G E N E R A L P L A N P U B L I C R E V I E W D R A F T E I R
E N V I R O N M E N T A L E V A L U A T I O N
4- 4
4.1 AESTHETICS
4.1- 1
This section describes the visual and aesthetic resources of Newman and pro-vides
an evaluation of the effects the proposed General Plan would have on
these resources. Impacts and changes involving light and glare, such as addi-tional
nighttime lighting, are also discussed in this section.
A. Regulatory Framework
Newman has already adopted several regulations and guidelines to control the
visual impact of new development on the visual character of the community
as a whole. These include City zoning ordinances and two focused area plans
that provide policy guidance on the design of new public and private devel-opments
within their respective areas. This section provides background on
the relevant City ordinances and the overall purpose and content of the
Downtown Revitalization Plan and the Highway 33 Specific Plan.
1. Downtown Revitalization Plan
The Downtown Revitalization Plan envisions a vibrant pedestrian- oriented
commercial core, to serve as the heart of Newman and provide residents, em-ployees
and visitors with services and opportunities for shopping, recreation
and cultural activities. Completed in 1994, the Plan identifies land use and
circulation relationships; design standards; necessary infrastructure and street-scape
improvements; economic and market conditions; and specific imple-mentation
tools necessary to promote the development of business in the
downtown commercial core of Newman. Many of the recent public im-provements
completed, or in the process of being developed, are a result of
the recommendations of this Revitalization Plan. The urban design guide-lines
contained within the Plan address site planning, parking, streetscapes
and public open space, building scale and massing, and signage. These guide-lines
are used by the City to provide design direction for new construction,
restoration and remodel projects within the downtown commercial core.
C I T Y O F N E W M A N
G E N E R A L P L A N P U B L I C R E V I E W D R A F T E I R
A E S T H E T I C S
4.1- 2
2. Highway 33 Specific Plan
Completed in 1996, the Highway 33 Specific Plan provides policies and guide-lines
to shape the character and stimulate the economic growth of the High-way
33 corridor to create a more attractive commercial corridor centered
around downtown. The Plan addresses land use, circulation, infrastructure
and urban design.
The Plan provides detailed design guidelines for two distinct portions of the
Highway 33 corridor, which are defined by the Plan as the “ Downtown Dis-trict”
and the “ Highway District.” The “ Downtown District” includes the
downtown commercial core as well as the majority of the downtown abut-ting
the western side of Highway 33. The design guidelines for the “ Highway
District” address the remainder of the corridor, largely outside of the down-town.
The design guidelines for the “ Downtown District” portion of the
corridor are consistent with and build upon the design guidelines contained
within the Downtown Revitalization Plan. The Plan’s guidelines establish
that new development within the downtown portion of Highway 33 will be
pedestrian oriented and consistent with the existing pattern of historic down-town
development. On the portion of Highway 33 outside of downtown,
the Plan allows development to be more auto- oriented and establishes that
new development incorporate a Rural/ Agrarian theme that reflects the char-acter
and heritage of the region.
3. Standard Conditions of Approval and Zoning Ordinance
The City’s adopted Standard Conditions of Approval require that street lights
installed in new developments be hooded to direct light downward and away
from surrounding uses. Additionally, the City has another Standard Condi-tion
of Approval that requires large new developments relocate existing and
install new utility lines underground.
The City of Newman has an H- C Historical/ Cultural Resource District
within its zoning code. As stated in the zoning code, the purpose of this his-toric
district is to:
C I T Y O F N E W M A N
G E N E R A L P L A N P U B L I C R E V I E W D R A F T E I R
A E S T H E T I C S
4.1- 3
♦ Preserve and protect the historic character of Newman and its histori-cally
significant structures, neighborhoods sites and artifacts.
♦ Promote and facilitate the restoration and rehabilitation of historically
significant structures, neighborhoods and sites.
♦ Assure that buildings and buildings groups located in proximity to his-torically
significant buildings are protected from incompatible construc-tion
or reconstruction. 1
This zoning district is an overlay district that supplements and is used in con-junction
with the underlying district. 2 This district is applied to the portion
of Newman downtown. This area contains the majority of the historic struc-tures
within the City of Newman that could be affected by new construction
or development.
The City of Newman’s zoning code also contains a right- to- farm ordinance
which is designed to preserve and protect existing agricultural operations ad-jacent
to Newman by protecting these uses from nuisance lawsuits filed by
adjacent landowners. 3
B. Existing Conditions
The following describes the existing setting regarding aesthetic and visual re-sources
in Newman.
1. Visual Character and Resources
The City of Newman has a small town look and feel with strong ties to its
agricultural heritage and economy. The visual character of Newman is de-fined
by its distinct neighborhoods and areas, gateways, its primary corridor
Highway 33, and its trees and landscaping. Each is described below.
1 City of Newman, 2004, Title 5 Zoning Code, Section 5.13.010.
2 City of Newman, 2004, Title 5 Zoning Code, Section 5.13.020.
3 City of Newman, 2004, Title 5 Zoning Code, Section 5.13.140.
C I T Y O F N E W M A N
G E N E R A L P L A N P U B L I C R E V I E W D R A F T E I R
A E S T H E T I C S
4.1- 4
a. Distinct Neighborhoods and Areas
Newman consists of distinct neighborhoods and areas, which often have dif-ferent
visual characteristics that not only reflect the predominate uses in an
area, but also reflect the era in which the area was built. Newman is charac-terized
by five distinct visual categories:
♦ Downtown. The downtown of Newman is a small grid of approximately
6 blocks by 6 blocks. The downtown contains a vibrant commercial core
and the oldest residential neighborhood in Newman, both of which con-tain
many historic buildings.
♦ Mature Residential Neighborhoods. These older neighborhoods,
mostly constructed during the 1940s through the 1970s, are laid out on a
grid pattern and contained well maintained single family residences with
mature trees and landscaping.
♦ New Residential Neighborhoods. These neighborhoods were developed
since the 1980’ s and are generally located at the outer edges of the city.
These neighborhoods generally have curvilinear street patterns with mul-tiple
cul- de- sacs and consist of housing stock of similar design and materi-als
built by the same developer.
♦ Commercial Areas. Commercial areas outside the downtown are lim-ited
to a strip of service commercial uses, convenience stores and gas sta-tions
along Highway 33 and the Westside Marketplace, a new auto ori-ented
shopping center.
♦ Industrial Zone. Newman’s industrial zone houses a wide range of in-dustrial
uses, from low- slung mini- storage warehouses and the large va-cant
pad of the public scales to the towering tanks of the F& A Dairy.
Many of the industrial uses have new and modern facilities while others
are older and not as well maintained.
♦ Rural and Suburban Transition Areas. These transition areas include a
mix of historic orchards, old barns and farmhouses, small parcels that are
still being farmed, and yards housing cows, goats, chickens and similar
C I T Y O F N E W M A N
G E N E R A L P L A N P U B L I C R E V I E W D R A F T E I R
A E S T H E T I C S
4.1- 5
barnyard animals. These picturesque, rural- seeming areas recall the his-toric
character of the Newman community.
b. Gateways
Gateways of a city are the locations which announce to a visitor or resident
that they are entering the city, or a unique neighborhood within that city.
Newman has several gateways. The “ Welcome to Newman” signs on High-way
33 both north and south of town serve as formal gateways. In the down-town,
informal gateways include the beginning and end of the retail corridor
on Main Street. There are also informal gateways marking the transition
from rural to urban, such as the intersection of Stuhr Road and Highway 33
and the intersection of Hills Ferry Road and Driskell Road.
c. Highway 33
California State Highway 33 is the main travel way into and through New-man.
Traffic from Paterson, Crows Landing and Modesto, and much of the
traffic coming from the north on Interstate 5, enters Newman on Highway
33. Traffic coming from the south on Interstate 5, or coming from Gustine
and Merced, also enter the city on Highway 33.
The importance of Highway 33 is that it provides many visitors and through-travelers
with a first, if sometimes only, impression of Newman. Highway 33
is parallel to the Southern Pacific west side railroad line and contains a mix of
industrial properties, underutilized properties and, as noted above, a mix of
auto oriented commercial uses including the Westside Shopping Center. The
highway does not have an overall streetscape design concept and, outside of
the downtown, lacks sidewalks and street tress.
d. Trees and Landscaping
Street trees and established larger trees in and around the city are important
features of Newman’s visual character. They also provide shade and cooling
along residential streets during Newman’s hot summers. The city’s public
parks also include larger landscaped areas with playing fields and shade trees.
C I T Y O F N E W M A N
G E N E R A L P L A N P U B L I C R E V I E W D R A F T E I R
A E S T H E T I C S
4.1- 6
2. Scenic Vistas
Given Newman’s location on the west side of the Central Valley, the city has
views of the Diablo mountain range to the west. To the north, south and east
the views are limited to active agricultural lands, which include fruit and nut
orchards, and row crops. While not visible from the City of Newman, the
San Joaquin River east of the Planning Area does provide additional scenic
views within the vicinity of Hills Ferry Road.
3. State Scenic Highways
There are no official State- designated scenic routes in Newman’s proposed SOI
or Planning Area. However, Interstate 5, which is 5 miles west of Newman is
an officially designated State Scenic Highway. 4 The major arterials through and
adjacent to the city are its major entry corridors, and serve as the primary con-nections
for residents and travelers to the wider region.
4. Light and Glare
Nighttime lighting is brighter within the urbanized portion of Newman
when compared to the mostly undeveloped, surrounding agricultural lands.
Major light sources include:
♦ Households and street lighting.
♦ Lighting from commercial and industrial uses, such as parking lot illumi-nation.
♦ Motor vehicles on local streets and surrounding highways.
Current sources of glare are the sun or street lighting reflecting off of large
expanses of concrete or reflective rooftops. Glass and other reflective surfaces
can also be a source of glare.
4 Officially Designated State Scenic Highways and Historic Parkways,
http:// www. dot. ca. gov/ hq/ LandArch/ scenic_ highways/ index. htm, accessed on Sep-tember
26, 2006.
C I T Y O F N E W M A N
G E N E R A L P L A N P U B L I C R E V I E W D R A F T E I R
A E S T H E T I C S
4.1- 7
C. Standards of Significance
The implementation of the proposed project would have a significant impact
to visual and aesthetic quality if it would:
♦ Substantially or demonstrably result in a negative aesthetic alteration to
the existing character of the area. A substantial alteration is characterized
by a negative “ sense of loss” of character or unique resources.
♦ Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista.
♦ Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees,
rock outcroppings and historic buildings within a state scenic highway.
♦ Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely
affect day or nighttime views in the area.
D. Impact Discussion
The following provides an analysis of the potential visual impacts of the pro-posed
General Plan.
1. Project Impacts
Development permitted under the proposed General Plan could result in
changes to the visual characteristics of portions of Newman and the Sphere of
Influence ( SOI). However, the Plan contains policies that work in conjunc-tion
with current City design and development regulations to ensure that new
development complements the existing aesthetic fabric of the city and its sur-rounding
environs, and does not threaten scenic corridors or exacerbate issues
of light and glare. Implementation of the proposed General Plan would
therefore result in less- than- significant impacts to the aesthetic qualities of the
Newman area, as described in more detail below.
a. Visual Character and Resources
The following subsections address the primary visual aspects within Newman
and analyze the potential visual impacts that could result from the implemen-
C I T Y O F N E W M A N
G E N E R A L P L A N P U B L I C R E V I E W D R A F T E I R
A E S T H E T I C S
4.1- 8
tation of the proposed General Plan. The discussion below includes refer-ences
to the specific goals, policies and actions contained in the proposed
General Plan that would avoid significant visual impacts to the existing char-acter
of the area, or in some cases result in positive visual impacts to the
community.
i. Community Visual Character
Much of Newman’s scenic value comes from the surrounding working land-scapes
and its small- town, residential atmosphere. Implementation of the
proposed General Plan would allow growth to take place in some of the adja-cent
agricultural areas, which would occur mainly in the SOI, or on vacant
infill parcels within the city limits. Any new development could modify the
visual appearance of Newman, especially as land in the SOI changes from its
existing rural character to that of an urban community. Therefore, policies
outlined in the proposed General Plan are aimed at achieving a balance be-tween
maintaining Newman’s small- town feel, preserving its agricultural heri-tage
and accommodating growth.
Goal LU- 1 in the proposed General Plan is to preserve Newman’s traditional
small- town qualities while increasing its residential and employment base. To
achieve this goal, Policy LU- 1.1 says that the City shall encourage develop-ment
that is compatible with the existing scale and character of Newman.
The Community Design Element also contains Goal CD- 1, which is to main-tain
a coherent and distinctive physical form and structures that reflects New-man’s
small- town qualities and agricultural heritage. Related to this goal are
Policies CD- 1.1, which states that the City shall endeavor to maintain the
distinctiveness and integrity of the various neighborhoods and areas within
the city. Furthermore, Policy CD- 1.3 states that City shall seek to maintain a
distinct agricultural definition to the urban edge of the city as a means of em-phasizing
Newman’s small– town qualities and agricultural heritage.
The Community Design Element recognizes that high- quality design is a sig-nificant
tool that can preserve and enhance the existing character of Newman
and preserve the community’s quality of life. This Element therefore con-
C I T Y O F N E W M A N
G E N E R A L P L A N P U B L I C R E V I E W D R A F T E I R
A E S T H E T I C S
4.1- 9
tains additional goals and multiple design policies that are specifically related
to distinct areas within the city and are intended to preserve and enhance the
character of these areas, including the downtown and the existing neighbor-hoods.
Furthermore this Element contains goals and policies to guide com-mercial,
industrial and new neighborhood development outside of the exist-ing
city limits and contains policies that are intended to improve the character
of the Highway 33 corridor.
Many of the policies contained within the Community Design Element spe-cifically
address the visual quality of new development to ensure compatibil-ity
with the character of surrounding community and the city. For example,
Policy CD- 4.2 states that the development of new neighborhoods shall reflect
the human and pedestrian oriented character of existing neighborhoods in
Newman and Policy CD- 3.3 states that new development in existing residen-tial
neighborhoods shall reflect the existing scale and character of the sur-rounding
neighborhood and be compatible in design. Policy CD- 2.5 and
CD- 2.6 address architecture in the downtown commercial core and Policy
CD- 4.9 and CD- 4.10 address the use of design and detailing to add variety and
visual interest to development in new residential subdivisions.
The Community Design Element and the Recreation and Cultural Resource
Element also both contain goals and policies to preserve and enhance the his-toric
resources within Newman, which further contribute to the commu-nity’s
unique visual character. For example, Policy CD- 2.7 and CD- 2.8 en-courage
the preservation, restoration and maintenance of historic structures,
including the structures details and design elements. Policy RC- 5.2 sets the
protection and enhancement of Newman historic resources as a high priority
for the City. Additional polices and actions within the Recreation and Cul-tural
Resource Element, including Policies RC- 5.3, RC- 5.4, RC- 5.5, and
RC- 5.6, and Actions RC- 5.2, RC- 5.5, RC- 5.6 and RC- 5.7, outline how the
goal of preserving historic resources would be met.
C I T Y O F N E W M A N
G E N E R A L P L A N P U B L I C R E V I E W D R A F T E I R
A E S T H E T I C S
4.1- 10
The city’s historic preservation overlay district in the downtown also furthers
the goal of preserving and enhancing the city’s historic resources, the major-ity
of which reside within the downtown.
The existing Downtown Revitalization Plan and the Highway 33 Specific
Plan also contain design policies that are intended to maintain and enhance
the visual character of the downtown and the Highway 33 corridor, respec-tively.
The general design policies within these two plans are integrated into
the Community Design Element within the proposed General Plan.
As a result of the above goals, policies and actions, in combination with en-forcement
of the city’s municipal code, the implementation of the proposed
General Plan is not anticipated to result in a significant negative aesthetic impact
to the city’s existing overall town and rural character.
ii. Entry Corridors and Gateways
Entry corridors are important visual amenities to travelers to and from
Newman, and designated gateways can greatly enhance the city’s small- town
image. The city currently has two gateway “ Welcome to Newman” signs
located along Highway 33 near the northern and southern city limit. The
proposed General Plan has therefore identified additional new gateways at the
following locations:
♦ West Stuhr Road at the CCID Canal
♦ Highway 33 at Stuhr Road.
♦ Highway 33 at the Merced and Stanislaus County Lines
♦ Hills Ferry at East Stuhr Road
The Plan further directs the City to develop a unified design concept for these
gateways, which are shown in Figure 4.1- 1, that would provide a clearly de-fined
sense of place as people enter and leave the city. Through implementa-tion
of this program, the proposed General Plan would positively improve
Newman’s major gateways and corridors.
FE GR
! !
!
¹ V
¹
¹ V
¾ Æ
¾ Æ
O D
N ST
DRAPER ROAD
L STREET
HILLS FERRY ROAD
E STUHR ROAD
VI
FIG LANE
M STREET
MERCED STREET
M
HARVEY ROAD
HALLOWELL ROAD
JENSEN ROAD
MAIN STREET
FRESNO ST
KERN ST
YOLO ST
HARDIN ROAD
INYO AVENUE
DRISKELL AVENUE
ORESTIMBA ROAD
CANYON CREEK DRIVE
PRINCE STREET
PATCHETT DRIVE
UPPER ROAD
CANAL SCHOOL ROAD
BRAZO RD
DRAPER ROAD
S
EUCALYPTUS AVENUE
RUTH AVE
T
ST
HOYER ROAD
SANCHES ROAD
PRESTON ROAD
Q
ST
SHERMAN PARKWAY
W STUHR ROAD
SHIELLS ROAD
Stanislaus County
Merced County
Wasteway
Wasteway
C. C. I. D.
C. C. I. D. Canal
F IGURE 4 . 1 - 1
CONCEP T U A L G A T EWAYS A ND L A N D M A R K S
C I T Y O F N E W M A N
G E N E R A L P L A N P U B L I C R E V I E W D R A F T E I R
A E S T H E T I C S
0 0.25 0.5 Miles
¾ Æ Existing Gateway Sign
! City Gateway
¹ V City Landmark
Downtown Gateway
¹ Downtown Landmark
Collectors
Arterials
C I T Y O F N E W M A N
G E N E R A L P L A N P U B L I C R E V I E W D R A F T E I R
A E S T H E T I C S
4.1- 12
iii. Landscape and Streetscape
The proposed General Plan recognizes the important that trees, including
native trees, and landscaping have on the visual integrity of Newman. One of
the goals of the proposed General Plan Community Design Element ( Goal
CD- 7) is to maintain and enhance the quality of Newman’s landscape, street-scape
and gateways. This goal is supported by several policies and actions,
including Policies CD- 7.1 and CD- 7.2, which support the protection and en-hancement
of the existing tree canopy. The Community Design Element also
contains a number of policies ( Policies CD- 7.3, CD- 7.4, CD- 7.5, CD- 7.6,
CD- 7.7, CD- 7.8,) that require the installation of new trees and landscaping in
residential commercial and industrial development. Action CD- 7.1 would
direct the City to establish a tree planting program for the developed portions
of the city. The Plan also contains Action CD- 7.2 to develop and implement
a streetscape and right- of- way improvement plan for Highway 33 consistent
with the Highway 33 Specific Plan.
To encourage the use of native landscaping and trees, Policy NR- 3.5 requires
the City to use native plants in public projects and Policy NR- 3.6 encourages
the use of native vegetation in private new development.
As a result of these policies and actions, the proposed General Plan would
improve the visual appearance of many of the city’s roadways.
b. Scenic Vistas
As the surrounding agricultural lands greatly contribute to the visual charac-ter
of Newman, the proposed General Plan contains numerous goals, policies
and actions intended to protect these amenities into the future as growth oc-curs
pursuant to the proposed General Plan. Goal NR- 1 is to promote the
continued productivity of agriculture and prevent the premature conversion
of agricultural land to urban uses. To this end, Policy NR- 1.3 states that the
City will encourage surrounding agricultural land owners to enter into and
maintain Williamson Act contracts and Policy NR- 1.5 states that the City
will minimize the creation of peninsulas of urban development that will ad-versely
affect the viability of surrounding agricultural lands. Policy NR- 1.7
C I T Y O F N E W M A N
G E N E R A L P L A N P U B L I C R E V I E W D R A F T E I R
A E S T H E T I C S
4.1- 13
also states that the City shall maintain and continue to enforce the City’s
right- to- farm ordinance. To further address incompatibilities between farms
and development, Policy NR- 1.7 requires that new development, adjacent to
agricultural lands, use design solutions such as roads, setbacks and other
physical boundaries to create sufficient buffers.
As a result of the above goals and policies, implementation of the proposed
General Plan would not have a significant impact on the scenic vistas within
Newman.
c. State Scenic Highways
As previously mentioned, there are no State- designated scenic highways in or
around Newman. As a result, the proposed General Plan would not impact
visual resources within a State- designated scenic highway.
d. Light and Glare
Additional urban development allowed under the proposed General Plan
would result in an increased number of light sources within Newman, as well
as the amount and locations of glare. The City would continue to enforce its
existing regulations regarding light and glare in its Standard Conditions of
Approval and Zoning Code. Enforcement of existing regulations would re-duce
the potential impact related to light and glare to a less- than- significant
level.
2. Cumulative Impacts
The proposed General Plan would result in changes to the visual character of
the Newman area from a rural, agricultural base to one that is more character-ized
by urban uses, with increased light and glare sources. As outlined above,
the proposed General Plan policies and actions, in conjunction with adopted
City regulations, would reduce project- level aesthetic impacts to a less- than-significant
level. However, while the proposed General Plan would not result
in a project- level significant aesthetics impact, when combined with the over-all
growth trends in Stanislaus County, cumulative conversion of the
County’s visual character from a rural, agricultural character to a more urban
C I T Y O F N E W M A N
G E N E R A L P L A N P U B L I C R E V I E W D R A F T E I R
A E S T H E T I C S
4.1- 14
feel could result in a cumulative significant and unavoidable aesthetics impact.
Within the timeframe of the proposed General Plan, it is unlikely that the
portion of Stanislaus and Merced counties near Newman; however, would be
significantly converted from agricultural land to urban uses. Thus the cumu-lative
impact would be less than significant.
E. Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Since no significant impacts were identified, no mitigation measures are re-quired.
4.2 AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES
4.2- 1
This section describes agricultural resources in and around Newman and evaluates
potential farmland impacts of the proposed General Plan.
A. Regulatory Framework
Agriculture is a major activity in Newman, and throughout Stanislaus County
and the Central Valley. Approximately 80 percent of Newman’s Planning Area,
some 8,300 acres, is agricultural land. Farmland also makes up most of the City’s
open space resources. It is an important visual asset and defines the character of
the community.
Stanislaus County farmers produce a wide range of products from apricots to wal-nuts,
with milk, almonds, cattle, poultry, walnuts and alfalfa leading in gross farm
revenue. Stanislaus County has ranked seventh among California farm counties
in recent years. Agriculture represented nearly two billion dollars in gross reve-nues
in 2005, and about one- third of the county’s jobs. 1
1. Newman Right- to- Farm Ordinance
Newman has adopted a right- to- farm ordinance ( Municipal Code Section 5.23.140)
which recognizes that agricultural operations frequently become the subjects of
nuisance complaints and seeks to reduce the premature conversion of farmland by
clarifying the circumstances under which an agricultural operation may be con-sidered
a nuisance. The ordinance declares it the policy of the City that commer-cial
agricultural uses in the SOI, or areas not annexed by the City, are a priority
use and inconveniences or discomforts arising from such a use shall not be a nui-sance.
The ordinance also requires discretionary development approvals to re-quire
a good faith effort to coordinate with adjacent agricultural operations to
reduce potential conflicts.
1 Stanislaus County Department of Agriculture, 2006, Stanislaus County Agricul-tural
Crop Report 2005.
C I T Y O F N E W M A N
G E N E R A L P L A N P U B L I C R E V I E W D R A F T E I R
A G R I C U L T U R A L R E S O U R C E S
4.2- 2
2. Stanislaus County General Plan and Zoning
Stanislaus County and Merced County General Plan designations are shown in
Figure 4.2- 1. Land outside the Newman city limits is designated in the Stanislaus
County General Plan as Agriculture, Urban Transition, Industrial and Planned
Industrial. Nearly all the parcels in the proposed SOI are designated in the Stanis-laus
County General Plan as Agriculture, with some areas immediately adjacent to
the city designated Urban Transition and Industrial. The Agriculture designation
provides for continued agricultural uses and avoids incompatible urban uses. Lim-ited
development, such as dwelling units, commercial services and light industrial
uses, may be allowed if compatible and related to agricultural activities. The Ag-riculture
designated land around Newman is zoned General Agriculture ( A- 2- 40).
This zone permits a range of agricultural and compatible uses, including a second
dwelling unit on parcels over 20 acres. The Urban Transition designation is in-tended
to ensure that land remains in agricultural use until urban development, in
accordance with Newman’s General Plan, is approved and the territory is annexed
to the city. These Urban Transition parcels are zoned General Agriculture ( A- 2-
10), which permits agricultural uses and one dwelling unit on parcels up to 10
acres in size.
EASTIN ROAD
ORESTIMBA ROAD
W STUHR ROAD
N ST
DRAPER ROAD HALE ROAD
FREITAS ROAD
L STREET
HILLS FERRY ROAD
LUNDY ROAD
E STUHR ROAD
VILLA MANUCHA ROAD
JORGENSEN ROAD
FIG LANE
M STREET
PUMP ROAD
MERCED STREET
MC CLINTOCK ROAD
HARVEY ROAD
HALLOWELL ROAD
JENSEN ROAD
MAIN STREET
FRESNO ST
WANGENHEIM ROAD
KERN ST
HOYER ROAD
YOLO ST
HARDIN ROAD
INYO AVENUE
ORESTIMBA ROAD DRISKELL AVENUE
CANYON CREEK DRIVE
PRINCE STREET
PATCHETT DRIVE
UPPER ROAD
CANAL SCHOOL ROAD
BRAZO RD
DRAPER ROAD
SHIELLS ROAD
SANTA FE GRADE
MC CLINTOCK ROAD
RIVER ROAD
KELLEY ROAD
EUCALYPTUS AVENUE
RUTH AVE
HILLS FERRY ROAD
T ST
HOYER ROAD
SANCHES ROAD
Q ST
SHERMAN PARKWAY
W STUHR ROAD
SHIELLS ROAD
AZEVEDO ROAD
" ö
Stanislaus County
Merced County
Wasteway
Wasteway
C. C. I. D. Canal
San Joaquin River
" ö
C. C. I. D. Canal
F I G U R E 4 . 2 - 1
COUNT Y G E N E RAL P LAN D E S IGNAT I O N S
C I T Y O F N EWM A N
G E N E R A L P L A N P U B L I C R E V I E W D R A F T E I R
0 0.25 0.5 Miles
Stanislaus County General Plan
Agriculture
Industrial
Urban Transition
Merced County General Plan
Industrial
Agricultural
Source: Stanislaus County GIS, 2005; Merced County GIS, 2005
City Limits
Proposed Primary Sphere of Influence
Proposed Sphere of Influence
Planning Area Boundary
County Boundary
A G R I C U L T U R A L R E S O U R C E S
C I T Y O F N E W M A N
G E N E R A L P L A N P U B L I C R E V I E W D R A F T E I R
A G R I C U L T U R A L R E S O U R C E S
4.2- 4
3. Merced County General Plan and Zoning
The land outside Newman’s southeastern City limit is under the jurisdiction of
Merced County. The unincorporated portion of Merced County that is
designated Heavy Industrial and Light Industrial in the existing and proposed
Newman General Plan is also designated Industrial in the Merced County General
Plan. The County has an agreement with the City of Newman that allows this
area to be developed with industrial uses consistent with this General Plan.
Furthermore, the agreement states that Merced County will forward all
development applications in this area to the City for review and comment.
The remainder of Merced County south of the City limit is designated Agricul-tural
in the Merced County General Plan, as is the majority of the central part of
Merced County. According to the Agricultural land use designation, “ the Agri-cultural
areas are used [ primarily] for cultivated agricultural practices which rely
on good soil quality and water availability, and minimal slopes. Also, many non-cultivated
agricultural practices occur in these areas.”
Like Stanislaus County, Merced County has a number of General Plan policies
aimed at protecting agriculture. Objective 1. A, Policy 1, states that “ Urban de-velopment
shall occur only within adopted urban boundaries of cities, unincorpo-rated
communities and other urban centers consisting of the following designa-tions:
Specific Urban Development Plan ( SUDP), Rural Residential Center
( RRC), Highway Interchange Center ( HIC) and Agricultural Services Center
( ASC).” The closest urbanized area to Newman is the City of Gustine, 5 miles to
the south. Gustine is designated SUDP on the Merced County Land Use Policy
Diagram. However, none of the land adjacent to Newman is designated SUDP.
Objective 4. A, Policy 1 also states that agricultural and rural land shall only be
converted to urban uses “ where a clear and immediate need can be demonstrated
based on anticipated growth and availability of public services and facilities.”
C I T Y O F N E W M A N
G E N E R A L P L A N P U B L I C R E V I E W D R A F T E I R
A G R I C U L T U R A L R E S O U R C E S
4.2- 5
B. Existing Conditions
1. Important Farmlands
The California Department of Conservation Farmland Mapping and Monitoring
Program tracks the conversion of agricultural land to urban uses throughout the
state, using classifications of important farmlands developed by the US Depart-ment
of Agriculture Natural Resources Conservation Service ( NRCS). The
NRCS classifies farmland as Prime Farmland, Farmland of Statewide Importance,
Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Local Importance, according to soil type and
the availability of irrigation. Definitions for each “ important farmland” category
are shown in Table 4.2- 1. Important farmlands in and around the proposed SOI
are shown in Table 4.2- 2 and Figure 4.2- 2. Nearly 2,000 acres of the proposed
SOI, is Prime Farmland, mostly to the west and northwest of the city. Lands to
the northeast and east are a mix of Unique Farmland and Farmland of Local Im-portance.
C I T Y O F N E W M A N
G E N E R A L P L A N P U B L I C R E V I E W D R A F T E I R
A G R I C U L T U R A L R E S O U R C E S
4.2- 6
TABLE 4.2- 1 IMPORTANT FARMLAND CATEGORIES
Name Description
Prime Farmland
Land which has the best combination of physical and chemical
characteristics for the production of crops. It has the soil quality,
growing season, and moisture supply needed to produce sustained
high yields of crops when treated and managed, including water
management, according to current farming methods. Prime Farm-land
must have been used for the production of irrigated crops
within the last three years.
Farmland
of Statewide
Importance
Land other than Prime Farmland which has a good combination of
physical and chemical characteristics for the production of crops. It
must have been used for the production of irrigated crops within
the last three years.
Unique
Farmland
Land which does not meet the criteria for Prime Farmland or Farm-land
of Statewide Importance that is currently used for the produc-tion
of specific high economic value crops. It has the special com-bination
of soil quality, location, growing season, and moisture
supply needed to produce sustained high quality or high yields of a
specific crop when treated and managed according to current farm-ing
methods. Examples of such crops may include oranges, olives,
avocados, rice, grapes and cut flowers.
Farmland
of Local
Importance
Land other than Prime Farmland, Farmland of Statewide Impor-tance
or Unique Farmland that is either currently producing crops
or that has the capability of production. This land may be impor-tant
to the local economy due to its productivity. The county-specific
definition for Stanislaus County is farmlands growing dry-land
pasture, dryland grains and irrigated pasture.
EASTIN ROAD
ORESTIMBA ROAD
W STUHR ROAD
N ST
DRAPER ROAD HALE ROAD
FREITAS ROAD
L STREET
HILLS FERRY ROAD
LUNDY ROAD
E STUHR ROAD
VILLA MANUCHA ROAD
JORGENSEN ROAD
FIG LANE
M STREET
PUMP ROAD
DO ROAD
MERCED STREET
MC CLINTOCK ROAD
HARVEY ROAD
HALLOWELL ROAD
JENSEN ROAD
MAIN STREET
FRESNO ST
WANGENHEIM ROAD
KERN ST
HOYER ROAD
YOLO ST
HARDIN ROAD
INYO AVENUE
ORESTIMBA ROAD DRISKELL AVENUE
CANYON CREEK DRIVE
PRINCE STREET
PATCHETT DRIVE
UPPER ROAD
CANAL SCHOOL ROAD
BRAZO RD
DRAPER ROAD
SHIELLS ROAD
SANTA FE GRADE
MC CLINTOCK ROAD
RIVER ROAD
KELLEY ROAD
EUCALYPTUS AVENUE
RUTH AVE
HILLS FERRY ROAD
T ST
HOYER ROAD
SANCHES ROAD
Q ST
SHERMAN PARKWAY
W STUHR ROAD
SHIELLS ROAD
AZEVEDO ROAD " ö
" ö
Stanislaus County
Merced County
Wasteway
Wasteway
C. C. I. D. Canal
C. C. I. D. Canal
San Joaquin River
F I GUR E 4 . 2 - 2
I M PO R T ANT F A RML A ND S
C I T Y O F N EWM A N
G E N E R A L P L A N P U B L I C R E V I E W D R A F T E I R
0 0.25 0.5 Miles
Data Source: State of California, Farmland Mapping and
Monitoring Program, 2005.
Grazing Land
Farmland of Local Importance
Prime Farmland
Unique Farmland
City Limits
Proposed Sphere of Influence
Proposed Primary Sphere of Influence
Planning Area Boundary
County Boundary
Waterways
A G R I C U L T U R A L R E S O U R C E S
C I T Y O F N E W M A N
G E N E R A L P L A N P U B L I C R E V I E W D R A F T E I R
A G R I C U L T U R A L R E S O U R C E S
4.2- 8
TABLE 4.2- 2 FARMLAND IN THE PROPOSED SOI ( IN ACRES)
Farmland Type
City
Limits
Proposed
Primary SOI
Proposed
SOI
Prime Farmland 304 551 1,729
Farmland of Statewide
Importance
0 0 0
Unique Farmland 156 201 710
Farmland of Local Importance 0 0 196
Total 460 752 2,635
Source: California Department of Conservation, Division of Land Resource Protection, Farmland
Mapping and Monitoring Program, 2006.
2. Williamson Act Contracts
The Newman SOI and Planning Area also include many properties under Wil-liamson
Act contracts, which place development restrictions on parcels to pre-serve
the land in agricultural use for at least ten years, in exchange for tax benefits
to the land owner. Figure 4.2- 3 shows the locations of Williamson Act lands.
According to Stanislaus County records, as of 2006, there is no agricultural land
within the Newman city limits and approximately 480 acres within the proposed
SOI subject to Williamson Act contracts. As shown on Figure 4.2- 3, non- renewal
forms have been files for nine parcels within the SOI and the Williamson Act con-tracts
of these properties are set to expire between 2012 and 2014.
a. Other Farmland Protection Programs
The loss of agricultural land is an issue throughout the Central Valley and there
have been regional efforts to minimize the loss. In 2004, the Central Valley Farm-land
Trust was formed, a joint regional land trust to preserve working agricultural
landscapes in Stanislaus, Merced, Sacramento and San Joaquin Counties.
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! !
! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! !
!
! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
EASTIN ROAD
ORESTIMBA ROAD
W STUHR ROAD
N ST
DRAPER ROAD HALE ROAD
FREITAS ROAD
L STREET
HILLS FERRY ROAD
LUNDY ROAD
E STUHR ROAD
VILLA MANUCHA ROAD
JORGENSEN ROAD
FIG LANE
M STREET
PUMP ROAD
DO ROAD
MERCED STREET
MC CLINTOCK ROAD
HARVEY ROAD
HALLOWELL ROAD
JENSEN ROAD
MAIN STREET
FRESNO ST
WANGENHEIM ROAD
KERN ST
HOYER ROAD
YOLO ST
HARDIN ROAD
INYO AVENUE
ORESTIMBA ROAD DRISKELL AVENUE
CANYON CREEK DRIVE
PRINCE STREET
PATCHETT DRIVE
UPPER ROAD
CANAL SCHOOL ROAD
BRAZO RD
DRAPER ROAD
SHIELLS ROAD
SANTA FE GRADE
MC CLINTOCK ROAD
RIVER ROAD
KELLEY ROAD
EUCALYPTUS AVENUE
RUTH AVE
HILLS FERRY ROAD
T ST
HOYER ROAD
SANCHES ROAD
Q ST
SHERMAN PARKWAY
W STUHR ROAD
SHIELLS ROAD
AZEVEDO ROAD " ö
" ö
Stanislaus County
Merced County
Wasteway
Wasteway
C. C. I. D. Canal
C. C. I. D. Canal
San Joaquin River
1/ 1/ 2014
1/ 1/ 2015
1/ 1/ 2015
1/ 1/ 2015
1/ 1/ 2015
1/ 1/ 2015
1/ 1/ 2013
1/ 1/ 2015
1/ 1/ 2015
1/ 1/ 2013
1/ 1/ 2015
1/ 1/ 2014
1/ 1/ 2012
1/ 1/ 2014
1/ 1/ 2014
1/ 1/ 2015
1/ 1/ 2012
1/ 1/ 2013
1/ 1/ 2012
1/ 1/ 2013
1/ 1/ 2011
1/ 1/ 2015
F I GUR E 4 . 2 - 3
LA N D S U N D E R W I L L IAMSON A C T C O N T RAC T S
C I T Y O F N EWM A N
G E N E R A L P L A N P U B L I C R E V I E W D R A F T E I R
0 0.25 0.5 Miles
Data Source: Stanislaus County data is from the Stanislaus
County Planning Department, 2006; Merced County data is
from the California Department of Conservation Division of
Land Resource Protection, 2005.
Williamson Act - Active
Williamson Act - In Non- Renewal
City Limits
Proposed Primary Sphere of Influence
!
! !
!
!
Proposed Sphere of Influence
Planning Area Boundary
County Boundary
Waterways
A G R I C U L T U R A L R E S O U R C E S
C I T Y O F N E W M A N
G E N E R A L P L A N P U B L I C R E V I E W D R A F T E I R
A G R I C U L T U R A L R E S O U R C E S
4.2- 10
C. Standards of Significance
The proposed project would have a significant impact on agricultural resources if
it would:
♦ Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Im-portance,
as shown on the maps prepared by the Farmland Mapping and
Monitoring Program of the California Department of Conservation, to non-agricultural
use;
♦ Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act con-tract;
or
♦ Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their loca-tion
or nature, could result in conversion of farmland to non- agricultural use.
D. Impact Discussion
The following provides an overview of the potential impacts of the proposed
General Plan to agricultural resources.
1. Project Impacts
a. Conversion of Farmland
The proposed urban land use designations contained in the proposed General Plan
for the city limits and proposed SOI would in time lead to the conversion of farm-land
to urban uses as the General Plan is implemented. It is important to the resi-dents
of Newman that new development minimize the loss of agricultural land.
The proposed General Plan contains a number of policies that provide for the
long- term preservation and orderly conversion of farmland within the city’s SOI
and Planning Area.
All of the land within Newman’s city limits is designated for urban uses in the
proposed General Plan. The existing parcels in the city limits that are still being
farmed would be converted to urban uses under the Plan. In addition, implemen-tation
of the proposed General Plan would also eventually convert the proposed
C I T Y O F N E W M A N
G E N E R A L P L A N P U B L I C R E V I E W D R A F T E I R
A G R I C U L T U R A L R E S O U R C E S
4.2- 11
SOI from farmland to urban uses. Nearly all of the farmland that would be con-verted
to urban uses in the city limits and proposed SOI is Prime Farmland and
Unique Farmland.
A number of proposed General Plan policies and actions provide for the orderly
conversion of farmland in the city and the proposed SOI, and the long- term pres-ervation
of farmland outside the SOI. The following are some of the goals, poli-cies
and actions included in the proposed General Plan:
♦ Goal NR- 1 provides for the continued productivity of agricultural land sur-rounding
Newman and avoiding premature conversion of farmland to urban
uses.
♦ Policy NR- 1.4 provides that new development at the edge of the city, includ-ing
all Master Plan Subareas, shall minimize potential incompatibilities be-tween
agricultural and urban uses through the location of land uses, the lay-out
of roads, parks and public facilities, density controls and transfers, design
guidelines for buildings and public and private improvements, and possibly
the use of buffers that restrict uses adjacent to agricultural land.
♦ Policy NR- 1.7 calls for the City to continue to enforce its right- to- farm ordi-nance
that protects owners of agricultural land at the urban fringe from un-warranted
nuisance suits brought by surrounding landowners and provides
for resolution of urban- agricultural disputes.
♦ Action NR- 1.1 provides for the implementation of an Agricultural Mitigation
Fee as a private, market- based approach to mitigate the loss of agricultural
land. The mitigation fee would be used to acquire easement or fee interest in
agricultural land that restricts the use to agricultural production in perpetuity.
These measures would reduce and partially offset farmland conversion impacts.
Nonetheless, even with the mitigation fee, design provisions, agricultural buffer
and right- to- farm ordinance included in the proposed General Plan, prime farm-land,
unique farmland and farmland of statewide importance would be converted
to urban uses. Farmland conversion under the proposed General Plan would be a
significant impact.
C I T Y O F N E W M A N
G E N E R A L P L A N P U B L I C R E V I E W D R A F T E I R
A G R I C U L T U R A L R E S O U R C E S
4.2- 12
b. Existing General Plan Designations and Zoning
Described below are potential impacts associated with the relationship between
the land use designations in the proposed General Plan and existing designations
and zoning in Newman and surrounding unincorporated county lands.
i. Newman City Limits
As mentioned above, none of the land within the City limits is designated in the
existing General Plan or zoned for agriculture. Therefore, the land use designa-tions
proposed within the city limits would not conflict with existing designations
or zoning.
ii. Unincorporated County Land
As discussed previously, much of agricultural land in the SOI that is designated
for urban uses under the proposed General Plan is designated in the County Gen-eral
Plan and zoned by the County for agriculture. These lands would be con-verted
to urban uses only after they are annexed to the City. Therefore, although
the proposed land use designations on these parcels conflict with the existing
County designations and zoning, once they are annexed, the County designations
would no longer apply.
The proposed General Plan seeks to keep these lands in productive agricultural
use until they are eventually annexed and developed by including the following
policies and actions.
♦ Policy NR- 1.1 supports the continuation of agricultural uses on lands desig-nated
for urban uses until urban development is imminent.
♦ Policy NR- 1.2 encourages the County to retain agricultural uses on lands sur-rounding
Newman pending their annexation to the City.
♦ Policy NR- 1.7 calls for the City to continue to enforce its right- to- farm ordi-nance.
Despite the temporary nature of this impact and the effect of these policies, until
the City annexes these lands, the conflict between urban designations under the
C I T Y O F N E W M A N
G E N E R A L P L A N P U B L I C R E V I E W D R A F T E I R
A G R I C U L T U R A L R E S O U R C E S
4.2- 13
proposed General Plan and existing County agricultural designations and zoning
would be a significant impact on agricultural resources.
c. Williamso